20 Feb
2003
20 Feb
'03
3:16 p.m.
With my contemplation of purchasing a new Sony Picturebook, I was wondering:
What was the first portable computer that weighed less than 1Kg?
[[I'm assuming that it'd be older than 10 years, so it should be ontopic...]]
Any pointers appreciated! :-)
Thanks,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
20 Feb
20 Feb
3:31 p.m.
I have a TI-74S handheld. 8kram, 16?k rom with internal Basic. It even
has a numberpad. I had a real oldie of a RadioShack handheld years ago
which was quite similar to the TI.
Regards,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Roger Merchberger
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:09 AM
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Trivia Question
With my contemplation of purchasing a new Sony Picturebook, I was
wondering:
What was the first portable computer that weighed less than 1Kg?
[[I'm assuming that it'd be older than 10 years, so it should be
ontopic...]]
Any pointers appreciated! :-)
Thanks,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
3:42 p.m.
dg one for ms dos would be pretty early and in that range
kaypro 2000 for cpm was a "laptop" type computer,
but was metal housed and had lead acid battery, so might
stress your weight limit.
Roger Merchberger wrote:
With my contemplation of purchasing a new Sony
Picturebook, I was wondering:
What was the first portable computer that weighed less than 1Kg?
[[I'm assuming that it'd be older than 10 years, so it should be ontopic...]]
Any pointers appreciated! :-)
Thanks,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
7:54 p.m.
Hi,
Roger Merchberger <zmerch(a)30below.com> said;
With my contemplation of purchasing a new Sony
Picturebook, I was wondering:
What was the first portable computer that weighed less than 1Kg?
[[I'm assuming that it'd be older than 10 years, so it should be ontopic...]]
Any pointers appreciated! :-)
That rather depends on your definition of "computer". I have a Sharp
PC-1251 (Basic, 3.4K ram) which weighs about 0.1Kg. Even with the
printer/cassette recorder it still only weighs 800g.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb(a)dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
21 Feb
21 Feb
6:01 a.m.
With my contemplation of purchasing a new Sony
Picturebook, I was wondering:
What was the first portable computer that weighed less than 1Kg?
[[I'm assuming that it'd be older than 10 years, so it should be ontopic...]]
Any pointers appreciated! :-)
Define 'computer', please
The Sharp PC1211 (TRS80 PC1) ran BASIC and weighed less than 1kg. I would
call it a computer
What about the HP65? OK, it's a calculator, but it is fully programmable,
with conditional branches, etc. It also has a built-in magnetic card
reader/writer (so you do have some kind of permanent storage). I am
pretty sure it weighs less than 1kg. Dates from 1973/1974 or so.
-tony
7:50 a.m.
"Andy Holt" <andyh(a)andyh-rayleigh.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
the Poqet was definitely a "real" computer
(PC compat).
That's quite a sad definition of "real computer". Any one of my
PDP-8 or PDP-11 systems, even the wimpiest, is much more of a "real
computer" than any PC compatible will ever be.
8:16 a.m.
At 01:46 PM 2/21/03 -0800, Eric Smith wrote:
"Andy Holt"
<andyh(a)andyh-rayleigh.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
OK, Eric, you've just exposed yourself as an utter snob. :-)
Yeah, the PC started off ugly and has accreted even more baggage, but to
deny that it is a real computer is ridiculous.
If you were to time travel to 1970 and find a lab using a PDP-8 doing some
kind of computational work, and ask them if they'd want to trade it in for
a 3 GHz PC that you brought back with you from the future, I have no doubt
that they'd take the PC and they'd find a way to make it work, despite the
I/O and software differences.
I've had the discussion with workmates about the following scenario. If
the German forces had access to a single 5150 IBM PC back in 1940, would
the war have ended very differently? I think it would have. Now we
dismiss that much computational power as inconsequential.
Ignoring all of that, why are you bringing up the PDP-8 and -11 in the
context of computers that weigh under 1 kg?
-----
Jim Battle == frustum(a)pacbell.net
the Poqet was definitely a "real"
computer (PC compat).
That's quite a sad definition of "real computer". Any one of my
PDP-8 or PDP-11 systems, even the wimpiest, is much more of a "real
computer" than any PC compatible will ever be. 
8:53 a.m.
Jim Battle wrote:
I've had the discussion with workmates about the
following scenario.
If the German forces had access to a single 5150 IBM PC back in 1940,
would the war have ended very differently? I think it would have.
"Who needs
zis Enigma vee haff developed? Vee shall use Blowfish to encrypt
our messages!"
Later.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
9:10 a.m.
At 10:51 PM 2/21/03 +0000, Phil Pemberton wrote:
Jim Battle wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of computing ballistics, and advancing
their nuclear program.
Besides, ROT13 is good enough for everyday use, right?
-----
Jim Battle == frustum(a)pacbell.net
I've had the discussion with workmates about
the following scenario.
If the German forces had access to a single 5150 IBM PC back in 1940,
would the war have ended very differently? I think it would have.
"Who needs
zis Enigma vee haff developed? Vee shall use Blowfish to encrypt
our messages!"
9:23 a.m.
Jim Battle wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of computing
ballistics,
Computing ballistics would have been some help, but nowhere near enough
to change the outcome.
and advancing their nuclear program.
Their "nuclear program" had serious defficiencies that wouldn't have
been solved by more computing power.
10:50 a.m.
New subject: Wanted: DG Nova 800/2/3 system/s & peripherals
Hi
I am new to this list, and to this pastime generally. I have just
realised how old I am (I know this because my 3 year old son told me),
and I started thinking about how I learned about computing. Now I want
to build a computing 'museum' too! So - can anyone point me in the
direction of any complete (pref. working) DG Nova systems with Dasher
terminals, LP/TP2 printer, gemini disks, 9 track tape, and paper tape
reader/punch kit? Any-and-all offers considered! I am in London, UK
but will happily travel to view/purchase this type of kit, and older
(DG, Dec and other brands).
Cheers
Tim
12:33 p.m.
New subject: Wanted: DG Nova 800/2/3 system/s & peripherals
to build a computing 'museum' too! So - can
anyone point me in the
direction of any complete (pref. working) DG Nova systems with Dasher
terminals, LP/TP2 printer, gemini disks, 9 track tape, and paper tape
reader/punch kit? Any-and-all offers considered! I am in London, UK
but will happily travel to view/purchase this type of kit, and older
(DG, Dec and other brands).
At the risk of sounding rude, good luck! While admitadly I'm not out there
activelly looking for DG Nova stuff I have noticed that it isn't that
common. Also, the chances of finding someone with everything you're looking
for is pretty slim.
Realistically, start looking for DG Nova stuff, get what you can, when you
can. I'm guessing the hardest part you'll have will be in obtaining
software and documentation. The downside to this being, but the time you've
gotten a fully fuctional system up and running, who knows HOW much other
stuff you'll have collected.
OTOH, it doesn't hurt to ask. If you make enough people aware of what
you're looking for you might be pleasantly surprised.
Oh, and in the mean time, take a look at http://simh.trailing-edge.com/ if
you haven't already. It includes DG Nova & Eclipse emulators and RDOS 7.5.
Zane
23 Feb
23 Feb
2:37 a.m.
New subject: Wanted: DG Nova 800/2/3 system/s & peripherals
Computer Parts Barn in Asheville, NC has several Novas, lots of
peripherals, and much documentation and tapes. I helped unload a
full-blown Nova4 trailerfull a couple of years ago. I have no doubt it
is still there.
U.S. Tel #
828-254 5963
BTW, He also has some stuff you wouldn't believe. Imsai, Sol, you name
it.
The fellow you are looking for is "Ed Kirby" the owner.
Regards and good luck!,
Jeff
P.S. Tell him Jeff Worley sent you.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Tim
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 7:47 PM
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Wanted: DG Nova 800/2/3 system/s & peripherals
Hi
I am new to this list, and to this pastime generally. I have just
realised how old I am (I know this because my 3 year old son told me),
and I started thinking about how I learned about computing. Now I want
to build a computing 'museum' too! So - can anyone point me in the
direction of any complete (pref. working) DG Nova systems with Dasher
terminals, LP/TP2 printer, gemini disks, 9 track tape, and paper tape
reader/punch kit? Any-and-all offers considered! I am in London, UK
but will happily travel to view/purchase this type of kit, and older
(DG, Dec and other brands).
Cheers
Tim
9:54 a.m.
On Friday 21 February 2003 18:25, Brian Chase wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Jim Battle wrote:
I wonder if the DMCA applies to stuff encrypted with the double ROT13, or
the even more powerfull QUAD ROT 13.
Besides, ROT13 is good enough for everyday use,
right?
I like to play it safe, so I use double ROT13 encryption
for nearly all of my sensitive communications. 
8:10 p.m.
LOL! I fell off my chair when I read that. LOL
Peace... Sridhar
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Brian Chase wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Jim Battle wrote:
Besides, ROT13 is good enough for everyday use,
right?
I like to play it safe, so I use double ROT13 encryption
for nearly all of my sensitive communications.
-brian.
9:01 a.m.
Jim Battle wrote:
I've had the discussion with workmates about the
following scenario. If
the German forces had access to a single 5150 IBM PC back in 1940,
would the war have ended very differently? I think it would have.
How? Do you have any particular scenario in mind? It seems pretty
unlikely to me. I suppose it might depend a little bit on what software
they get with the computer. But even postulating some really amazing
software (off-the-shelf commercial software, not specialized weapon-
design software), it's hard for me to imagine how one PC would have
offered them any huge advantage over the allies.
12:06 p.m.
Jim Battle wrote:
I've had the discussion with workmates about the
following scenario. If
the German forces had access to a single 5150 IBM PC back in 1940,
would the war have ended very differently? I think it would have.
Entirely with you on this one. How fast could a Blechley-style project
create useful software from nothingness? Less than six months.
I was there once (a peacetime project).
John A.
"How many people died because of what I thought up?"
-- Jarrod, The Pretender
12:17 p.m.
Entirely with you on this one. How fast could a
Blechley-style project
create useful software from nothingness? Less than six months.
I was there once (a peacetime project).
Yes, but the Soviets (men, tanks, and weather) still would have kicked
Hitler's ass in about the same amount of time.
William Donzelli
aw288(a)osfn.org
8:11 p.m.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, William Donzelli wrote:
Not if Hitler hadn't broken the pact.
Peace... Sridhar
Entirely with
you on this one. How fast could a Blechley-style
project create useful software from nothingness? Less than six
months. I was there once (a peacetime project).
Yes, but the Soviets (men, tanks, and weather) still would have kicked
Hitler's ass in about the same amount of time.
8:09 p.m.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Eric Smith wrote:
It wouldn't have to be weapon design software. If it's something that
could do rapid logarithms for ballistics calculation, that would be
enough.
Peace... Sridhar
I've had
the discussion with workmates about the following scenario.
If the German forces had access to a single 5150 IBM PC back in 1940,
would the war have ended very differently? I think it would have.
How? Do you have any particular scenario in mind? It seems pretty
unlikely to me. I suppose it might depend a little bit on what software
they get with the computer. But even postulating some really amazing
software (off-the-shelf commercial software, not specialized weapon-
design software), it's hard for me to imagine how one PC would have
offered them any huge advantage over the allies. 
23 Feb
23 Feb
2:40 a.m.
