23 Apr
2016
23 Apr
'16
8:37 a.m.
From: Jules Richardson
I can't see the point in modern upgrades .. At the
point where people
start adding emulated storage, USB interfaces, VGA display hardware
etc. it stops being a vintage system and starts being a modern version
which just happens to still have a few vintage parts.
I agree with you to some degree, but...
Some components are just hard/impossible to find now - like old original disk
drives (seen any RP0x's for sale recently?), or Able ENABLE's - and in any
case running the disks is both non-trivial (power/heat) and risks damaging
what are effectively museum pieces.
So one is left with the choice of modern replacements, or nothing. And I'm
not capable of building an RP0x, but building a board that uses an SD memory
card to emulate an RP0x, that's within my grasp. And it takes a lot less room
and power, to boot.
Also, the _systems_ were designed to have upgrades installed, and did, BITD -
many of which were not conceived when the machine first came out. E.g. our
11/45 at LCS wound up with 1MB MOS memory boards in it (much smaller and less
power-hungry than the original memory), and high-speed LANs, neither of which
were ever envisaged when the machine was built.
I don't see that building, say, a UNIBUS USB interface now is really that
different from building a high-speed LAN board BITD.
I do agree that if you replace stuff that _is_ still available and perfectly
functional (e.g. QBUS memory and processors), you might just as well run a
simulator. But there's a lot of stuff that's not in that category (above).
Noel
23 Apr
23 Apr
11:01 a.m.
On 04/23/2016 10:37 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
True. I think my personal view is that I'll consider modern replacements to
things when it's impossible to use the originals - but not simply for
reasons of speed, cost, convenience.
From: Jules
Richardson
I can't see the point in modern upgrades ..
At the point where people
start adding emulated storage, USB interfaces, VGA display hardware
etc. it stops being a vintage system and starts being a modern version
which just happens to still have a few vintage parts.
I agree with you to some degree, but...
Some components are just hard/impossible to find now - like old original disk
drives (seen any RP0x's for sale recently?) running the disks is both non-trivial (power/heat) and
risks damaging
what are effectively museum pieces.
There I'd just say run them until they break and can't be fixed, and then
they can become static museum exhibits. Slight caveat there though that
every effort is made within the community as a whole to document the
hardware before there are no operational examples left.
building a board that uses an SD memory
card to emulate an RP0x, that's within my grasp. And it takes a lot less room
and power, to boot.
To me it's not nearly as much fun, though... I want the sights and the
sounds of the original hardware, warts and all.
As I mentioned in a reply to Tony though, I don't mind modern equivalents
when there's no choice; my issue's really just with using those equivalents
when in the possession of operational originals, and with adding
functionality using modern components.
Also, the _systems_ were designed to have upgrades
installed, and did, BITD -
many of which were not conceived when the machine first came out. E.g. our
11/45 at LCS wound up with 1MB MOS memory boards in it (much smaller and less
power-hungry than the original memory), and high-speed LANs, neither of which
were ever envisaged when the machine was built.
I've no problem with that at all, within a vintage context. I don't mind
some ancient board being used in some even-more-ancient machine - but at
the same time I wouldn't want to use a board that takes whatever memory
modules people are sticking into PCs these days.
I couldn't come up with any kind of cut-off date for what I'm comfortable
with, although I suppose a lot of it comes down to not using examples of
anything that couldn't have been done during the system's typical
operational lifetime.
I don't see that building, say, a UNIBUS USB
interface now is really that
different from building a high-speed LAN board BITD.
I think there I'd be asking myself what the purpose of the USB interface
was - and if a 'period' equivalent which achieved the same end result was
feasible.
cheers
Jules
3164
days inactive
3164
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu -
jules.richardson99＠gmail.com