31 Jan
2007
31 Jan
'07
4 p.m.
At 19:45 -0600 1/30/07, cctalk-request at classiccmp.org wrote:
I've often thought that you can see the beauty of
machinery (including
computers) on many levels. Most classic computers are not particularly
beautiful to look at, but there can be beauty in how they're assembled (I
personally think the HP9816 is an interesting construction), there can be
beauty in the elkectronic design, or the firmware, or... You just have to
look for it.
Agreed, which leads me to NeXT cube as my nomination. Though the
mainboard design is not a particular standout, chassis design,
appearance, and software all appeal strongly to my aesthetics.
I quail at the thought of suggesting a thread on "performance arty"
computers...
(...or "artless" computers. TRS-80 model 1?)
--
Mark Tapley, Dwarf Engineer
(I haven't cleared my neighborhood)
210-379-4635 Dwarf Phone, 210-522-6025 Office Phone
31 Jan
31 Jan
8:17 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
Mark Tapley wrote:
At 19:45 -0600 1/30/07, cctalk-request at
classiccmp.org wrote:
Hmm, I'll throw the BeBox into the pot... and the de Grafe video presentation
system (can't be many computers that used granite in their case construction :-)
I've often thought that you can see the
beauty of machinery (including
computers) on many levels. Most classic computers are not particularly
beautiful to look at, but there can be beauty in how they're assembled (I
personally think the HP9816 is an interesting construction), there can be
beauty in the elkectronic design, or the firmware, or... You just have to
look for it.
Agreed, which leads me to NeXT cube as my nomination. Though the
mainboard design is not a particular standout, chassis design,
appearance, and software all appeal strongly to my aesthetics. 
8:42 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
On 31/1/07 20:17, "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Didn't my post about the BeBox make it to the list? Curse my exim mail
server, what's it doing now......
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?
Agreed, which
leads me to NeXT cube as my nomination. Though the
mainboard design is not a particular standout, chassis design,
appearance, and software all appeal strongly to my aesthetics.
Hmm, I'll throw the BeBox into the pot... and the de Grafe video presentation
system (can't be many computers that used granite in their case construction
:-)
1 Feb
1 Feb
1:11 a.m.
New subject: Arty computers
Adrian Graham wrote:
On 31/1/07 20:17, "Jules Richardson"
<julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Didn't my post about the BeBox make it to the list? Curse my exim mail
server, what's it doing now......
Ooops - it may well have done. Having just done the hop across the pond again,
I'm playing catch-up on the mailing list - so I'm sort of flicking through the
couple-of-hundred-or-so messages that have appeared in the last few days and I
may have just missed it :-)
Re. BeBox, I hesitated about mentioning it from a styling point of view;
architecturally it was definitely interesting, and in so far as I've studied
ours the build quality seems good, but the case does kind of shout "PC
look-a-like" somewhat :-)
cheers
Jules
Agreed,
which leads me to NeXT cube as my nomination. Though the
mainboard design is not a particular standout, chassis design,
appearance, and software all appeal strongly to my aesthetics.
Hmm, I'll throw
the BeBox into the pot... and the de Grafe video presentation
system (can't be many computers that used granite in their case construction
:-)
8:15 a.m.
New subject: Arty computers
On 1/2/07 01:11, "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
They let you back in again? I'm impressed! :)
Didn't my
post about the BeBox make it to the list? Curse my exim mail
server, what's it doing now......
Ooops - it may well have done. Having just done the hop across the pond again,
I'm playing catch-up on the mailing list - so I'm sort of flicking through the
couple-of-hundred-or-so messages that have appeared in the last few days and I
may have just missed it :-) Re. BeBox, I hesitated about mentioning it from a
styling point of view;
architecturally it was definitely interesting, and in so far as I've studied
ours the build quality seems good, but the case does kind of shout "PC
look-a-like" somewhat :-)
Well yes, casewise, but what about the blinkenlights on the front and the
geekport on the back...
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?
9:28 a.m.
New subject: Arty computers
Ahoy the list....
Arty computers, eh? I've watched this thread with some care, and I
have to say, considering the population of the list, that nobody has
mentioned the DEC computers so near and dear to many of your hearts.
From the incredible PDP-1, with it's monitor that
looked like the
scanner from a futuristic spaceship, the cockpit look of the PDP-12,
to
the incredible Oh-So-Seventies Op-Art look of much of the line, with the
PDP-8 in Earthtone profusion, the Diabolic looking PDP-11/40, and the
ballsy PDP-11/70 with the outrageous red and purple color scheme, why
didn't I see even ONE reference to them? I am not a PDP man myself, at
least not much. I only ended up actually working on a PDP-11/23 (which
is one of the LEAST artistic of the line, BTW.)
Come on... stand up for your machines!
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
5:17 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
On the subject of systems that are all pretty skin and no guts, does
anyone remember the direct-contact water-cooled Honeywell mainframe?
I got to see it in development at the old GE plant in Phoenix back in
the 70's.
Interesting operator's console with bar-graph Nixie displays. The
CPU itself was separate and was a hoot. The outer cabinet was pretty
much a walk-in "shed" that held the floor-standing racks containing
the PCBs with cooling interconnects made of what looked to be vinyl
tubing. I was told that the big problem of the day was algae in the
cooling lines and the engineers were checking out additives that
would inhibit algae growth but tnot corrode the copper contact
plates.
The old GE machines with the "Thousands of Operations Per Second"
analogue meters were kind of neat too.
Cheers,
Chuck
5:35 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
On Feb 1, 2007, at 12:26 PM, woodelf wrote:
Have the logic generate a pulse at the beginning (or end) of each
instruction cycle, buffer it, feed it into an integrator, and then
into an analog meter. Easy as pie.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
The old GE
machines with the "Thousands of Operations Per Second"
analogue meters were kind of neat too.
So just how does one construct such a
meter? 
10:20 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Feb 1, 2007, at 12:26 PM, woodelf wrote:
Have the logic generate a pulse at the beginning (or end) of each
instruction cycle, buffer it, feed it into an integrator, and then into
an analog meter. Easy as pie.
Not as simple as that - you'd just have an analogue frequency meter
showing the instruction rate.
If you wanted it to show how busy the machine is, something in the idle
loop toggle the bit that drives the integrator. Set the bit high when
you come out of the idle loop, set it low when you go in...
Gordon.
The old
GE machines with the "Thousands of Operations Per Second"
analogue meters were kind of neat too.
So just how does one construct such a
meter?
2 Feb
2 Feb
4:24 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
On Feb 1, 2007, at 5:20 PM, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
Have the logic generate a pulse at the beginning (or end) of
each instruction cycle, buffer it, feed it into an integrator, and
then into an analog meter. Easy as pie.
Not as simple as that - you'd just have an analogue frequency meter
showing the instruction rate.
Right, which is what I interpreted the original poster to mean.
Was that not what he meant?
The old GE
machines with the "Thousands of Operations Per
Second" analogue meters were kind of neat too.
So just how does one construct
such a meter? If you wanted it to show how busy the machine is,
something in the
idle loop toggle the bit that drives the integrator. Set the bit
high when you come out of the idle loop, set it low when you go in...
That'd work very nicely for a load indicator.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
5:26 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
On 2 Feb 2007 at 11:24, Dave McGuire wrote:
Right, which is what I interpreted the original
poster to mean.
Was that not what he meant?
I never bothered to ask enough questions- about it--just noted its
presence on the console. It's entirely possible that the meter
measured nothing but the RNI rate.
Sadly, there are few photos of the old GE iron on the web. Even the
SMECC website seems to be lacking. My visit to the Honeywell/GE
Plant was in 1974-5 or so and the GE systems were tucked away in a
corner and not operating. I suspect they were being prepared for
disposal.
Cheers,
Chuck
3 Feb
3 Feb
1:26 a.m.
New subject: Arty computers
Hey,
Given that my predilections run to personal computers, for the most
part, my entry in the arty computer would be the Processor Tech Sol
computer. Spare, elegant, wood-trimmed, and so WELL engineered. Too
bad the company employed only engineers... a finance or business person
or two in the front office would have enhanced their survival potential.
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
1 Feb
1 Feb
5:40 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
In article <45C222B5.5060202 at jetnet.ab.ca>,
woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> writes:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Every instruction fetch pumps a pulse into a capacitor?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
The old GE machines with the "Thousands of Operations Per Second"
analogue meters were kind of neat too.
So just how does one construct such a meter? 
5:48 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
woodelf wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
One way: pick off some signal that fires once per instruction execution
-- say some signal that occurs in a particular decode phase of the
logic. Buffer it and send it through a simple RC filter, which feeds
the meter. Add a pot to scale things properly. The more instructions
executed per second, the more pulses per second, the higher the average
voltage put out by the filter. You might even be able to skip the RC
filter since the meter has inertia.
The old GE machines with the "Thousands of Operations Per Second"
analogue meters were kind of neat too.
So just how does one construct such a
meter? 
6:20 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
Jim Battle wrote:
-----
>> The old GE machines with the "Thousands
of Operations Per Second"
>> analogue meters were kind of neat too.
One way: pick off some signal that fires once per
instruction execution
-- say some signal that occurs in a particular decode phase of the
logic. Buffer it and send it through a simple RC filter, which feeds
the meter. Add a pot to scale things properly. The more instructions
executed per second, the more pulses per second, the higher the average
voltage put out by the filter. You might even be able to skip the RC
filter since the meter has inertia.
I wonder what the meter RED Lined at? Did it meter all instructions
or just user tasks?
6:53 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
On 1 Feb 2007 at 11:20, woodelf wrote:
I wonder what the meter RED Lined at? Did it meter all
instructions
or just user tasks?
That I didn't think to ask. I suspect that user-mode tasks only were
monitored for the meter to make much sense. So you'd "AND" the user-
mode bit with the RNI status before sending it to an integrator.
I don't recall--was this on the GE 635 or a different system?
Cheers,
Chuck
9:23 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
> The old GE machines with the "Thousands of
Operations Per Second"
> analogue meters were kind of neat too.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, woodelf wrote:
So just how does one construct such a meter?
Howzbout the same way that after-market ATs measured their speed for the
front panel digital display? (Jumpers to set two numbers, and "turbo"
line to switch between them)
11:18 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
Howzbout the same way that after-market ATs measured
their speed for the
front panel digital display? (Jumpers to set two numbers, and "turbo"
line to switch between them)
The nerds would then hack these to say 99 MHz.
The ubernerds would hack them to say 1111 MHz.
--
Will
2 Feb
2 Feb
2:51 a.m.
New subject: Arty computers
On 2/1/07, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
At McMurdo Station, c. 1995, someone "hacked" 66MHz to 69Mhz on several
'486s.
-ethan
Howzbout the
same way that after-market ATs measured their speed for the
front panel digital display? (Jumpers to set two numbers, and "turbo"
line to switch between them)
The nerds would then hack these to say 99 MHz.
The ubernerds would hack them to say 1111 MHz. 
3:06 a.m.
New subject: Arty computers
Ethan Dicks wrote:
On 2/1/07, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at
gmail.com> wrote:
At McMurdo Station, c. 1995, someone "hacked" 66MHz to 69Mhz on several
'486s.
I've done that. 8-)
Peace... Sridhar
Howzbout
the same way that after-market ATs measured their speed for
the
front panel digital display? (Jumpers to set
two numbers, and "turbo"
line to switch between them)
The nerds would then hack these to say 99 MHz.
The ubernerds would hack them to say 1111 MHz.
3:11 a.m.
New subject: Arty computers
On 2/1/07, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
An analog meter? I hacked one onto a machine a couple of years ago...
it was a simple resistor ladder with a 3" panel meter attached to the
output. It wasn't precise - the needle would dip when going from 0x1F
to 0x20 or from 0x7F to 0x80 since the values were approximage, but it
did the trick. One thing I did do was to hack the internal resistor
in the meter to match the output levels that a modern desktop parallel
port could provide (ISTR the original meter scale was 0VDC - 10VDC and
I dropped it to approx 0V - 5V). All one does at that point is to
write a tiny app that takes a number from 0-255 and emit it on a
parallel port, and the needle swings to that point. You can't change
it rapidly due to physical inertia, but for slow changes, it works
great.
If you want a digital representation of load, you can either drive the
LEDs directly from the parallel port, or to get more than 8 lights
> The old
GE machines with the "Thousands of Operations Per Second"
> analogue meters were kind of neat too.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, woodelf wrote:
> So just how does one construct such a meter? from an 8-pin port, try a bargraph driver like the
LM3914...
http://www.switkin.com/software/geeklights/index.html
Howzbout the same way that after-market ATs measured
their speed for the
front panel digital display? (Jumpers to set two numbers, and "turbo"
line to switch between them)
I recall looking at them at one point, but they are essentially a
forest of jumpers to light various segments of either a 2 or 2-1/2
digit LED - no drivers whatsoever. One _could_ light them up under
computer control, but you'd have to roll your controls. Long ago, I
did hang a pair of Radio Shack 7-segment LEDs off of a PET User Port
with some trivial logic to use the 8th bit to select digit A vs digit
B, then the lower 7 bits of the port went right to the segments. A
small machine-language routine tapped into the 60Hz clock interrupt
refreshed the digits. For a modern machine, I'd recommend some sort
of external latch and multiplexer at least, or perhaps a dedicated LED
driver like the ICL7218 (MAX7218?)
(here's one I made a while back with 16 digits from one parallel port
and two driver chips)
http://www.penguincentral.com/retrocomputing/retrogaming/scoreboard.html
-ethan
1 Feb
1 Feb
11:20 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
The old GE machines with the "Thousands of
Operations Per Second"
analogue meters were kind of neat too.
Hitachi AS/6s have an analog meter, with a switch to select processor
speed, channel speed, and several other parameters. In true mainframe
spirit, they also included a calibrate function.
--
Will
5:23 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
On Feb 1, 2007, at 4:28 AM, Warren Wolfe wrote:
Ahoy the list....
Arty computers, eh? I've watched this thread with some care,
and I
have to say, considering the population of the list, that nobody has
mentioned the DEC computers so near and dear to many of your hearts.
Ok, I'll bite. A PDP-11/23 in a short rack with a pair of RLs is
an aesthetically beautiful machine, in my opinion.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
From the incredible PDP-1, with it's monitor
that looked like the
scanner from a futuristic spaceship, the cockpit look of the
PDP-12, to
the incredible Oh-So-Seventies Op-Art look of much of the line,
with the
PDP-8 in Earthtone profusion, the Diabolic looking PDP-11/40, and the
ballsy PDP-11/70 with the outrageous red and purple color scheme, why
didn't I see even ONE reference to them? I am not a PDP man
myself, at
least not much. I only ended up actually working on a PDP-11/23
(which
is one of the LEAST artistic of the line, BTW.)
Come on... stand up for your machines!
7:03 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
On 1/2/07 17:23, "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
Same here, until you try to bodily shift one down a flight of stairs :)
I didn't mention the DEC stuff because I just assumed it was a given!
Heh....
I've still got to scan some of the DEC product pictures I've got, a
DECsystem, PDP 11 (in that very rack IIRC) and VAX 11/780. All in cheesy
70s-o-vision. Marvellous.
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?
Come on...
stand up for your machines!
Ok, I'll bite. A PDP-11/23 in a short rack with a pair of RLs is
an aesthetically beautiful machine, in my opinion.
7:21 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
I seem to remember a wood-cased brass-nameplate Z80 based system out
of Berkeley called the "People's Computer". Anyone have one of these
beasts?
Cheers,
Chuck
4 Feb
4 Feb
2 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
I worked for Thinking Machines Inc.
I had the oppertunity to design the system status and margining panel for
the CM1.
I had to work with an artist, Tamiko was her name if I recall correctly.
I had to get the 'look' of the status LED's just 'right', diffused
through
some machined
plastic parts. The color, brightness, etc, all were top priority design
issues that the
artist had final say over.
I think I wound up using some fancy LED's from HP that were very new at the
time
Ultrabright green, shining up from behind the machined plastic bits. A bit
of a counter
point to the rows and rows of red leds.
Now that was (and is) an artsy machine.
Some of TMC's artistic work on the CM1 was driven by looking at photos of
some
of the cray machines, like the one with the waterfall cooling system, and
the projected
logo floating in the coolant.
Clearly Cray won that contest.
5 Feb
5 Feb
8:24 a.m.
New subject: Arty computers
Bob Shannon wrote:
I worked for Thinking Machines Inc.
I had the oppertunity to design the system status and margining panel for
the CM1.
I had to work with an artist, Tamiko was her name if I recall correctly.
Tamiko has some web pages and articles about the TMI/CM experience at:
http://www.mission-base.com/tamiko/cm/cm-text.htm
(Came across the pages a couple years ago, but don't remember why, might have
been mentioned previously on the list.)
I had to get the 'look' of the status
LED's just 'right', diffused through
some machined
plastic parts. The color, brightness, etc, all were top priority design
issues that the
artist had final say over.
I think I wound up using some fancy LED's from HP that were very new at the
time
Ultrabright green, shining up from behind the machined plastic bits. A bit
of a counter
point to the rows and rows of red leds.
Now that was (and is) an artsy machine.
Some of TMC's artistic work on the CM1 was driven by looking at photos of
some
of the cray machines, like the one with the waterfall cooling system, and
the projected
logo floating in the coolant.
Clearly Cray won that contest.
1 Feb
1 Feb
2:31 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
Adrian Graham wrote:
I don't know, I'm not so much of a fan of those as most people seem to be. It
just seems gimmicky, but not even done in a particularly pleasing way. "stack
up some LEDs and bodge them into the case" is the sort of thing I would have
done to a system when I was about 15 :-)
It almost looks like someone in marketing said: "we need some flashing lights
on the front to attract people, but it has to cost less than a buck to do"...
I think I'd rather they'd either not bothered, or spent a bit more money on it.
On 1/2/07 01:11, "Jules Richardson"
<julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
They let you back in again? I'm impressed! :)
Yep. I got a bit of secondary questioning by the immigration guys but nothing
stressful; the guys at Chicago seem like pretty reasonable people (unlike some
of the horrors I've heard about at other US airports :-)
Re. BeBox, I
hesitated about mentioning it from a styling point of view;
architecturally it was definitely interesting, and in so far as I've studied
ours the build quality seems good, but the case does kind of shout "PC
look-a-like" somewhat :-)
Well yes, casewise, but what about the blinkenlights on the front and the geekport on the back...
Oh indeed; the hardware's pretty well thought out I think. But the case isn't
*that* special, other than being a nicer colour than most "I'm trying to look
like a PC" machines of that era (it's way better than Phoebe's "puke
yellow",
for instance ;)
cheers
Jules
5:56 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
Oi and no one mentions the Mindset, the quintessential
"arty" computer. After all it made it's way into an
exhibit in the Metropolitan Museum of Art ;).
Interesting internally? Not terribly save for the
custom ic's that made it the Amiga b4 the Amiga...that
demo of an eagle flapping it's wings apparently was
produced on the Mindset.
Let's be careful not to leave out some of the more
utilitarian looking items. Some find beauty in that
alone. After all, most applications of a computer
aren't actually meant to be all artsy-fartsy. It's a
tool after all, and a stout robust looking unit like
the IBM PC/AT is an eye grabber in ways of it's own.
We're just so used to looking at one...
I meant to start a thread like this some time ago,
but would have titled it something like "puters
w/aesthetic appeal". I assumed it wouldn't go over so
well :(
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
6:22 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
In article <809138.19448.qm at web61025.mail.yahoo.com>,
Chris M <chrism3667 at yahoo.com> writes:
Oi and no one mentions the Mindset, the
quintessential
"arty" computer. After all it made it's way into an
exhibit in the Metropolitan Museum of Art ;).
I hadn't heard this before, so I googled around. The case is not
particularly interesting considering it got into a museum. It is
slightly rounded, but I don't see what the big fuss is about in terms
of its case.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
6:44 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
--- Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote:
Consider the time frame. Also take into consideration
the entire package, including the packaging. Very
artsy fartsy I must say. There wasn't much else in the
period aimed to be stylish (until the Macs I guess, or
the Lisa). We've seen lots of crazy different stuff
since then, so I guess it's appeal can pale by
comparison to say an Indigo 2 :O.
Most of these things are just boxes regardless. A
designer doesn't have as much room for creativity as
say the case w/an automobile.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
Oi and no one
mentions the Mindset, the
quintessential
"arty" computer. After all it made
it's way into
an
exhibit in the Metropolitan Museum of Art ;).
I hadn't heard this before, so I googled around.
The case is not
particularly interesting considering it got into a
museum. It is
slightly rounded, but I don't see what the big fuss
is about in terms
of its case.
6:52 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
In article <458578.59015.qm at web61024.mail.yahoo.com>,
Chris M <chrism3667 at yahoo.com> writes:
Consider the time frame. Also take into
consideration
the entire package, including the packaging. Very
artsy fartsy I must say. There wasn't much else in the
period aimed to be stylish (until the Macs I guess, or
the Lisa).
I think the TS-802 is a lot more stylish than that rounded box.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
8:02 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
--- Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote:
In article
<458578.59015.qm at web61024.mail.yahoo.com>,
Chris M <chrism3667 at yahoo.com> writes:
It's all a matter of opinion. Beauty is in the eye of
the beholder. Does the TS-802 have appeal...you're not
going to find me saying no, but more stylish then a
Mindset? IMHO no. And keep in mind that attractiveness
to a collector is based on a number of different
factors. Does one have fond memories of a particular
unit for one. Honestly, and believe me I'm not running
it's appearance down, the TS-802 would look right at
home on the set of Star Trek. While the Mindset, at a
time when systems needed to be modular in order to
sell, did the best with that type of arrangement.
And before I looked it up, I thought you may have
been referring to the TS-803/1603. I laughed, and said
no way (and I'd LOVE to own either of those also). One
of those would seem right at home in the cantina on
Star Wars w/the monitor grafted onto the side!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Consider the time frame. Also take into
consideration
the entire package, including the packaging.
Very
artsy fartsy I must say. There wasn't much else in
the
period aimed to be stylish (until the Macs I
guess, or
the Lisa).
I think the TS-802 is a lot more stylish than that
rounded box.
8:25 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
Oops, yes I meant the TS-803, not the TS-802, although the 802 is
kinda stylish too. The 803 has that funky pedestal thing going on.
Maybe I just like it because its weird! (Well, also because it has
graphics, but I was just thinking of the case here.)
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
8:44 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
Maybe I just like it because its weird!
Perfectly legitimate reason to like something's
appearance. I just remember seeing one in a showroom
and saying that's just way to funky lookin to spend
~$2000 on (TS-1603). Looking at it on
old-computers.com just doesn't seem to have the same
effect though. Wish I had one now though sniff ...
____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
8:59 p.m.
New subject: Arty computers
In article <120484.31233.qm at web61015.mail.yahoo.com>,
Chris M <chrism3667 at yahoo.com> writes:
I picked mine up on ebay (and there was another one on there after
that), so they aren't too uncommon. I got it because it was one of
the few CP/M machines that shipped with graphics.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
Maybe I just
like it because its weird!
Perfectly legitimate reason to like something's
appearance. I just remember seeing one in a showroom
and saying that's just way to funky lookin to spend
~$2000 on (TS-1603). Looking at it on
old-computers.com just doesn't seem to have the same
effect though. Wish I had one now though sniff ... 
12:19 a.m.
(...or "artless" computers. TRS-80 model 1?)
You know, for all I have a soft spot for the Model 1 (it was my first
real computer), I am inclined to agree with you. There's nothing
interesting about the design, neither electroically or mechanically.