I think having a 5150 would still leave two problems: Would it survive
bombings, and if the Germans could get it, then obviously the British and
Americans could also, though it might give the Germans a bit of a lead.
More interesting would be if the Japanese had one for their nuclear
programme, then we would be in deep shit, buying Japanese electronic and
eating sushi now. Oh crap...
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Eric Smith wrote:
Jim Battle wrote:
M. K. Peirce
Rhode Island Computer Museum, Inc.
Shady Lea, Rhode Island
"Casta est quam nemo rogavit."
- Ovid
I've had the discussion with workmates about
the following scenario. If
the German forces had access to a single 5150 IBM PC back in 1940,
would the war have ended very differently? I think it would have.
How? Do you have any particular scenario in mind? It seems pretty
unlikely to me. I suppose it might depend a little bit on what software
they get with the computer. But even postulating some really amazing
software (off-the-shelf commercial software, not specialized weapon-
design software), it's hard for me to imagine how one PC would have
offered them any huge advantage over the allies.
2:58 a.m.
IIRC, the Germans hadn't gone very far at all in their nuclear program.
They had a little heavy water, and captured some more from Poland?
At the end of the war, it was noted that the Germans were thinking you'd
have to drop an entire reactor on a target to do the job. They hadn't
gotten to the idea of separation and small critical masses of really
reactive materials. They were thinking U238....
Regards,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Merle K. Peirce
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 11:37 AM
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Cc: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Trivia Question
I think having a 5150 would still leave two problems: Would it survive
bombings, and if the Germans could get it, then obviously the British
and
Americans could also, though it might give the Germans a bit of a lead.
More interesting would be if the Japanese had one for their nuclear
programme, then we would be in deep shit, buying Japanese electronic and
eating sushi now. Oh crap...
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Eric Smith wrote:
software
Jim Battle wrote:
> I've had the discussion with workmates about the following scenario.
If
the German
forces had access to a single 5150 IBM PC back in 1940,
would the war have ended very differently? I think it would have.
How? Do you have any particular scenario in mind? It seems pretty
unlikely to me. I suppose it might depend a little bit on what they get with the computer. But even postulating some
really amazing
software (off-the-shelf commercial software, not specialized weapon-
design software), it's hard for me to imagine how one PC would have
offered them any huge advantage over the allies.
M. K. Peirce
Rhode Island Computer Museum, Inc.
Shady Lea, Rhode Island
"Casta est quam nemo rogavit."
- Ovid
5:06 a.m.
At the end of the war, it was noted that the Germans
were thinking you'd
have to drop an entire reactor on a target to do the job. They hadn't
gotten to the idea of separation and small critical masses of really
reactive materials. They were thinking U238....
Why not just drop PCs?
3:03 a.m.
New subject: Preserving exposed platters from corrosion and fingerprints
About ten years ago, my brother (also a tech) and I would take our
Saturdays to shoot the hell out of the dead hard drives we'd collected
during the week. I've written about this before. A bullet to a dead
Seagate is really poetic justice...
At any rate, Mike decided suddenly to make money on these dead drives
instead of shooting them. Not nearly as much fun though...
He would drive out the spindle, secure the platters, and insert a clock
mech where the spindle used to be. The outer disk platter made the
clock's 'face'. The look very cool. He called his 'hard time'. I
told
him he ought to sell them by the megabyte...
The platters are very sensitive to fingerprints and other environmental
contact. What is a good, quick, and cheap way to treat the platters
before completing the clock that will seal and protect the platters
without yellowing or cracking?
Regards,
jeff
4:04 a.m.
New subject: Preserving exposed platters from corrosion and fingerprints
Ever try *guilding* them? :P
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 12:01:26 -0500, "Jeffrey S. Worley"
<Technoid(a)30below.com> said:
About ten years ago, my brother (also a tech) and I
would take our
Saturdays to shoot the hell out of the dead hard drives we'd collected
during the week. I've written about this before. A bullet to a dead
Seagate is really poetic justice...
At any rate, Mike decided suddenly to make money on these dead drives
instead of shooting them. Not nearly as much fun though...
He would drive out the spindle, secure the platters, and insert a clock
mech where the spindle used to be. The outer disk platter made the
clock's 'face'. The look very cool. He called his 'hard time'. I
told
him he ought to sell them by the megabyte...
The platters are very sensitive to fingerprints and other environmental
contact. What is a good, quick, and cheap way to treat the platters
before completing the clock that will seal and protect the platters
without yellowing or cracking?
Regards,
jeff
--
David Vohs
netsurfer_x1(a)fastmailbox.net
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own
5:06 a.m.
> > I've had the discussion with workmates
about the following scenario. If
> > the German forces had access to a single 5150 IBM PC back in 1940,
> > would the war have ended very differently? I think it would have.
... and if the allies had had Windoze in 1940, then we'd now be arguing in
German.
22 Feb
22 Feb
3:22 a.m.
Jim Battle wrote:
If you were to time travel to 1970 and find a lab
using a PDP-8 doing
some kind of computational work, and ask them if they'd want to trade it
in for a 3 GHz PC that you brought back with you from the future, I have
no doubt that they'd take the PC and they'd find a way to make it work,
despite the I/O and software differences.
The 8 don't crash! The 8 has auto-restart mode. The 8 has non-volatile
memory and real time OS. If the 8 is running lab equiment it still
out performs the PC. And it even can be repaired.
I've had the discussion with workmates about the
following scenario. If
the German forces had access to a single 5150 IBM PC back in 1940, would
the war have ended very differently? I think it would have. Now we
dismiss that much computational power as inconsequential.
I read a Short story where instead of WWII Germany developed time
travel.The end of the story had WWII happen because time travel
was a dead end path for mankind.The computer came too late in the war
to change much for germany and most people capable of understanding the
use of a computer had left the country or made the moral choice not to
develop computers for the war effort.
Ignoring all of that, why are you bringing up the
PDP-8 and -11 in the
context of computers that weigh under 1 kg?
It is the I/O and other stuff that is heavy.0's and 1's don't weigh a much:)
Ben.
4:07 a.m.
Jim Battle wrote:
> If you were to time travel to 1970 and find a lab using a PDP-8 doing
> some kind of computational work, and ask them if they'd want to trade it
> in for a 3 GHz PC that you brought back with you from the future, I have
> no doubt that they'd take the PC and they'd find a way to make it work,
> despite the I/O and software differences.
of course, it would only be usefull to them if they could program it, if
you didn't bring volumes of intel documentation it wouldn't do much
good.
similar, the hardware, just try to build a pci card with 1970 hardware
so you would be stuck with the serial and paralell ports (unless the
machine did USB in which case it would be really useless)... and if the
machine failed in the lab it couldn't be replicated or repaired...
then there is the development and downtime involved in making the
change, it might take longer to do the total job, this is the main
reason that there are still pdp-8s is service.
more is not always better, look at all the z80 machines still being
built.
as for what a REAL computer is, I submit that it is subjective, based on
whatever the individual can assembly-level program. Most pc machines
are the worst sort of junk, but the rc25 and ba23 are proof that dec
didn't mind taking the odd shortcut and the proliant 6000 I'm using to
type this on (both as computer and desk) with it's 750watt hot-swap
power supplies, multiple RAIDs (hot swap drives) and several XEON
cpus(cooled by redundiant fans) using ECC ram just might be more
reliable than my pdp-11s ever were...
REAL...?
get real... :)
perhaps 'real' is actually subjective, based on what the observer can
comfortably lift?
Pavl_
21 Feb
21 Feb
8:49 a.m.
Eric Smith wrote:
That's quite a sad definition of "real
computer". Any one of my
PDP-8 or PDP-11 systems, even the wimpiest, is much more of a "real
computer" than any PC compatible will ever be.
What, even if said PC is a
K6-II/400 running Linux? I've got two PCs running
Slackware 8.1 - one of them is my NAT router/webserver
(http://philpem.dyndns.org) and the other is the machine I'm typing on now.
Now if only I could persuade SWMBO to learn how to use KDE...
I'd still like a DEC Alpha based box of sufficient speed to outrun the K6
(router) though. Especially if it used less power than said router (which is
noisy, power hungry and runs quite hot)...
Later.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
9:13 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
I wrote:
That's quite a sad definition of "real
computer". Any one of my PDP-8
or PDP-11 systems, even the wimpiest, is much more of a "real
computer" than any PC compatible will ever be.
Phil wrote:
What, even if said PC is a K6-II/400 running Linux?
Even if it's the dual Athlon XP 1900 running Red Hat 8 which I use
for most of my software development. There's no question that it
has orders of magnitude more computing power, memory, and disk, but
that's not part of my criteria for "real computer":
1) Is it well-engineered from the ground up?
PCs: no, a lot of the stuff in even the best PCs is of very poor
quality manufacture - even the non-high-tech stuff like the cases
are shoddy.
2) Can it be expected to have a long operating life?
PDP-8: I've got one that is 27 years old and still works great,
largely because it was well-engineered. Do I believe that PCs
made today will work 27 years from now? Some will, but if you
were to compare PDP-8s and PCs stored and operated under comparable
conditions, not nearly as high a percentage of PCs will survive.
3) Is it documented?
PDP-8: very well
PC: barely at all. Just try to get information about what your
BIOS does in System Management Mode - for instance, if you PC
supports ECC, how do you get the error log? And forget about getting
source code for the BIOS.
Although the processors from Intel and AMD are fairly well documented
(there are still some secrets, but not as much as in the Pentium
Appendix H days), the "chipset" is often poorly documented or not
documented at all. For instance, information on configuring the
caches and memory controllers is typically not available, with the
excuse that the BIOS does it for you.
4) Can it be repaired if it breaks?
PDP-8: definitely.
PC: no, you throw away a subsystem and get a replacement. The
problem here is that any given subsystem (e.g., a video card) is
only on the market for maybe two years; after that you can't get
an identical replacement. Original-spec PDP-8 replacement parts
were available for over 20 years.
I'm not saying that PCs don't have their place. I use them all the time.
But calling any PC-compatible machine a "real computer" is a sick joke.
Eric
2:11 p.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Eric Smith wrote:
I wrote:
OK, I've got a few problems with this. Personally, I think you're
confusing the terms 'vintage' or 'classic' and 'real' mostly.
For
reference, I'll use three computers. One very new - an IBM p690 "Regatta"
system, a 'just classic' machine ~10-11 y.o.- an IBM RS/6000 model 520,
and a fairly classic machine - an IBM System/36. I've used both the p690
and the 520, and sort-of-used a System/36. Yes, I have 'carefully
chosen' these models to prove a point. If you're not familiar with the
p690, it's basically what would happen if you took an IBM S/390 (their
'current' mainframe arch... well sort of) mainframe and turned it into an
RS/6000. While it doesn't have hot swap CPU or memory, it is about
1/10th the price - the one that Purdue recieved had a street value of
about $1.3M.
BTW I've got a S/36 I'm trying to get up and running, if anyone cares to
help. I've got 0 documentation on the thing. I'll try posting another
message to the list sometime soon about it.
That's quite a sad definition of "real
computer". Any one of my PDP-8
or PDP-11 systems, even the wimpiest, is much more of a "real
computer" than any PC compatible will ever be.
Phil wrote:
What, even if said PC is a K6-II/400 running
Linux?
Even if it's the dual Athlon XP 1900 running Red Hat 8 which I use
for most of my software development. There's no question that it
has orders of magnitude more computing power, memory, and disk, but
that's not part of my criteria for "real computer": 1) Is it well-engineered from the ground up?
