12 Nov
2005
12 Nov
'05
1:29 p.m.
Pictures from the Smithsonian
http://users.starpower.net/dj.taylor/Vax1.JPG
VAX MINICOMPUTER
Digital Equipment Corporation's VAX minicomputer, first introduced
in 1976, provided enough processing power for complex design problems,
but at a much lower cost than had previously been available. This
meant that individuals engineers could have the fill use of a
computer without having to share it with their colleagues. The VAX
became the workhorse or aerospace engineering. The model displayed
here, a MicroVAX II was introduced in 1985.
Museum people! Oh well! They can obviously read, but cannot understand.
Hello?? The label says its a *MICRO*VAX, and if its a uVAX, then
its not a mini. Also, calling the baby-sized uVAX a mini gives
visitors who may have never seen a mini-computer the wrong idea as to
what a mini-computer looks like. Sure I'll accept that its *compatible*
with a VAX (I'll even ignore the minor business of emulating a small
part of the instruction set :-), but is not a VAX.
At the University of Pennsylvania here in Philadelphia they have a VLSI
version of the ENIAC (some student project) but no-one in their right
mind would show that microprocessor next to a sign that says here is a
picture of ENIAC.
**vp
12 Nov
12 Nov
2:05 p.m.
You'd think a place like the Smithsonian would have a nice 11/780 with lots
of disk drives and terminals and things.
And geez, they could have at least got the date right.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Vassilis Prevelakis
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 12:30 PM
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Smithsonian gets it wrong
Pictures from the Smithsonian
http://users.starpower.net/dj.taylor/Vax1.JPG
VAX MINICOMPUTER
Digital Equipment Corporation's VAX minicomputer, first introduced
in 1976, provided enough processing power for complex design problems,
but at a much lower cost than had previously been available. This
meant that individuals engineers could have the fill use of a
computer without having to share it with their colleagues. The VAX
became the workhorse or aerospace engineering. The model displayed
here, a MicroVAX II was introduced in 1985.
Museum people! Oh well! They can obviously read, but cannot understand.
Hello?? The label says its a *MICRO*VAX, and if its a uVAX, then
its not a mini. Also, calling the baby-sized uVAX a mini gives
visitors who may have never seen a mini-computer the wrong idea as to
what a mini-computer looks like. Sure I'll accept that its *compatible*
with a VAX (I'll even ignore the minor business of emulating a small
part of the instruction set :-), but is not a VAX.
At the University of Pennsylvania here in Philadelphia they have a VLSI
version of the ENIAC (some student project) but no-one in their right
mind would show that microprocessor next to a sign that says here is a
picture of ENIAC.
**vp
2:15 p.m.
Vassilis Prevelakis wrote:
Hello?? The label says its a *MICRO*VAX, and if its a
uVAX, then its
not a mini. Also, calling the baby-sized uVAX a mini gives visitors
who may have never seen a mini-computer the wrong idea as to what a
mini-computer looks like. Sure I'll accept that its *compatible* with
a VAX (I'll even ignore the minor business of emulating a small part
of the instruction set :-), but is not a VAX.
I'd not call the MicroVAX a mini, but it *is* a VAX. The
architecture was subsetted to allow some latitude in
implementation, but user mode code did not need to
worry about that: the instructions still worked.
A VAX, is a VAX, is a VAX.
Antonio
--
Antonio carlini
arcarlini at iee.org
5 p.m.
a.carlini at ntlworld.com wrote:
Vassilis Prevelakis wrote:
Of course, of course,
And no-one can talk to a VAX of course,
That is, of course, unless the VAX is the famou
"G$E%GK$?5
AGW?3y3yh
NO CARRIER
Hello?? The label says its a *MICRO*VAX, and if
its a uVAX, then its
not a mini. Also, calling the baby-sized uVAX a mini gives visitors
who may have never seen a mini-computer the wrong idea as to what a
mini-computer looks like. Sure I'll accept that its *compatible* with
a VAX (I'll even ignore the minor business of emulating a small part
of the instruction set :-), but is not a VAX.
I'd not call the MicroVAX a mini, but it *is* a VAX. The
architecture was subsetted to allow some latitude in
implementation, but user mode code did not need to
worry about that: the instructions still worked.
A VAX, is a VAX, is a VAX.
5:12 p.m.
Well in any case, they could have chosen a much better example, it's all
yellowed and nasty, and they're making it worse with that fluorescent light.
I bet it's just a VAX chassis someone threw in the dumpster from this list.
There's probably not even anything in it, except a broken TK50.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Gordon JC Pearce
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:01 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Smithsonian gets it wrong
a.carlini at ntlworld.com wrote:
Vassilis Prevelakis wrote:
Of course, of course,
And no-one can talk to a VAX of course,
That is, of course, unless the VAX is the famou
"G$E%GK$?5
AGW?3y3yh
NO CARRIER
Hello?? The label says its a *MICRO*VAX, and if
its a uVAX, then its
not a mini. Also, calling the baby-sized uVAX a mini gives visitors
who may have never seen a mini-computer the wrong idea as to what a
mini-computer looks like. Sure I'll accept that its *compatible* with
a VAX (I'll even ignore the minor business of emulating a small part
of the instruction set :-), but is not a VAX.
I'd not call the MicroVAX a mini, but it *is* a VAX. The
architecture was subsetted to allow some latitude in
implementation, but user mode code did not need to
worry about that: the instructions still worked.
A VAX, is a VAX, is a VAX. 
4:57 p.m.