There's nothing particularly bad about it either (at least not compared
to one of its contemporaries), but it's just not interesting...
-tony
2:38 a.m.
In article <m1HCPfY-000J0sC at p850ug1>,
ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) writes:
I remember looking at one when it came out -- I had been using a
PDP-11/70 running RSTS/E over 300 (sometimes 1800) baud lines. The
terminals were either LA-36 or Beehive or Tektronix 4010 depending on
what was available at the moment.
We all went down to the Radio Shack to check out the Model I. The
case felt like *very* cheap plastic, even for RS standards. The
keyboard was clunky and while not as bad as the chiclet keyboard on
the PET, it still wasn't something I wanted to type on. The lack of
lower case was a major turn-off for me. The whole thing just felt
dorky.
Even now that the collecting bug has hit me, I don't miss this machine :)
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
(...or
"artless" computers. TRS-80 model 1?)
You know, for all I have a soft spot for the Model 1 (it was my first
real computer), I am inclined to agree with you. There's nothing
interesting about the design, neither electroically or mechanically.
There's nothing particularly bad about it either (at least not compared
to one of its contemporaries), but it's just not interesting...
3 a.m.
On 31 Jan 2007 at 19:38, Richard wrote:
We all went down to the Radio Shack to check out the
Model I. The
case felt like *very* cheap plastic, even for RS standards. The
keyboard was clunky and while not as bad as the chiclet keyboard on
the PET, it still wasn't something I wanted to type on. The lack of
lower case was a major turn-off for me. The whole thing just felt
dorky.
You have no idea HOW dorky the thing looked if you were into S-100 or
Multibus systems big-time. As flimsy as the Altair was, the IMSAI
box did set a direction. My last S-100 box was a no-blinkin' lights
heavy-duty Integrand box with active bus termination and a boat
anchor of a linear PSU. The manufacturer even included blueprints
(as in real bluelines) with the boxes. Bill Godbout was no slouch
either with his boxes.
The TRS-80 looked, well, like something you'd buy at Radio Shack.
Cheers,
Chuck
6:56 p.m.
We all went down to the Radio Shack to check out the
Model I. The
case felt like *very* cheap plastic, even for RS standards. The
I've felt worse (Sinclair, anyone :-))
keyboard was clunky and while not as bad as the
chiclet keyboard on
the PET, it still wasn't something I wanted to type on. The lack of
It's odd... I've heard that comment several times before, but the
keyboard mechanism is the same as the one used in the DEC VT100, HP85
(and 86, 87), HP262x terminals, HP9816, and so on. Maybe it's just how
Radio Shack mounted it or something.
-tony
4 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
Rumor has it that Tony Duell may have mentioned these words:
I dunno... Wasn't the Model 1 the first commercial microcomputer with voice
recognition abilities? [1]
I remember working (read: tinkering ;-) on a Model 1 in High school (as it
was abandoned by everyone once we'd gotten 6 shiny new Model 4 machines)
and it had a TRS-80 branded peripheral called the "Vox-Box." It had a
Citizens-Band microphone hooked into (I'm guessing) an A-D converter that
hooked onto the expansion buss. I actually got it "working" but noticed
that the recognition wasn't the best, and IIRC you got maybe 20 words max.
The included program let you "teach" the computer digits 0-9 & a few other
commands (Save/Load/etc.)
This was in '83-'84 when I tinkered with it, dunno how old the "Vox-Box"
actually was, tho.
Did anything exist (commercially) like that previously to the Model 1?
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
[1] Yes, I know it's almost a lie to call it that... but what the heck can
ya expect in 48K??? ;-)
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
_??_ zmerch at 30below.com
(?||?) If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
_)(_ disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
(...or
"artless" computers. TRS-80 model 1?)
You know, for all I have a soft spot for the Model 1 (it was my first
real computer), I am inclined to agree with you. There's nothing
interesting about the design, neither electroically or mechanically.
There's nothing particularly bad about it either (at least not compared
to one of its contemporaries), but it's just not interesting... 
5:47 p.m.
New subject: Looking for a terminal
I am looking for information on a terminal that I used back in the
mid-late 70's to connect to hp2000 systems via phone line at the
local public library.
It had a keyboard unit with an acoustic coupler built into the top of
it. There were 3 rocker switches on the top-right corner that
allowed changes like full/half duplex etc.
I think there were also a couple of lights on the top (maybe left
side) that showed carrier connect status etc.
This terminal was connected to a separate CRT monitor.
We normally used it at 300 baud...I don't know if the terminal was
capable of higher speeds.
Does anyone have any ideas on what the name of this terminal might
be? Any possible links to pictures? Any for sale?
thanks much!
-Bob
--
bbrown at harpercollege.edu #### #### Bob Brown - KB9LFR
Harper Community College ## ## ## Systems Administrator
Palatine IL USA #### #### Saved by grace
6:23 p.m.
New subject: Looking for a terminal
In article <a0623090dc1e7d78c8d20(a)[157.178.124.226]>6]>,
Bob Brown <bbrown at harpercollege.edu> writes:
I am looking for information on a terminal that I used
back in the
mid-late 70's to connect to hp2000 systems via phone line at the
local public library.
It had a keyboard unit with an acoustic coupler built into the top of
it. There were 3 rocker switches on the top-right corner that
allowed changes like full/half duplex etc.
I think there were also a couple of lights on the top (maybe left
side) that showed carrier connect status etc.
What color was it? Beige? :-)
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
6:56 p.m.
New subject: Looking for a terminal
Yes...beige.
With, in my opinion, a keyboard with a very nice feel to it.
-Bob
In article
<a0623090dc1e7d78c8d20(a)[157.178.124.226]>6]>,
Bob Brown <bbrown at harpercollege.edu> writes:
--
bbrown at harpercollege.edu #### #### Bob Brown - KB9LFR
Harper Community College ## ## ## Systems Administrator
Palatine IL USA #### #### Saved by grace
I am looking for information on a terminal that
I used back in the
mid-late 70's to connect to hp2000 systems via phone line at the
local public library.
It had a keyboard unit with an acoustic coupler built into the top of
it. There were 3 rocker switches on the top-right corner that
allowed changes like full/half duplex etc.
I think there were also a couple of lights on the top (maybe left
side) that showed carrier connect status etc.
What color was it? Beige? :-)
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
8:20 p.m.
New subject: Looking for a terminal
In article <a06230911c1e7e84277d2(a)[157.178.124.226]>6]>,
Bob Brown <bbrown at harpercollege.edu> writes:
Yes...beige.
With, in my opinion, a keyboard with a very nice feel to it.
Oddly enough, perhaps browsing an old TERMCAP (or terminfo) database
would jog the memory cells on the manufacturer. There is quite a bit
of terminal information in the comments of those files.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
2 Feb
2 Feb
6:56 p.m.
New subject: Looking for a terminal
I have no idea what is was named...I used it in the mid-70's...I was
only around 10-12 years old at the time...I'd just love to see a
picture of that terminal if anyone had a guess...
thanks.
-Bob
In article
<a06230911c1e7e84277d2(a)[157.178.124.226]>6]>,
Bob Brown <bbrown at harpercollege.edu> writes:
--
bbrown at harpercollege.edu #### #### Bob Brown - KB9LFR
Harper Community College ## ## ## Systems Administrator
Palatine IL USA #### #### Saved by grace
Yes...beige.
With, in my opinion, a keyboard with a very nice feel to it.
Oddly enough, perhaps browsing an old TERMCAP (or terminfo) database
would jog the memory cells on the manufacturer. There is quite a bit
of terminal information in the comments of those files.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
9:03 p.m.
New subject: Looking for a terminal
In article <a0623090ac1e939ac8d16(a)[157.178.124.226]>6]>,
Bob Brown <bbrown at harpercollege.edu> writes:
I have no idea what is was named...I used it in the
mid-70's...I was
only around 10-12 years old at the time...I'd just love to see a
picture of that terminal if anyone had a guess...
I've been watching the terminals on ebay for the past couple of years
and nothing rings a bell from your description, but that's not saying
much. Before terminals became a commodity and the ensuing market
shakeout it seemed like everyone and his brother made a terminal.
I've been amassing as many pictures and information on terminals that
I could find, but nothing sounds like the one you described.
For instance here's the stuff the Computer History Museum has online
about terminals:
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/vintage/chm-terminals.html>
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
1 Feb
1 Feb
6:12 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
Well, the TRS-80 Model 1 was the first commercially viable home computer.
Whether it is interesting NPW or not is immaterial. It was the first! Yes
there were others such as the North Star that were earlier but they were not
mass marketed. Only the geeks knew of their existence. I bought my TRS-80
model 1 as soon as they were available in 1978. They came with a tape deck
and 4K of memory. You could upgrade to 16K. I thought at the time, "Who
needs any more than 4K?" Thats a lot of memory. Later they added a floppy
drive that was less than 100K and I thought "wow, I will never fill up one
of those $5 diskettes." Yep the diskettes were $5!!! Then I bought a 5
MBYTE Hard drive for $400 and by then I had upgraded to 32K memory. Wow I
was in high cotton. You say nothing interesting? Hell it was the only game
on the block for a while!!!
I remember going into "The Book Stop" and asking where the books on
computers and programming were. The reply was "Whats a computer?" There
were no books on the subject yet!!! I tried to explain it to the sales
person and they said I was making it up, that there were no such machines.
On 2/1/07, Roger Merchberger <zmerch-cctalk at 30below.com> wrote:
Rumor has it that Tony Duell may have mentioned these words:
I dunno... Wasn't the Model 1 the first commercial microcomputer with
voice
recognition abilities? [1]
I remember working (read: tinkering ;-) on a Model 1 in High school (as it
was abandoned by everyone once we'd gotten 6 shiny new Model 4 machines)
and it had a TRS-80 branded peripheral called the "Vox-Box." It had a
Citizens-Band microphone hooked into (I'm guessing) an A-D converter that
hooked onto the expansion buss. I actually got it "working" but noticed
that the recognition wasn't the best, and IIRC you got maybe 20 words max.
The included program let you "teach" the computer digits 0-9 & a few other
commands (Save/Load/etc.)
This was in '83-'84 when I tinkered with it, dunno how old the
"Vox-Box"
actually was, tho.
Did anything exist (commercially) like that previously to the Model 1?
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
[1] Yes, I know it's almost a lie to call it that... but what the heck can
ya expect in 48K??? ;-)
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
_??_ zmerch at 30below.com
((c)||(r)) If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
_)(_ disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
(...or
"artless" computers. TRS-80 model 1?)
You know, for all I have a soft spot for the Model 1 (it was my first
real computer), I am inclined to agree with you. There's nothing
interesting about the design, neither electroically or mechanically.
There's nothing particularly bad about it either (at least not compared
to one of its contemporaries), but it's just not interesting...
6:49 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On 1 Feb 2007 at 12:12, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
Well, the TRS-80 Model 1 was the first commercially
viable home
computer. Whether it is interesting NPW or not is immaterial. It was
the first!
So the Applie II (went on sale in June 1977, as opposed to the TRS-80
Model I going on sale in August) was an impractical commercial flop?
How about the Commodore Pet--demoed in 1976?
Cheers,
Chuck
7:35 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
The apple was a flop, yes. The Commodore also was a flop. Just look at the
numbers. The apple was a flop because it was marketed as entertainment and
drawing pictures (which it excelled at) while the TRS-80 was a scientific
machine that crunched numbers. Yes, today the tables are reversed, but back
then, those of us who were into computers (I had been in computers since
1960 on the IBM 7070) were looking for computing power for serious work.
The Apple was just not that. The Commodore didnt make it because it was
under powered and again was marketed toward using it for games not serious
work. I still have several of all three and at the time I would use my
TRS-80 whenever I was programming. The others were FUN machines made for
children while the TRS-80 was capable of programming in BASIC, FORTRAN,
NLOS, FORTH and Assembly to name only the languages that I had enabled on
my machine. AND the DOS in the TRS-80 was miles ahead of the others and was
accessible. When IBM came out with their machine I wished they had licensed
TRS-DOS and then developed that instead of starting with their own. Yes
IBMs DOS went on to outstrip TRS-DOS, but just think how much faster the
development would have been if they had started with the solid base that
TRS-DOS had set down.
Today I use Linux...an offshoot of the Apple....which is far superior to
Windows and their "pretend" DOS. But it wasn't back then.
We have to look at the market and environment of the late 70s when we start
comparing systems. Today the market is different and the systems are
different. We cant compare apples to oranges.
On 2/1/07, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 1 Feb 2007 at 12:12, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
Well, the TRS-80 Model 1 was the first
commercially viable home
computer. Whether it is interesting NPW or not is immaterial. It was
the first!
So the Applie II (went on sale in June 1977, as opposed to the TRS-80
Model I going on sale in August) was an impractical commercial flop?
How about the Commodore Pet--demoed in 1976?
Cheers,
Chuck
8:19 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On 2/1/07, Jim Isbell, W5JAI <jim.isbell at gmail.com> wrote:
The apple was a flop, yes. The Commodore also was a
flop. Just look at the
numbers. The apple was a flop because it was marketed as entertainment and
drawing pictures (which it excelled at) while the TRS-80 was a scientific
machine that crunched numbers.
Hmm... my recollection of the times was that the TRS-80 was pitched
more as a home/business computer, not scientific.
Certainly until the CP/M card for the Apple II came out, it was
primarily an entertainment computer, but at a place I worked at in
1984, the boss used his Apple more in CP/M than AppleDOS - for
spreadsheets, especially.
Yes, today the tables are reversed, but back
then, those of us who were into computers (I had been in computers since
1960 on the IBM 7070) were looking for computing power for serious work.
The Apple was just not that. The Commodore didnt make it because it was
under powered and again was marketed toward using it for games not serious
work.
While the 4K/8K original PET with the 40 col screen and chicklet keys
had a ways to go until it could be taken seriously outside of the
home/entertainment market, it had one thing that no other mass market
computer had at the time - an IEEE-488 (GPIB) bus. I have seen plenty
of PETs used in laboratory settings to talk to DVMs, pH meters,
oscilloscopes, etc., all with the built-in IEEE port. It might not
have been a great machine for number crunching, but for a wee while,
it was a great machine for data collection. The all-in-one
construction was also a benefit in the classroom as well as the
laboratory - sturdy, easy to move, trivial to install ("plug into
wall, flip switch"). Without dragging this into a 40col vs 64 col vs
80col or 1MHz 6502 vs 4MHz Z80 debate, the PET had its place in
history.
-ethan
8:49 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates Center, KS)
Jim wrote...
> The apple was a flop, yes. The Commodore also was
a flop. Just look at
> the
> numbers. The apple was a flop because it was marketed as entertainment
> and
> drawing pictures (which it excelled at)
Uh, most definitely not. The C64 and
Apple were both fantastically
successful.
while the TRS-80 was a scientific machine that
crunched numbers.
I disagree. The TRS-80 was originally sold and marketed as a home
system -
certainly not a number cruncher. They sold it with game tapes & home recipe
tapes after all. It wasn't until later models that Tandy started
representing it as a business machine.
> Yes, today the tables are reversed, but back
> then, those of us who were into computers (I had been in computers since
> 1960 on the IBM 7070) were looking for computing power for serious work.
> The Apple was just not that. The Commodore didnt make it because it was
> under powered and again was marketed toward using it for games not
> serious
> work.
You may have been looking for a microcomputer for serious work back then,
but 99.9% of the market was not. They were looking for a home system.
Otherwise, all of the early systems would have been a commercial flop.
Retail sales to home users is what made the market grow initially IMHO.
Jay
9:07 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYatesCenter, KS)
Jay West wrote:
Jim wrote...
Queue "Dancing Demon"!
A couple of my high school friends had Model 1s. The father of one
of them thought that "Dancing Demon" was the best thing he had ever
seen on a computer. He regularly requested performances.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.18/662 - Release Date: 1/31/2007
> The apple was a flop, yes. The Commodore
also was a flop.
> Just look at the numbers. The apple was a flop because it
> was marketed as entertainment and drawing pictures (which
> it excelled at)
Uh, most definitely not. The C64 and Apple were both
fantastically
successful.
while the TRS-80 was a scientific machine that
crunched numbers.
I disagree. The TRS-80 was originally sold and marketed as a home
system - certainly not a number cruncher. They sold it with game
tapes & home recipe tapes after all. It wasn't until later models
that Tandy started representing it as a business machine.
10:35 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYatesCenter, KS)
In article <NLEOIHOPKGJBHOEBMKLFAEEMDBAA.wh.sudbrink at verizon.net>,
"Bill Sudbrink" <wh.sudbrink at verizon.net> writes:
Queue "Dancing Demon"!
For those other people who said "WTF?" when they read this:
<http://www.dnull.com/demon/>
Don't ask me why, but the software box "demon" looks like Elmer Fudd
to me.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
2 Feb
2 Feb
8:13 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYatesCenter, KS)
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 16:07 -0500, Bill Sudbrink wrote:
A couple of my high school friends had Model 1s. The
father of one
of them thought that "Dancing Demon" was the best thing he had ever
seen on a computer. He regularly requested performances.
As far as my father is concerned Dancing Demon was a wonderful
innovation. For every computer I got after that he would ask "does it
have Dancing Demon?" and I had to disappoint him. If anyone knows of a
version for Windows (preferably complete with block graphics) I'm sure
he would be grateful!
--
Lawrence Wilkinson lawrence at ljw.me.uk
The IBM 360/30 page http://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360
8:34 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYatesCenter, KS)
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Lawrence Wilkinson wrote:
As far as my father is concerned Dancing Demon was a
wonderful
innovation. For every computer I got after that he would ask "does it
have Dancing Demon?" and I had to disappoint him. If anyone knows of a
version for Windows (preferably complete with block graphics) I'm sure
he would be grateful!
There's always David Keil's Model I emulator:
http://discover-net.net/~dmkeil/
Then grab Dancing Demon from Ira Goldklang's site:
http://www.trs-80.com
Mike Loewen mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology http://ripsaw.cac.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldtech/
11:54 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70
As far as my father is concerned Dancing Demon was a wonderful
innovation. For every computer I got after that he would ask "does it
have Dancing Demon?" and I had to disappoint him. If anyone knows of a
version for Windows (preferably complete with block graphics) I'm sure
he would be grateful!
Can't you run the roiginal under one of the TRS-80 emulators ? (having
got a real TRS-80, and no PC capable of running the emulator, I've not
investigated this). I would assume said emulators support sound out via
the cassette port (if you see what I mean), Dancing Demo was far from the
only program to use this.
-tony
1 Feb
1 Feb
9:04 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
Yes, the Pet and the Apple along with the TRS-80 were the first. Each had
an advantage and a place. Without any one of them the PC might not be today
what it is.
The TRS-80 seemed to have the biggest following of "Hackers" (hackers were
something else back in those days. It meant someone who hacked a printed
circuit board to add a trace or remove one) who were always finding ways to
speed up the CPU, add interfaces, add functions, or improve in some way on
the circuit that Tandy provided. Many of these "hacks" were added by Tandy
in their following models.
My point was that while the TRS-80 might not be "interesting" today. It was
very interesting in its day because it worked and was modifiable. As to the
failure rate, Just about all, if not all, of the reliability problems were
fixable with a #2 pencil with an eraser. All that was required was to pull
apart any connection made by an edge card and "erase" the grunge off of it.
It has always amazed me that even though the contacts were gold plated they
still required cleaning with an eraser about every two months.
I doubt there are many people today who would try "hacking" a PC
motherboard. Takes too much knowledge in order to keep from really screwing
up something in the process and three level boards are really hard to hack.
My TRS-80 had every hack published at the time. My Commodore 2001 had
dozens of hacks. And there were third party providers that sold "kits" for
various hacks and PC Board additions. Yes, those were "interesting" times.
On 2/1/07, Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/07, Jim Isbell, W5JAI <jim.isbell at gmail.com> wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
The apple was a flop, yes. The Commodore also
was a flop. Just look at
the
numbers. The apple was a flop because it was
marketed as entertainment
and
drawing pictures (which it excelled at) while the
TRS-80 was a
scientific
machine that crunched numbers.
Hmm... my recollection of the times was that the TRS-80 was pitched
more as a home/business computer, not scientific.
Certainly until the CP/M card for the Apple II came out, it was
primarily an entertainment computer, but at a place I worked at in
1984, the boss used his Apple more in CP/M than AppleDOS - for
spreadsheets, especially.
Yes, today the tables are reversed, but back
then, those of us who were into computers (I had been in computers since
1960 on the IBM 7070) were looking for computing power for serious work.
The Apple was just not that. The Commodore didnt make it because it was
under powered and again was marketed toward using it for games not
serious
work.
While the 4K/8K original PET with the 40 col screen and chicklet keys
had a ways to go until it could be taken seriously outside of the
home/entertainment market, it had one thing that no other mass market
computer had at the time - an IEEE-488 (GPIB) bus. I have seen plenty
of PETs used in laboratory settings to talk to DVMs, pH meters,
oscilloscopes, etc., all with the built-in IEEE port. It might not
have been a great machine for number crunching, but for a wee while,
it was a great machine for data collection. The all-in-one
construction was also a benefit in the classroom as well as the
laboratory - sturdy, easy to move, trivial to install ("plug into
wall, flip switch"). Without dragging this into a 40col vs 64 col vs
80col or 1MHz 6502 vs 4MHz Z80 debate, the PET had its place in
history.
-ethan
10:32 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
In article <b0295dbe0702011304j226aac6fh870af79af8fc26b2 at mail.gmail.com>,
"Jim Isbell, W5JAI" <jim.isbell at gmail.com> writes:
My point was that while the TRS-80 might not be
"interesting" today. It was
very interesting in its day because it worked and was modifiable. [...]
I don't recall finding it very interesting in its day.
I also don't recall anyone I knew finding it interesting.
But hey, lots of people obviously found it interesting and/or useful
because they sold lots of them.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
9:05 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 13:35 -0600, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
The apple was a flop, yes. The Commodore also was a
flop. Just look at the
numbers. The apple was a flop because it was marketed as entertainment and
drawing pictures (which it excelled at) while the TRS-80 was a scientific
machine that crunched numbers. Yes, today the tables are reversed, but back
then, those of us who were into computers (I had been in computers since
1960 on the IBM 7070) were looking for computing power for serious work.
The Apple was just not that. The Commodore didnt make it because it was
under powered and again was marketed toward using it for games not serious
work.
Both the Apple and Commodore were hardly flops. They did what they
were designed to do, and made a bunch of money for their respective
owners. I'm not sure I understand how you are defining "success" and
"flop" here. The Apple, additionally, had the exciting market-making
feature of an open bus, allowing others to make products for the
machine. This was later adopted by IBM.
I still have several of all three and at the time I
would use my
TRS-80 whenever I was programming. The others were FUN machines made for
children while the TRS-80 was capable of programming in BASIC, FORTRAN,
NLOS, FORTH and Assembly to name only the languages that I had enabled on
my machine.
"Enabled?" Uh, it APPEARS that you don't understand the concept.
Languages are LOADED on a machine, they're not there waiting to be
"enabled" and then used -- other than the BASIC in ROM on several
machines, the IBM included. Any language could be implemented on either
the Apple or the Commodore, and a wide variety WERE implemented -- I'll
leave it to the outraged fans of both camps to provide a detailed
list...
AND the DOS in the TRS-80 was miles ahead of the
others and was
accessible. When IBM came out with their machine I wished they had licensed
TRS-DOS and then developed that instead of starting with their own. Yes
IBMs DOS went on to outstrip TRS-DOS, but just think how much faster the
development would have been if they had started with the solid base that
TRS-DOS had set down.