PCs: no, a lot of the stuff in even the best PCs is of very poor
OK, I agree with this first point. All three of my examples of 'real
computers' were "well-engineered from the ground up".
2) Can it be expected to have a long operating life?
PDP-8: I've got one that is 27 years old and still works great,
OK, I agree with two points, but realistically, I'd argue point 1 implies
point 2. If it's well engineered, it _should_ have a long operating life.
3) Is it documented?
PDP-8: very well
PC: barely at all. Just try to get information about what your
OK, here's the first problem I see. 'Newer' IBM systems - well maybe all
three of my examples - are poorly documented down to the component level.
It's actually probably easier to get documentation about the p690 than the
other two examples of mine, but I know you can't get anything as good as
what you'd need to build replacement firmware or parts from scratch.
4) Can it be repaired if it breaks?
PDP-8: definitely.
PC: no, you throw away a subsystem and get a replacement. The
problem here is that any given subsystem (e.g., a video card) is
only on the market for maybe two years; after that you can't get
an identical replacement. Original-spec PDP-8 replacement parts
were available for over 20 years.
While not quite the same as 20 years, you *can* still get identical,
new, many year old 'replacement' parts for PCs. It's probably easier to
do that then it is to get new replacement parts for an IBM RS/6000 model
520 or a S/36, in fact. For example, I just bought, as a part of a new
package, a Pinnacle Systems DC10+ video capture card. I *know* that it's
been available for at least 4 years, probably longer than that. There are
some people that maintain products for very long lifespans, such as
lab-equipment interface cards.
One thing I'm slightly suprised about is that you're not claiming that
it's easy to service 'real computers' at the component level. Of course,
that also would be nearly impossible with my examples ;-). That is,
unless, you could get schematics on the systems, and/or owned a chip-fab
facility for all of the custom IBM silicon in these things.
Pat
--
Purdue Universtiy ITAP/RCS
Information Technology at Purdue
Research Computing and Storage
http://www-rcd.cc.purdue.edu
6:43 p.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
I agree with
you here - my PCs all have crap cases. Even the top-end
Coolermaster or whatever cases are still (allegedly) cheaply made. Even the
ones that cost $150!
Case in point - my BBC Micro. That thing has been in constant use
at a
college since they bought it, then it got chucked in a skip and one of my
friends rescued it - printer, monitor, drives and all.
Agreed - most of the PC standards (PCI,
Hypertransport, etc) are
closed-distribution, distributed under NDA and cost a lot. Yes, you could
probably get as much info as you needed to rewrite the BIOS from the Linux
source code, but it would still take an age to do it.
Build an IBM PC clone using an 8086 and a few CPLDs and keep tweaking it
until it runs the IBM BIOS. Then grab a copy of "The Undocumented PC" and
the IBM PC Technical Manual and start rewriting the BIOS.
Unfortunately, I'm trying to do a similar thing with a 386-based board with
a Macronix MX83C306/MX83C305 chipset. Even Macronix say they can't help -
"That product has been phased out for 7 years". Anyone got a datasheet for
this thing? I wanted to port TinyBIOS to this board, but without a datasheet
for the chipset, I might as well program an EPROM with random garbage and
try that...
Also, has anyone got a spare copy of the IBM PC Technical Manual?
1) Is it
well-engineered from the ground up?
PCs: no, a lot of the stuff in even the best PCs is of very poor
OK, I agree
with this first point. All three of my examples of 'real
computers' were "well-engineered from the ground up". 2) Can it be
expected to have a long operating life?
PDP-8: I've got one that is 27 years old and still works great,
OK, I
agree with two points, but realistically, I'd argue point 1
implies point 2. If it's well engineered, it _should_ have a long
operating life. 3) Is it
documented?
PDP-8: very well
PC: barely at all. Just try to get information about what your
OK,
here's the first problem I see. 'Newer' IBM systems - well maybe
all three of my examples - are poorly documented down to the
component level. It's actually probably easier to get documentation
about the p690 than the other two examples of mine, but I know you
can't get anything as good as what you'd need to build replacement
firmware or parts from scratch. For example, I just bought, as a part
of a new package, a Pinnacle Systems DC10+ video capture card. I
*know* that it's been available for at least 4 years, probably longer
than that. There are some people that maintain products for very
long lifespans, such as lab-equipment interface cards.
DIY interface cards are even
more fun to repair - "Oh, the LS373 at position
DX2 has died." [sound of engineer swapping the part over] "Oh, it works
again".
One thing I'm slightly suprised about is that
you're not claiming that
it's easy to service 'real computers' at the component level. Of
course, that also would be nearly impossible with my examples ;-).
My example (the
BBC Master 128) used a lot of custom VLSIs - Acorn asked
Texas Instruments to design them a few ICs to run the system - the old PLDs
used in the BBC B were renowned for overheating and then going "pop". A bit
like an AMD Athlon, really. :-)
Later.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
8:15 p.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Philip Pemberton wrote:
I agree with
you here - my PCs all have crap cases. Even the top-end
Coolermaster or whatever cases are still (allegedly) cheaply made. Even
the ones that cost $150!
$150 is still cheap for a case. One of my PC Power and Cooling cases cost
$650. It's built like a tank.
Peace... Sridhar
1) Is it well-engineered from the ground up?
PCs: no, a lot of the stuff in even the best PCs is of very poor
OK, I agree
with this first point. All three of my examples of 'real
computers' were "well-engineered from the ground up". 
24 Feb
24 Feb
5:37 p.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
Le 22/02/2003 09:50, ??vance(a)neurotica.com?? <vance(a)neurotica.com> a ?crit?:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Philip Pemberton wrote:
<snip>
$150 is still cheap for a case. One of my PC Power
and Cooling cases cost
$650. It's built like a tank.
<snip>
*** I beg to differ: Hundred-fifty-dollars for a case is tr?s expensive.
SIX-HUNDRED-FIFTY-DOLLARS is mind-bogglingly ridiculous...
Zoran.
25 Feb
25 Feb
3:07 p.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Zoki wrote:
<snip>
Not in the kind of system I'm talking about. High end IBM PS/2 were
upwards of $12,000 new.
Peace... Sridhar
$150 is still cheap for a case. One of my PC
Power and Cooling cases
cost $650. It's built like a tank.
<snip>
*** I beg to differ: Hundred-fifty-dollars for a case is très expensive.
SIX-HUNDRED-FIFTY-DOLLARS is mind-bogglingly ridiculous...
22 Feb
22 Feb
2:30 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
Rumor has it that Philip Pemberton may have mentioned these words:
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
I agree with
you here - my PCs all have crap cases. Even the top-end
Coolermaster or whatever cases are still (allegedly) cheaply made. Even the
ones that cost $150!
Let's look at 3 test-cases:
1) My dual Athlon 1600+ - Aluminium server case, 460W bulletproof PS,
built-in SCSI, LAN, yaddayadda... I'd call it a real computer, but most
here wouldn't.... My cost: $85 shipped sans PS. Light, not built like a
tank, but how many tanks have you seen, built out of aluminium? ;-P
2) My CoCo3 - Cheezy plastic case, miniscule PS, minimal expandability -
crap. ;-)
3) My wife's main machine: Compaq Prolaint 800 dual Pentium 2 350 server.
Case built like a tank (almost 2x heavier than my Dual Athlon) - won't even
boot if it can't find it's fans, IIRC a 700W PS, etc. Generally
bulletproof. -- it's well on it's way for being almost ontopic, methinks...
it's quite old already, for a PC...
1) Is it
well-engineered from the ground up?
PCs: no, a lot of the stuff in even the best PCs is of very poor
OK, I agree
with this first point. All three of my examples of 'real
computers' were "well-engineered from the ground up". >> 2) Can it be expected to have a long
operating life?
1) Yes. I built it; I can fix it.
2) Yes. I have one going on 17 years old. (Even tho it's crap!) I still
play Rogue on it -- I Love that game! (The PC version sucks.)
3) Not just yes, hell yes!
>> 3) Is it documented?
1) Dunno, don't care. damn thing runs, don't it? Why do I need to solder
Athlons, anyway???
2) Not just no, hell no! The GIME chip is a mystery... and it's the chip
that makes everything tick.
3) Better than most PCs out there, and it's available free...
---
Out of those three machines, which is a "Real Computer?" In your opinion,
prolly "None." That's fine -- it's your opinion. I can live with that.
My
opinion - All 3. All for different reasons why. And everyone here's going
to have a different -- ragging on someone who uses a K6-2 (which I don't
personally care for) because their definition of "Real Computer" is
different... well...
... almost makes me wanna go back & read more "War for Oil" BS. Just as
subjective, but at least mildly entertaining at times. :-/
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
zmerch(a)30below.com
What do you do when Life gives you lemons,
and you don't *like* lemonade?????????????
6:31 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
> >> 3) Is it documented?
The PC (that means 5150!) was significantly better documented
than any of the other microcomputers being sold retail to the
general public at the time. (conveniently excluding guvmint,
industrial, and institutional sales :-)
The "PC Technical Reference Manual" was cheap, and contained
complete schematics and source code for the BIOS. Third party
"disassemblies" being sold by third parties are NOT comparable!
Apple, Atari, Commodore, Radio Shack, etc. had documentation,
but not comparable. How many CP/M machines provided both
schematics and source code?
8:15 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
> >>
3) Is it documented?
The PC (that means 5150!) was significantly better documented
than any of the other microcomputers being sold retail to the general public at the time. (conveniently excluding
guvmint,
industrial, and institutional sales :-)
The "PC Technical Reference Manual" was cheap, and contained
complete schematics and source code for the BIOS. Third party
"disassemblies" being sold by third parties are NOT comparable!
Apple, Atari, Commodore, Radio Shack, etc. had documentation,
Hmm.. Radio Shack would sell you a service manaul or technical manual for
every one of their computer products (I ordered things like the Model 1
video display service manual). Without exception these manuals contained
full schematics and parts lists.
Radio Shack did not publish the source to their BIOS though :-( There
were 3rd party disassemblies, but they were not that good...
A few years ago I spotted a hard-backed book in a normal bookshop (I
think the publisher was Addison Wesley) entitled 'The Apple //e Techincal
Reference Manual'. It contains full schematics of the //e mainboard and
the BIOS source listings. Of course I bought it, even though I am not an
'apple' person. I assume this book was on gneral sale to anyone who
wanted it
but not comparable. How many CP/M machines provided
both
schematics and source code?
THey seemed to be available for most CP/M machines that I came across.
Certainly the QX10 had a full hardware manual (I have it), which makes
reference to a software manual that I don't have. The RML machines had
schematics and ROM source available.
-tony
10:10 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
The PC (that means 5150!) was significantly better
documented
than any of the other microcomputers being sold retail to the
general public at the time. (conveniently excluding guvmint,
industrial, and institutional sales :-)
The "PC Technical Reference Manual" was cheap, and contained
complete schematics and source code for the BIOS. Third party
"disassemblies" being sold by third parties are NOT comparable!
Apple, Atari, Commodore, Radio Shack, etc. had documentation,
but not comparable. How many CP/M machines provided both
schematics and source code?
