homemade computer for fun and experience... - test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

4 Apr 1999

Again, I have to agree about the "waste-of-trees" nature of most
"technical"
documents these days.  Nevertheless, I find it easier to understand the
result of a SPICE simulation when displayed graphically, e.g. with PROBE as
supplied with PSpice, as opposed to a 2-page long list of raw values.  It's
true, SOME terminals, more recently than when I last bought one, but
nevertheless SOME terminals, were capable of graphic display.  They just
weren't up to what a PC could do unless you paid more than what a PC would
cost.

I already stated that the "old" machines did the "old" and in many
instances
quite persistent tasks well, and still would, given a chance.  People have
learned, however, that it's not as beneficial to have OLD hardware as to
have new, not because of what it will do, but what it won't.  I don't mean
that it won't break.  Any hardware can fail.  It's a statistical reality.
However, if you try to repair that old, fine, terminal you bought in the
'80's you'll find you can't get it fixed for less than the cost of a PC.
If, however, you break your PC, there's really nothing you can't repair or
replace for much less than the cost of the original.

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell &lt;ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk&gt;
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
&lt;classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu&gt;
Date: Sunday, April 04, 1999 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: homemade computer for fun and experience...

...
 > What's happened over the years, however, is
that people, having seen what a
...
 > computer CAN do as shown in games, etc, have
actually found ways to make
> data easier to interpret, and perhaps to add meaning and emphasis to a
> presentation, making it more persuasive, if not more informative, by using
...
   the graphical
capabilities of a computer. 
Odd... I much prefer text to graphics for just about everything. Sure I
like circuit diagrams. And graphs, of course. But I find the typical '4
colour glossy' that passes for a technical document these days to be a
waste of trees. I'd much rather sit down with an informative piece of text.

  If you use a terminal, that's what you've
got.  There were, for a time,
 attempts made at graphic terminals.  These failed, however, because there 
AFAIK X-terminals are still in use....

> weren't standards on which they could base their usage.  Consequently, if
> one didn't have certain hardware, there were limitations on the software
he
...
 > could use.  Today, that's not the case, as
EVERYONE has a PC clone with at
...
   least 1Kx768
pixels in 256 or more colors.  EVERYONE has fairly ample 
Do they? I don't. My PC has Hercules and CGA graphics only. I don't own a
VGA card (I might have an EGA card somewhere, but I don't use it).

> Today, no one would normally consider a CP/M box for "useful" and
essential
...

Depends on the 'useful work'. I've done seriously useful work on a Z80
machine in the last year or so (admittedly running LS-DOS and not CP/M). It
depends on what you class as 'useful work'. My old 8-bitters can still
talk to the special interfaces I've designed to (e.g.) test cabling, dump
ROMs, etc. Sure, I could use a PC. But have you tried getting the same
level of docs for a PC-clone as I have for my TRS-80 Model 4? The latter
is much easier to repair and keep running

-tony