IBM licensed MS-DOS from Microsoft, and CP/M-86 from Digital
Research, and did NOT develop their own Operating System until OS/2,
which was essentially stillborn. And, since MS-DOS was simply an XLATed
hot copy of CP/M-80 with a couple of changes, IBM computers essentially
ran by the grace of CP/M, one way or the other. While TRS-DOS wasn't
actively bad, it was highly clumsy, and did odd things for some speed
which tied it to specific hardware altogether too tightly, such as
sticking the directory of a diskette in the middle tracks of the
diskette. That kind of kludge doesn't translate well to a move to hard
drives, and other large media. TRS-DOS also took advantage of hardware
specifics of the TRS line of computers, as I understand it, which would
have made it more difficult to port to other-company machines. Of
course, had the goal been to have TRS-DOS succeed, rather than the
TRS-80 line of computers, these issues could have been addressed.
But, when it comes to early "solid base" operating systems, nothing
beats CP/M. And, since the IBM went in what amounted to the CP/M
direction, this worked out well for them.
Today I use Linux...an offshoot of the Apple....which
is far superior to
Windows and their "pretend" DOS. But it wasn't back then.
I write this on a Linux machine, and I love the operating system.
Linux is a work-alike of UNIX, developed by Bell Labs (K&R). The Apple
OS-X is a licensed variant of UNIX. Linux is NOT an offshoot of Apple.
I also own several Macs, and I have to say that I did not find the older
Mac OS stuff to be as stable as was claimed. What I found was that Mac
owners (more often hobbyists) tended to hide the fact when their
computer crashed, whereas PC owners (more often businessmen) tended to
gripe about their computer crashing. This gave, as I see it, an
erroneous impression of much greater stability for the Mac. I think it
WAS more stable, but not by the nearly infinite margin portrayed by many
Mac enthusiasts. I liked the simplicity and intuitive nature of the
Mac. On the other hand, I detested the idea that they refused to put in
a command line interpreter because it wasn't part of "the vision."
Bugger that, I have work to do. Make it easy for me, don't force me
into your vision...
We have to look at the market and environment of the
late 70s when we start
comparing systems. Today the market is different and the systems are
different. We cant compare apples to oranges.
Sure we can. Most apples are red, and have a smooth, thin skin.
Oranges reflect light at a higher frequency, and have bumpier, thicker
skins.
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
11:41 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
Both the Apple and Commodore were hardly flops.
They did what they
were designed to do, and made a bunch of money for their respective
owners.
I remember seeing an ad for Apple 2e, with the thrust being that it
could be used as a CAD machine. Yeah right. Even as a kid I saw that
it just did not have the horsepower and graphics to be usable. In this
sense, the Apple 2 line flopped big time. At least they probably did
not spend a whole lot of money on that aspect of marketting.
And, just to beat the beehive a little with the definition of flop -
note how many people and webpages refer to the IBM PS/2 line as a
flop. For a flop, they sure made a bundle of dough from them...
--
Will
2 Feb
2 Feb
4:17 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On Feb 1, 2007, at 6:41 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
And, just to beat the beehive a little with the
definition of flop -
note how many people and webpages refer to the IBM PS/2 line as a
flop. For a flop, they sure made a bundle of dough from them...
In reference to my response to OS/2 having been "stillborn"...PS/
2s were also HUGE in the banking industry. Absolutely huge.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
3 Feb
3 Feb
2:55 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers
I was installing Model 60's and 80's at executive desks, model 55SX's at
secretaries desks and doing a lot of Model 80's as Novell servers -
these were in American Express, Chase and others. I remember we setup
an IBM SP-1 in Moody's connected to a Sanyo-Eicon storage array (pre-EMC
days) IBM's were DEFINITELY huge in financial banking circles.
The real key was always well documenting the MCA card placements and
ALWAYS keeping all of the driver disks in an envelope inside of the
cover of the machines so that any kind of work that had to happen - you
always had the drivers files for the hardware installed.
I saw OS/2 Program Manager (I think v1.1) for the first time in a
special setup where we doing for American Express along with Compaq on
its latest Proliant Servers, a 3rd party company had 2 of them in a
custom metal case and they were running as a multi-processor system
(essentially 2 separate systems running as one) with OS/2 on it. I
remember also I think it was Groliers Encyclopedia was the first time we
hooked up a CD-ROM to a server and what a HUGE disapoint when the app
ran and it was just nothing be text, no images, and such - we all had
this perception that the CD-ROM was going to bring so much multimedia
instantly to the PC - a little too wishful thinking too early on ;-)
I had always thought OS/2 was a far superior and far more stable OS
compared for Win 95 and WinNT 3 But still loved Netware far more :-)
Curt
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Feb 1, 2007, at 6:41 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
And, just to beat the beehive a little with the
definition of flop -
note how many people and webpages refer to the IBM PS/2 line as a
flop. For a flop, they sure made a bundle of dough from them...
In reference to my response to OS/2 having been "stillborn"...PS/2s
were also HUGE in the banking industry. Absolutely huge.
-Dave
--Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
2 Feb
2 Feb
12:11 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Warren Wolfe wrote:
IBM licensed MS-DOS from Microsoft, and CP/M-86
from Digital
Research, and did NOT develop their own Operating System until OS/2,
and it was created at Microsoft by Gordon Letwin
1:06 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On 1 Feb 2007 at 16:11, Fred Cisin wrote:
and it was created at Microsoft by Gordon Letwin
I was very grateful for the very detailed and professionally produced
developer's documentation for OS/2. Would that Microsoft had taken
as much care for Windoze!
--Chuck
4:47 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
I used the 7070 because that was all that was available. Don't know the
7090. But at the time the 7070 was the best available. The US gov paid
dearly for it even though it had only 9K of memory, 10 bit words and no hard
drives, just a bank of big Ampex tape drives. When it shut down it took 2
days to get all the blown tubes replaced so it was back up again. Needed 30
tons of air conditioning and a room as big as a basketball court to contain
it. But again, it was the best available at the time. It was 18 more years
before the TRS-80, Apple, and Commodore were available so, yes, it was the
best for number crunching. Even though the team of 12 mathematicians that I
belonged to that was tasked with the solving of a particular problem with
slide rules and locked in for 72 hours until it was solved, could solve the
problem faster than the 7070 for the first six months we had it. After 6
months of tweaking the program (which was on pull out boards with jumpers)
they finally got the 7070 where it could beat us regularly and with equal
accuracy. That was a relief for us since we really hated those 72 hour
"lock ins" which could come on a moments notice usually starting in the
middle of the night. But I think my wife hated them even more because she
didn't even know where I was or what I was doing. All she knew was, "Good
night, honey, I will see you in a few days."
As to enabling the computer, I think loading a program is enabling...don't
you?
Please don't talk down to me. I think I have been around computers as long
as you and I don't like your condescending tone..
On 2/1/07, Warren Wolfe <wizard at voyager.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 13:35 -0600, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
The apple was a flop, yes. The Commodore also
was a flop. Just look at
the
numbers. The apple was a flop because it was
marketed as entertainment
and
drawing pictures (which it excelled at) while the
TRS-80 was a
scientific
machine that crunched numbers. Yes, today the
tables are reversed, but
back
then, those of us who were into computers (I had
been in computers since
1960 on the IBM 7070) were looking for computing power for serious work.
The Apple was just not that. The Commodore didnt make it because it was
under powered and again was marketed toward using it for games not
serious
work.
Both the Apple and Commodore were hardly flops. They did what they
were designed to do, and made a bunch of money for their respective
owners. I'm not sure I understand how you are defining "success" and
"flop" here. The Apple, additionally, had the exciting market-making
feature of an open bus, allowing others to make products for the
machine. This was later adopted by IBM.
I still have several of all three and at the time
I would use my
TRS-80 whenever I was programming. The others were FUN machines made
for
children while the TRS-80 was capable of
programming in BASIC, FORTRAN,
NLOS, FORTH and Assembly to name only the languages that I had enabled
on
my machine.
"Enabled?" Uh, it APPEARS that you don't understand the concept.
Languages are LOADED on a machine, they're not there waiting to be
"enabled" and then used -- other than the BASIC in ROM on several
machines, the IBM included. Any language could be implemented on either
the Apple or the Commodore, and a wide variety WERE implemented -- I'll
leave it to the outraged fans of both camps to provide a detailed
list...
AND the DOS in the TRS-80 was miles ahead of
the others and was
accessible. When IBM came out with their machine I wished they had
licensed
TRS-DOS and then developed that instead of
starting with their own. Yes
IBMs DOS went on to outstrip TRS-DOS, but just think how much faster the
development would have been if they had started with the solid base that
TRS-DOS had set down.
IBM licensed MS-DOS from Microsoft, and CP/M-86 from Digital
Research, and did NOT develop their own Operating System until OS/2,
which was essentially stillborn. And, since MS-DOS was simply an XLATed
hot copy of CP/M-80 with a couple of changes, IBM computers essentially
ran by the grace of CP/M, one way or the other. While TRS-DOS wasn't
actively bad, it was highly clumsy, and did odd things for some speed
which tied it to specific hardware altogether too tightly, such as
sticking the directory of a diskette in the middle tracks of the
diskette. That kind of kludge doesn't translate well to a move to hard
drives, and other large media. TRS-DOS also took advantage of hardware
specifics of the TRS line of computers, as I understand it, which would
have made it more difficult to port to other-company machines. Of
course, had the goal been to have TRS-DOS succeed, rather than the
TRS-80 line of computers, these issues could have been addressed.
But, when it comes to early "solid base" operating systems, nothing
beats CP/M. And, since the IBM went in what amounted to the CP/M
direction, this worked out well for them.
Today I use Linux...an offshoot of the
Apple....which is far superior to
Windows and their "pretend" DOS. But it wasn't back then.
I write this on a Linux machine, and I love the operating system.
Linux is a work-alike of UNIX, developed by Bell Labs (K&R). The Apple
OS-X is a licensed variant of UNIX. Linux is NOT an offshoot of Apple.
I also own several Macs, and I have to say that I did not find the older
Mac OS stuff to be as stable as was claimed. What I found was that Mac
owners (more often hobbyists) tended to hide the fact when their
computer crashed, whereas PC owners (more often businessmen) tended to
gripe about their computer crashing. This gave, as I see it, an
erroneous impression of much greater stability for the Mac. I think it
WAS more stable, but not by the nearly infinite margin portrayed by many
Mac enthusiasts. I liked the simplicity and intuitive nature of the
Mac. On the other hand, I detested the idea that they refused to put in
a command line interpreter because it wasn't part of "the vision."
Bugger that, I have work to do. Make it easy for me, don't force me
into your vision...
We have to look at the market and environment of
the late 70s when we
start
comparing systems. Today the market is different
and the systems are
different. We cant compare apples to oranges.
Sure we can. Most apples are red, and have a smooth, thin skin.
Oranges reflect light at a higher frequency, and have bumpier, thicker
skins.
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
6:25 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On 1 Feb 2007 at 22:47, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
I used the 7070 because that was all that was
available. Don't know the
7090. But at the time the 7070 was the best available.
IIRC, the 7090 came out about year before the 7070. 36-bit binary;
32K words standard configuration. It was the "scientific" model of
the line.
The gummint made some strange choices. The Air Force bought a bunch
of 7080's then eventually replaced them with (IIRC) S/370s running in
emulation mode. Outside of the Air Force, I don't think I ever saw
another 7080. But 7090/94s were pretty plentiful and were being used
well into the 70's.
DIdn't the IRS have a bunch 7070's?
Cheers,
Chuck
8:27 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
I used the 7070 because that was all that was
available. Don't know the
7090. But at the time the 7070 was the best available. The US gov paid
dearly for it even though it had only 9K of memory, 10 bit words and no hard
drives, just a bank of big Ampex tape drives.
For the record, the 7070 was a solid state machine, as were all the
7000 series processors. Perhaps you were using an older 700 series
machine? They were tube based.
When it shut down it took 2
days to get all the blown tubes replaced so it was back up again.
During the first six months or so, yes, probably, but if tubes kept
going bad like this past this point, something was seriously wrong
with the machine.
Once a tube machine was installed and all the weak tubes weeded out -
generally it took about six months - reliability shot straight up.
Often a tube machine was scrapped with many of the tubes original to
the installation. Remember, these were well made tubes, low power, and
not pushed to their limits.
--
Will
9:41 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
No, it was a 7070, "IBM seven oh seventy", and it used hundreds if not
thousands of 12au7s or 12ax7s don't remember which it was. And it was
definitely NOT solid state. The first solid state addition to it was a
memory matrix unit that used germanium or silicon junctions in a plane of
12x12 giving 144 bits of permanent memory sitting behind a plastic window so
we could look at it and marvel at the wonders of science ( I dont think it
was really permanent memory as I seem to remember it required a voltage
input to keep it from fading) . It was a frame about 12 inches square and
looked like a course window screen with small dots of junction at every
intersection of the wires. I remember the questions like "I wonder if I
stuck a screw driver in there and twisted it around will the computer
scream?" All in jest of course.
Maybe IBM used some numbers over? But I am absolutely sure of the number
because we called it by that name when referring to it. This was in 1959
and 1960
On 2/2/07, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
I used the 7070 because that was all that was
available. Don't know the
7090. But at the time the 7070 was the best available. The US gov paid
dearly for it even though it had only 9K of memory, 10 bit words and no
hard
drives, just a bank of big Ampex tape drives.
For the record, the 7070 was a solid state machine, as were all the
7000 series processors. Perhaps you were using an older 700 series
machine? They were tube based.
When it shut down it took 2
days to get all the blown tubes replaced so it was back up again.
During the first six months or so, yes, probably, but if tubes kept
going bad like this past this point, something was seriously wrong
with the machine.
Once a tube machine was installed and all the weak tubes weeded out -
generally it took about six months - reliability shot straight up.
Often a tube machine was scrapped with many of the tubes original to
the installation. Remember, these were well made tubes, low power, and
not pushed to their limits.
--
Will
10:15 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
No, it was a 7070, "IBM seven oh seventy",
and it used hundreds if not
thousands of 12au7s or 12ax7s don't remember which it was. And it was
definitely NOT solid state.
I do not know if IBM made a 707, but I would bet that would be it.
The 7070s were made from solid state modules, probably using the SMS
packaging system.
Maybe IBM used some numbers over? But I am absolutely
sure of the number
because we called it by that name when referring to it.
Very rarely, and when it is done, the two instances are completely
different, like a modern RAID box and a paper tape reader.
--
Will
10:41 p.m.
New subject: IBM 7070 Was: (TRS-80 Model 1 was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On Friday 02 February 2007 14:15, William Donzelli wrote:
I was an IBM Field Engineer on the IBM 7090 and checked out a 7070 while at
IBM Poughkeepsie in 1962. It was all transistor, as was the 7090.
Last big IBM tube machines were the IBM 704 and 709.
No, it was a
7070, "IBM seven oh seventy", and it used hundreds if not
thousands of 12au7s or 12ax7s don't remember which it was. And it was
definitely NOT solid state.
I do not know if IBM made a 707, but I would bet that would be it. The 7070s were made from solid state modules, probably
using the SMS
packaging system.
Here's three IBM archive pictures/statments on the IBM 7070:
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/endicott/endicott_chronology1950…
(announcement September,1958)
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV2070.html
(all transistor)
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/italy/italy_ch2.html
(see 1960/61)
> Maybe IBM used some numbers over? But I am
absolutely sure of the number
> because we called it by that name when referring to it.
The IBM 77 was a colator, no 707 was produced.
Cheers,
Lyle
--
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
Mountain View, CA
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
10:34 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On 2 Feb 2007 at 15:41, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
No, it was a 7070, "IBM seven oh seventy",
and it used hundreds if not
thousands of 12au7s or 12ax7s don't remember which it was. And it was
definitely NOT solid state.
Jim, are you sure you're not thinking of the 650? The 7090 was
definitely all solid-state, as was the 7080. The most detailed web
account of the 7070 I can find here indicates that the machine was
built up of SMS modules (like the 7090):
http://www.multicians.org/thvv/7070.html
Cheers,
Chuck
3 Feb
3 Feb
10:21 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 22:47 -0600, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
I used the 7070 because that was all that was
available. Don't know the
7090. But at the time the 7070 was the best available. The US gov paid
dearly for it even though it had only 9K of memory, 10 bit words and no hard
drives, just a bank of big Ampex tape drives. When it shut down it took 2
days to get all the blown tubes replaced so it was back up again.
If it used tubes, then it was NOT a 7070. Period. You claim to be
"absolutely sure" that it was a 7070. If it was, it had no tubes. You
also claim to have been using the computer in 1959 and 1960. The 7070
was first released in June of 1960, so you clearly were NOT using a 7070
in 1959, and the first half of 1960. You certainly have SOMETHING wrong
here, absolute surety aside.
As to enabling the computer, I think loading a program
is enabling...don't
you?
I would also consider it pleasing to load a program into a computer.
Nonetheless, I doubt I would refer to a program load as "pleasing the
computer."
Please don't talk down to me. I think I have been
around computers as long
as you and I don't like your condescending tone..
Despite claims to the contrary, it's quite difficult to see "tone"
in written words. Sometimes, text is phrased in such a way as to be
highly suggestive of a certain tone, but if one believes that "tone" to
be indicative, one is acting upon an assumption from complete data, and
has a decent chance of assuming incorrectly.
What I wrote certainly was not WRITTEN condescendingly. Perhaps you
view yourself as such an authority that any attempt to correct you is
seen as a de facto insult? Your 7070 gaffe, coupled with statements
that the Apple ][ and Commodore 64 were flops, and that Linux came from
Apple, your proposal of the false dichotomy of fun computers versus
machines which could run various programming languages, and your
statement about the TRS-80 having the primary foundation of computer
code, when it was, among other things, based upon a second-generation
computer chip (and ignoring the MASSIVE software base that had been
written for the CP/M environment) could easily lead someone to believe
that you know very little about the computer field. I know it guided me
to that conclusion, although the 7070 information came later.
At the risk of stating the obvious, it seems to me that the easiest
way to avoid correction is to avoid saying incorrect things.
Personally, I don't mind being corrected, at least when I'm wrong, so
it's not an issue for me. I view a venue such as this one as a great
place to learn things. For me, learning things involves, from time to
time, putting out my view of things, and seeing who salutes it, and who
shoots at it. I can then compare what others are saying, and generally
expand my knowledge. Sometimes, I will even change an opinion, based
upon things others have said or quoted. I do that when I feel my
previous opinions have been wrong. Again, personally, I find being able
to improve my world view to be highly gratifying. YMMV.
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
4 Feb
4 Feb
3:09 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
Well, I wont argue the matter of condescending tone. Its obvious to anyone
who reads it.
But as to the 7070, You may be wrong for many reasons....assuming that you
are wrong....I sincerely hope you are not as it would be very painful for
you.
You see the 7070 that I worked on was purchased by the US government for a
very Top Secret installation so it may have been in use before the public
had access to it. Which, by the way, may also be why it was NOT solid
state, it was an early model ?? The rest of your post isn't worth my
responding to.
Again, I hope you are not wrong as I am afraid it would be very difficult
for you to accept and I would only want "Peace" for you.
On 2/3/07, Warren Wolfe <wizard at voyager.net> wrote:
If it used tubes, then it was NOT a 7070. Period. You claim to be
"absolutely sure" that it was a 7070. If it was, it had no tubes. You
also claim to have been using the computer in 1959 and 1960. The 7070
was first released in June of 1960, so you clearly were NOT using a 7070
in 1959, and the first half of 1960. You certainly have SOMETHING wrong
here, absolute surety aside.
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
As to enabling the computer, I think loading a
program is
enabling...don't
you?
I would also consider it pleasing to load a program into a computer.
Nonetheless, I doubt I would refer to a program load as "pleasing the
computer."
Please don't talk down to me. I think I have
been around computers as
long
as you and I don't like your condescending
tone..
Despite claims to the contrary, it's quite difficult to see "tone"
in written words. Sometimes, text is phrased in such a way as to be
highly suggestive of a certain tone, but if one believes that "tone" to
be indicative, one is acting upon an assumption from complete data, and
has a decent chance of assuming incorrectly.
What I wrote certainly was not WRITTEN condescendingly. Perhaps you
view yourself as such an authority that any attempt to correct you is
seen as a de facto insult? Your 7070 gaffe, coupled with statements
that the Apple ][ and Commodore 64 were flops, and that Linux came from
Apple, your proposal of the false dichotomy of fun computers versus
machines which could run various programming languages, and your
statement about the TRS-80 having the primary foundation of computer
code, when it was, among other things, based upon a second-generation
computer chip (and ignoring the MASSIVE software base that had been
written for the CP/M environment) could easily lead someone to believe
that you know very little about the computer field. I know it guided me
to that conclusion, although the 7070 information came later.
At the risk of stating the obvious, it seems to me that the easiest
way to avoid correction is to avoid saying incorrect things.
Personally, I don't mind being corrected, at least when I'm wrong, so
it's not an issue for me. I view a venue such as this one as a great
place to learn things. For me, learning things involves, from time to
time, putting out my view of things, and seeing who salutes it, and who
shoots at it. I can then compare what others are saying, and generally
expand my knowledge. Sometimes, I will even change an opinion, based
upon things others have said or quoted. I do that when I feel my
previous opinions have been wrong. Again, personally, I find being able
to improve my world view to be highly gratifying. YMMV.
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
3:55 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
You see the 7070 that I worked on was purchased by the
US government for a
very Top Secret installation so it may have been in use before the public
had access to it. Which, by the way, may also be why it was NOT solid
state, it was an early model ??
I can not imagine IBM making a tube version of the 7070, with no
history on it. That project would have been something as big as the
AN/FSQ-7. The 7070 was a pretty good sized machine.
So now you have a bunch of us wondering what machine you used. I still
doubt it was a 7070 if it had tubes. I bet it was a 700 series machine
of some sort. It could have been a 707 - IBM often gave oddball type
numbers out to semicustom or custom (AKA RPQ) machines. Have you
glanced at the IBM history pages? They have a gallery of most of their
major machines - perhaps you can spot it.
--
Will
4:33 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
About all I can remember on its physical image (and even this may be flawed)
was that the window behind which the "solid state memory" resided was on the
lower right perhaps in the last rack to the right. I vaguely remember that
there were at least 3 and possibly many many more racks. There were also at
least four full sized racks that contained Ampex tape decks that were very
finicky and often had to be restarted after they would loose their tension.
There were miles and miles of wiring under the floor of the room. There was
also a punched card reader added toward the end of my tenure with the
machine that greatly improved the programming ease
However, I would think that it is unlikely I would have forgotten the
phrase, "seven oh seventy" Its a catchy phrase and has stuck with me for
almost fifty years. We didn't call it the "seventy seventy" or any other
sequence of words, just the "Seven Oh Seventy". However, what it looked
like has pretty much been erased and blended with the many other computers
of similar size that I worked on.
I do remember back in the early ninety's seeing a book on Cold War espionage
that had an article on it and referenced several aspects of it that I
remembered at the time.
Yes it was a BIG machine by todays standards and we had 30 tons of air
conditioning to keep the room cool because of all the tubes. If it had been
solid state, all that air conditioning would not have been needed.
On 2/3/07, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
You see the 7070 that I worked on was purchased
by the US government for
a
very Top Secret installation so it may have been
in use before the
public
had access to it. Which, by the way, may also be
why it was NOT solid
state, it was an early model ??