Fred, all the machines you mention (Apple, Atari, Commodore, Radio Shack)
included schematics and ROM source code listings with their machines, or
at least the machines that were contemporary with the IBM PC. Well, the
Radio Shack might be the exception, as I believe you had to specially
order them. But I know that the Apple ][ Users Manual had a complete
schematic, description, and ROM source listings, and it came with every
Apple ][ and ][+. With the //e you had to order those volumes separately.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
7:28 p.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
The "PC Technical Reference Manual" was
cheap, and contained
complete schematics and source code for the BIOS. Third party
"disassemblies" being sold by third parties are NOT comparable!
It's
interesting you mentioned the IBM PC TRM - is that the same thing as
the so-called "purple book" I've read so much about (mostly in long-since
deceased webpages Google have cached)? I'm trying to track down a copy of
the original IBM PC Technical Reference and any updates to it (3.5" drive
support in the BIOS, etc). Anyone got a copy they want to sell?
Thanks.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
23 Feb
23 Feb
2:08 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
PeeCee user to C64/Atari/etc. user: why don't you use a real computer?
(real) Graphics workstation (e.g. Sun) user to PeeCee user: why don't you use
a real computer?
Minicomputer user to (real) graphics workstation user: Why don't you
use a real computer?
Bigger micomputer user to smaller minicomputer user: Why don't you use
a real computer?
(modern) Mainframe user to minicomputer user: Why don't you use a real
computer?
User of a computer with valves/tubes to modern mainframe user: Why don't
you use a real computer?
etc...
It's all relative, or so it appears... however, there is one thing
that perhaps most of us can agree on when it comes to defining what a
"real" computer is or isn't: surely we all know that a "real"
computer
is not some random PeeCee (or larger server wannabee, which is still
probably a Wintel PeeCee deep down inside) running some random
Micro$oft operating system.
--
Copyright (C) 2002 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
5:17 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, R. D. Davis wrote:
etc...
It's all relative, or so it appears... however, there is one thing
that perhaps most of us can agree on when it comes to defining what a
"real" computer is or isn't: surely we all know that a "real"
computer
is not some random PeeCee (or larger server wannabee, which is still
probably a Wintel PeeCee deep down inside) running some random
Micro$oft operating system.
But the Wintel adherent prob'ly thinks that his PC is more REAL than some
valve (tube) based mainframe.
8:04 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
Quothe Fred Cisin (XenoSoft), from writings of Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 11:13:26AM -0800:
But the Wintel adherent prob'ly thinks that his PC
is more REAL than some
valve (tube) based mainframe.
Which demonstrates the subjectivity of reality. :-)
--
Copyright (C) 2002 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
6 p.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
But the Wintel adherent prob'ly thinks that his PC
is more REAL than
some valve (tube) based mainframe.
And most Linux users think Linux is better that
Windoze - and with good
reason. Is it any wonder most servers on the internet run the Apache HTTP
Server under Linux (or other UNIX derivatives)? Linux is remarkably stable.
Windows is the exact opposite.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
24 Feb
24 Feb
4:22 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
Philip Pemberton wrote:
And most Linux users think Linux is better that
Windoze - and with good
reason. Is it any wonder most servers on the internet run the Apache HTTP
Server under Linux (or other UNIX derivatives)? Linux is remarkably stable.
Windows is the exact opposite.
As a server linux is stable. As a desk top you still can crash or freeze
or have the system start thrashing to disk. Windows as a part-time OS
where you play a few games, do a little this and that and turn off the
computer at the end of your play time works fine. Windows was never
designed for multi-user or 24/7 use. Also win/95 is a small os (yes you
could get on floppy) compared to a typical modern system. ( yes I know
about the tiny linux versions ).
Ben.
PS A PC-laptop is a real computer,but a tube system is not something
to drop on your foot. :)
5:33 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
Quothe Philip Pemberton, from writings of Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 07:58:15AM -0000:
Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
And most Linux users think Linux is better that Windoze - and with good
And most FreeBSD users know that FreeBSD is better than Linux. ;-)
reason. Is it any wonder most servers on the internet
run the Apache HTTP
Server under Linux (or other UNIX derivatives)? Linux is remarkably stable.
Windows is the exact opposite.
(Red Hat) Linux crashes more easily than FreeBSD... or at least it did
a couple of years ago, but M$-Windoze is worse.
--
Copyright (C) 2002 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
5:18 p.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
R. D. Davis wrote:
No
comment - I'll try FreeBSD when I've got a spare few hours to download
the ISO image. I've already got a machine that can run it - an ARM610 based
Acorn Risc PC - it's just a shame I don't have an Ethernet Podule for it.
Slackware is quite stable, probably
because Slackware have a "We're not
going to hack the Kernel, nor are we going to use any fancy packaging
systems or init scripts". I had plenty of trouble with Mandrake Linux - I
couldn't get Kylix running on it, it refused to detect my network card...
After an hour of tweaking /etc/rc.d/rc.modules under Slackware with VIM, I
had sound and networking running perfectly. I guess that's what I get for
buying a "cheap Taiwanese piece of crap" (my friend's words, not mine).
Later.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
Fred Cisin
(XenoSoft) wrote:
And most Linux users think Linux is better that Windoze - and with
good
And most FreeBSD users know that FreeBSD is better than Linux. ;-) reason. Is it
any wonder most servers on the internet run the Apache
HTTP Server under Linux (or other UNIX derivatives)? Linux is
remarkably stable. Windows is the exact opposite.
(Red Hat) Linux crashes more
easily than FreeBSD... or at least it did
a couple of years ago, but M$-Windoze is worse. 
25 Feb
25 Feb
12:50 p.m.
New subject: OT: FreeBSD (was: "Real Computers")
Well, here's my OT post for the month.
On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, Philip Pemberton wrote:
I'll try FreeBSD when I've got a spare few
hours to download the ISO
image.
You might find it easier to install by FTP. It's simple: download two floppy
disk images, dd 'em to some 3.5s, and reboot. Then install as normal, except
choose FTP as the install media. It isn't lightning-fast, but you also only
download the data that you need instead of an entire ISO.
ObClassicCmp: FreeBSD makes a great OS for running classic computing tools
like SIMH.
Slackware is quite stable, probably because Slackware
have a "We're not
going to hack the Kernel, nor are we going to use any fancy packaging
systems or init scripts".
I've heard many people say that Slackware is the most BSD-like of the
Linuces. Of course, that was on Slashdot, so it must be true.
--
Jeffrey Sharp
23 Feb
23 Feb
2:28 a.m.
New subject: IBM-PC Technical Reference Manuals (was: "Real Computers")
Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
The "PC Technical Reference Manual" was
cheap, and contained
complete schematics and source code for the BIOS. Third party
There was a technical reference manual for PC-DOS as well as the
technical reference manual for the hardware... I got both of them when
IBM was still selling the original PeeCees, but they were, for some
odd reason, difficult to obtain even back then (e.g., various people
at IBM denied that they existed... and if you really wanted to have
fun with IBM's biz'droids, you could telephone IBM and ask them what
"wet bulb temperature," as specified in the machine's
storage/operating conditions specifications, was! Many of them would
actually deny that there was such a specification.).
Does anyone know why these books were so difficult to obtain from IBM,
even when the systems were new? It seems to me that, for what they
charged for PeeCees back in the early days, they should have included
useful documentation with them, such as the Hardware Technical
Reference Manual. The documentation that came with them was,
basically, useless, unless all someone wanted to do was write BASIC
programs that didn't do anything particularly hackish.
--
Copyright (C) 2002 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
5:05 a.m.
New subject: IBM-PC Technical Reference Manuals (was: "Real Computers")
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, R. D. Davis wrote:
Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
The content was the same as what had previously (up through PC-DOS
2.00) been the Appendix of the DOS manual. In fact, the first few rounds
of it still had "Appendix" page numbers.
Were you dealing with an "IBM Product Center", or with an "IBM Authorized
Sales Center" (aka Computerland, Sears Business Center, etc.)?
I never had any difficulty getting them, other than having to order them,
and sometimes prepay.
But Computerland, etc. were clueless and unwilling to do their job.
The "PC Technical Reference Manual" was
cheap, and contained
complete schematics and source code for the BIOS. Third party
There was a technical reference manual for PC-DOS as well as the
technical reference manual for the hardware... I got both of them when
IBM was still selling the original PeeCees, but they were, for some
odd reason, difficult to obtain even back then (e.g., various people
at IBM denied that they existed... and if you really wanted to have
5:59 a.m.
New subject: IBM-PC Technical Reference Manuals (was: "Real Computers")
Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
I had a totally different experience.
Long after the PC was discontinued, I tried to order these manuals. I
managed to find the IBM 'form numbers' for them.
I 'phoned the first number for IBM in the telephone directory and said
'I would like the phone number for the department that sells manuals for
personal computers'
'I can put you through to thrm'
'Hello, I would like to find out if some old IBM manuals are still
available, and if so, how much do they cost. I have the form numbers'
'OK, please give me the form numbers'
<did so, heard keyboard-noises>
'They are all out of print, but we still have stocks. The prices are
<list of prices>, they would have to be orderd from the States and would
take 4-6 weeks to come'
'Fine. Do you take credit cards'
'Sure'
'I would like to order all the manuals I asked about. My address is
<address>, my credit card number is <if you think I'd post that on a
public mailing list...>'
'You should receive them in 4-6 weeks. Thank you for your order'
And I did. All the manuals I'd asked for. No problems at all.
The "PC Technical Reference Manual" was
cheap, and contained
complete schematics and source code for the BIOS. Third party
There was a technical reference manual for PC-DOS as well as the
technical reference manual for the hardware... I got both of them when
IBM was still selling the original PeeCees, but they were, for some
odd reason, difficult to obtain even back then (e.g., various people at IBM denied that they existed... and if you really
wanted to have
fun with IBM's biz'droids, you could telephone IBM and ask them what
"wet bulb temperature," as specified in the machine's
I do not expect the person I deal with to order manuals or parts to have
any clue about what's in the manuals, or what the parts really are.
Provided they can take a list of part numbers, give me a price the 1-line
description from their stock control computer (so I don't accidentally
get a motherboard when I want a techref because I've got the wrong part
number) and get them sent to me, that's all I expect.
-tony
6:20 a.m.
New subject: IBM-PC Technical Reference Manuals (was: "Real Computers")
Please be careful with attribution. I mentioned the "PC Technical
Reference Manual", but the reference to the DOS technical reference,
and the complaint about ordering from IBM, that you responded to,
was by somebody else in response to my post. I have never had any
problems ordering from IBM, although I very rarely do so.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Tony Duell wrote:
Fred Cisin
(XenoSoft) wrote:
I had a totally different experience.
Long after the PC was discontinued, I tried to order these manuals. I
managed to find the IBM 'form numbers' for them.
I 'phoned the first number for IBM in the telephone directory and said
'I would like the phone number for the department that sells manuals for
personal computers'
'I can put you through to thrm'
'Hello, I would like to find out if some old IBM manuals are still
available, and if so, how much do they cost. I have the form numbers'
'OK, please give me the form numbers'
<did so, heard keyboard-noises>
'They are all out of print, but we still have stocks. The prices are
<list of prices>, they would have to be orderd from the States and would
take 4-6 weeks to come'
'Fine. Do you take credit cards'
'Sure'
'I would like to order all the manuals I asked about. My address is
<address>, my credit card number is <if you think I'd post that on a
public mailing list...>'
'You should receive them in 4-6 weeks. Thank you for your order'
And I did. All the manuals I'd asked for. No problems at all.