New subject: Lights (was: Re: Smithsonian gets it wrong)
Julian Wolfe wrote:
Well in any case, they could have chosen a much better
example, it's all
yellowed and nasty, and they're making it worse with that fluorescent light.
So given the choice, what lighting *is* good?
I'm just thinking that we might have to replace lighting at the museum
one day - so maybe keeping other options in mind is a good idea,
providing they're not horribly expensive....
I bet it's just a VAX chassis someone threw in the
dumpster from this list.
There's probably not even anything in it, except a broken TK50.
Hmm, not so sure. We certainly wouldn't want to fleece the public by
putting an empty machine on display without *saying* it was just a case,
even if the public never got to see the insides (although of course we
*want* people to ask and be interested in machine innards as well as
outside appearance!)
I expect most museums are the same though - even if the item's stuck in
a glass case, it still seems wrong for it to just be a shell rather than
a complete system unless explicitly stated as such to the public.
cheers
Jules
6:40 p.m.
New subject: Lights (was: Re: Smithsonian gets it wrong)
So given the choice, what lighting *is* good?
I'm just thinking that we might have to replace lighting at the museum
one day - so maybe keeping other options in mind is a good idea,
providing they're not horribly expensive....
I have a book, called "the Care of Art Objects" (I forget the author) that
outlines all of this.
Lots of interesting content in that book - things you would never know
(like why oak shelves should never be used in archives) - but then again
these folks actually plan on keeping things as close to forever as
possible.
William Donzelli
aw288 at osfn.org
8:28 p.m.
On Sat, November 12, 2005 7:15 pm, a.carlini at ntlworld.com said:
I'd not call the MicroVAX a mini, but it *is* a
VAX. The
architecture was subsetted to allow some latitude in
implementation, but user mode code did not need to
worry about that: the instructions still worked.
A VAX, is a VAX, is a VAX.
I'll prove that (again) on monday when I boot a 6660 using a system disk I
created last night using a uVAX 3100-90 :)
--
adrian/witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UKs biggest home computer collection?
13 Nov
13 Nov
5:23 p.m.
a.carlini at ntlworld.com wrote:
Vassilis Prevelakis wrote:
I'm not sure the 11/725 and 11/730 and MicroVaxI weren't 11/34A's with
delusions of grandeur. 8-(
Bill
Hello?? The label says its a *MICRO*VAX, and if
its a uVAX, then its
not a mini. Also, calling the baby-sized uVAX a mini gives visitors
who may have never seen a mini-computer the wrong idea as to what a
mini-computer looks like. Sure I'll accept that its *compatible* with
a VAX (I'll even ignore the minor business of emulating a small part
of the instruction set :-), but is not a VAX.
I'd not call the MicroVAX a mini, but it *is* a VAX. The
architecture was subsetted to allow some latitude in
implementation, but user mode code did not need to
worry about that: the instructions still worked.
A VAX, is a VAX, is a VAX.
Antonio
5:21 p.m.
New subject: Smithsonian gets it wrong -- the 11/35 on display
Vassilis Prevelakis wrote:
Pictures from the Smithsonian
http://users.starpower.net/dj.taylor/Vax1.JPG
VAX MINICOMPUTER
Digital Equipment Corporation's VAX minicomputer, first introduced
in 1976, provided enough processing power for complex design problems,
but at a much lower cost than had previously been available. This
meant that individuals engineers could have the fill use of a
computer without having to share it with their colleagues. The VAX
became the workhorse or aerospace engineering. The model displayed
here, a MicroVAX II was introduced in 1985.
Museum people! Oh well! They can obviously read, but cannot understand.
Hello?? The label says its a *MICRO*VAX, and if its a uVAX, then
its not a mini. Also, calling the baby-sized uVAX a mini gives
visitors who may have never seen a mini-computer the wrong idea as to
what a mini-computer looks like. Sure I'll accept that its *compatible*
with a VAX (I'll even ignore the minor business of emulating a small
part of the instruction set :-), but is not a VAX.
At the University of Pennsylvania here in Philadelphia they have a VLSI
version of the ENIAC (some student project) but no-one in their right
mind would show that microprocessor next to a sign that says here is a
picture of ENIAC.
**vp
I'm remembering my first thought on seeing their 11/35 setup in the
museum (supposedly doing some kind of monitor/real-time control of a
space launch.
It was... "Wrong light pattern for RT11, RSTS/E, RSX11, and IAS... must
have an 8085 or a rom with a counter doing some light sequencing. The
wife thought I was a major geek and no one else would notice.
The mailing list here had a number of others who saw that display and
said the same thing.
I just smiled to know there's a couple of us out there.
I'm not opposed to an 11/35 front panel used like this in a display...
Just wished it had an authentic light pattern. Running the 11/35 full
up under glass would have problems with heat and power.
Bill
5:44 p.m.
New subject: Smithsonian gets it wrong -- the 11/35 on display
Bill Pechter wrote:
I'm not opposed to an 11/35 front panel used like
this in a display...
Just wished it had an authentic light pattern. Running the 11/35 full
up under glass would have problems with heat and power.
I'd at least expect them to say it's a simulation and not the real
thing. I'd expect museums not to pull a stunt like that. Simulation's
perfectly acceptible if there are legitimate reasons for not having an
original, but they should tell the public as such.
cheers
Jules
6827
days inactive
6828
days old
10 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
arcarlini＠iee.org -
aw288＠osfn.org -
fireflyst＠earthlink.net -
gordonjcp＠gjcp.net -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
pechter＠gmail.com -
vp＠cs.drexel.edu -
witchy＠binarydinosaurs.co.uk