I can not imagine IBM making a tube version of the 7070, with no
history on it. That project would have been something as big as the
AN/FSQ-7. The 7070 was a pretty good sized machine.
So now you have a bunch of us wondering what machine you used. I still
doubt it was a 7070 if it had tubes. I bet it was a 700 series machine
of some sort. It could have been a 707 - IBM often gave oddball type
numbers out to semicustom or custom (AKA RPQ) machines. Have you
glanced at the IBM history pages? They have a gallery of most of their
major machines - perhaps you can spot it.
--
Will
2:59 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
However, I would think that it is unlikely I would
have forgotten the
phrase, "seven oh seventy" Its a catchy phrase and has stuck with me for
almost fifty years. We didn't call it the "seventy seventy" or any other
sequence of words, just the "Seven Oh Seventy". However, what it looked
like has pretty much been erased and blended with the many other computers
of similar size that I worked on.
You remembering the "seven oh seventy" phrase may have been distorted.
This is a common thing for details nearly fifty years old, and just
about all of us will or have fallen to an example or two.
I work with a number of older ships being restored, and we run into
this all the time. Some vets, as good natured and honest as they come,
will insist that something was done or installed a certain way, yet
the ships will have undeniable proof (often photographic or
documented) that it was done another way. Often these are details that
the sailor dealt with for a couple of years on a daily basis. Nobody
is at fault, really, just memory fades, and often we do not realize it
until questioned.
--
Will
3:08 p.m.
New subject: Anyone collect Compugraphic equipment?
I'm looking for anyone who collects CompuGraphic equipment. My
grandfather used to run a Microfilm and Graphics shop and he had a
CompuGraphic 7770 system, thing was MASSIVE, it was a furniture-computer
(built run into the whole desk) and it was really one of my inspirations
for getting into computers when I was a kid. I'm looking for anyone
with photo's of systems (especially the 7770) and any brochures or other
materials that they could send me scans of, thanks.
Curt
4:57 p.m.
New subject: Anyone collect Compugraphic equipment?
On 4 Feb 2007 at 10:08, Curt - Atari Museum wrote:
I'm looking for anyone who collects CompuGraphic
equipment. My
grandfather used to run a Microfilm and Graphics shop and he had a
CompuGraphic 7770 system, thing was MASSIVE, it was a furniture-computer
(built run into the whole desk) and it was really one of my inspirations
for getting into computers when I was a kid. I'm looking for anyone
with photo's of systems (especially the 7770) and any brochures or other
materials that they could send me scans of, thanks.
I've got a 5.25" factory-labeled Compugraphic diskette in the
collection here (offhand, I don't recall the model number). And
don't forget the Varityper--another large system of about the same
time. About the size of a chest freezer. Hard-sector 8" diskettes
and software called CompSet, IIRC.
I used to be fascinated by the old Linotype hot-metal machines
myself. ETAOIN SHRDLU.
Cheers,
Chuck
9:36 p.m.
New subject: Anyone collect Compugraphic equipment?
In article <45C5F6FF.2050105 at atarimuseum.com>,
Curt - Atari Museum <curt at atarimuseum.com> writes:
I'm looking for anyone who collects CompuGraphic
equipment.
I think I've seen a complete compugraphic console for sale on ebay.
I don't seem to be able to find it now, though.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
10:14 p.m.
New subject: Anyone collect Compugraphic equipment?
On 4 Feb 2007 at 14:36, Richard wrote:
I think I've seen a complete compugraphic console
for sale on ebay.
I don't seem to be able to find it now, though.
This one? Probably still available.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270076330824
Cheers,
Chuck
10:24 p.m.
New subject: Anyone collect Compugraphic equipment?
In article <45C5EA28.13945.4D7A3B0 at cclist.sydex.com>,
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
On 4 Feb 2007 at 14:36, Richard wrote:
No, I think it was being offered by "computermkt".
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
I think I've seen a complete compugraphic
console for sale on ebay.
I don't seem to be able to find it now, though.
This one? Probably still available.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270076330824 
11:57 p.m.
New subject: Anyone collect Compugraphic equipment?
Try this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=20007236785…
It's been up there a few times. I've emailed the seller about it a few
times, but it's just too expensive to ship for me.
It's pick-up only and is not strapped to a pallet. I believe he will
take quite a bit less than the buy-it-now price.
Bob
Richard wrote:
In article <45C5EA28.13945.4D7A3B0 at
cclist.sydex.com>,
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
On 4 Feb 2007 at 14:36, Richard wrote:
No, I think it was being offered by "computermkt".
I think I've seen a complete compugraphic
console for sale on ebay.
I don't seem to be able to find it now, though.
This one? Probably still available.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270076330824
5 Feb
5 Feb
12:29 a.m.
New subject: Anyone collect Compugraphic equipment?
Whole %&*^ !!! That's right in my backyard (so to speak, I will
contact the seller and see what could be arranged, BTW if anyone is
looking to get something form that seller and needs assistance, I would
be happy to pick stuff up, pallete it and drop it off at Forward Air in
Newburgh, NY to ship to your local airport hub and you can pick up from
there, a lot cheaper then North American and other movers.
Curt
Bob Rosenbloom wrote:
Try this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=20007236785…
It's been up there a few times. I've emailed the seller about it a few
times, but it's just too expensive to ship for me.
It's pick-up only and is not strapped to a pallet. I believe he will
take quite a bit less than the buy-it-now price.
Bob
Richard wrote:
In article <45C5EA28.13945.4D7A3B0 at
cclist.sydex.com>,
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
On 4 Feb 2007 at 14:36, Richard wrote:
No, I think it was being offered by "computermkt".
I think I've seen a complete compugraphic
console for sale on ebay.
I don't seem to be able to find it now, though.
This one? Probably still available.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270076330824
1:03 a.m.
New subject: Anyone collect Compugraphic equipment?
Curt @ Atari Museum wrote:
Whole %&*^ !!! That's right in my backyard
(so to speak, I will
contact the seller and see what could be arranged, BTW if anyone is
looking to get something form that seller and needs assistance, I would
be happy to pick stuff up, pallete it and drop it off at Forward Air in
Newburgh, NY to ship to your local airport hub and you can pick up from
there, a lot cheaper then North American and other movers.
I thought East Aurora was up by Buffalo?
Peace... Sridhar
1:18 a.m.
New subject: Anyone collect Compugraphic equipment?
Ugggh, yeah I checked the distance with Mapquest, thats a nice little
ride... Not much worse then going up to NH which I'm doing shortly to
photo some equipment with a friend, but still that's a bit of a ride too :-)
Curt
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Curt @ Atari Museum wrote:
Whole %&*^ !!! That's right in my
backyard (so to speak, I will
contact the seller and see what could be arranged, BTW if anyone is
looking to get something form that seller and needs assistance, I
would be happy to pick stuff up, pallete it and drop it off at
Forward Air in Newburgh, NY to ship to your local airport hub and you
can pick up from there, a lot cheaper then North American and other
movers.
I thought East Aurora was up by Buffalo?
Peace... Sridhar
4:57 p.m.
New subject: Anyone collect Compugraphic equipment?
In article <45C672DC.2000209 at sbcglobal.net>,
Bob Rosenbloom <bobalan at sbcglobal.net> writes:
me=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=010
Yep, that's the one.
It's pick-up only and is not strapped to a pallet.
I believe he will
take quite a bit less than the buy-it-now price.
Every time I've made an offer on stuff that he keeps relisting but
doesn't sell, its always automatically rejected. Maybe I'm just not
enough of a sucker.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
4 Feb
4 Feb
3:26 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
I would agree except that I would have been given notice of that 15 years
ago when I read the article on the machine...I would think...
On 2/4/07, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
However, I would think that it is unlikely I
would have forgotten the
phrase, "seven oh seventy" Its a catchy phrase and has stuck with me
for
almost fifty years. We didn't call it the
"seventy seventy" or any
other
sequence of words, just the "Seven Oh
Seventy". However, what it looked
like has pretty much been erased and blended with the many other
computers
of similar size that I worked on.
You remembering the "seven oh seventy" phrase may have been distorted.
This is a common thing for details nearly fifty years old, and just
about all of us will or have fallen to an example or two.
I work with a number of older ships being restored, and we run into
this all the time. Some vets, as good natured and honest as they come,
will insist that something was done or installed a certain way, yet
the ships will have undeniable proof (often photographic or
documented) that it was done another way. Often these are details that
the sailor dealt with for a couple of years on a daily basis. Nobody
is at fault, really, just memory fades, and often we do not realize it
until questioned.
--
Will
3:32 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
Another thought...Since this was, at the time, the only one and apparently
in use BEFORE the public had access to the model, that it was an earlier
model that had been upgraded to the performance specs of the 7070 for the
government in advance of the 7070s being released as a solid state machine
and so therefore we referred to it as a 7070?? It was my understanding at
the time that ours was the only one in existence and then later we heard
that others had been built.
On 2/4/07, Jim Isbell, W5JAI <jim.isbell at gmail.com> wrote:
I would agree except that I would have been given notice of that 15 years
ago when I read the article on the machine...I would think...
On 2/4/07, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
However, I would think that it is unlikely I
would have forgotten the
phrase, "seven oh seventy" Its a catchy phrase and has stuck with me
for
almost fifty years. We didn't call it the
"seventy seventy" or any
other
sequence of words, just the "Seven Oh
Seventy". However, what it
looked
like has pretty much been erased and blended with
the many other
computers
of similar size that I worked on.
You remembering the "seven oh seventy" phrase may have been distorted.
This is a common thing for details nearly fifty years old, and just
about all of us will or have fallen to an example or two.
I work with a number of older ships being restored, and we run into
this all the time. Some vets, as good natured and honest as they come,
will insist that something was done or installed a certain way, yet
the ships will have undeniable proof (often photographic or
documented) that it was done another way. Often these are details that
the sailor dealt with for a couple of years on a daily basis. Nobody
is at fault, really, just memory fades, and often we do not realize it
until questioned.
--
Will
5:32 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On 4 Feb 2007 at 9:32, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
Another thought...Since this was, at the time, the
only one and apparently
in use BEFORE the public had access to the model, that it was an earlier
model that had been upgraded to the performance specs of the 7070 for the
government in advance of the 7070s being released as a solid state machine
and so therefore we referred to it as a 7070?? It was my understanding at
the time that ours was the only one in existence and then later we heard
that others had been built.
Another possiblity--the Ampex tape drives wouldn't have been standard
at the time; it would have been IBM 729's. Could this have been a
7070 hybrid setup of some sort with non-IBM peripherals perhaps using
tubes?
I'm just tossing something out that may help to explain things...
Cheers,
Chuck
5:52 p.m.
New subject: Ampex Timeline
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:32:29 -0800, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Another possiblity--the Ampex tape drives wouldn't
have been standard
at the time; it would have been IBM 729's.
Although there is little online about the earlt Ampex drives because they were goverment
only.
The following id from the Ampex timeline:
1950 Ampex introduces the first "dedicated" instrumentation recorder, Model
500, built for the U.S. Navy.
1954 Ampex introduces the first multi-track audio recorder derived from multi-track data
recording
technology.
Some food for thought ...
Bob
5:53 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
Another possiblity--the Ampex tape drives wouldn't
have been standard
at the time; it would have been IBM 729's. Could this have been a
7070 hybrid setup of some sort with non-IBM peripherals perhaps using
tubes?
Perhaps the Ampex drives were analog for telemetry? They were HUGE in
that market in the 1960s.
--
Will
6:14 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On 4 Feb 2007 at 12:53, William Donzelli wrote:
Perhaps the Ampex drives were analog for telemetry?
They were HUGE in
that market in the 1960s.
That was my thought also. Tubes at that time would have been the
proven technology.
Cheers,
Chuck
8:53 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates Center, KS)
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 4 Feb 2007 at 9:32, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
Given Ampex tape drives, has the "7070" number lead to the presumption in the
discussion that it was an IBM processor?. Might it be that it was made by
another manufacturer, and a one-off/special contract that wouldn't typically
show up in popular lineages?
Another thought...Since this was, at the time,
the only one and apparently
in use BEFORE the public had access to the model, that it was an earlier
model that had been upgraded to the performance specs of the 7070 for the
government in advance of the 7070s being released as a solid state machine
and so therefore we referred to it as a 7070?? It was my understanding at
the time that ours was the only one in existence and then later we heard
that others had been built.
Another possiblity--the Ampex tape drives wouldn't have been standard
at the time; it would have been IBM 729's. Could this have been a
7070 hybrid setup of some sort with non-IBM peripherals perhaps using
tubes?
9:39 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates Center, KS)
On 4 Feb 2007 at 12:53, Brent Hilpert wrote:
Given Ampex tape drives, has the "7070"
number lead to the presumption in the
discussion that it was an IBM processor?. Might it be that it was made by
another manufacturer, and a one-off/special contract that wouldn't typically
show up in popular lineages?
Maybe someone still has the original message that started this
thread, but I seem to remember that there was something in it that
at least confirmed the 7070 architecture. I think it was the mention
of 5K words of core being standard.
Cheers,
Chuck
10:22 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates Center, KS)
In my original post I did not mention that, but as I recall there was 9K of
volatile memory (tubes) and later we added 144 BYTES of core memory. To
begin with when we had no non-volitile memory the programs were typed on a
teletype tape and loaded when needed from a paper tape reader following a
boot tape. A boot progam was added when we got the 144 bytes of core. That
was the main use of the core to store a boot program. At one time they
tried a Drum "hard drive" but it was very unreliable. The whole process
was very slow sometimes taking a couple of hours to get it booted and
programs loaded due to the unreliability of the tape reader which was very
finicky about the tape speed and the speed was governed by how fast you
pulled the tape through! Yes, by hand, no motorized tape reader. Once
booted and a program loaded you could then store and retrieve data from the
Ampex drives but could not store programs or retrieve them from tape. I
don't know why because it would seem a natural way to do it...in hindsight.
Yes it was an IBM
On 2/4/07, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 4 Feb 2007 at 12:53, Brent Hilpert wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
Given Ampex tape drives, has the "7070"
number lead to the presumption
in the
discussion that it was an IBM processor?. Might
it be that it was made
by
another manufacturer, and a one-off/special
contract that wouldn't
typically
show up in popular lineages?
Maybe someone still has the original message that started this
thread, but I seem to remember that there was something in it that
at least confirmed the 7070 architecture. I think it was the mention
of 5K words of core being standard.
Cheers,
Chuck
10:26 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates Center, KS)
On 4 Feb 2007 at 12:53, Brent Hilpert wrote:
Given Ampex tape drives, has the "7070"
number lead to the presumption in the
discussion that it was an IBM processor?. Might it be that it was made by
another manufacturer, and a one-off/special contract that wouldn't typically
show up in popular lineages?
I suspect that the 7070 in question probably was at NASA Langley and
fed by Ampex (possibly FR 300 or FR 1400) telemetry tape machines,
probably from the Minitrack satellite telemetry tracking system. The
FR 300 was a very popular 7 track unit--I believe that early CDC
systems (e.g. 160) even used them.
Just more guesswork here.
Cheers,
Chuck
11:23 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates Center, KS)
Not at Langly
On 2/4/07, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 4 Feb 2007 at 12:53, Brent Hilpert wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
Given Ampex tape drives, has the "7070"
number lead to the presumption
in the
discussion that it was an IBM processor?. Might
it be that it was made
by
another manufacturer, and a one-off/special
contract that wouldn't
typically
show up in popular lineages?
I suspect that the 7070 in question probably was at NASA Langley and
fed by Ampex (possibly FR 300 or FR 1400) telemetry tape machines,
probably from the Minitrack satellite telemetry tracking system. The
FR 300 was a very popular 7 track unit--I believe that early CDC
systems (e.g. 160) even used them.
Just more guesswork here.
Cheers,
Chuck
5 Feb
5 Feb
1:02 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates Center, KS)
On 4 Feb 2007 at 17:23, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
Not at Langly
While I did some prowling around Area B at WPAFB during the 70's, all
I ever saw of that ilk was IBM 7080s (used by AFLC).
Cheers,
Chuck
4 Feb
4 Feb
10:03 p.m.
New subject: IBM history (was: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS))
In article <e1d20d630702031955v1a9039d6hb63786d686fd23b7 at mail.gmail.com>,
"William Donzelli" <wdonzelli at gmail.com> writes:
I can not imagine IBM making a tube version of the
7070, with no
history on it. That project would have been something as big as the
AN/FSQ-7. The 7070 was a pretty good sized machine.
Speaking of IBM history, I wanted to enquire with them on some aspects
of SAGE, but I couldn't find any contact point on their web site
despite the large history section they have on their web site.
Has anyone attempted to contact IBM historians?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
5:11 p.m.
New subject: The IBM Tree and Tube computers
The 701(1952) -> 702 (1953) -> 705-1 (1954) -> 705-II(1957) and ending with the
transistorized 1401
(1959)
and 701 (1952) -> SAGE, NORC, 704(1954) -> 709(1957) and ending with the
transistorized 7090
(1959)
and 701 (1952) -> 650(1953) and ending with the transistorized 7070(1958)
with the 305-RAMAC(1956) appearing by magic during the time between the 650(1953) and
second
generation 705 (1957). I think the computer in question was a tube computer produced in
the gap
between the first 705(1954) and the later release in 1957 a period in time where Core
memory
development was in full swing.
We were deep in the cold war at the time and a lot of mis-direction was being employed, I
have always
thought there was a tube based system that evolved between the 650 and the transistorized
7070.
It would not shock me in the least if this missing TUBE system was not refered to as a
7070 by its
users, as one of those little cold war mis-directions Cuz-Ike's boys were so fond of,
long before the
"Real" 7070 was released in its transistorized form.
The 305 RAMAC in 1956 and along with the 705 and 709 in 1957 the 305 is considered to be
the last
tube computers produced.
So when On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:09:10 -0600, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
You see the 7070 that I worked on was purchased by the
US government for a
very Top Secret installation so it may have been in use before the public
had access to it. Which, by the way, may also be why it was NOT solid
state, it was an early model ??
And questions started to roll around in my head so I looked back....
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:41:07 -0600, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
No, it was a 7070, "IBM seven oh seventy",
and it used hundreds if not
thousands of 12au7s or 12ax7s don't remember which it was. And it was
definitely NOT solid state. The first solid state addition to it was a
memory matrix unit that used germanium or silicon junctions in a plane of
12x12 giving 144 bits of permanent memory sitting behind a plastic window so
we could look at it and marvel at the wonders of science ( I dont think it
was really permanent memory as I seem to remember it required a voltage
input to keep it from fading) . It was a frame about 12 inches square and
looked like a course window screen with small dots of junction at every
intersection of the wires.
Until we can better identify this mystery system I will call it an 707x and assume it is
the
missing IBM model 707 from sometime between the 705(1954) and the 709(1957) most likely
about the
time of the 305(1956).
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:41:07 -0600, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
This was in 1959 and 1960
My first question is:
Was 1959/1960 when it was installed or when you worked on it ?
My second question is: Were the tubes in 10 pin "Fingers" like the 650 or in 8
tube plugins like the 705
And my last questions relate to who, what and where, these questions can be answered of
list, if you
do not wish to shout it out here in an open forum :-) I understand that much if not most
of what we
could not talk about in the 60's is public knowledge but that does not keep one from
thinking twice even
today.
Got to run ...
Bob Bradlee
5:21 p.m.
New subject: The IBM Tree and Tube computers
Sorry somehow the opening paragraph to this got lost at sea :-(
Well you get the idea, of where I was going even with the rough intro......
Sorry
Bob
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:11:19 -0500, Bob Bradlee wrote:
The 701(1952) -> 702 (1953) -> 705-1 (1954) ->
705-II(1957) and ending with the transistorized 1401
(1959)
and 701 (1952) -> SAGE, NORC, 704(1954) -> 709(1957) and ending with the
transistorized 7090
(1959)
and 701 (1952) -> 650(1953) and ending with the transistorized 7070(1958)
with the 305-RAMAC(1956) appearing by magic during the time between the 650(1953) and
second
generation 705 (1957). I think the computer in question was a tube computer produced in
the gap
between the first 705(1954) and the later release in 1957 a period in time where Core
memory
development was in full swing.
We were deep in the cold war at the time and a lot of
mis-direction was being employed, I have always
thought there was a tube based system that evolved between the 650 and the transistorized
7070.
It would not shock me in the least if this missing TUBE
system was not refered to as a 7070 by its
users, as one of those little cold war mis-directions Cuz-Ike's boys were so fond of,
long before the
"Real" 7070 was released in its transistorized form.
The 305 RAMAC in 1956 and along with the 705 and 709 in
1957 the 305 is considered to be the last
tube computers produced.
So when On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:09:10 -0600, Jim Isbell,
W5JAI wrote:
>You see the 7070 that I worked on was purchased by
the US government for a
>very Top Secret installation so it may have been in use before the public
>had access to it. Which, by the way, may also be why it was NOT solid
>state, it was an early model ??
And questions started to roll around in my head so I
looked back....
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:41:07 -0600, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
>No, it was a 7070, "IBM seven oh
seventy", and it used hundreds if not
>thousands of 12au7s or 12ax7s don't remember which it was. And it was
>definitely NOT solid state. The first solid state addition to it was a
>memory matrix unit that used germanium or silicon junctions in a plane of
>12x12 giving 144 bits of permanent memory sitting behind a plastic window so
>we could look at it and marvel at the wonders of science ( I dont think it
>was really permanent memory as I seem to remember it required a voltage
>input to keep it from fading) . It was a frame about 12 inches square and
>looked like a course window screen with small dots of junction at every
>intersection of the wires.
Until we can better identify this mystery system I will
call it an 707x and assume it is the
missing IBM model 707 from sometime between the 705(1954) and the 709(1957) most likely
about the
time of the 305(1956).
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:41:07 -0600, Jim Isbell, W5JAI
wrote:
>This was in 1959 and 1960
My first question is:
Was 1959/1960 when it was installed or when you worked on it ?
My second question is: Were the tubes in 10 pin
"Fingers" like the 650 or in 8 tube plugins like the 705
And my last questions relate to who, what and where,
these questions can be answered of list, if you
do not wish to shout it out here in an open forum :-) I understand that much if not most
of what we
could not talk about in the 60's is public knowledge but that does not keep one from
thinking twice even
today.
Got to run ...
Bob Bradlee
5:31 p.m.
New subject: The IBM Tree and Tube computers
We were deep in the cold war at the time and a lot of
mis-direction was being employed, I have always
thought there was a tube based system that evolved between the 650 and the transistorized
7070.
That was the 785 - a machine only on paper (it never got so far as to
get any circuitry). It turned into the 7070.
--
Will
5:43 p.m.
New subject: The IBM Tree and Tube computers
And my last questions relate to who, what and where,
these questions can be answered of list, if you
do not wish to shout it out here in an open forum :-) I understand that much if not most
of what we
could not talk about in the 60's is public knowledge but that does not keep one from
thinking twice even
today.
Most all technology from the 1960s is declassified to some point, if
not entirely. Even a lot of the crypto systems have been declassified
enough that something better than vague details are free. Not enough
that you can get a tech manual or detailed specs, but enough that
people can talk about general operation and such.
Even SAGE was declassified quite quickly, probably on the standard
declassification shedule at the time (every seven years, I think).
Was the project/machine top secret in the official sense - at the
official Top Secret level? Or was it something else? There is a big
difference. Most people do not know the meaning of Top Secret (and it
does have an official definition), and use it freely, when other
classifications are more proper, like Secret, Classified, or
Restricted.