The "PC Technical Reference Manual" was
cheap, and contained
complete schematics and source code for the BIOS. Third party
There was a technical reference manual for PC-DOS as well as the
technical reference manual for the hardware... I got both of them when
IBM was still selling the original PeeCees, but they were, for some
odd reason, difficult to obtain even back then (e.g., various people at IBM denied that they existed... and if you
really wanted to have
fun with IBM's biz'droids, you could telephone IBM and ask them what
"wet bulb temperature," as specified in the machine's
I do not expect the person I deal with to order manuals or parts to have
any clue about what's in the manuals, or what the parts really are.
Provided they can take a list of part numbers, give me a price the 1-line
description from their stock control computer (so I don't accidentally
get a motherboard when I want a techref because I've got the wrong part
number) and get them sent to me, that's all I expect.
-tony 
24 Feb
24 Feb
1:56 p.m.
New subject: IBM-PC Technical Reference Manuals (was: "Real Computers")
Re:
There was a technical reference manual for PC-DOS as
well as the
technical reference manual for the hardware... I got both of them when
IBM was still selling the original PeeCees, but they were, for some
odd reason, difficult to obtain even back then (e.g., various people
at IBM denied that they existed... and if you really wanted to have
I had no problem buying them. IIRC, I got them from the same
place I got my PC: the IBM sales office a block away from where
the first Fry's would eventually open. We financed our PC with
IBM finance, and bought the absolute minimum hardware/software from
IBM, and then bought floppy drives and more memory from some guy
selling out of his living room in San Jose :)
--
Stan Sieler
sieler(a)allegro.com
www.allegro.com/sieler/wanted/index.html
23 Feb
23 Feb
5:57 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
Yes... In fact I have a mini-purple-wall :-). The Techrefs for :
PC
PC/XT and PortablePC
PC/AT (2 volumes)
Options and Adapters (2 volumes)
Scientific Options and Adapters (I've also put the EGA stuff in that binder)
PCjr
PS/2 Hardware (this one contains no schematics, but it does have pinouts,
and it was given to me so I am not moaning).
Initially the PC techref contained the info on the options (monitors,
printers, drives) and adapters (expansion cards). Later on, the 'system'
TechRefs covered the motherboard and keyboard only, there were separate
manuals for the options and adapters. A basic 2-volume set + supplements.
The "PC Technical Reference Manual" was
cheap, and contained
complete schematics and source code for the BIOS. Third party
"disassemblies" being sold by third parties are NOT comparable!
It's
interesting you mentioned the IBM PC TRM - is that the same thing as
the so-called "purple book" I've read so much about (mostly in long-since
deceased webpages Google have cached)? I'm trying
to track down a copy of
the original IBM PC Technical Reference and any updates to it (3.5" drive
support in the BIOS, etc). Anyone got a copy they want to sell?
About 8 years ago, I was in the same position. I couldn't find anyone who
had a 'spare' copy (most likely those who have it still want it -- for
good reasons) so I did what I should have done in the first place. I
phoned IBM. It was out of print, but they still had it in stock. Of
course I bought all the manuals I wanted. Not cheap, but not rediculously
expensive (I think about \pounds 50 for each volume) either.
-tony
6:17 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
Please be careful with attribution. I mentioned the "PC Technical
Reference Manual", but the "purple book" reference that you responded to
was by somebody else in response to my post.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Tony Duell wrote:
Fred Cisin
(XenoSoft) wrote:
Yes... In fact I have a mini-purple-wall :-). The Techrefs for :
PC
PC/XT and PortablePC
PC/AT (2 volumes)
Options and Adapters (2 volumes)
Scientific Options and Adapters (I've also put the EGA stuff in that binder)
PCjr
PS/2 Hardware (this one contains no schematics, but it does have pinouts,
and it was given to me so I am not moaning).
Initially the PC techref contained the info on the options (monitors,
printers, drives) and adapters (expansion cards). Later on, the 'system'
TechRefs covered the motherboard and keyboard only, there were separate
manuals for the options and adapters. A basic 2-volume set + supplements.
The "PC Technical Reference Manual" was
cheap, and contained
complete schematics and source code for the BIOS. Third party
"disassemblies" being sold by third parties are NOT comparable!
It's
interesting you mentioned the IBM PC TRM - is that the same thing as
the so-called "purple book" I've read so much about (mostly in long-since
deceased webpages Google have cached)? I'm
trying to track down a copy of
the original IBM PC Technical Reference and any updates to it (3.5" drive
support in the BIOS, etc). Anyone got a copy they want to sell?
About 8 years ago, I was in the same position. I couldn't find anyone who
had a 'spare' copy (most likely those who have it still want it -- for
good reasons) so I did what I should have done in the first place. I
phoned IBM. It was out of print, but they still had it in stock. Of
course I bought all the manuals I wanted. Not cheap, but not rediculously
expensive (I think about \pounds 50 for each volume) either.
-tony
6:36 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Tony Duell wrote:
Yes... In fact I have a mini-purple-wall :-). The
Techrefs for :
PC
If you have a choice, get the "version 2.02" (round white sticker on
spine). It has substantial updates and a few corrections from the
original, and contains some accessory boards that weren't around for the
first edition
> PS/2 Hardware (this one contains no schematics,
but it does have pinouts,
> and it was given to me so I am not moaning).
In addition to no longer having schematics, the PS/2 manuals also no
longer have source code for the BIOS! They do have fairly nice detail for
calling BIOS routines (contained in the opening comments for each section
in the source), but it's just not the same as having the full source.
8:40 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Tony Duell wrote:
I think mine is an even later edition. It doesn't include expansion cards
at all (they['re in the O&A TechRef). I think it does contain 2 versions
of the RIOS (or maybe that's the XT manual -- the AT manual I have
certainly includes 2 versions of the BIOS source)
Yes... In fact I have a mini-purple-wall :-). The
Techrefs for :
PC
If you have a choice, get the "version 2.02" (round white sticker on
spine). It has substantial updates and a few corrections from the
original, and contains some accessory boards that weren't around for the
first edition > PS/2
Hardware (this one contains no schematics, but it does have pinouts,
> and it was given to me so I am not moaning).
In addition to no longer having schematics, the PS/2 manuals also no
longer have source code for the BIOS! They do have fairly nice detail for calling BIOS routines (contained in the opening
comments for each section
in the source), but it's just not the same as having the full source.
Agreed. The soruce code is the one thing to look at when you can't quite
work out what the description is telling you.
I am working wiht a product at the moment where I have 2 descriptions of
how the handshake lines on the interfave behave, and a flowchart of the
handshake sequence. All 3 are slightly different. How I wish I had the
source code of the microcontroller program to sort it out for once and
for all...
-tony
22 Feb
22 Feb
7:45 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
Rumor has it that Philip Pemberton may have mentioned
these words:
15 years ago, my CoCo 3 had 4 serial ports, a bidirectional parallel
port, and was running a multi-tasking OS. At the same time I had great
problems getting a PC to properly support 4 serial ports.
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
I agree with
you here - my PCs all have crap cases. Even the top-end
Coolermaster or whatever cases are still (allegedly) cheaply made. Even the
ones that cost $150!
Let's look at 3 test-cases:
1) My dual Athlon 1600+ - Aluminium server case, 460W bulletproof PS,
built-in SCSI, LAN, yaddayadda... I'd call it a real computer, but most
here wouldn't.... My cost: $85 shipped sans PS. Light, not built like a
tank, but how many tanks have you seen, built out of aluminium? ;-P
2) My CoCo3 - Cheezy plastic case, miniscule PS, minimal expandability -
crap. ;-) 1) Is it
well-engineered from the ground up?
PCs: no, a lot of the stuff in even the best PCs is of very poor
OK, I agree
with this first point. All three of my examples of 'real
computers' were "well-engineered from the ground up".
3) My wife's main machine: Compaq Prolaint 800 dual Pentium 2 350 server.
Case built like a tank (almost 2x heavier than my Dual Athlon) - won't even
boot if it can't find it's fans, IIRC a 700W PS, etc. Generally
bulletproof. -- it's well on it's way for being almost ontopic, methinks...
it's quite old already, for a PC...
You have proper service data for all the parts in that PC? I am truely
amazed (I thought I was about the only person to have that ;-)). Or does
'built' really mean 'assembled from cards'?
>> 2) Can it be expected to have a long
operating life?
1) Yes. I built it; I can fix it. 2) Yes. I have one going on 17 years old. (Even tho
it's crap!) I still
play Rogue on it -- I Love that game! (The PC version sucks.)
3) Not just yes, hell yes!
I haev tired and failed several times to get service data for Compaq
machines.... How did you manage it?
>> 3) Is it documented?
1) Dunno, don't care. damn thing runs, don't it? Why do I need to solder
Athlons, anyway??? 2) Not just no, hell no! The GIME chip is a mystery...
and it's the chip
that makes everything tick.
Come on. The GIME is a lot better documented than the ASICs in most PCs.
The CoCo 3 service manaul, available to anyone who called up National
Parts and ordered one, contains a pinout, block diagram, waveforms,
register allocations, etc. When the CoCo 3 was in production, replacement
GIMEs were easy to get (not that I ever needed one). Just try getting
spares for most PC products today.
3) Better than most PCs out there, and it's
available free...
Please point me to a free schematic for any Compaq computer...
-tony
7:46 p.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
Tony Duell wrote:
I'd like to know that, too - I need a
service manual for a Compaq Contura
420C laptop. Nice machine, a total pain in the a$$ when it's running Win95,
a nice machine when it's running Win3.1
Ah, there's the first difference. I am not always
prepared to accept
somebody else's ideas of what I need in a computer. Most of the PCBs
in
my PC have home-made mods done to them... :-)
Why do you think I keep at least one machine around that has ISA slots
fitted?
Yes, please do :-)
Later.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
3) Not just
yes, hell yes!
I haev tired and failed several times to get service data for
Compaq
machines.... How did you manage it? >> 3) Is it documented?
1) Dunno,
don't care. damn thing runs, don't it? Why do I need to
solder Athlons, anyway??? Just try getting spares for most PC products today.
Me> "I need a PCI graphics card for my PC, preferably with an nVidia TNT or
Geforce chipset"
PCWorld salesdroid> *takes me to the shelf with the video cards, taking a
"short cut" through the new PCs
Me> "Those cards are all AGP"
Salesdroid> "AGP cards will fit in a PCI slot"
Me> "When AGP is about 4x faster than PCI and uses a different sized
connector?"
Salesdroid> "Duh........"
Speaking of which, I still need a geForce2 card for this machine... I'm
stuck with a SiS 530 ATM ("It supports 3D"... "But it's faster to do
software 3D rendering")...
3) Better than
most PCs out there, and it's available free...
Please point me to a free
schematic for any Compaq computer... 
9:10 p.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
I think it is totally unrealistic to expect to find a
schematic for any of the newer machines. I am
thankful when I can even find a user guide for them.
I In that respect Compaq isn't bad compared to most.
II was delighted to find an exploded parts diagram
for my Compaq LTE lite 4/33c. The whole thrust
of even the Compaq techs is simply component
replacement-board or part switching. It may not be
to our liking but that is the reality in this era.
One of the reasons I liked IBM was their extensive
support files but to expect to find a schematic for
one of their newer machines is fantasy. Like
most companies their techs rely on FRUs to
repair machines. Even the name Field Replacement
Units suggest how their techs repair computers.
Schematics are for the specialised field of computer
design and not necessary from their point of view.
"You want to replace a capacitor ? You must be joking.
That is a job for small-fingered oriental women"
Lawrence
On 23 Feb 2003, , Philip Pemberton wrote:
Tony Duell wrote:
I'd like to know that, too - I
need a service manual for a
Compaq Contura 420C laptop. Nice machine, a total pain in
the a$$ when it's running Win95, a nice machine when it's
running Win3.1
Ah, there's the first difference. I am not
always prepared
to accept somebody else's ideas of what I need in a
computer. Most of the PCBs in my PC have home-made mods
done to them... :-)
Why do you think I keep at least one machine around that has
ISA slots fitted?
Yes, please do :-)
Later.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
lgwalker@ mts.net
3) Not
just yes, hell yes!
I haev tired and failed several times to get service data
for Compaq machines.... How did you manage it? >> 3) Is it documented?
1) Dunno,
don't care. damn thing runs, don't it? Why do I
need to solder Athlons, anyway??? Just try getting spares for most PC products
today.
Me> "I need a PCI graphics card for my PC, preferably with
an nVidia TNT or Geforce chipset" PCWorld salesdroid> *takes
me to the shelf with the video cards, taking a "short cut"
through the new PCs Me> "Those cards are all AGP"
Salesdroid> "AGP cards will fit in a PCI slot" Me> "When AGP
is about 4x faster than PCI and uses a different sized
connector?" Salesdroid> "Duh........"
Speaking of which, I still need a geForce2 card for this
machine... I'm stuck with a SiS 530 ATM ("It supports 3D"...
"But it's faster to do software 3D rendering")...
3) Better
than most PCs out there, and it's available
free...
Please point me to a free schematic for any Compaq
computer...
23 Feb
23 Feb
5:56 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
I think it is totally unrealistic to expect to find a
schematic for any of the newer machines. I am
Alas I agree with you. However, the claim was that the machine was
completely documented and could be repaired (or soemthing like that). To
me complete repair documentation includes (but is not limited to) a
schematic.
thankful when I can even find a user guide for them.
I In that respect Compaq isn't bad compared to most.
II was delighted to find an exploded parts diagram
for my Compaq LTE lite 4/33c. The whole thrust
of even the Compaq techs is simply component
replacement-board or part switching. It may not be
to our liking but that is the reality in this era.
This doesm't mean I have to like it :-). In fact considering the number
of expensive devices that were beyond economic reapir (the spare
subassembly was rediculously expensive) but which I've fixed with one
cheap component and perhaps half an hour of my time, I have good reason
to dislike board-swapping.
This is secondary, of course, to the number of problems that
boardswapping causes, and the even greater number it fails to fix. I like
to know what the problem really was, and know it's corrected.
Schematics are for the specialised field of computer
design and not necessary from their point of view.
So don't give the failed servoids sechematics. But do make them available
for those of us who know how to use one...
"You want to replace a capacitor ? You must be
joking.
That is a job for small-fingered oriental women"
Odd.... I handle parts a lot smaller than the capacitors on PC cards just
about every day without problems...
-tony
4:17 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
I haev tired and failed several times to get service
data for Compaq
machines.... How did you manage it?
I do have a set of tech manuals for Compaq 80286 products. It
includes schematics etc. I don't recall who gave it to me, but
it looked like it was available for purchase by anyone. Of course,
the 80286 era was some time ago and it may not be possible to
obtain such information at all now.
Antonio
--
---------------
Antonio Carlini arcarlini(a)iee.org
5:13 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Tony Duell wrote:
You have proper service data for all the parts in that PC? I am truely
amazed (I thought I was about the only person to have that ;-)). Or does
'built' really mean 'assembled from cards'?
OK, I have to take issue here. If I pop a piston on my lawn mower,
I'm not about to bust off a lathe and a mill and turn a new piston and
hand-fitted rod. I go buy one at Sears. This makes me really an
oddball, because most owners of a $125 mower would put it out by the
curb and buy a new one. I just like a machine that I "built". Even
so, if Sears can't get the piston on a timely basis, or if the cost is
equal to a new mower, *I* will put the old one by the curb.
OTOH, my '83 BMW R65 needs a new set of carbs. They've both started
cracking from poor design, vibration, and rough handling. I could buy
new aftermarket carburetors that would probably enhance the performance,
definitely last longer and be cheaper easier to tune than the originals,
and be here next Friday.
Lawn mower = Tool, worth care but not personal involvement
R65 = Love object, useful, but personally valued FAR beyond
its function
They're both internal combustion machines at heart, they both serve
legitimate functions. Yet the criteria that govern how I treat them,
how I maintain them, and at what point they are scrap are first entirely
different, and second, entirely personal and subjective. Most
importantly, those criteraia are absolutely arbitrary.
I'm sure you catch my drift. My mower is no less useful or valid by
virtue of being disposable. And the fact that I would have custom carbs
built for the Beemer before I'd put Japanese knovkoffs on it doesn't
mean that the japanese carbs have no value OR that I should treat my
mower the same way.
Within hand's reach I have a Mac IIci, a new-to-me PDP-11/83 CPU, an
Indigo2, an Altos 580, a DEC3000/300x, an HP 9000/715, a Sun E250 and an
Athlon PC.
OK, I gotta stretch to put my hand on the Altos and the Sparc.
I love the Alpha and the Mac, am glad I had the chance to try the
Altos, and am fixing to go blaze through my yardwork so I can install
this 11/83 board.
All of them have *legitimate* value, and they are all computers.
The PC I use. A lot. But when it blows a board-level chip, it's
going to the curb. The fact that I don't love it doesn't lessen its
legitimacy.
Doc
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
1) Yes. I built it; I can fix it.
7:48 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Tony Duell wrote:
You have proper service data for all the parts in that PC? I am truely
amazed (I thought I was about the only person to have that ;-)). Or does
'built' really mean 'assembled from cards'?
OK, I have to take issue here. If I pop a piston on my lawn mower,
I'm not about to bust off a lathe and a mill and turn a new piston and
hand-fitted rod. I go buy one at Sears. This makes me really an
Sure... But you don't replace the complete engine if all you need is a
piston ring...
Actually, I have made odd car parts and special tools on the lathe
(nothing as critical as a piston though) when the originals were
unobtainalble, or when you were expected to replace a complete assembly
because one small part had failed...
It's the same with computers. The last repair I did was to an HP9830. A
7402 NOR gate chip had failed, so the I/O operation flip-flop was never
being set. Result : No I/O (not even to the display).
I didn't set up a silicon foundary to make an 'indentical' chip. I just
raided my junk box for a 74x02 and soldered it in. Worked fine. But
equally I didn't replace the entire 09810-66512 CPU clock board (which
also contains part of the i/O controller), or throw out the complete
machine because I could no longer get the complete board.
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
1) Yes. I built it; I can fix it. The PC I use. A lot. But when it blows a
board-level chip, it's
I don't much love PCs either. I use one though...
But there is something of 'me' in this PC -- the homebrew mods, the patch
ROM for the hard disk table in the ROM bios, etc. Which means (alas) I do
have somme affection for it... So I will keep it running...
-tony
21 Feb
21 Feb
8:13 p.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
OK, I've got a few problems with this. Personally, I think you're
confusing the terms 'vintage' or 'classic' and 'real' mostly.
For
reference, I'll use three computers. One very new - an IBM p690
"Regatta" system, a 'just classic' machine ~10-11 y.o.- an IBM RS/6000
model 520, and a fairly classic machine - an IBM System/36. I've used
both the p690 and the 520, and sort-of-used a System/36. Yes, I have
'carefully chosen' these models to prove a point. If you're not
familiar with the p690, it's basically what would happen if you took an
IBM S/390 (their 'current' mainframe arch... well sort of) mainframe and
turned it into an RS/6000. While it doesn't have hot swap CPU or
memory, it is about 1/10th the price - the one that Purdue recieved had
a street value of about $1.3M.
A Regatta is a real computer. A Dual Athlon XP 1900 isn't. And yes, a
520 is a real computer. And so is an S/36.
And a Regatta is more different from a zSeries than you think. Price
isn't really the applicable issue here. There are z800's which cost
significantly less than a Regatta.
Peace... Sridhar
That's quite a sad definition of "real
computer". Any one of my
PDP-8 or PDP-11 systems, even the wimpiest, is much more of a "real
computer" than any PC compatible will ever be.
Phil wrote:
What, even if said PC is a K6-II/400 running
Linux?
Even if it's the dual Athlon XP 1900 running Red Hat 8 which I use for
most of my software development. There's no question that it has
orders of magnitude more computing power, memory, and disk, but that's
not part of my criteria for "real computer":
3:14 p.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 vance(a)neurotica.com wrote:
A Regatta is a real computer. A Dual Athlon XP 1900
isn't. And yes, a
520 is a real computer. And so is an S/36.
I know that, my point was that not all of Eric's points are good
differentiators between 'non-real computers' and 'real computers'.
And a Regatta is more different from a zSeries than
you think. Price
isn't really the applicable issue here. There are z800's which cost
significantly less than a Regatta.
I know this, from prior discussions with you, and prior knowledge of both
of these machines. But a Regatta is about as close to a z or S/390 you
can get in RS/6000 hardware. My point is it's closer to a z than a PC or
the other machines I've listed.
Pat
--
Purdue Universtiy ITAP/RCS
Information Technology at Purdue
Research Computing and Storage
http://www-rcd.cc.purdue.edu
22 Feb
22 Feb
7:40 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
PC: no,
you throw away a subsystem and get a replacement. The
problem here is that any given subsystem (e.g., a video card) is
only on the market for maybe two years; after that you can't get
an identical replacement. Original-spec PDP-8 replacement parts
were available for over 20 years.
While not quite the same as 20 years, you *can* still get identical,
new, many year old 'replacement' parts for PCs. It's probably easier to
One thing I'm slightly suprised about is that
you're not claiming that
it's easy to service 'real computers' at the component level. Of course,
That is one definition of 'real computer' that I sometimes use :-)
-tony
7:39 p.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
Tony Duell wrote:
Can you rework 8-layer PC motherboards then? <g>
Later.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
Can you?
What about :
30 pin SIMMs and/or SIPPs (I've not seen those listed for several
years)
Me neither, and I need some 2MB 30-pin SIMMs for an old 386-based machine.
It's got 8x 1MB SIMMs fitted now, $DEITY knows how much it can take in
total, I'm guessing around 16MB. What I'd like to know is why it's reporting
8064K of RAM when it's got 8192K (8MB) fitted... I'm guessing the chipset is
stealing some system RAM for a CPU cache or something.
PC/XT compatible keyboards. Heck, _any_ useful 8 bit
ISA card
I want a keyboard with a buckling-spring mechanism (IBM "Model M"
IIRC)
5.25" floppy drives
I've got one of
those. A YE-DATA open-frame (no metal covers) drive out of
an old Packard Bell Legend 386.
Has anyone got an ISA slot riser card that plugs into an ISA slot and
provides three or more horizontal slots instead of one vertical slot?
One thing
I'm slightly suprised about is that you're not claiming
that it's easy to service 'real computers' at the component level.
Of course,
That is one definition of 'real computer' that I sometimes use
:-)
9:09 p.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
A good part of my collection are boards, chips, drives,
and other old equipment that is not easily available now.
I think most collectors also have these, as well as a
second model of their most treasured computer in case
some part becomes no longer available.