Back in the Cold War, nearly every developement project was Secret or
Top Secret, by the way. Even some really dumb ones.
--
Will
8:52 p.m.
New subject: The IBM Tree and Tube computers
"William Donzelli" <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
Back in the Cold War, nearly every developement
project was Secret or
Top Secret, by the way. Even some really dumb ones.
The dumb ones stay secret, because nobody wants the newspapers to find
out we were wasting so much money on them :-).
Tim.
10:26 p.m.
New subject: The IBM Tree and Tube computers
The one I was on may have saved our collective butts on several occasions.
On 2/4/07, Tim Shoppa <shoppa_classiccmp at trailing-edge.com> wrote:
"William Donzelli" <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
Back in the Cold War, nearly every developement
project was Secret or
Top Secret, by the way. Even some really dumb ones.
The dumb ones stay secret, because nobody wants the newspapers to find
out we were wasting so much money on them :-).
Tim.
11:02 p.m.
New subject: The IBM Tree and Tube computers
The one I was on may have saved our collective butts
on several occasions.
Just tell us the name of the program or project, and that could help
us a lot. If it was mentioned in a magazine (even one with classified
distribution), it CAN'T be that classified!
Dimes to donuts that the project has in part been declassified. Even
the most secret projects from the 1960s are at least partially
declassified now - even the nuke and crypto stuff. Look at all the
info on this stuff on the net, wiki, NSA museum or even the History
Channel now. If these were such black projects on par with what you
were involved with, these information sources would not exist.
--
Will
5 Feb
5 Feb
12:23 a.m.
New subject: The IBM Tree and Tube computers
I can say, it was USAF Special Weapons but cant say further. It wasn't
mentioned in a magazine, it was in a book but the program was not revealed,
just that the computer was used and that it was Cold War espionage. I knew
what it was about because I had information not in the article. No one else
would have known unless they were part of the project. I assume its been
declassified but I have never seen anything about it in print or on the news
so maybe it hasn't been. Personally I prefer Corpus Christi, Texas to
Leavenworth, Kansas...especially at this time of the year.
On 2/4/07, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
The one I was on may have saved our collective
butts on several
occasions.
Just tell us the name of the program or project, and that could help
us a lot. If it was mentioned in a magazine (even one with classified
distribution), it CAN'T be that classified!
Dimes to donuts that the project has in part been declassified. Even
the most secret projects from the 1960s are at least partially
declassified now - even the nuke and crypto stuff. Look at all the
info on this stuff on the net, wiki, NSA museum or even the History
Channel now. If these were such black projects on par with what you
were involved with, these information sources would not exist.
--
Will
12:46 a.m.
New subject: The IBM Tree and Tube computers
On 5/2/07 00:23, "Jim Isbell, W5JAI" <jim.isbell at gmail.com> wrote:
I can say, it was USAF Special Weapons but cant say
further. It wasn't
mentioned in a magazine, it was in a book but the program was not revealed,
just that the computer was used and that it was Cold War espionage. I knew
what it was about because I had information not in the article. No one else
would have known unless they were part of the project. I assume its been
declassified but I have never seen anything about it in print or on the news
so maybe it hasn't been. Personally I prefer Corpus Christi, Texas to
Leavenworth, Kansas...especially at this time of the year.
Hasn't all the good stuff been declassified by now? I know that the codes
for launching the Bad Stuff in the cold war were never set by anyone so the
launch code for a nuke was 0000 if punched into the right device; this info
is live and direct from the web so it MUST be true :)
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?
2:18 a.m.
New subject: The IBM Tree and Tube computers
At this point in my life I guess I shouldn't worry about it, but after
almost 30 years with a clearance the reaction is embedded in the base of the
skull and you find it very difficult to go against it, like convincing
yourself to inhale when you are underwater with no SCUBA gear. You just
don't talk.
As to the Computers name, I have been thinking about this and this is what I
think.
Its true that I am 70 so my memory COULD be faulty....except that when you
are 70 you DO remember the names, you may not remember the color of her hair
or what she wore beneath her blouse, but you remember her name and all her
peripherals.
On 2/4/07, Adrian Graham <witchy at binarydinosaurs.co.uk> wrote:
On 5/2/07 00:23, "Jim Isbell, W5JAI" <jim.isbell at gmail.com> wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
I can say, it was USAF Special Weapons but cant
say further. It wasn't
mentioned in a magazine, it was in a book but the program was not
revealed,
just that the computer was used and that it was
Cold War espionage. I
knew
what it was about because I had information not
in the article. No one
else
would have known unless they were part of the
project. I assume its
been
declassified but I have never seen anything about
it in print or on the
news
so maybe it hasn't been. Personally I prefer
Corpus Christi, Texas to
Leavenworth, Kansas...especially at this time of the year.
Hasn't all the good stuff been declassified by now? I know that the codes
for launching the Bad Stuff in the cold war were never set by anyone so
the
launch code for a nuke was 0000 if punched into the right device; this
info
is live and direct from the web so it MUST be true :)
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?
2 Feb
2 Feb
6:29 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
Rumor has it that Warren Wolfe may have mentioned these words:
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 13:35 -0600, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
The apple was a flop, yes. The Commodore also was a
flop.
From a purely "the company made a tidy profit" standpoint, I would have to
disagree with you. ;-)
While TRS-DOS wasn't
actively bad, it was highly clumsy, and did odd things for some speed
which tied it to specific hardware altogether too tightly,
IMHO, no more odd than most other platform-based OSs of the time...
Considering that it was originally designed for solely one rather specific
computer line, it's not surprising for it to be tied rather tightly to the
hardware.
such as
sticking the directory of a diskette in the middle tracks of the
diskette. That kind of kludge doesn't translate well to a move to hard
drives, and other large media.
Mid-drive directories/FATs/GATs a "kludge?" Ah, no... There are specific
(and very logical) reasons for that, and as long as you don't store files
larger than half of the available storage (else you'd have a guaranteed
fragmented file) what does it matter *where* you stick the directory info???
When you have a fairly full floppy, you're never more than 1/2 the disk
away from your directory info. If you put a directory structure in the
middle of a hard drive, that fact wouldn't change, would it?
Not to mention: Why doesn't *every* OS stick the system files on the *last*
tracks of the media? It would be much easier to re-sysgen said media
without worrying about the OS kernel getting too large for the preallocated
area of the disk/drive.
Today I use Linux...an offshoot of the Apple....
Ah... no. *Way* off on that one, Jim! 'Nuff said.
which is far superior to
Windows and their "pretend" DOS. But it wasn't back then.
Not for playing games... well... except Rogue. Rogue on the IBMs *sucked*.
OS-9 and the CoCo rule for that! ;-)
What I found was that Mac
owners (more often hobbyists) tended to hide the fact when their
computer crashed,
So did MacOS! Did you ever try to troubleshoot an
"Error Number -61259" message???
[[ No, I don't remember the exact number - but it turned out to be a
dysfunctional Ethernet card - and after 5 techs telling me "That error
message is *impossible*"... I actually started _preferring_ BSoDs...
:-/ ]]
Ah well... bedtime.
See y'all tomorrow,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | "Profile, don't speculate."
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | Daniel J. Bernstein
zmerch at 30below.com |
7:30 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On 2 Feb 2007 at 1:29, Roger Merchberger wrote:
Mid-drive directories/FATs/GATs a "kludge?"
Ah, no... There are specific
(and very logical) reasons for that, and as long as you don't store files
larger than half of the available storage (else you'd have a guaranteed
fragmented file) what does it matter *where* you stick the directory info???
I've seen varioius interpretations of this scheme (even one or two
CP/M systems, believe it or not) and while it's an interesting twist,
I'm not sure of its benefit. If one allocates alternately from the
free tracks either side nearest the directory track it might have
some performance advantages, but I've seen a lot of implementations
that put the directory splat in mid-disk and then proceed to allocate
from the outer tracks as normal. It's pretty
obvious that something
other than performance was the thought there.
In fact, the outer cylinder used for root directory and allocation
tables does make sense from a certain standpoint--the bit packing
density is the lowest on the outer tracks, so they at least in theory
should be the most reliable.
But there's no reason to have directories or FATs or any such thing.
Displaywriter data diskettes, for example have nothing that one would
recognize as a regular "directory". There is a master header block
located on cylinder 37, but it merely contains a freespace bitmap and
a list of first blocks of other lists. It's necessary to walk
through the lists to find the file names--and the lists they point to
to actually access the data. I've never used a Displaywriter, but
operation when opening documents must have been on the slow side.
Cheers,
Chuck
10:42 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
such as
sticking the directory of a diskette in the middle tracks of the
diskette. That kind of kludge doesn't translate well to a move to hard
drives, and other large media.
Mid-drive directories/FATs/GATs a "kludge?" Ah, no... There are specific
(and very logical) reasons for that, and as long as you don't store files
larger than half of the available storage (else you'd have a guaranteed
fragmented file) what does it matter *where* you stick the directory info???
On drives that do not have a track 0 switch, the middle tracks are, indeed
faster to get to (step, pause, step, pause at something acceptable to
the step rate of the drive, for the calculated number of times).
BUT, on drives that have a track 0 switch, track 0 can be found
substantially faster (step,step,step,step,... until the switch says that
you are there, thereby stepping as fast as it will actually go with no
pauses).
How about OS/2?
Not to mention: Why doesn't *every* OS stick the
system files on the *last*
tracks of the media? It would be much easier to re-sysgen said media
without worrying about the OS kernel getting too large for the preallocated
area of the disk/drive.
It usta be that there was a quite noticeable difference in reliability
between inner and outer tracks. We did not WANT our directory structures
on less reliable tracks.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
11:02 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On 2 Feb 2007 at 14:42, Fred Cisin wrote:
It usta be that there was a quite noticeable
difference in reliability
between inner and outer tracks. We did not WANT our directory structures
on less reliable tracks.
This was true to such an extent in the 8" SSSD days that I rewrote
the diskette formatter to start by formatting and verifying on track
76, figuring that it would save a lot of time. A couple of
manufacturers back then guaranteed their diskettes, so it was
worthwhile saving the bad ones, particularly considering the cost of
media.
However, it seems that modern (?!?) 3.5" DSHD diskettes fail on the
outer tracks more frequently. Probably just from wear and lousy
coating formulation.
Cheers,
Chuck
11:54 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates Center, KS)
Chuck Guzis wrote:
However, it seems that modern (?!?) 3.5" DSHD
diskettes fail on the
outer tracks more frequently. Probably just from wear and lousy
coating formulation.
A few days ago I read a claim that floppies are used infrequently
these days (compared to how often they used to be used) so the
dust and grime that gets sucked through a drive has longer to
accumulate before being deposited onto the occasional floppy
that does make it in there (for a BIOS upgrade or whatever).
I'm not sure I believe that: my 5.25" disks seem more reliable
than the 3.5" ones.
Antonio
3 Feb
3 Feb
12:25 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates Center, KS)
On 2 Feb 2007 at 23:54, arcarlini at iee.org wrote:
A few days ago I read a claim that floppies are used
infrequently
these days (compared to how often they used to be used) so the
dust and grime that gets sucked through a drive has longer to
accumulate before being deposited onto the occasional floppy
that does make it in there (for a BIOS upgrade or whatever).
Horsepucky.
(I know--I should quit mincing my words and say what I *really*
think :) )
My drives get used a lot--and are scrupulously maintained. Modern
3.5" DSHD media is garbage. I have far better luck with DS2D 3.5".
Cheers,
Chuck
4 Feb
4 Feb
12:24 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates
On 2 Feb 2007 at 23:54, arcarlini at iee.org wrote:
> A few days ago I read a claim that floppies are used infrequently
> these days (compared to how often they used to be used) so the
> dust and grime that gets sucked through a drive has longer to
> accumulate before being deposited onto the occasional floppy
> that does make it in there (for a BIOS upgrade or whatever).
Incidentally, I heard a news item a few days ago that 'PC World' (a chain
of computer shops in the UK) will no longer be selling floppy disks once
their current stocks run out. Apparently USB sticks store more data and
are more conveneint (well, the first is true, but irrelevant if you only
need to store a few kilobytes, the second is definitely false if your
machine doesn't have a USB port).
Horsepucky.
(I know--I should quit mincing my words and say what I *really*
think :) )
My drives get used a lot--and are scrupulously maintained. Modern
3.5" DSHD media is garbage. I have far better luck with DS2D 3.5".
My expeirences exactly. Mind you, many modern floppy drives are poor too
(and that's being kind) -- it's interetsing to take a few brand-new
\pounds 10.00 drives and stick an alingment disk in them. Some of the
ones I tried were out of spec...
It may, of course, be the age-old marketroid trick. We need to sell USB
sticks/whatever the replacement is, so we'll make sure the old solution
(floppy drives) stops working reliably (by selling crap medai), then
people will have to upgrade.
-tony
4:28 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates
Tony Duell wrote:
You know, I saw that story too and the numbers are interesting - 2 billion
floppies sold worldwide in 1998 versus 700 million in 2006. It then goes on to
say that demand has fallen by two thirds, which at least gives us an idea of
whose concept of billion they're using :-)
But the point is, a 2/3 drop in demand over 8 years seems like not that much
at all for something that we're constantly told is useless / ancient /
obsolete / no longer needed! Evidently there are still (thankfully) plenty of
people out there who think that the floppy still does a useful job.
<aol>me too</aol>
I don't quite understand why modern floppy media is so bad; I mean you'd think
the manufacturing procedures are the same as they always were, and I find it
hard to believe it's just a quality control issue - I mean, surely there
wasn't such a high percentage of rejected bad media back in the day (which is
now slipping through to market due to bad QC). Conspiracy? ;)
On 2 Feb 2007
at 23:54, arcarlini at iee.org wrote:
> A few days ago I read a claim that floppies are used infrequently
> these days (compared to how often they used to be used) so the
> dust and grime that gets sucked through a drive has longer to
> accumulate before being deposited onto the occasional floppy
> that does make it in there (for a BIOS upgrade or whatever).
Incidentally, I heard a news item a few days ago that 'PC World' (a chain
of computer shops in the UK) will no longer be selling floppy disks once
their current stocks run out. My drives get
used a lot--and are scrupulously maintained. Modern
3.5" DSHD media is garbage. I have far better luck with DS2D 3.5".
My expeirences exactly. It may, of course, be the age-old marketroid trick. We
need to sell USB
sticks/whatever the replacement is, so we'll make sure the old solution
(floppy drives) stops working reliably (by selling crap medai), then
people will have to upgrade.
Heh heh, see above... are any of the big names in USB widgets the same people
who traditionally made floppy drives / media though?
5:24 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates
You know, I saw that story too and the numbers are
interesting - 2 billion
floppies sold worldwide in 1998 versus 700 million in 2006. It then goes on to
say that demand has fallen by two thirds, which at least gives us an idea of
whose concept of billion they're using :-)
But the point is, a 2/3 drop in demand over 8 years seems like not that much
at all for something that we're constantly told is useless / ancient /
obsolete / no longer needed!
I would bet the profit margin on floppies was always so slim that a
drop like this probably is bad news to the floppy makers.
--
Will
7:18 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates
On 4 Feb 2007 at 0:24, Tony Duell wrote:
Incidentally, I heard a news item a few days ago that
'PC World' (a chain
of computer shops in the UK) will no longer be selling floppy disks once
their current stocks run out. Apparently USB sticks store more data and
are more conveneint (well, the first is true, but irrelevant if you only
need to store a few kilobytes, the second is definitely false if your
machine doesn't have a USB port).
This is bad news from a preservation standpoint.
I've done plenty of work converting diskettes that say "Letters to
Mom 1981" and that sort of thing. Small collections of small
documents on media inexpensive and easy enough to use that the cost
of preservation is negligible.
Neither CD-ROM nor USB sticks satisfy this need. Storage in the case
of CD is 650+ MB and time-consuming enough that one doesn't think of
it as a way of casually preserving a 2 or 3 KB document. USB sticks
are expensive and large enough that they'll get reused regularly.
As strange as it seems, I think we lost a lot of personal
correspondence when hard disks became the rule on PC systems. Folks
didn't ordinarily think to back things up and when the computer
departed, so did the hard disk and its contents.
It's interesting to note that I probably have a copy of everything I
did between 1976-1985 on diskette. After that, there are huge holes
from omission or unreliable backup media. I suspect
that after the
final exit of the floppy, that the holes will probably grow larger.
There has even been dicussion about leaving hard disks off of
internet-conencted PCs entirely (see the XO laptop, for example)
because network storage is available. Should that trend extend to
personal computers, then the holes will grow even larger.
Cheers,
Chuck
8:58 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
There has even been dicussion about leaving hard disks
off of
internet-conencted PCs entirely (see the XO laptop, for example)
because network storage is available.
This is a "new innovation" every couple of years, but has
been around since the 1960's when the argument was keypunches
and card decks vs timesharing.
Then in the 70's it was the departmental mini
vs the terminal. Then in the 80's it was the diskless workstation
vs the PC. Then in the 90's it was the network computer vs the
PC. Then it was, well, it's pretty much the same today but
big corps like Google come in.
My favorite was the "diskless workstation" of the mid-80's,
because it was so easy to say "dickless workstation" instead!
Tim.
2 Feb
2 Feb
7:40 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers
Warren Wolfe wrote:
I write this on a Linux machine, and I love the
operating system.
Linux is a work-alike of UNIX, developed by Bell Labs (K&R). The Apple
OS-X is a licensed variant of UNIX. Linux is NOT an offshoot of Apple.
OK, I know this is way OT, but I'd like to see that documented. As
far as I know OS X is NOT a licensed UNIX. As a matter of fact, by any
definition I'd use, it's not unix period. It just has a really pretty
[and incredibly useful] POSIX API.
Doc
7:55 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers
I write
this on a Linux machine, and I love the operating system.
Linux is a work-alike of UNIX, developed by Bell Labs (K&R). The Apple
OS-X is a licensed variant of UNIX. Linux is NOT an offshoot of Apple.
OK, I know this is way OT, but I'd like to see that documented. As
far as I know OS X is NOT a licensed UNIX. As a matter of fact, by any
definition I'd use, it's not unix period. It just has a really pretty
[and incredibly useful] POSIX API.
10:21 p.m.
New subject: Origins of OS X
Subject was: Re: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 01:40 -0600, Doc Shipley wrote:
Warren Wolfe wrote:
Okay... I just checked, and Apple did NOT go to the nicety of
licensing OS X as a version of UNIX. I'm sorry I issued incorrect
information; I simply assumed that they HAD licensed it, since others in
similar situations have done so. The fact that they have NOT licensed
what they are using might well put them at legal risk. I believe they
could, (and probably SHOULD,) license OS X as containing UNIX code, and
my reasoning goes like this:
NeXTStep was based upon the Mach 2.5 Kernel. The Mach Kernel was
developed at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as
a replacement for the kernel in the BSD (actually licensed) version of
UNIX, and thus became part of licensed UNIX. NeXT then collaborated
with, among others, Sun, to implement a new standard for NeXTStep,
Solaris (another actually licensed version of UNIX) and Windows, called
OpenStep. Then, in 1997, Apple acquired NeXT, and used NeXT's version
of OpenStep as the basis for OS X. One can see proof of this in that
the Objective C classes start with "NS," and in the form of a few
admissions in the Man Pages in OS X which directly credit NeXTStep.
I dunno... Do you find this an adequate lineage? I believe that a
decent case could be made, and probably won, that Apple is infringing on
UNIX with OS X. It's true I erroneously assumed that Apple had licensed
it, since I find it bizarre that a company with as much money as Apple
would expose themselves to something as potentially crippling as the
loss of their operating system. In a country as litigious as the United
States, one does not often find a company leaving their, erm, apples
dangling in the breeze that way. I'm still finding it hard to believe,
although I do appreciate your pointing that fact out to me. I would
guess that the intellectual property rights of UNIX ended up with
Alcatel-Lucent, but, that whole related series of trades, spin-offs and
mergers has left me a bit confused. In any case, WHOEVER now owns the
rights to UNIX would probably be interested in the fact that some
version of their code is being sold without license.
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
I write this on a Linux machine, and I love
the operating system.
Linux is a work-alike of UNIX, developed by Bell Labs (K&R). The Apple
OS-X is a licensed variant of UNIX. Linux is NOT an offshoot of Apple.
OK, I know this is way OT, but I'd like to see that documented. As
far as I know OS X is NOT a licensed UNIX. As a matter of fact, by any
definition I'd use, it's not unix period. It just has a really pretty
[and incredibly useful] POSIX API.
11:06 p.m.
New subject: Origins of OS X
On 2 Feb 2007 at 17:21, Warren Wolfe wrote:
I dunno... Do you find this an adequate lineage?
I believe that a
decent case could be made, and probably won, that Apple is infringing on
UNIX with OS X.
Probably not--remember we're talking copyright here, not patent law.
So the real question hinges on "Did OS X copy a substantial amount of
original Unix source code?"
3 Feb
3 Feb
1:57 a.m.
New subject: Origins of OS X
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 15:06 -0800, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007 at 17:21, Warren Wolfe wrote:
Exactly. And, more than likely, the UNIX copyright holder, Lucent,
at that time, most likely, would have had some agreement about retaining
rights to code produced using their code, which would INCLUDE the Mach
2.5 kernel. If someone else has rights to your kernel, the whole system
is legally compromised.
Of course, all this is speculation without having the various
contracts and cross-licensing agreements they actually put together. I
still think, however, that if they used standard sorts of agreements, OS
X infringes UNIX. Since Apple has never seemed to be naive in the
business sense, perhaps we can assume from this that the licensing
agreements involved are NOT standard ones, and that NeXT got rights to
the Mach kernel out of it...
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
I dunno... Do you find this an adequate
lineage? I believe that a
decent case could be made, and probably won, that Apple is infringing on
UNIX with OS X.
Probably not--remember we're talking copyright here, not patent law.
So the real question hinges on "Did OS X copy a substantial amount of
original Unix source code?" 
7:21 a.m.
New subject: Origins of OS X
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Warren Wolfe wrote:
Of course, all this is speculation without having
the various
contracts and cross-licensing agreements they actually put together. I
still think, however, that if they used standard sorts of agreements, OS
X infringes UNIX. Since Apple has never seemed to be naive in the
business sense, perhaps we can assume from this that the licensing
agreements involved are NOT standard ones, and that NeXT got rights to
the Mach kernel out of it...
Last time I checked, OSX was based mostly on BSD4.4-lite by way of FreeBSD
and
bits of NetBSD.
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
4:55 p.m.
New subject: Origins of OS X
On Feb 3, 2007, at 2:21 AM, David Griffith wrote:
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD, a pretty even mix, layered atop a
CMU Mach-3 microkernel.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Of course,
all this is speculation without having the various
contracts and cross-licensing agreements they actually put
together. I
still think, however, that if they used standard sorts of
agreements, OS
X infringes UNIX. Since Apple has never seemed to be naive in the
business sense, perhaps we can assume from this that the licensing
agreements involved are NOT standard ones, and that NeXT got
rights to
the Mach kernel out of it...
Last time I checked, OSX was based mostly on BSD4.4-lite by way of
FreeBSD
and
bits of NetBSD.
2 Feb
2 Feb
11:52 p.m.
New subject: CDC Plato Dial-in?
I read a long while back that several people had gotten the Plato
Network running again, I was looking on the Plato People site, but I
guess they may not be the ones doing it, but someone else.
I have The Learning Phone which is a software package developed by Atari
and Control Data in late 1983 to allow Atari 8bit computers to dial into
and connect to the Plato Network.