As a compulsive packrat I even have a stash of tubes
for the few remaining tube gear that I have. And also
in case I run across some nice audio equipment that
is missing tubes.
I even carried around a kit of plugs, patches, glue,and
repair tools for years from the days when I was a Tire
repair man, until my ex forced me to abandon them
8 years ago. DAMN her disrespectful hide !!
Sipps are another problem. I had to buy some on EPay
a while back for my Grid 1520 since I could find no
source for them, altho I now have a pretty good lead and
have to stock up, because they will be virtually
impossible to find in a few years.
But all of that goes with the territory we stake.
Lawrence
On 23 Feb 2003, , Philip Pemberton wrote:
Tony Duell wrote:
Can you rework 8-layer PC motherboards then? <g>
Later.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
lgwalker@ mts.net
Can you?
What about :
30 pin SIMMs and/or SIPPs (I've not seen those listed for
several years)
Me neither, and I need some 2MB 30-pin SIMMs for an old
386-based machine. It's got 8x 1MB SIMMs fitted now, $DEITY
knows how much it can take in total, I'm guessing around
16MB. What I'd like to know is why it's reporting 8064K of
RAM when it's got 8192K (8MB) fitted... I'm guessing the
chipset is stealing some system RAM for a CPU cache or
something.
PC/XT compatible keyboards. Heck, _any_ useful 8
bit ISA
card
I want a keyboard with a buckling-spring mechanism (IBM
"Model M" IIRC)
5.25" floppy drives
I've got one
of those. A YE-DATA open-frame (no metal
covers) drive out of an old Packard Bell Legend 386. Has
anyone got an ISA slot riser card that plugs into an ISA
slot and provides three or more horizontal slots instead of
one vertical slot?
One thing
I'm slightly suprised about is that you're not
claiming that it's easy to service 'real computers' at
the component level. Of course,
That is one definition of 'real computer'
that I sometimes
use :-)
23 Feb
23 Feb
5:55 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
A good part of my collection are boards, chips,
drives,
and other old equipment that is not easily available now.
Sure... I've got _boxes_ of obscure spare parts (but I never seem to have
the one I really need...)
I think most collectors also have these, as well as
a
second model of their most treasured computer in case
some part becomes no longer available.
As a compulsive packrat I even have a stash of tubes
for the few remaining tube gear that I have. And also
Actually, valves seem to be a lot easier to find that ASICs for
5-year-old PCs... :-)
[...]
But all of that goes with the territory we stake.
The claim was that parts for 'old' PCs were still easy to find new. Even
if you take 'parts' in the PC-goon sense to mean PCBs, drives, etc I
still find this hard to believe. There are many subassemblies once
commonly used in PCs that are no longer available new...
Actually, I can't remember the last time I saw an AT (as opposed to ATX)
PSU or case listed by the PC suppliers...
-tony
8:32 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
Quothe Tony Duell, from writings of Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 07:17:45PM +0000:
Same here.
A good part
of my collection are boards, chips, drives,
and other old equipment that is not easily available now.
Sure... I've got _boxes_ of obscure spare parts (but I never seem to have
the one I really need...) Actually, valves seem to be a lot easier to find that
ASICs for
5-year-old PCs... :-)
Very true... planned obsolesence taken to extremes.
The claim was that parts for 'old' PCs were
still easy to find new. Even
if you take 'parts' in the PC-goon sense to mean PCBs, drives, etc I
still find this hard to believe. There are many subassemblies once
commonly used in PCs that are no longer available new...
As the electronics "recycling" programs become more active, we're
going to see far fewer parts for many things... Next, we'll be seeing
those "environmentally sensitive" people turning over unwanted
inherited collections of tubes/valves and tube/valve equipment to the
recyclers as well, not to mention computer collections. After all,
some of those parts or systems could contain something toxic, or,
something that could injure a child with a low IQ who might try to eat
a miniature tube/valve containing mercury, and, worse yet, some of
that equipment may have been stored in a room with... *horrors* lead
paint on the walls! (sarcasm intended)
In reality, all of this recycling has less to do with helping the
environment than it does to help large corporations increase their
volume of sales. Hence, destructive recycling, rather than re-use of
complete computer systems, cars, assemblies and parts, etc. is
creating much environmental damage for the sake of greed; it's mostly
about political favors and corrupt government playing games with
naive "environmentalists."
Actually, I can't remember the last time I saw an
AT (as opposed to ATX)
PSU or case listed by the PC suppliers...
Are not ATX power supplies a good example of, to a large extent,
needless complexity?
--
Copyright (C) 2002 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
5:58 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
One thing I'm slightly suprised about is that
you're not claiming
that it's easy to service 'real computers' at the component level.
Of course,
That is one definition of 'real computer' that I sometimes use
:-)
4:09 a.m.
New subject: "Real Computers" (was Re: Trivia Question)
PC: no, you throw away a subsystem and get a
replacement. The
problem here is that any given subsystem (e.g., a video card) is
only on the market for maybe two years; after that you can't get
an identical replacement. Original-spec PDP-8 replacement parts
were available for over 20 years.
While not quite the same as 20 years, you *can* still get identical,
new, many year old 'replacement' parts for PCs. It's probably easier to
22 Feb
22 Feb
9:02 a.m.
New subject: 'Real Computers' (was Re: Trivia Question)
I wrote:
> Even if it's the dual Athlon XP 1900 running
Red Hat 8 which I use for
> most of my software development. There's no question that it has
> orders of magnitude more computing power, memory, and disk, but that's
> not part of my criteria for "real computer":
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
OK, I've got a few problems with this.
Personally, I think you're
confusing the terms 'vintage' or 'classic' and 'real' mostly.
For
reference, I'll use three computers. One very new - an IBM p690
"Regatta" system, a 'just classic' machine ~10-11 y.o.- an IBM RS/6000
model 520, and a fairly classic machine - an IBM System/36. I've used
both the p690 and the 520, and sort-of-used a System/36.
I'm not sure why you "have a few problems with this". All three of those
machines meet three out of four of my criteria for being considered "real
computers", whereas PCs meet none of them.
21 Feb
21 Feb
8:09 p.m.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Philip Pemberton wrote:
Eric Smith wrote:
A PC running Linux is not a real computer.
Peace... Sridhar
That's quite a sad definition of "real
computer". Any one of my
PDP-8 or PDP-11 systems, even the wimpiest, is much more of a "real
computer" than any PC compatible will ever be.
What, even if said PC is a K6-II/400 running Linux? I've got two PCs running 
7:23 p.m.
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]On
Behalf Of Eric Smith
"Andy Holt" <andyh(a)andyh-rayleigh.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
It was not meant as a definition, but to distinguish the device from
"Basic-only" compters and similar calculators. The Poqet - precisely because
it was PC compat - had essentially full access to the underlying processor.
If we want to get "stronger" about what is a *REAL COMPUTER*, then I have to
remember the days when I started work and a Real Computer filled a
decent-sized room (or more), "toys" (minicomputers like the PDP-11) were
just coming in, and microprocessors were not even conceived-of.
The Real Computer I used then was an ICT 1905 with 32K of 24 bit core, 12M
(6-bit characters) of exchangeable disk ... and a processor power roughly
the same as an original PC.
The Supercomputer of the time was a CDC6600 (cannot remember the
configuration) which occupied a large building and was about the power of an
early '386. The Atlas was in the process of being phased-out and there was
still an IBM 7094 in use.
Andy
the Poqet was definitely a "real"
computer (PC compat).
That's quite a sad definition of "real computer". Any one of my
PDP-8 or PDP-11 systems, even the wimpiest, is much more of a "real
computer" than any PC compatible will ever be.
8:08 p.m.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Eric Smith wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, anything PC-compatible is specifically not a "real
computer".
Peace... Sridhar
the Poqet was
definitely a "real" computer (PC compat).
That's quite a sad definition of "real computer". Any one of my PDP-8
or PDP-11 systems, even the wimpiest, is much more of a "real computer"
than any PC compatible will ever be. 
3:22 a.m.
Jeffrey Sharp wrote:
On Friday, February 21, 2003, vance(a)neurotica.com
wrote:
If I write a PC emulator that runs on a real computer,
does the computer
become not real?
Or does my PDP-9 emulator running on my PC make IT 'a real computer'. I
actually have a small SBC PC which boots directly to a PDP-8 emulator,
what category does that fit in?
-- hbp
5:36 a.m.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Hans B Pufal wrote:
It significantly enhances its reality coefficient.
But a REAL computer has casters, (or a forklift)
A REAL computer dims the lights during power-up (for the NEIGHBORHOOD)
A REAL computer attracts attention from the Fatherland Security.
If I write a
PC emulator that runs on a real computer, does the computer
become not real?
Or does my PDP-9 emulator running on my PC make IT 'a real
computer'. I
12:56 p.m.
OK, that does it. I'm gonna trade all my micros
in on a main frame. I want that notoriety !!
And I can gut the second floor for headspace.
Lawrence
On 22 Feb 2003, , Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
But a REAL computer has casters, (or a forklift)
A REAL computer dims the lights during power-up (for the
NEIGHBORHOOD) A REAL computer attracts attention from the
Fatherland Security.
lgwalker@ mts.net
22 Feb
22 Feb
5:13 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Sharp" <jss(a)subatomix.com>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Trivia Question
On Friday, February 21, 2003, vance(a)neurotica.com
wrote:
I was going to say yes, but that begs the question: Does emulating a Real
Computer on a peasea make said peasea a Real Computer?
If I'm not mistaken, anything PC-compatible
is specifically not a "real
computer".
If I write a PC emulator that runs on a real computer, does the computer
become not real?
--
Jeffrey Sharp
Bob
23 Feb
23 Feb
5:13 a.m.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Tony Duell wrote:
Personally, I don't think any emulated system is a real computer. Even if
you emulate a real computer on a real computer, the emulated system, I
think, isn't a real computer. For instance, if I were to run SIMH under
Linux/390 to emulate a VAX, I would still consider the S/390 to be a real
computer, but I don't think I'd consider the emulated VAX as one.
Peace... Sridhar
If I write a
PC emulator that runs on a real computer, does the
computer become not real?
No, and conversely, if you run a real-computer-emulator on a PC, the PC
does not become real.
22 Feb
22 Feb
3:05 a.m.
Eric Smith wrote:
That's quite a sad definition of "real
computer". Any one of my
PDP-8 or PDP-11 systems, even the wimpiest, is much more of a "real
computer" than any PC compatible will ever be.
I say any computer the USER has access to his/her programs and information
is a real computer.Mind you a CLASSIC computer has the BIG IRON :)
Ben.
3:18 a.m.
On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 11:58, ben franchuk wrote:
Eric Smith wrote:
I say any computer the USER has access to his/her programs and information
is a real computer.Mind you a CLASSIC computer has the BIG IRON :)
Ben.
From Dictionary.com:
com?put?er Pronunciation Key (km-pytr)
n.
1. A device that computes, especially a programmable electronic
machine that performs high-speed mathematical or logical
operations or that assembles, stores, correlates, or otherwise
processes information.
2. One who computes
--
Christopher L McNabb
Operating Systems Analyst Email: cmcnabb(a)4mcnabb.net
Virginia Tech ICBM: 37.1356N 80.4272N
GMRS: WPSR255 ARS: N2UX Grid Sq: EM97SD
21 Feb
21 Feb
7:26 a.m.
Roger "Merch" Merchberger asks:
What was the first portable computer that weighed less
than 1Kg?
[[I'm assuming that it'd be older than 10 years, so it should be
ontopic...]] Any pointers appreciated! :-)
Strictly speaking, the first portable digital computer that weighed
less than 1 kg would have probably been the Gemini Digital Computer,
which was weightless in Earth orbit. I'm not sure what the mass was,
but it was undoubtedly more than 1 kg.
The first portable digital computer that weighed less than 1 kg on the
Earth's surface was introduced in 1974, and had a mass of just under
0.32 kg. It was weightless when it was in Earth orbit on the
Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. Identifying this computer is left as a
challenge to the reader.
Eric
9:01 a.m.
The first portable digital computer that weighed less
than 1 kg on the
Earth's surface was introduced in 1974, and had a mass of just under
0.32 kg. It was weightless when it was in Earth orbit on the
Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. Identifying this computer is left as a
challenge to the reader.
Am I anywhere close ?
The code name was 'Superstar'
The CPU was (part of) a 6 chip hybrid module with 44 pins. The only other
chips on the logic board were the firmware ROMs
It was user programmable and could store the user programs on little
magnetic cards
The programming language was RPN-based
In other words, it's one of the machines I suggested -- the HP65
-tony
9:21 a.m.
I wrote:
Identifying this computer is left as a challenge to
the reader.
Tony wrote:
Am I anywhere close ?
The code name was 'Superstar'
The CPU was (part of) a 6 chip hybrid module with 44 pins. The only
other chips on the logic board were the firmware ROMs
It was user programmable and could store the user programs on little
magnetic cards
The programming language was RPN-based
Bingo!
In other words, it's one of the machines I
suggested -- the HP65
Yes, I hadn't yet received your message as of when I posted.
Eric
8:05 a.m.
Well the Atari Portfolio which came out in 89 and was
known as the first palm-pad, only weighed 1lb.
A British company named DIP designed and made it.
When Atari turned down their next model, they sold it
to Sharp and it became the Sharp PC 3000 which
weighs 1.1 lbs..
Lawrence
On 21 Feb 2003, , Roger Merchberger wrote:
With my contemplation of purchasing a new Sony
Picturebook,
I was wondering:
What was the first portable computer that weighed less than
1Kg? [[I'm assuming that it'd be older than 10 years, so it
should be ontopic...]] Any pointers appreciated! :-)
Thanks,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
lgwalker@ mts.net
8:51 a.m.
Lawrence Walker wrote:
Well the Atari Portfolio which came out in 89 and was
known as the first palm-pad, only weighed 1lb.
A British company named DIP designed and made it.
When Atari turned down their next model, they sold it
to Sharp and it became the Sharp PC 3000 which
weighs 1.1 lbs..
Speaking of the Atari Portfolio, I still need (er... want) one of
those for
my collection... Anyone want to part with one?
Now if only someone made a HP 700LX that used a data cable instead of that
insanely oversized docking port...
Later.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
4:44 p.m.
Hello all,
Some of you may recognize my name by now; most won't.
I'm a reporter at eWeek (aka, formerly PC Week)
magazine. Anyway, as Sellam I. will attest, I'm a
self-proclaimed (dare I say) guru, specifically
regarding the history of mobile computers.
Roger's question thus made me get off my ass and
respond.
As others noted, some of the early programmable
calculators may qualify as "portable computers."
Also, the Sharp PC-1201 -- along with the
Panasonic/Quasar Handheld Computer, and the
Tandy/Radio Shack TRS-80 Pocket Computer 1 -- all
debuted in 1980/1981. (If you're near a decent
big-city or university library, then check out the
January 1981 issue of Byte, on microfilm.)
If you don't want to use mere programmability as the
line between a calculator and a computer, then
consider display features. The TI-58, in 1978, was
the first to display letters, not just numbers. The
catch was, it could print them on a printer, but not
on its own screen. The HP-41C, in 1979, was the first
that could display letters natively. It also had
removable storage, which third-party companies
actually sold applications on.
Sellam and I have also discussed (as have others
before us, a few years ago) the electronic language
translators of the late 1970s. The first one of these
was from a Florida company, Lexicon, in 1978 (though a
patent was applied for in 1976.) Besides translating
words, it also had memory module functions, to make it
into a calculator, a primitive flat-file database, or
a notepad. Combined with its keyboard, I believe
those features make it a "PDA."
Lexicon sold out its initial batch of a few thousand
units, and promptly ran out of money. They sold the
rights to Nixdorf. If you do a Web search for
"LK-3000" (the product name), you'll find several
references to a Nixdorf product that Lexicon was a
reseller of. That is wrong, it was the other way
around. I know this because 1.) Lexicon had the
patent, and 2.) I personally talked to the founder of
Lexicon, Mike Levy, a couple of months ago. (Today he
runs Sportsline.com).
Craig Corp. made a very similar translator, in 1979,
called the M-100. It has the calculator option
built-in. Its investors/advisers included Nolan
Bushnell (Mr. Atari) and Joe Sugarman (the guy behind
those BluBlocker TV infomercials.) TI also had a
product, Language Translator. It came out in 1980.
Theirs was unique because it actually spoke the
synthesized word, so users could learn the foreign
pronunciation. It did this using the exact same
technology as a best-selling TI product from the year
before: the Speak-and-Spell toy. Sharp had a
translator too, in 80 or 81 I think, but I don't know
much about it.
So, you could say Lexicon invented the PDA, if you
don't count Alan Kay's concept of a DynaBook, from
1975. The concept only came true in Xerox's
"NoteTaker" prototype, but that was more like a
primitive laptop, and it wasn't mass producted
(according to the book "Dealers of Lightning," only 12
were made.)
Another twist to the story of "who invented the PDA"
is a Judah Klausner. Klausner's best known as the man
behind the Sharp Wizard. That's mildly interesting,
but more interesting is this: he also has a 1978
patent for an "electronic directory." I don't think
anything came of that, but I'll know more in a few
weeks; I've got an interview scheduled with him. Even
if there was a prototype, it doesn't beat Lexicon,
though Lexicon's involved just one function at a time,
vs. being a multi-task integrated unit.
Yet another twist is those primitive handheld sports
games from Mattel, etc. Those debuted in the
mid-1970s. I would NOT call them PDAs, since they
only had entertainment functions, not "assistant"
functions. But if you choose to consider a calculator
as a portable computer, then why not a game too?
So the answer of "what was the first PDA (and thus
sub-1 Kg)" is still "it depends on how you define
PDA." I'm open-minded to other input, but for now, I
think the best answer is Mike Levy's device, which was
conceptualized in the 74/75 timeframe, patented in
76/77, and sold, en mass, in 78. It was truly first
device that could run removable-storage applications,
display text vs. just numbers, was handheld, had
rechargeable batteries, even had a keyboard, and sold
in quantity to the general public.
Someone should tell Apple this, the next time they
ramble about "inventing" the PDA with the Newton.
Evan Koblentz
PS -- if anyone visits Boston, you're welcome to visit
my apartment, where I have several of these devices
that actually work. I have most of the documentation
too (none of it's for sale.)
--- Roger Merchberger <zmerch(a)30below.com> wrote:
With my contemplation of purchasing a new Sony
Picturebook, I was wondering:
What was the first portable computer that weighed
less than 1Kg?
[[I'm assuming that it'd be older than 10 years, so
it should be ontopic...]]
Any pointers appreciated! :-)
Thanks,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
22 Feb
22 Feb
7:42 a.m.
If you don't want to use mere programmability as
the
line between a calculator and a computer, then
One 'working definition' that is commonly used for a (digital,
electronic) computer is that it is user-programmable. That is to say the
user can write a list of instructions that are then executed
automatically.
The calculators we're considering have this feature (the HP65, IIRC, will
remember 100 'program steps' (essentially functions from the calculator
keyboard) and will then execute them. There are unconditional and
conditional branches, which means you can have loops). There were earlier
non-programmable pocket calculators, but I don't class those as computers
(even though the HP35 had the same CPU architecture as the HP65, and ran
an intenral firmware program to make it act as a calculator -- it wasn't
hardwaired logic. But it wasn't _user_ programmable).
consider display features. The TI-58, in 1978, was
the first to display letters, not just numbers. The
catch was, it could print them on a printer, but not
Hackers managed to get a few words displayed on the HP67 using
non-normallised numbers...
IIRC, the 16 values for a nybble all displayed _something_. 0-9 were
obvious, I think the letters for 'Error' were there ,and a few others.
There were some magnetic cards that did the rounds of the user clubs with
non-normalised numbers on them to display 'interesting' messages.
on its own screen. The HP-41C, in 1979, was the
first
that could display letters natively. It also had
removable storage, which third-party companies
actually sold applications on.
The TI58/TI59 took plug-in ROM modules too. And of course HP calculators
back to the HP65 could read magnetic cards. I know HP sold Program Pacs
(sic) of pre-recorded cards for these machines, I suspect 3rd parties did
too.
Yet another twist is those primitive handheld sports
games from Mattel, etc. Those debuted in the
mid-1970s. I would NOT call them PDAs, since they
only had entertainment functions, not "assistant"
functions. But if you choose to consider a calculator
as a portable computer, then why not a game too?
The difference is that the calculator is user-programmable, the game is
not. In other words, you can run games programs on the HP65 and HP67 (HP
sold a games Pac and a couple of solution books for the HP67). You can't
run mathematical programs on the game.
-tony
23 Feb
23 Feb
5:12 a.m.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Tony Duell wrote:
I certainly consider my TI-92+ a computer. I run unix on it.
Peace... Sridhar
If you
don't want to use mere programmability as the line between a
calculator and a computer, then
One 'working definition' that is commonly used for a (digital,
electronic) computer is that it is user-programmable. That is to say the
user can write a list of instructions that are then executed
automatically.
The calculators we're considering have this feature (the HP65, IIRC,
will remember 100 'program steps' (essentially functions from the
calculator keyboard) and will then execute them. There are unconditional
and conditional branches, which means you can have loops). There were
earlier non-programmable pocket calculators, but I don't class those as
computers (even though the HP35 had the same CPU architecture as the
HP65, and ran an intenral firmware program to make it act as a
calculator -- it wasn't hardwaired logic. But it wasn't _user_
programmable).
7925
days inactive
7930
days old
97 comments
34 participants
participants (34)
-
allain＠panix.com -
andyh＠andyh-rayleigh.freeserve.co.uk -
arcarlini＠iee.org -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
at258＠osfn.org -
aw288＠osfn.org -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
cmcnabb＠4mcnabb.net -
doc＠docsbox.net -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
evan947＠yahoo.com -
frustum＠pacbell.net -
hansp＠aconit.org -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jss＠subatomix.com -
jwstephens＠cox.net -
kenziem＠sympatico.ca -
lgwalker＠mts.net -
netsurfer_x1＠fastmailbox.net -
pat＠purdueriots.com -
philpem＠dsl.pipex.com -
pzachary＠sasquatch.com -
rdd＠rddavis.org -
rschaefe＠gcfn.org -
sieler＠allegro.com -
stanb＠dial.pipex.com -
Technoid＠30below.com -
tim.challenor＠tcns.co.uk -
vance＠neurotica.com -
vaxzilla＠jarai.org -
vcf＠siconic.com -
zmerch＠30below.com -
zoki.news＠linuxix.2y.net