I wanted to see if the network is back up and if they have standard
modem dial in numbers as I'd really love to see the system working again
on my Atari 800.
Thanks,
Curt
3 Feb
3 Feb
1:28 a.m.
New subject: CDC Plato Dial-in?
In article <45C3CEAA.2030607 at atarimuseum.com>,
"Curt @ Atari Museum" <curt at atarimuseum.com> writes:
I read a long while back that several people had
gotten the Plato
Network running again, I was looking on the Plato People site, but I
guess they may not be the ones doing it, but someone else.
I have The Learning Phone which is a software package developed by Atari
and Control Data in late 1983 to allow Atari 8bit computers to dial into
and connect to the Plato Network.
I wanted to see if the network is back up and if they have standard
modem dial in numbers as I'd really love to see the system working again
on my Atari 800.
Its my understanding that the PLATO system is running on an emulator
on a PC. No genuine terminals, no genuine hardware, just a
simulation. While that lets you experience the software again (to be
honest, I don't know where they got the images to run on the
simulator!), there isn't any genuine hardware in the setup. IIRC, to
connect to it you use telnet.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
3:25 p.m.
New subject: CDC Plato Dial-in?
Hi Richard -
Yeah I found it late in the middle of the night last night. They
have a custom terminal program called pterm (plato term I assume) that
connects via port 5400 over to their server and brings up the Plato
login screen. I applied for a username and hopefully will be able to
try it out again, I was hoping though to use my Atari setup. I'm going
to email them today and see if they may have plans to put in hooks to
allow them to connect a terminal server up, otherwise I'm going to
tinker around a bit here in the office and make a gateway and see if I
can null modem over to a PC from my Atari and and have the PC pipe the
stream down through the null modem connection to the Atari, worth a shot.
Curt
Richard wrote:
In article <45C3CEAA.2030607 at
atarimuseum.com>,
"Curt @ Atari Museum" <curt at atarimuseum.com> writes:
I read a long while back that several people had
gotten the Plato
Network running again, I was looking on the Plato People site, but I
guess they may not be the ones doing it, but someone else.
I have The Learning Phone which is a software package developed by Atari
and Control Data in late 1983 to allow Atari 8bit computers to dial into
and connect to the Plato Network.
I wanted to see if the network is back up and if they have standard
modem dial in numbers as I'd really love to see the system working again
on my Atari 800.
Its my understanding that the PLATO system is running on an emulator
on a PC. No genuine terminals, no genuine hardware, just a
simulation. While that lets you experience the software again (to be
honest, I don't know where they got the images to run on the
simulator!), there isn't any genuine hardware in the setup. IIRC, to
connect to it you use telnet.
5:33 p.m.
New subject: CDC Plato Dial-in?
In article <45C4A981.1030502 at atarimuseum.com>,
"Curt @ Atari Museum" <curt at atarimuseum.com> writes:
tinker around a bit here in the office and make a
gateway and see if I
can null modem over to a PC from my Atari and and have the PC pipe the
stream down through the null modem connection to the Atari, worth a shot.
Oooh! Good idea, I hadn't thought of that. I wonder if pterm and the
Atari program use the same protocol?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
7:10 p.m.
New subject: CDC Plato Dial-in?
On 3 Feb 2007 at 10:33, Richard wrote:
> tinker around a bit here in the office and make a
gateway and see if I
> can null modem over to a PC from my Atari and and have the PC pipe the
> stream down through the null modem connection to the Atari, worth a shot.
I know I've got a diskette around here sent to me by someone at CDI
that runs Plato on a CGA-equipped 5150. Does this use the same
interface or is the Atari version quite different?
Cheers,
Chuck
8:46 p.m.
New subject: CDC Plato Dial-in?
Atari's "The Learning Phone" used any of the same dial-in numbers that
any other Plato client equipped PC used, so the protocol would've been
the same. I will dig around, I actually have the source code fully
commented for either the Plato Learning Phone or the Chemical Bank
"Pronto" service for the Atari, I need to check.
Atari's used their Graphics 8 mode (320 X 192) to create the line
drawings and animation. I remember logging in for the first time in
84 or 85 and just floored by being connected to a service with full
animation (well past the atascii {Atari Ascii}and ANSI animations of the
time.) Meanwhile the only comparison was Compuserve which was purely
text and using various bulletin boards, so Plato was just astounding to
see on the screen and I was still on a Hayes 300 at the time and speed
and response was superb on the screen given how long it took to fill a
text based menu on the screen from a BBS or to get a fresh screen of
Telenguard on Compuserve.
Curt
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 3 Feb 2007 at 10:33, Richard wrote:
> tinker around a bit here in the office and
make a gateway and see if I
> can null modem over to a PC from my Atari and and have the PC pipe the
> stream down through the null modem connection to the Atari, worth a shot.
>
I know I've got a diskette around here sent to me by someone at CDI
that runs Plato on a CGA-equipped 5150. Does this use the same
interface or is the Atari version quite different?
Cheers,
Chuck
2:41 p.m.
New subject: Origins of OS X
Apple did NOT go to the nicety of licensing OS X as a
version of
UNIX.
There are two completely different issues here.
One is, is OSX derived (in the copyright-law sense) from Bell Labs UNIX
source code?
The other is, does OSX have the right to use the UNIX trademark?
Neither one implies the other. The way you use "licensing" seems to
imply you're talking about the latter, but your argument based on
derivation of code seems to imply you're talking about the former.
Since Darwin is open source, Apple clearly believes the former is
false; they'd be putting themselves at enormous risk if they
open-sourced anything they didn't have good grounds for saying was free
of encumbered IP. Just because there is a path via which Bell Labs
UNIX code *could* have gotten into Darwin doesn't mean it *did*.
In any case, WHOEVER now owns the rights to UNIX would
probably be
interested in the fact that some version of their code is being sold
without license.
I would be very interested if you would be so kind as to point out
exactly what code in Darwin you think requires a UNIX source license.
You refer to it as "fact", so you presumably have an example....
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
6:41 p.m.
New subject: Origins of OS X
der Mouse wrote:
Thank you.
Apple did NOT
go to the nicety of licensing OS X as a version of
UNIX.
There are two completely different issues here.
One is, is OSX derived (in the copyright-law sense) from Bell Labs UNIX
source code?
The other is, does OSX have the right to use the UNIX trademark? I would be very interested if you would be so kind as
to point out
exactly what code in Darwin you think requires a UNIX source license.
You refer to it as "fact", so you presumably have an example....
I think that IBM would tell you that the latter doesn't necessarily
follow the former....
Doc
2 Feb
2 Feb
4:16 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
On Feb 1, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Warren Wolfe wrote:
IBM licensed MS-DOS from Microsoft, and CP/M-86
from Digital
Research, and did NOT develop their own Operating System until OS/2,
which was essentially stillborn.
Oh nonono. I'm sorry to have to correct you here Warren, but
nothing could be further from the truth. First, OS/2 was written by
Microsoft and sold to IBM. OS/2 was FAR from stillborn...it was in
use in damn near every bank office in the country for a very long
time, with probably half of those installations likely still in
place...I know the two banks I go to regularly still run it on at
least one desktop. OS/2 is an extremely widely deployed operating
system...you just can't buy it in Best Buy, so people think it's
dead...or never lived in the first place. It was only discontinued
1.5 years ago.
Please note that this is NOT coming from an OS/2 fan. ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
4:32 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
OS/2 was FAR from stillborn...it was in
use in damn near every bank office in the country for a very long
time, with probably half of those installations likely still in
place...I know the two banks I go to regularly still run it on at
least one desktop.
One of the eastern supermarket chains runs OS/2, running the checkout
lines. You would not know unless you see the machine boot.
--
Will
4:43 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Will wrote...
One of the eastern supermarket chains runs OS/2,
running the checkout
lines. You would not know unless you see the machine boot.
I happened to be at two different banks drive-through ATM machines in recent
memory when they had failed and I was able to see them boot. The ATM
machines were actually running OS/2. And these weren't small local banks -
they were large regional/national ones.
At least in my own small experience and the customers I was exposed to, it
appeared that while OS/2 did make only a very tiny impression in the home
market, it was very common in corporate america. Some day I'd like to go
back and play with Warp :)
Jay
3 Feb
3 Feb
2:45 a.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Jay West wrote:
Will wrote...
They used OS/2 because it interfaces with their backoffice mainframes so
well.
Peace... Sridhar
One of the eastern supermarket chains runs OS/2,
running the checkout
lines. You would not know unless you see the machine boot.
I happened to be at two different banks drive-through ATM machines in
recent memory when they had failed and I was able to see them boot. The
ATM machines were actually running OS/2. And these weren't small local
banks - they were large regional/national ones. 
2 Feb
2 Feb
4:44 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
And thusly were the wise words spake by William Donzelli
Which one? All the self-checkout lines I have seen are running
Windows :-(.. I could tell by the Windows lock screen on the
out-of-order systems. Why oh why couldn't an OS be used that is
actually real-time and more responsive?!
Cheers,
Bryan
OS/2 was FAR from stillborn...it was in
use in damn near every bank office in the country for a very long
time, with probably half of those installations likely still in
place...I know the two banks I go to regularly still run it on at
least one desktop.
One of the eastern supermarket chains runs OS/2, running the checkout
lines. You would not know unless you see the machine boot.
5:01 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Why the hell does supermarket checkout need a real-time OS?
Give me a break.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
5:45 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Richard wrote:
Why the hell does supermarket checkout need a
real-time OS?
Give me a break.
I suppose the requirements were for something reliable, low-cost, and
networkable; at the time there probably weren't many choices and no doubt IBM
sold them some big back-end to manage the thing...
6:45 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Richard wrote:
IBM
Why the hell does supermarket checkout need a
real-time OS?
Give me a break.
I suppose the requirements were for something reliable, low-cost, and
networkable; at the time there probably weren't many choices and no doubt sold them some big back-end to manage the thing...
Quite a few checkout machines I see are character based (DOS maybe), so I
would think they keep using OS/2 because it works well with DOS and the
system probably would need rewritten if you used another OS (why spend the
money if what you have works).
5:46 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Richard wrote:
Why the hell does supermarket checkout need a
real-time OS?
It needs a *stable* OS. Real-time pre-emptive multitasking was just a
side benefit :)
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
6:10 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
In article <45C37902.7090502 at oldskool.org>,
Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> writes:
It needs a *stable* OS.
OK, this is getting off charter for the list, but for the record its
not hard to have a stable Windows box, despite all the whining to the
contrary.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
7:20 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Richard wrote:
In article <45C37902.7090502 at oldskool.org>,
Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> writes:
Not at the time the systems were built. Windows 95 got *worse*, not
better. Here's one of many examples:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q216641
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
It needs a *stable* OS.
OK, this is getting off charter for the list, but for the record its
not hard to have a stable Windows box, despite all the whining to the
contrary.
6:53 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
On 2 Feb 2007 at 11:46, Jim Leonard wrote:
Richard wrote:
Let us not ignore the fact that IBM-manufactured checkout systems are
still ver common.
Cheers,
Chuck
Why the hell does supermarket checkout need a
real-time OS?
It needs a *stable* OS. Real-time pre-emptive multitasking was just a
side benefit :)
3 Feb
3 Feb
12:42 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007 at 11:46, Jim Leonard wrote:
They don't use OS/2 though. Most of the older stuff uses 4690 OS, which
is a bunch of custom software on some kind of 32-bit DOS-a-like with
loadable modules (can't remember the name), or on the more recent stuff
Windows XP embedded. In the UK at least, some IBM VARs are selling
4800-series EPOS machines with Linux-based POS software, but XP Embedded
is still the most common.
Offtopic, but just to address a comment further up, the XP Embedded
machines are horrifically unstable.
Gordon
Richard wrote:
Let us not ignore the fact that IBM-manufactured checkout systems are
still ver common. Why the hell does supermarket checkout need a
real-time OS?
It needs a *stable* OS. Real-time pre-emptive multitasking was just
a
side benefit :) 
2 Feb
2 Feb
7:02 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
On Friday 02 February 2007 12:01, Richard wrote:
Why the hell does supermarket checkout need a
real-time OS?
"Why the hell does [a] supermarket checkout need".. DirectX? An
OS-integrated web browser? etc, etc, etc...
Pat
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
8:46 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
And thusly were the wise words spake by Richard
Why the hell does supermarket checkout need a real-time OS?
Give me a break.
I was talking about the *self* checkout lanes.. All of the ones I
have used are slow and cannot keep up with me tapping on the
touchscreen.
Cheers,
Bryan
2 Feb
2 Feb
10:35 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
On 2/2/07, Bryan Pope <bpope at wordstock.com> wrote:
Which one? All the self-checkout lines I have seen are running
Windows :-(.. I could tell by the Windows lock screen on the
out-of-order systems. Why oh why couldn't an OS be used that is
actually real-time and more responsive?!
Ours down here in Texas (at H-E-B) run Linux, netbooting to an X
server at 640x480 or a similar res. They aren't responsive worth a
hoot, but they are very stable. Until the paper runs out of the
reciept printer, that is. ;-)
Josef
--
"I laugh because I dare not cry. This is a crazy world
and the only way to enjoy it is to treat it as a joke."
-- Hilda "Sharpie" Burroughs,
"The Number of the Beast" by Robert A. Heinlein
3 Feb
3 Feb
12:45 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Josef Chessor wrote:
On 2/2/07, Bryan Pope <bpope at wordstock.com>
wrote:
Part of the reason they're not terribly responsive is that they need to
look up practically everything in the store controller. The IBM ones
contain a 4800-series EPOS machine, with a 1GHz PIII in iirc. No excuse
for them to be slow, but the store controllers are very low-end Pentia
and are driving all the database stuff for *every till in the store*...
When you reboot a 4690-type till, they netboot off the store controller.
Lunchtime on a Saturday, this goes *very* slowly.
Gordon
Which one? All the self-checkout lines I have seen are running
Windows :-(.. I could tell by the Windows lock screen on the
out-of-order systems. Why oh why couldn't an OS be used that is
actually real-time and more responsive?!
Ours down here in Texas (at H-E-B) run Linux, netbooting to an X
server at 640x480 or a similar res. They aren't responsive worth a
hoot, but they are very stable. Until the paper runs out of the
reciept printer, that is. ;-) 
2 Feb
2 Feb
10:37 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, William Donzelli wrote:
One of the eastern supermarket chains runs OS/2,
running the checkout
lines. You would not know unless you see the machine boot.
I spotted OS/2 on an ATM once, but I only knew it was OS/2
because it had crashed to a debug screen.
4:33 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Feb 1, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Warren Wolfe wrote:
Bzzzt. Wrong! OS/2 was a joint development between IBM
and Microsoft
(and the resulting JDA caused much wrangling and hand wringing at IBM).
Neither company wrote the entire beast. Some of the meetings on things
like memory management and scheduling were pretty close to
thermonuclear. No, it was pretty close to 50-50 (maybe even skewed a
bit more towards IBM). After the famous Gates decision on Windows, IBM
went it alone. Even from the start, IBM had a considerable team (think
100's) working on *code* for OS/2.
And no, I did not work on OS/2 (ok, just for a little while but it
wasn't my fault). I'm a Unix guy through and through, but I was in
close proximity to both the project and people for ~10years.
--
TTFN - Guy
IBM licensed MS-DOS from Microsoft, and
CP/M-86 from Digital
Research, and did NOT develop their own Operating System until OS/2,
which was essentially stillborn.
Oh nonono. I'm sorry to have to correct you here Warren, but
nothing could be further from the truth. First, OS/2 was written by
Microsoft and sold to IBM.
4:38 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
IBM
licensed MS-DOS from Microsoft, and CP/M-86 from Digital
Research, and did NOT develop their own Operating System until OS/2,
which was essentially stillborn.
Oh nonono. I'm sorry to have to correct you here Warren, but
nothing could be further from the truth. First, OS/2 was written by
Microsoft and sold to IBM. OS/2 was FAR from stillborn...it was in
use in damn near every bank office in the country for a very long
time, with probably half of those installations likely still in
place...I know the two banks I go to regularly still run it on at
least one desktop. OS/2 is an extremely widely deployed operating
system...you just can't buy it in Best Buy, so people think it's
dead...or never lived in the first place. It was only discontinued
1.5 years ago.
4:50 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Feb 1, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Warren Wolfe wrote:
For some very peculiar value of "discontinued".
IBM has announced OS/2's end-of-life more times than I can count.
Customers keep offering huge sums to keep up mintenance, IBM will keep
maintaining it.
The last time I actually checked was in October or so, but I could
still get a current copy.
Doc
IBM licensed MS-DOS from Microsoft, and
CP/M-86 from Digital
Research, and did NOT develop their own Operating System until OS/2,
which was essentially stillborn.
Oh nonono. I'm sorry to have to correct you here Warren, but nothing
could be further from the truth. First, OS/2 was written by Microsoft
and sold to IBM. OS/2 was FAR from stillborn...it was in use in damn
near every bank office in the country for a very long time, with
probably half of those installations likely still in place...I know the
two banks I go to regularly still run it on at least one desktop. OS/2
is an extremely widely deployed operating system...you just can't buy it
in Best Buy, so people think it's dead...or never lived in the first
place. It was only discontinued 1.5 years ago.
3 Feb
3 Feb
2:46 a.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Doc Shipley wrote:
Dave McGuire wrote:
And isn't eCS going to be made (or updated even) for a while yet?
Peace... Sridhar
On Feb 1, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Warren Wolfe wrote:
For some very peculiar value of "discontinued".
IBM has announced OS/2's end-of-life more times than I can count.
Customers keep offering huge sums to keep up mintenance, IBM will keep
maintaining it.
The last time I actually checked was in October or so, but I could
still get a current copy. IBM licensed MS-DOS from Microsoft, and
CP/M-86 from Digital
Research, and did NOT develop their own Operating System until OS/2,
which was essentially stillborn.
Oh nonono. I'm sorry to have to correct you here Warren, but
nothing could be further from the truth. First, OS/2 was written by
Microsoft and sold to IBM. OS/2 was FAR from stillborn...it was in
use in damn near every bank office in the country for a very long
time, with probably half of those installations likely still in
place...I know the two banks I go to regularly still run it on at
least one desktop. OS/2 is an extremely widely deployed operating
system...you just can't buy it in Best Buy, so people think it's
dead...or never lived in the first place. It was only discontinued
1.5 years ago.
2 Feb
2 Feb
4:58 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
On 2 Feb 2007 at 11:16, Dave McGuire wrote:
Oh nonono. I'm sorry to have to correct you
here Warren, but
nothing could be further from the truth. First, OS/2 was written by
Microsoft and sold to IBM.
At one time, at least as far as the world outside of Microsoft was
concerned, Microsoft was a big booster of OS/2. From "The OS/2
Notebook" (Microsoft Press, 1990):
Gates: "OS/2 is our top priority"
Many developers (myself included) , partially on the basis of Gates'
and Cannavino's statements, plunked down very hefty chunks of cash as
pre-subscription to the OS/2 2.0 Development kits being promised by
Microsoft. When MS annouced that they would not be pursuing OS/2
2.0 and shipped pre-releases of NT instead, there were threats of
lawsuits unless a full refund was promptly paid.
Believe me, the quality of developer's documentation for NT was
substantially below that of OS/2, although the first NT code (at
least the kernel stuff) was very nicely written and commented. My
reaction on seeing the NT floppy driver for the first time was "How
can they make something so simple look so complicated?"
OS/2 was FAR from stillborn...it was in use in damn
near every bank
office in the country for a very long time, with probably half of
those installations likely still in place...I know the two banks I go
to regularly still run it on at least one desktop. OS/2 is an
extremely widely deployed operating system...you just can't buy it in
Best Buy, so people think it's dead...or never lived in the first
place. It was only discontinued 1.5 years ago.
Many people would be surprised to find that it was widely deployed in
ATMs. Better OS/2 than Windows, I suppose.
Where can one find a copy of the last OS/2 release? I'd like a copy
for my archives.
Cheers,
Chuck
3 Feb
3 Feb
1:15 a.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 11:16 -0500, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Feb 1, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Warren Wolfe wrote:
NOTHING could be farther from the truth? Ahem. Well, your last
sentence is, actually. OS/2 started out as a theoretically 50/50
project by Microsoft and IBM. Over time, IBM took over more of the
work. The clash of corporate cultures was immense, and became
unbearable for both parties. The project was essentially dropped as a
joint project, and IBM picked it up and finished it. Microsoft carried
on with OS/3 development, and changed its name to Windows NT. IBM had
promised it to customers, and insisted upon delivering.
IBM licensed MS-DOS from Microsoft, and
CP/M-86 from Digital
Research, and did NOT develop their own Operating System until OS/2,
which was essentially stillborn.
Oh nonono. I'm sorry to have to correct you here Warren, but
nothing could be further from the truth. First, OS/2 was written by
Microsoft and sold to IBM. OS/2 was FAR from stillborn...it was in use in damn
near every
bank office in the country for a very long time, with probably
half of those installations likely still in place...
Oh, please. OS/2 NEVER took off, despite a Big Blue push, and
despite being better in essentially all respects than Windows. Sure,
some business customers bought it. After a while, it was so cheap, it
begged companies to buy it. I suspect many of them bought it BECAUSE it
was such an orphan -- employees could not bring in games to play,
because almost no games EXISTED for the platform. As a mainstream
operating system, I claimed it was stillborn, and I maintain that claim.
There are still DOS machines running, but that does not make DOS a
modern contender. DOS, however, once WAS the mainstream O/S, unlike
OS/2. OS/2 never made a noticeable dent in the installed Intel base.
IIRC, OS/2 never went above 20% even in the server market -- and this is
back when the alternatives were totally bug-saturated. OS/2 was a great
deal better than Windows, but OS/2 has stagnated for at least a decade,
and that is a virtual eternity in the computer industry. Banks went for
it, reasonably big time, back when it was a new, hot thing... Financial
institutions are notoriously pokey about changing things, and they
stayed with OS/2 after it was a mature, then ripe, then partially mouldy
product. Even ATMs are leaving the OS/2 world in droves. See:
http://www.atmmarketplace.com/article.php?id=6490
I know the two banks I go to regularly still run it on
at
least one desktop. OS/2 is an extremely widely deployed operating
system...you just can't buy it in Best Buy, so people think it's
dead...or never lived in the first place. It was only discontinued
1.5 years ago.
Had it been anything but stillborn, it would not have been
discontinued; IBM does NOT like to give up on a product. The fact that
it was not for sale in retail outlets for about the last ten years
should indicate it's acceptance rate. It sold poorly even when it was
the best O/S available. If, by "widely deployed," you mean a large
average distance between installations, I would have to agree. <Grin>
Please note that this is NOT coming from an OS/2
fan. ;)
Well, actually, I kind of WAS/AM an OS/2 fan. I just knew, however,
it was doomed to obscurity, and banishment to the deepest dungeons of
the financial sector. It was the first O/S for home machines that did a
competent job of multi-tasking. It's a shame it never sold as well as
it should, but, those are the breaks. If quality were the main issue,
home machines today would be made by IBM or Processor Technology, and
run OS/2 or Linux, on Motorola chips.
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
1:52 a.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Had it been anything but stillborn, it would not
have been
discontinued; IBM does NOT like to give up on a product. The fact that
it was not for sale in retail outlets for about the last ten years
should indicate it's acceptance rate. It sold poorly even when it was
the best O/S available. If, by "widely deployed," you mean a large
average distance between installations, I would have to agree. <Grin>
I think the problem that many are having is the term "stillborn" :) If
you'll remember, OS/2 had actually a few problems that eventually lead
to it's demise. Back when Microsoft was still publicly backing it, it
was in it's early 16bit incarnation. It was slow, not very Windows
compatible, not very sexy (it wasn't until 1.3 that it "caught up"
graphically with Win 3.x), and a resource hog. At the time getting
people to take ANY pc based system seriously in the type of markets that
OS/2 was gunning for was a way steep uphill battle. By the time WARP
came out (OS/2 3.x), what some would call the "real" OS/2, it was far
too little far too late. I think what really killed OS/2 was Win 3.1,
it didn't make it out of gestation in time. Sales took off, Bill
publicly ditched OS/2 and people really didn't have a compelling reason
to switch (i.e. no native apps).
I'm an old OS/2 fanboy from long ago (I remember with fondness IBM
finally delivering OS/2 1.0 and opening the package only to read that
this fancy new "Presentation Manager" wouldn't be shipping until 1.1).
George
1:55 a.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Oh, please. OS/2 NEVER took off, despite a Big
Blue push, and
despite being better in essentially all respects than Windows. Sure,
some business customers bought it.
Quite a lot bought it - it was just not front and center on the stage.
I think every AS/400 installation was also an OS/2 installation. Same
with the mainframe crowd. Percentage of market share does not mean
something did not take off. If it were, the Mac and Linux would both
be flops.
These are installations that we normally do not see, but that does not
mean they do not exist. For example - how many people here have
actually been in close contact (use regularly, even if just a little
at a time) with AS/400s? Four? Five? IBM has, however, made a helluva
lot of the machines (more than PDP-11s, actually). Are they flops
because most of us see Windows or Unix machines at work? Are they
flops because OS/400 has less than a percent of market share?
--
Will
7:34 a.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 20:55 -0500, William Donzelli wrote:
Commercially, Linux is a flop. It has an "excuse" in that it's a
hobbyist project that metastasized. It didn't start out trying to be
the end-all O/S. Linux is also growing, and is actually becoming a
market force in the server world. The Mac is also a success in that its
sales have (I believe continually) grown. Steve Jobs may have had some
idea of taking over the world with the Mac, but that only shows one what
good drugs one can buy when one makes a lot of money. (JUST kidding.)
There are several markets in which the attributes of the Mac have made
it popular, and rightly so. I'm thinking primarily of graphic arts,
typesetting, and the like.
OS/2 never really had that. It has not steadily grown. The first
releases were buggy, it was always a bit slow and demanding of the
hardware. By the time good releases of OS/2 were available, the market
had moved on. There never was a specialty market especially well served
by OS/2, and it clearly was intended to be "the next wave" of software.
By the time the kinks had been worked out of OS/2, it's sales were
falling off, and it had the faint smell of death about it.
I liked it, but my liking it had nothing to do with my evaluation of
its chances. In the same way that the PS/2 showed IBM's inability to
force the hardware market in a new direction, OS/2 showed that IBM no
longer could set the pace in software. At the time, I thought OS/2 to
be a colossal waste of programmer time and effort. At the time, I was
grousing about IBM should have taken UNIX, for which it was licensed,
and put their programmers' time and effort into producing a wonderful
GUI for UNIX. As I see it, much of OS/2's initial lack of acceptance
was due to the fact that some of the basics of the O/S didn't work well
in the first couple releases. By the time those problems had been
fixed, it was too late to wrest market share from Windows, which was
becoming the juggernaut it is today. If OS/2 had been utterly stable,
that is, UNIX, with a GUI that was ever-improving, I think it would have
aborted Windows, rather than the reverse, as happened.
Just my opinion, but I was consulting at the time, and people who
bought computers for small business were waiting to see if OS/2 would
work out. Some of them told me that, and bought Windows "while they
were waiting for OS/2." Well, that didn't work out at all well for
OS/2. By the time that OS/2 was ready for wide business acceptance,
most everybody had bought into the Windows platform.
Oh,
please. OS/2 NEVER took off, despite a Big Blue push, and
despite being better in essentially all respects than Windows. Sure,
some business customers bought it.
Quite a lot bought it - it was just not front and center on the stage.
I think every AS/400 installation was also an OS/2 installation. Same
with the mainframe crowd. Percentage of market share does not mean
something did not take off. If it were, the Mac and Linux would both
be flops. These are installations that we normally do not see,
but that does not
mean they do not exist. For example - how many people here have
actually been in close contact (use regularly, even if just a little
at a time) with AS/400s? Four? Five?
Me, for one. I had to write some program to pick information out of
spool files. Nasty business.
IBM has, however, made a helluva lot of the machines
(more than
PDP-11s, actually). Are they flops because most of us see
Windows or Unix machines at work? Are they flops because
OS/400 has less than a percent of market share?
Not in MY opinion, FWIW. But, if IBM had expected the 400 to take
over the world, and yearly sales had been dropping rather than rising, I
would say it WOULD be a flop. OS/2 was never more than a fringe player,
although it had promise at one point. It all gets down to what one
defines as a "flop." As I see it, OS/2 was a "big-company" flop --
like
the Ford Edsel.
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
3:07 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 08:34:50 -0500, William Donzelli wrote:
> It all gets down to what one
> defines as a "flop."
Your definition of "flop" is very distorted.
Its about the long term bottom line.
--
Will
Spoken like a true bean counter :-(
And I know you are not one of those :-)
Cased on the myopic viewpoint ot this group, anything with a market share less than
windows, and a
technical acceptance less than UNIX must be a flop.
This is getting old, can we move on, to something more off topic... Just kidding
BTW: AFAIK the 704 was the first IBM production system to use core memory, the core plane
was about
2in square and sat in the middle of a modified 8 tube plugin modual with no tubes.
The 701 "Defense Calculator" introduced in April 29, 1952 and first demostrated
in April 7 1953 and the
702 announced September 25, 1953 and withdrawn October 1, 1954 it had 10k of Electrostatic
storage
using a bank of 84 cathode ray tubes. Decimal digits were stored using charged spots on
the display.
There was no 703, guess it never got off the drawing board ?
THe 704 was announced May 7, 1954 and withdrawn April 7, 1960 it was the first binary
computer to use
core memory.
The 705 was announced October 1, 1954 and withdrawn April 7, 1960 it came out with 20k of
core
memory and was a real workhorse..
Go Bears !
Bob Bradlee
4:49 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Cased on the myopic viewpoint ot this group, anything
with a market share less than windows, and a
technical acceptance less than UNIX must be a flop.
This is getting old, can we move on, to something more off topic... Just kidding
Even some of IBM's flops turn out to be scores. The 7030 (AKA Stretch)
and FS (Future System, the machine to be beyond S/370) both were
short/medium term financial disasters for IBM, but the engineering
knowledge gained from them paid off in huge proportions in later
machines.
Beans are important.
--
Will
5:27 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
On 2/3/07, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
Even some of IBM's flops turn out to be scores.
The 7030 (AKA Stretch)
and FS (Future System, the machine to be beyond S/370) both were
short/medium term financial disasters for IBM...
There is, IIRC, a picture of a Stretch in the Time-Life book
"Mathematics". I don't have my copy close at hand, but I _think_ the
one in the photo was being used for weather modelling.
The photographer set up colored spots to highlight different portions
of the machine in different colors to match up with the descriptive
text.
I remember reading this book when I was a very small kid. The
computer pictures (and descriptions of core memory, etc.) made a very
strong impression on me. The book would have been published in the
1964-1965 timeframe (before I was born), and was therefore rather
dated when I would have read it in the early 1970s, but it was still
really neat.
I guess I can trace my fascination with old machines back to that book.
Are there any working 7030s anywhere?
-ethan
5:45 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Are there any working 7030s anywhere?
Not a chance. Only a few (<20) were made. CHM has most of one.
7030s were enourmously complex machines - well over 100,000
transistors, and probably almost a million passive components. It
would be a very long shot to try to get one working again. It would
probably be easier to get a tube machine like a 709 working.
I, of course, encourage CHM to try...
At least get the S/360 going...
--
Will
4 Feb
4 Feb
2:40 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
On Sat, 2007-02-03 at 12:45 -0500, William Donzelli wrote:
I, of course, encourage CHM to try...
At least get the S/360 going...
--
Will
I'd be up for that ... not quite sure how though ...
--
Lawrence Wilkinson lawrence at ljw.me.uk
The IBM 360/30 page http://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360
3 Feb
3 Feb
9:15 p.m.
New subject: Time-Life "Mathematics" / was Re: OS/2 stillborn
Ethan Dicks wrote:
There is, IIRC, a picture of a Stretch in the Time-Life book
"Mathematics". I don't have my copy close at hand, but I _think_ the
one in the photo was being used for weather modelling.
The photographer set up colored spots to highlight different portions
of the machine in different colors to match up with the descriptive
text.
I remember reading this book when I was a very small kid. The
computer pictures (and descriptions of core memory, etc.) made a very
strong impression on me. The book would have been published in the
1964-1965 timeframe (before I was born), and was therefore rather
dated when I would have read it in the early 1970s, but it was still
really neat.
I guess I can trace my fascination with old machines back to that book.
I still have that book too, Ethan. I received it as a little kid in the late
60's and share your sentiments about it.
Looking at the double-page spread of Stretch right now: the text says it
belonged to the U.S. Weather Bureau ("analyses 90,000 weather reports at
once", "addition in 1.5 millionths of a second").
There's also the photo of the front panel of the IBM 704 with a chess board
in front of it and indicated to be running a chess-playing program,
... another IBM 70?0 series machine doing moon-flight calculations,
... imposing photos of Claude Shannon (in front of what may be part of
Whirlwind) and Kurt Godel,
... John Kemeny having a discussion with some students at Dartmouth,
... etc, etc.
4 Feb
4 Feb
12:05 a.m.
New subject: Time-Life "Mathematics" / was Re: OS/2 stillborn
On 2/3/07, Brent Hilpert <hilpert at cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
Ethan Dicks wrote:
I have it, too; but I am not sure where it is at the moment....
(*rummage* *rummage*...) Just found a second copy - all of $0.30USD
There is, IIRC, a picture of a Stretch in the Time-Life book
"Mathematics". I don't have my copy close at hand, but I _think_ the
one in the photo was being used for weather modelling...
I still have that book too, Ethan. I received it as a little kid in the late
60's and share your sentiments about it. from Half-Price books. This edition is (c) 1963, 1971,
U.S. Library
of Congress catalog number 63-18983, for the bibliographically
curious.
Looking at the double-page spread of Stretch right now
Me too, now. Pages 26-27.
... the text says it
belonged to the U.S. Weather Bureau ("analyses 90,000 weather reports at
once", "addition in 1.5 millionths of a second").
There you go. It seems that the one in the book would be the one
documented on the Stretch page recently posted in this thread.
There's also the photo of the front panel of the
IBM 704 with a chess board
in front of it and indicated to be running a chess-playing program,
I remember the photo. Didn't remember the model of the computer.
... another IBM 70?0 series machine doing moon-flight
calculations,
... imposing photos of Claude Shannon (in front of what may be part of
Whirlwind) and Kurt Godel,
... John Kemeny having a discussion with some students at Dartmouth,
... etc, etc.
Yep. When I ran across these (now famous) names years later, they
always seemed familiar.
The page about bananas for 1101(2) cents a pound took me a bit to wrap
my head around, but it came in handy when binary (BCD) clocks were all
the rage in the early 1970s.
-ethan
3 Feb
3 Feb
11:31 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Bob Bradlee wrote:
THe 704 was announced May 7, 1954 and withdrawn April
7, 1960 it was the first binary computer to use
core memory.
I hope you mean to say the 704 was the first *IBM* binary machine to use core
memory. Whirlwind did so a year or two year earlier (16-bit binary word).
(...always sticking up for Whirlwind for some reason)
4 Feb
4 Feb
5:16 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:31:06 -0800, Brent Hilpert wrote:
Bob Bradlee wrote:
> THe 704 was announced May 7, 1954 and withdrawn
April 7, 1960 it was the first binary computer to
use
> core memory.
I hope you mean to say the 704 was the first *IBM*
binary machine to use core
memory. Whirlwind did so a year or two year earlier (16-bit binary word).
(...always sticking up for Whirlwind for some reason)
I had forgotten about that one, I stand corrected and change my comment to:
The 704 was the first production computer to use core memory. I do love revisionism :-)
FYI: For a short period of time in 1969, I trained on a 1940's vintage Link trainer
while attending the Navy
Aviation Training Device Technician and Instructor School in Millington TN. I went on to
working on the F4
Phantom sym at MAS Beaufort in SC, that was in early 1970. In 1971 all about the
calibration problems of
upgrading large hard wired analog systems when I worked on an A4e sym upgrade there in
Beaufort.
These systems used servo driven multiganged reostats as their storage device. There was no
boot or
loadable program on the flight side. A little digital was added in the mid 60's during
an weapons system
upgrade and when the ECM stuff was added.
later
Bob
10:51 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
That technology was also poorly adapted into the Colecovision Adam
systems and was its downfall, add to the fact that if any magnetic media
was within 6-8" of the printer which contained the system power supply,
once energized it acted nicely as a Bulk Eraser !!!
Curt
Fred Cisin wrote:
It all gets
down to what one
defines as a "flop."
The Exatron Stringy Floppy was a big flop, and certainly the floppiest of
all drives.
11:55 p.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
On 2/3/07, Curt @ Atari Museum <curt at atarimuseum.com> wrote:
That technology was also poorly adapted into the
Colecovision Adam
systems and was its downfall, add to the fact that if any magnetic media
was within 6-8" of the printer which contained the system power supply,
once energized it acted nicely as a Bulk Eraser !!!
Nice. :-/
Fred Cisin wrote:
> The Exatron Stringy Floppy was a big flop, and certainly the floppiest of
> all drives.
Back in the day, when I had a PET and couldn't afford $2K+ for a C=
2040 disk drive, I really wanted a Stringy Floppy. It was (advertised
as) faster than a tape and less expensive than disks. Given the way
things shook out, I'm glad I didn't waste my money.
I do have a Stringy Floppy drive now - it's embedded in an all-in-one
PAL programer. You import the source file to it via serial port, then
tell the programmer to compile the source and burn the parts. One can
also apparently save files to the Stringy Floppy, but we never did -
we just kept the 30 or so PAL files for our various products on the
VAX and downloaded them as needed.
Block addressable tape _can_ be done well (witness original DECtapes),
but done well and done cheap, in this case, don't mix (if they ever
do).
-ethan
2:03 a.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
Had it been anything but stillborn, it would not
have been
discontinued; IBM does NOT like to give up on a product.
IBM will give up on a product if it is stillborn. They will EOL (end
of life) them quickly if they want to kill them off. This really has
not happened to OS/2 until relatively recently. If OS/2 was stillborn,
IBM would not keep upgrading it over the years.
The fact that
it was not for sale in retail outlets for about the last ten years
should indicate it's acceptance rate. It sold poorly even when it was
the best O/S available.
You are not seeing the bigger picture. To add to my previous post -
no, you can not buy an AS/400 from a retail outlet either. You can not
buy VMS at one, for that matter.
Flopness is defined by long term monetary return of a product line.
--
Will
2:13 a.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
As far as not buying VMS at a retail store.... I'm not sure if DEC's store
in the Manchester Mall in NH (or was it Nashua) wouldn't have been able to
sell you VAX/VMS in 83 if you came in with $250k and wanted to contract for
an 11/780.
Should've only taken a phone call to get someone to take the check. 8-)
Bill
On 2/2/07, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
Had it been anything but stillborn, it would
not have been
discontinued; IBM does NOT like to give up on a product.
IBM will give up on a product if it is stillborn. They will EOL (end
of life) them quickly if they want to kill them off. This really has
not happened to OS/2 until relatively recently. If OS/2 was stillborn,
IBM would not keep upgrading it over the years.
The fact that
it was not for sale in retail outlets for about the last ten years
should indicate it's acceptance rate. It sold poorly even when it was
the best O/S available.
You are not seeing the bigger picture. To add to my previous post -
no, you can not buy an AS/400 from a retail outlet either. You can not
buy VMS at one, for that matter.
Flopness is defined by long term monetary return of a product line.
--
Will
2:16 a.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
BTW -- what killed OS/2 Warp was the problem of Microsoft saying Win32S
would give OS/32 windows compatibility and then going hog wild to make sure
later Win32 stuff wouldn't run on OS/2.
I know how many times IBM had to upgrade OS/2 for Win32 compatibility
changes in the WinAPI...
I ran OS/2 2.x at IBM and later Warp3 and 4. I also ran Linux and FreeBSD
at the time along with Win3.11 for Workgroups until the lack of apps moved
me to Win95 and above.
Mostly now it's Linux, FreeBSD and XP... although I'd kick XP if it wasnt so
damned necessary at work.
I've got VMWare Server working right now to do the later as well as a native
dual boot setup.
Bill
On 2/2/07, Bill Pechter <pechter at gmail.com> wrote:
As far as not buying VMS at a retail store.... I'm not sure if DEC's store
in the Manchester Mall in NH (or was it Nashua) wouldn't have been able to
sell you VAX/VMS in 83 if you came in with $250k and wanted to contract for
an 11/780.
Should've only taken a phone call to get someone to take the check. 8-)
Bill
On 2/2/07, William Donzelli < wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
Had it been anything but stillborn, it would
not have been
discontinued; IBM does NOT like to give up on a product.
IBM will give up on a product if it is stillborn. They will EOL (end
of life) them quickly if they want to kill them off. This really has
not happened to OS/2 until relatively recently. If OS/2 was stillborn,
IBM would not keep upgrading it over the years.
The fact that
it was not for sale in retail outlets for about the last ten years
should indicate it's acceptance rate. It sold poorly even when it was
the best O/S available.
You are not seeing the bigger picture. To add to my previous post -
no, you can not buy an AS/400 from a retail outlet either. You can not
buy VMS at one, for that matter.
Flopness is defined by long term monetary return of a product line.
--
Will
1:59 a.m.
New subject: OS/2 stillborn, was Re: TRS-80 Model 1, etc
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Feb 1, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Warren Wolfe wrote:
For that fact, two of the radio stations I've done work for still use OS/2
on dedicated computers for some of their gear. One uses it to control a
huge bank of satellite receivers and schedules the equipment to tune into
and record a lot of their prerecorded network feeds.
-Toth
IBM licensed MS-DOS from Microsoft, and CP/M-86
from Digital Research,
and did NOT develop their own Operating System until OS/2, which was
essentially stillborn.
Oh nonono. I'm sorry to have to correct you here Warren, but nothing
could be further from the truth. First, OS/2 was written by Microsoft
and sold to IBM. OS/2 was FAR from stillborn...it was in use in damn
near every bank office in the country for a very long time, with
probably half of those installations likely still in place...I know the
two banks I go to regularly still run it on at least one desktop. OS/2
is an extremely widely deployed operating system...you just can't buy it
in Best Buy, so people think it's dead...or never lived in the first
place. It was only discontinued 1.5 years ago.
11:32 p.m.
New subject: enabled vs loaded / was Re: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 inYates Center, KS)
Warren Wolfe wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 13:35 -0600, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
To Warren:
Jim's use of the word 'enabled' may not have been typical in the
circumstance,
but it was perfectly understandable what he meant. The word 'enabled' can be
used in a fairly general manner.
I had no difficulty discerning condescension in your response above, and I was
certainly more impressed by Jim's simple request to avoid it than by your
subsequent response.
As you wish to be pedantic about the use of words: one does not "load a
language" onto a machine, one loads a compiler or interpreter program for a
language.
And to further make the point: once one has loaded the compiler or interpreter
for a language, the machine has then been enabled to 'comprehend' that
language. Actually, I would suggest Jim's terminology is really the more
technically accurate. If you disagree, you may wish to review or educate
yourself about the distinction between a language and it's compiler or interpreter.
I still have several of all three and at the time
I would use my
TRS-80 whenever I was programming. The others were FUN machines made for
children while the TRS-80 was capable of programming in BASIC, FORTRAN,
NLOS, FORTH and Assembly to name only the languages that I had enabled on
my machine.
"Enabled?" Uh, it APPEARS that you don't understand the concept.
Languages are LOADED on a machine, they're not there waiting to be
"enabled" and then used -- other than the BASIC in ROM on several
machines, the IBM included. Any language could be implemented on either
the Apple or the Commodore, and a wide variety WERE implemented -- I'll
leave it to the outraged fans of both camps to provide a detailed
list... Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
I have noticed during your tenure-to-date on the list that for someone with
"Peace" in your sig, you certainly are (to be kind about it..) argumentative.
1 Feb
1 Feb
9:36 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On 1 Feb 2007 at 13:35, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
The apple was a flop, yes. The Commodore also was a
flop. Just look at the
numbers. The apple was a flop because it was marketed as entertainment and
drawing pictures (which it excelled at) while the TRS-80 was a scientific
machine that crunched numbers. Yes, today the tables are reversed, but back
then, those of us who were into computers (I had been in computers since
1960 on the IBM 7070) were looking for computing power for serious work.
Golly, I hope you've got your tongue firmly planted in your cheek
here! In 1960, if you were looking for serious computing power for
number crunching, you got a 7090 and ran FMS. The 7070 was strictly
for the BDP crowd.
You can't have it both ways--if you were serious about computing
power, there were more powerful S-100 and Multibus boxes --with more
expandability and peripheral choice--and just about any language
choice that you could imagine. .
No--you said "personal computer". The Apple II was just that--and
enormously successful as such. One thing that it accomplished was
that it established Apple in the educational field. I think that had
Apple not had its educational discount program, it wouldn't be around
today.
(I've never owned an Apple II of any flavor)
Cheers,
Chuck
10:28 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Chuck Guzis wrote:
So the Applie II (went on sale in June 1977, as
opposed to the TRS-80
Model I going on sale in August) was an impractical commercial flop?
How about the Commodore Pet--demoed in 1976?
All of those three were announced and demo'd before any of the three was
readily available. I ended up with TRS80, because that was available
first of the three in my neighborhood.
I don't percieve it as an AG Bell/Elisha Gray race.
(although THAT would make a great Fedex commercial "If Elisha Gray had
used Fedex, then . . . ")
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
7:34 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in
was abandoned by everyone once we'd gotten 6 shiny
new Model 4 machines)=20
and it had a TRS-80 branded peripheral called the "Vox-Box." It had a=20
Citizens-Band microphone hooked into (I'm guessing) an A-D converter that=
It was a bit simpler than that. There's the service manual on one of the
TRS-80 sites, and IIRC it's something like a differentiator followed by a
single-bit iuput.
Interetingly, I was given a couple of 'voice' input cards for the Apple
][ a few years ago and one of them has almost idenctical circuitry to the
VOXbox (other than the host interfce of course). I assume said card and
the VOXbox came from the same company originally.
-tony
9:16 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Roger Merchberger wrote:
I dunno... Wasn't the Model 1 the first commercial
microcomputer with voice
recognition abilities? [1]
. . .
This was in '83-'84 when I tinkered with it, dunno how old the
"Vox-Box"
actually was, tho.
poor.
barely adequate to recognize "Let ther be light" (to operate an x10)
Many people never realized that there was an expansion port card edge in
it, so that you could daisy chain additional devices (votrax, etc.)
Did anything exist (commercially) like that previously
to the Model 1?
YES.
At the time, there were a lot of magazine ads for an S100? based voice
recognition unit.
And, at Computer Faire #3 (LA), there was demo of a software intensive
voice recognition unit for Apple ][
10:13 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers (was: Re: PDP-11/70 in Yates Center, KS)
On Feb 1, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
And, at Computer Faire #3 (LA), there was demo of a
software intensive
voice recognition unit for Apple ][
I have a very dusty memory of a friend having had one of those.
He ran it in his Franklin Ace 1000. It seemed to work at least
reasonably well. This would've been around 1984 or so.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
10:47 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Feb 1, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
There was Software Automatic Mouth for the C64 (SAM), maybe it was
ported to the II
Jim
--
Jim Brain, Brain Innovations
brain at jbrain.com
Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times!
Home: http://www.jbrain.com
And, at Computer Faire #3 (LA), there was demo of
a software intensive
voice recognition unit for Apple ][
I have a very dusty memory of a friend having had one of those. He
ran it in his Franklin Ace 1000. It seemed to work at least
reasonably well. This would've been around 1984 or so.
-Dave
--Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
11:10 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers
> On Feb 1, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>> And, at Computer Faire #3 (LA), there was demo of a software intensive
>> voice recognition unit for Apple ][
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Jim Brain wrote:
There was Software Automatic Mouth for the C64 (SAM),
maybe it was
ported to the II
The one that I referred to (1979?) was LONG before the C64 (or even
Vic-20) existed. I never saw a Pet version.
2 Feb
2 Feb
4:23 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers
On Feb 1, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Jim Brain wrote:
There was Software Automatic Mouth for the C64 (SAM), maybe it was
ported to the II
Wasn't that a speech synthesizer, rather than a recognition system?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
And, at Computer Faire #3 (LA), there was demo of a
software
intensive
voice recognition unit for Apple ][
I have a very dusty memory of a friend having had one of those.
He ran it in his Franklin Ace 1000. It seemed to work at least
reasonably well. This would've been around 1984 or so.
4:38 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers
There was
Software Automatic Mouth for the C64 (SAM),
Wasn't that a speech synthesizer, rather than a recognition system?
5:01 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers
On 2 Feb 2007 at 8:38, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Correct.
And long before that, there were the Votrax and Computalker S-100
boards.
Cheers,
Chuck
There was Software Automatic Mouth for the C64 (SAM),
Wasn't that a speech synthesizer, rather than a recognition system?
5:19 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers
In article <45C2FE00.32498.8FD5BC6 at cclist.sydex.com>,
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
On 2 Feb 2007 at 8:38, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Correct.
And long before that, there were the Votrax and Computalker S-100
boards.
I first heard speech synthesis with a Votrax unit attached to a PLATO
system at UDel in 1978. The PLATO folks there were pretty arrogant
and obviously had a bigger budget than we did with their comfy chairs,
fancy rooms (with AIR CONDITIONING!), Votrax units and PLATO graphics
terminals while we had LA-36s and wiggy Beehives at 300 baud. We were
the underdogs :-).
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
There was Software Automatic Mouth for the C64 (SAM),
Wasn't that a speech synthesizer, rather than a recognition system?
11:48 p.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers
On Feb 2, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Correct.
And long before that, there were the Votrax and Computalker S-100
boards.
Do you mean Digitalker, or was there a Computalker? I have a
Digitalker in my S-100 system.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
There was
Software Automatic Mouth for the C64 (SAM),
Wasn't that a speech synthesizer, rather than a recognition
system?
3 Feb
3 Feb
12:14 a.m.
New subject: TRS-80 Model 1 (was: Arty computers
On 2 Feb 2007 at 18:48, Dave McGuire wrote:
Do you mean Digitalker, or was there a Computalker?
I have a
Digitalker in my S-100 system.
http://incolor.inebraska.com/bill_r/computalker.htm
12:33 a.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
I have access to a 16mm film reel with sound of an RCA 501 demonstration. It's not in
very good shape though. It has curled some and smells like vinegar. Is there any way to
transfer it without destroying it, and what's the best way to preserve what's
left?
Bob
1:12 a.m.
New subject: LEAR SIEGLER ADM-5's on Goveliquidation.com
5 units at govliq:
http://cgi.govliquidation.com/auction/view?id=1112993&convertTo=USD
Bob
1:36 a.m.
New subject: LEAR SIEGLER ADM-5's on Goveliquidation.com
In article <20070203011255.63131.qmail at web82704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>,
Bob Rosenbloom <bobalan at sbcglobal.net> writes:
5 units at govliq:
http://cgi.govliquidation.com/auction/view?id=1112993&convertTo=USD
Looks nice! If anyone buys this lot, I'll take that funky keyboard
off your hands :-).
I'd be bidding on it, but I already have two ADM-5s, so I'm good to go
there.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
3:03 a.m.
New subject: LEAR SIEGLER ADM-5's on Goveliquidation.com
Richard wrote....
the ADM-5's in that auction look to have almost the worst case of screen rot
I have ever seen.
Jay
5 units at
govliq:
http://cgi.govliquidation.com/auction/view?id=1112993&convertTo=USD
Looks nice! If anyone buys this lot, I'll take that funky keyboard
off your hands :-).
5:21 a.m.
New subject: LEAR SIEGLER ADM-5's on Goveliquidation.com
In article <008101c7473f$ec2a5ee0$6700a8c0 at HPLAPTOP>,
"Jay West" <jwest at classiccmp.org> writes:
Richard wrote....
the ADM-5's in that auction look to have almost the worst case of screen rot
I have ever seen.
Are you sure it was screen rot? It looked like dirt and grime to me
but I didn't look too closely.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
5 units
at govliq:
http://cgi.govliquidation.com/auction/view?id=1112993&convertTo=USD
Looks nice! If anyone buys this lot, I'll take that funky keyboard
off your hands :-). 
5:51 p.m.
New subject: LEAR SIEGLER ADM-5's on Goveliquidation.com
Richard wrote:
In article <008101c7473f$ec2a5ee0$6700a8c0 at
HPLAPTOP>,
"Jay West" <jwest at classiccmp.org> writes:
Are you sure it was screen rot? It looked like dirt and grime to me
but I didn't look too closely.
I have seen this when the neck has been broken off inside the
case. The inrush of air from the vacumn breach, causes all
the phospor to be blown off the area directly in front of the
place where the neck was.
not a good sign.
jim
5:59 p.m.
New subject: LEAR SIEGLER ADM-5's on Goveliquidation.com
In article <45C4CBAC.3060909 at msm.umr.edu>,
jim <jwstephens at msm.umr.edu> writes:
I have seen this when the neck has been broken off
inside the
case. The inrush of air from the vacumn breach, causes all
the phospor to be blown off the area directly in front of the
place where the neck was.
not a good sign.
That's good information, thanks. But we still haven't seen the other
4 ADMs, so its hard to say what condition they're in.
That's the thing I dislike the most about govliq -- the photos are
often worse than useless. Like 6 pictures of the triwall from all
different angles without showing what's inside.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
5:27 a.m.
New subject: LEAR SIEGLER ADM-5's on Goveliquidation.com
In article <008101c7473f$ec2a5ee0$6700a8c0 at HPLAPTOP>,
"Jay West" <jwest at classiccmp.org> writes:
Richard wrote....
the ADM-5's in that auction look to have almost the worst case of screen rot
I have ever seen.
Also: they only have a picture of 1 of the 5 ADM-5s in the lot...
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
5 units
at govliq:
http://cgi.govliquidation.com/auction/view?id=1112993&convertTo=USD
Looks nice! If anyone buys this lot, I'll take that funky keyboard
off your hands :-). 
1:33 a.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
Bob;
Unfortunately once a print has started with 'vinegar syndrome' , if
its BAD it usually cannot be saved, but this is a slow process and
depending upon how bad the 'curl' is it can be treated so that it can
be run through a projector and captured.
I collect 16mm films and have had to get rid of a couple prints over
the years due to vinegar syndome. (which is basically caused by the
film base breaking down).
What you CAN do , its take the reel and give it LOTS of air (garage,
etc ) outside of its can.
David Barnes
davebarnes AT adelphia DOT net
OpenVMS , Tru64 , Solaris , Linux , OS X , SGI Irix
On Feb 2, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Bob Rosenbloom wrote:
I have access to a 16mm film reel with sound of an RCA
501
demonstration. It's not in very good shape though. It has curled
some and smells like vinegar. Is there any way to transfer it
without destroying it, and what's the best way to preserve what's
left?
Bob
1:34 a.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
In article <20070203003315.66161.qmail at web82706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>,
Bob Rosenbloom <bobalan at sbcglobal.net> writes:
I have access to a 16mm film reel with sound of an RCA
501 demonstration. It'
s not in very good shape though. It has curled some and
smells like vinegar. Is
there any way to transfer it without destroying it, and what's the best way to
preserve what's left?
Bob
There are lots of people who understand how to restore film; I am not
sure how many of them can be afforded on a hobbyists budget, however.
I would begin my search by talking with 16mm film collectors.
Scanning the images on each frame is probably doable with a consumer
film scanner. Recovering the audio track is more problematic as its a
continuous optical track running along the edge of the film and can't
be easily captured without moving the film in some sort of continuous
motion.
Still, I'm just a complete n00b at film restoration, so I would start
by finding a discussion group for 16mm film collectors.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
3:52 a.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
At 07:34 PM 2/2/2007, Richard wrote:
I would begin my search by talking with 16mm film
collectors.
Scanning the images on each frame is probably doable with a consumer
film scanner. Recovering the audio track is more problematic as its a
continuous optical track running along the edge of the film and can't
be easily captured without moving the film in some sort of continuous
motion.
What? No one's wrote code to recover the audio from a digitized
version of the optics of the audio track? It shouldn't be much harder
than the program that recovers paper tape data this way. :-)
- John
2:18 a.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
I have access to a 16mm film reel with sound of an RCA
501 demonstration. It's not in very good shape though. It has curled some and smells
like vinegar. Is there any way to transfer it without destroying it, and what's the
best way to preserve what's left?
Have a professional do it.
A freind had some done for some decaying missile test films out of
NARA, and they turned out quite nice.
--
Will
4:26 a.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Bob Rosenbloom wrote:
I have access to a 16mm film reel with sound of an RCA
501
demonstration. It's not in very good shape though. It has curled some
and smells like vinegar. Is there any way to transfer it without
destroying it, and what's the best way to preserve what's left?
There are professionals who know what they are doing with film
restoration, such as nilesfilmmuseum.org, monaco labs, etc
If you don't mind risking total loss of the original, could try cleaning
it with TCE, etc. If you want to play with it yourself, I've got a reel
to reel film developing tank.
7:29 a.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Bob Rosenbloom wrote:
I have access to a 16mm film reel with sound of an RCA
501
demonstration. It's not in very good shape though. It has curled some
and smells like vinegar. Is there any way to transfer it without
destroying it, and what's the best way to preserve what's left?
I strongly advise you to not fiddle with it yourself. See how much it'll
cost to have a pro restore and transfer it the Right Way. Then we'll pass
a hat around.
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
5:33 p.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
In article <Pine.GSO.4.55.0702022327210.8730 at helios.cs.csubak.edu>,
David Griffith <dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu> writes:
I strongly advise you to not fiddle with it yourself.
See how much it'll
cost to have a pro restore and transfer it the Right Way. Then we'll pass
a hat around.
I'd contribute to that.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
5:48 p.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
Richard wrote:
In article <Pine.GSO.4.55.0702022327210.8730 at
helios.cs.csubak.edu>,
David Griffith <dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu> writes:
I have a film editor who works for NBC in los angeles. If you would
like for
me to contact him, I'll do so and connect you to him. He also collects film
industry memorabilia, and probably can connect you with someone who can
restore nitrate substrate film. This should be done asap, as it may already
be too far gone to be restored if it is putting off acetic acid fumes.
this is
just one component of decaying substrate, and is the one which erases the
image from the film.
Remember, the image is not a dye image totally but may contain silver which
is very reactive, and having acid fumes present from decaying substrate
doesn't
make for a long time line to act to save it.
jim
11:03 p.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
At 12:48 PM 2/3/2007, you wrote:
Richard wrote:
If it is 16mm it is not nitrate.
In article <Pine.GSO.4.55.0702022327210.8730 at
helios.cs.csubak.edu>,
David Griffith <dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu> writes:
I have a film editor who works for NBC in los angeles. If you would like for
me to contact him, I'll do so and connect you to him. He also collects film
industry memorabilia, and probably can connect you with someone who can
restore nitrate substrate film. This should be done asap, as it may already
be too far gone to be restored if it is putting off acetic acid fumes.
this is
just one component of decaying substrate, and is the one which erases the
image from the film.
Remember, the image is not a dye image totally but may contain silver which
is very reactive, and having acid fumes present from decaying
substrate doesn't
make for a long time line to act to save it.
jim
Charles E. Fox Video Productions
793 Argyle Rd. Windsor, Ontario
519-254-4991 N8Y 3J8
www.chasfoxvideo.com
4 Feb
4 Feb
12:51 a.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
On 3 Feb 2007 at 18:03, Charles Fox wrote:
If it is 16mm it is not nitrate.
Right. The vinegar smell should tell you that it's an acetate base.
See:
http://www.nla.gov.au/anica/about-anica.html
For a description of an Australia-based effort to preserve old
acetate stock.
Cheers,
Chuck
3:11 a.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
A friend informs me that the "cellulose acetate" disease is a problem
for museum curators the world over. Not only does it cause
photographic materials to decay, but it also causes old fabrics such
as "satin" sheets and Hawaiian "aloha" shirts to slowly fall to
pieces.
Apparently, the acetic acid that's liberated by decomposition is a
double-whammy. Not only is it a product of decomposition, but it
also serves to hasten the decomposition of the remaining material.
Neutralizing or filtering out the acetic acid fumes and storage in
cool and dark temperature-and-humidity-controlled lockers seems to be
the only affordable preservation measure. Single photographic
negatives can have the emulsion carefully stripped off and placed on
a polyester substrate, but that seems to be as far as anyone's gone.
Wonder if we'll have a similar problem with USB sticks 50 years
hence?
Cheers,
Chuck
5:30 a.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
Thanks for all the suggestions. This film definitely needs professional
attention and may be too far gone to save, but I will try.
I've contacted the National Film Preservation board, and also SMPTE for
their ideas., but would still be interested in talking to others. Jim,
please contact your film editor and have him contact me, I get down to
LA all the time so could bring the film down there to have someone
evaluate it if I can't find someone local.
One problem is I don't know what the film actually contains, if it's
really interesting at all. It needs to be viewed, even if it's one frame
at a time on a Movieola type machine, to see what it's actually about.
Could be just an ad for RCA that mentions the 501, but with the label
"RCA 501 demonstration" on the cover it's sure worth a look.
Bob
National Film Preservation Board
jim wrote:
Richard wrote:
In article <Pine.GSO.4.55.0702022327210.8730
at helios.cs.csubak.edu>,
David Griffith <dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu> writes:
I have a film editor who works for NBC in los angeles. If you would
like for
me to contact him, I'll do so and connect you to him. He also
collects film
industry memorabilia, and probably can connect you with someone who can
restore nitrate substrate film. This should be done asap, as it may
already
be too far gone to be restored if it is putting off acetic acid
fumes. this is
just one component of decaying substrate, and is the one which erases the
image from the film.
Remember, the image is not a dye image totally but may contain silver
which
is very reactive, and having acid fumes present from decaying
substrate doesn't
make for a long time line to act to save it.
jim
8:35 a.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
I have a pretty large connection of family 16mm film dating from the early
30's up thru 1970, and have been busy with conservation projects for the
past year.
Acetate film that exhibits the "VS" symtoms will shrink over time and start
to curl, in the extream the spacing and size of the sprocket holes will
change and this will make it diffucult to impossible to project. A good
projector can tollerate quite a bit of curling and still put on an
acceptable show.
There are many professional shops that will do a Telecine conversion of film
to dvd (or tape if you perfer). Google. The going price is between .20
and .40 (usd) per foot. Cleani ng is ususally included. Fixing bad
splices, torn sprocket holes, and replacing leader are usually extra
charges. There was a boom in home film conversion to Tape about 20 years
ago, most of this was at the local 1 hr photo place and pretty poorly done
by projecting into a mirror and pointing a camcorder at it, if any of these
fast shops are still around you probably want to avoid them.
There are also places that will actually digitize the film frame by frame
using a modified projector, camera and computer.
If the film is acctualy yours then you would probably want to do some
conservation in addition to getting it converted. There are some good web
sites out there to get and education and some of the points have been
mentioned already. In summary from what I have learned and use:
- If it has signs of VS you need to segragate that film from all others as
the acid vapors stimulate continued reaction in the reel and in any reels
near it. Much like ripening fruit.
- Store the reel in the open air. Don't keep it in a sealed can but rather
where its in fresh clean air so the vapors can disapate. There are newer
stable plastic storage cans that incorporate venting in their design.
- The reaction is nearly stopped at cool & dry tempratures and accelerated
with warm and moist conditions. I don't have the exact temprature (check
Kodak web) but its around the low 40Fs as the optimal for long term
storage.
- Clean the print, and then consider soaking it for a week or more in
Filmrenew and then clean it a couple more times and let it dry for a week.
This will do a lot to slow the damage, lube the film and will make it
somewhat more flexible, Running the film thru a couple of passes on the
rewinder is recommended to relax the film. Filmrenew is considered by many
to be the most gentle and least toxic cleaner. It is a petro solvent,
seemingly to me to be based on Naptha.
- Remove any tape (scotch or masking) and its adheisive. Some solvents can
be used for this but you want to make sure you remove all traces of this
before you store the film. check both ends of the film for wrong tape.
Note that on acetate film the usual splice was with cement, but later film
was not acetate and they used a special tape splice. Your film may have
tape splices, as long as its the right tape its ok to leave them although
some will say to replace them with cement splices for permenance. Film
conservation has its differing opinions too.
- Wind the film firmly but not tightly onto its reel (prefer metal reel) and
make sure the film is even on the sides with nothing sticking up that could
get piched or bent over. Once its on the reel, dont pull on the film to
tighten it as this will drag it over itself and perhaps scratch something.
- Kodak sells a product called a "Micro Sieve" which is a fabric bag filled
with an absorbant chemical that can be placed between the reel and its
storage can to absorbe the acid vapors and moisture. Check the Kodak web.
This may be over the top for most VS problems.
If you clean, and air it out, and keep it cool and dry it will probably go
another 20+ years and still be projectable.
I would be happy to talk with you more about this off the list if you like.
bob.
On 2/3/07, Bob Rosenbloom <bobalan at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Thanks for all the suggestions. This film definitely needs professional
attention and may be too far gone to save, but I will try.
I've contacted the National Film Preservation board, and also SMPTE for
their ideas., but would still be interested in talking to others. Jim,
please contact your film editor and have him contact me, I get down to
LA all the time so could bring the film down there to have someone
evaluate it if I can't find someone local.
One problem is I don't know what the film actually contains, if it's
really interesting at all. It needs to be viewed, even if it's one frame
at a time on a Movieola type machine, to see what it's actually about.
Could be just an ad for RCA that mentions the 501, but with the label
"RCA 501 demonstration" on the cover it's sure worth a look.
Bob
National Film Preservation Board
jim wrote:
Richard wrote:
the
In article <Pine.GSO.4.55.0702022327210.8730
at helios.cs.csubak.edu>,
David Griffith <dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu> writes:
I have a film editor who works for NBC in los angeles. If you would
like for
me to contact him, I'll do so and connect you to him. He also
collects film
industry memorabilia, and probably can connect you with someone who can
restore nitrate substrate film. This should be done asap, as it may
already
be too far gone to be restored if it is putting off acetic acid
fumes. this is
just one component of decaying substrate, and is the one which erases image from the film.
Remember, the image is not a dye image totally but may contain silver
which
is very reactive, and having acid fumes present from decaying
substrate doesn't
make for a long time line to act to save it.
jim
8:36 a.m.
New subject: How to archive a 16mm film of an RCA 501
(opps, sorry for the spelling goofs, hit send to quick)
On 2/4/07, Robert Ollerton <rollerton at gmail.com> wrote:
I have a pretty large connection of family 16mm film dating from the
early 30's up thru 1970, and have been busy with conservation projects for
the past year.
Acetate film that exhibits the "VS" symtoms will shrink over time and
start to curl, in the extream the spacing and size of the sprocket holes
will change and this will make it diffucult to impossible to project. A
good projector can tollerate quite a bit of curling and still put on an
acceptable show.
There are many professional shops that will do a Telecine conversion of
film to dvd (or tape if you perfer). Google. The going price is between
.20 and .40 (usd) per foot. Cleani ng is ususally included. Fixing bad
splices, torn sprocket holes, and replacing leader are usually extra
charges. There was a boom in home film conversion to Tape about 20 years
ago, most of this was at the local 1 hr photo place and pretty poorly done
by projecting into a mirror and pointing a camcorder at it, if any of these
fast shops are still around you probably want to avoid them.
There are also places that will actually digitize the film frame by frame
using a modified projector, camera and computer.
If the film is acctualy yours then you would probably want to do some
conservation in addition to getting it converted. There are some good web
sites out there to get and education and some of the points have been
mentioned already. In summary from what I have learned and use:
- If it has signs of VS you need to segragate that film from all others as
the acid vapors stimulate continued reaction in the reel and in any reels
near it. Much like ripening fruit.
- Store the reel in the open air. Don't keep it in a sealed can but
rather where its in fresh clean air so the vapors can disapate. There are
newer stable plastic storage cans that incorporate venting in their design.
- The reaction is nearly stopped at cool & dry tempratures and accelerated
with warm and moist conditions. I don't have the exact temprature (check
Kodak web) but its around the low 40Fs as the optimal for long term
storage.
- Clean the print, and then consider soaking it for a week or more in
Filmrenew and then clean it a couple more times and let it dry for a week.
This will do a lot to slow the damage, lube the film and will make it
somewhat more flexible, Running the film thru a couple of passes on the
rewinder is recommended to relax the film. Filmrenew is considered by many
to be the most gentle and least toxic cleaner. It is a petro solvent,
seemingly to me to be based on Naptha.
- Remove any tape (scotch or masking) and its adheisive. Some solvents
can be used for this but you want to make sure you remove all traces of this
before you store the film. check both ends of the film for wrong tape.
Note that on acetate film the usual splice was with cement, but later film
was not acetate and they used a special tape splice. Your film may have
tape splices, as long as its the right tape its ok to leave them although
some will say to replace them with cement splices for permenance. Film
conservation has its differing opinions too.
- Wind the film firmly but not tightly onto its reel (prefer metal reel)
and make sure the film is even on the sides with nothing sticking up that
could get piched or bent over. Once its on the reel, dont pull on the film
to tighten it as this will drag it over itself and perhaps scratch
something.
- Kodak sells a product called a "Micro Sieve" which is a fabric bag
filled with an absorbant chemical that can be placed between the reel and
its storage can to absorbe the acid vapors and moisture. Check the Kodak
web. This may be over the top for most VS problems.
If you clean, and air it out, and keep it cool and dry it will probably go
another 20+ years and still be projectable.
I would be happy to talk with you more about this off the list if you
like.
bob.
On 2/3/07, Bob Rosenbloom <bobalan at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Thanks for all the suggestions. This film definitely needs professional
attention and may be too far gone to save, but I will try.
I've contacted the National Film Preservation board, and also SMPTE for
their ideas., but would still be interested in talking to others. Jim,
please contact your film editor and have him contact me, I get down to
LA all the time so could bring the film down there to have someone
evaluate it if I can't find someone local.
One problem is I don't know what the film actually contains, if it's
really interesting at all. It needs to be viewed, even if it's one frame
at a time on a Movieola type machine, to see what it's actually about.
Could be j