8 Aug
2006
8 Aug
'06
11:22 p.m.
There were two unrelated bits: ignore the VAX thing for now, I was just illustrating that
"things" can be found in almost any
family of computer that are a disappointment, not just x86. Merely illustrative.
The second part was the general question, which I guess was a bit too specific. What
computers have you come across that are
really neat and why. OK.- System/3{60,70,90,z} is neat for it's processor instruction
set, PERQs for the user-microcode.
SGI Origin 2000's are neat for their CRAYlink/NUMAlink interconnect system, AXPs for
the PALcode idea (sort of a takeoff of the PERQ).
If you saw a computer that has a serial port implementation that is so elegant that it
struck you as a thing of beauty throw that in ...
I'm just interested in getting a feel for what's out there that members feel is
neat. I was kind of thinking hardware to start with,
but it could be extended to software.
9 Aug
9 Aug
5:03 p.m.
Scott Quinn wrote:
The second part was the general question, which I
guess was a bit too specific. What computers have you come across that are
really neat and why. OK.- System/3{60,70,90,z} is neat for it's processor instruction
set, PERQs for the user-microcode.
SGI Origin 2000's are neat for their CRAYlink/NUMAlink interconnect system, AXPs for
the PALcode idea (sort of a takeoff of the PERQ).
If you saw a computer that has a serial port implementation that is so elegant that it
struck you as a thing of beauty throw that in ...
I'm just interested in getting a feel for what's out there that members feel is
neat. I was kind of thinking hardware to start with,
but it could be extended to software.
I like the fact that, from the programmer's perspective, plugging
boards into a PDP-8 essentially adds device-specific instructions to the
CPU. I don't think it's the cleanest or most elegant way of doing
things, but I like how different (from today's stuff) it is, and I think
it's clever.
I like the way the A & X registers work on the CDC 6600 with regard to
auto-loading.
I like PDP-11s because they have personality and soul.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Cape Coral, FL
6:10 p.m.
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 17:14, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Dave McGuire wrote:
I hate to break it to you, Sridhar, but your Camry isn't a European car. :)
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
I like PDP-11s because they have personality
and soul.
*That* is the primary reason I like mainframes. And European cars. 
10:45 p.m.
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 17:14, Sridhar Ayengar
wrote:
I drive an Audi A8 4.2 Quattro.
Peace... Sridhar
Dave McGuire wrote:
I hate to break it to you, Sridhar, but your Camry isn't a European car. :) I like PDP-11s because they have personality
and soul.
*That* is the primary reason I like mainframes. And European cars.
11 p.m.
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 22:45, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
So you replaced your Camry finally? I'm sorta glad that I replaced mine last
year.
A (gasp) **new** "BMW" Mini Cooper S. I love that car. It may not be
classic, but it's probably more fun, safe, efficient, etc.
Oh, and to haul stuff, I've got a converted '89 Checy Van 30 Boxvan. It's
amazing the amount of abuse that thing can take... best $1k I ever spent. Of
course, its replacement will have a liftgate, which is the one thing which
that guy is missing.
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 17:14, Sridhar
Ayengar wrote:
I drive an Audi A8 4.2 Quattro. Dave McGuire wrote:
I hate to break it to you, Sridhar, but your Camry isn't a European car.
:) I like PDP-11s because they have personality
and soul.
*That* is the primary reason I like mainframes. And European cars.
11:19 p.m.
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
I drive an Audi A8 4.2 Quattro.
So you replaced your Camry finally? I'm sorta glad that I replaced mine last
year.
It's been more than two years. 8-)
I just still have a lot of stories involving it, since I drove it for
such a long time. My Audi *definitely* has more soul, though.
> I like
PDP-11s because they have personality and soul.
*That* is the primary reason I like mainframes. And European cars.
I hate to
break it to you, Sridhar, but your Camry isn't a European car.
:) A (gasp) **new** "BMW" Mini Cooper S. I
love that car. It may not be
classic, but it's probably more fun, safe, efficient, etc.
That's a nice car. Rides like it's on rails. I test drove the JCW
version when it first came out.
Oh, and to haul stuff, I've got a converted
'89 Checy Van 30 Boxvan. It's
amazing the amount of abuse that thing can take... best $1k I ever spent. Of
course, its replacement will have a liftgate, which is the one thing which
that guy is missing.
My latest toy is a Pinzgauer 712. It takes a beating too. 8-)
Peace... Sridhar
10 Aug
10 Aug
8:01 a.m.
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
Oh, and to haul stuff, I've got a converted
'89 Checy Van 30 Boxvan. It's
amazing the amount of abuse that thing can take... best $1k I ever spent. Of
course, its replacement will have a liftgate, which is the one thing which
that guy is missing.
If you're looking to sell it, please let me know!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Cape Coral, FL
9:05 a.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
What happened to your minivan? Are you looking to trade up to something
bigger?
Peace... Sridhar
Oh, and to haul stuff, I've got a converted
'89 Checy Van 30 Boxvan. It's
amazing the amount of abuse that thing can take... best $1k I ever spent. Of
course, its replacement will have a liftgate, which is the one thing which
that guy is missing.
If you're looking to sell it, please let me know!
4:31 p.m.
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
What happened to your minivan? Are you looking to trade up to something
bigger?
Eventually. With the car off the road at least for a bit longer (need
a new alternator) I'm driving the van a lot...I don't expect it to last
forever.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Cape Coral, FL
Oh, and to haul stuff, I've got a converted
'89 Checy Van 30 Boxvan.
It's amazing the amount of abuse that thing can take... best $1k I
ever spent. Of course, its replacement will have a liftgate, which
is the one thing which that guy is missing.
If you're looking to sell it, please let me know!
4:54 p.m.
New subject: Computer transports (was: Re: slick bits in computers (WAS: VAXen Rule!))
On Thursday 10 August 2006 08:01, Dave McGuire wrote:
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
If you wanna pay me enough to cover getting myself a new truck with a
lift gate (and which has a couple inch taller door), then sure. :)
Pat
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
Oh, and to haul stuff, I've got a converted
'89 Checy Van 30
Boxvan. It's amazing the amount of abuse that thing can take...
best $1k I ever spent. Of course, its replacement will have a
liftgate, which is the one thing which that guy is missing.
If you're looking to sell it, please let me know!
8 a.m.
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I hate to break it to you, Sridhar, but your Camry isn't a European
car. :)
I drive an Audi A8 4.2 Quattro.
...and I put an Origin 2000 into the trunk of said Quattro a couple of
months ago. That's a damn fine automobile our skinny beige friend has,
there. I nearly beat him over the head and took it home. =)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Cape Coral, FL
I like
PDP-11s because they have personality and soul.
*That* is the primary reason I like
mainframes. And European cars.
9:08 a.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I drive an Audi A8 4.2 Quattro.
...and I put an Origin 2000 into the trunk of said Quattro a couple of
months ago. That's a damn fine automobile our skinny beige friend has,
there. I nearly beat him over the head and took it home. =)
I was quite surprised that it fit so easily. I believe there were three
O200's in there too.
Peace... Sridhar
> I like PDP-11s because they have personality and
soul.
*That* is the primary reason I like mainframes. And European cars.
I hate to
break it to you, Sridhar, but your Camry isn't a European
car. :) 
15 Aug
15 Aug
1:35 p.m.
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 09:08 -0400, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Dave McGuire wrote:
I fitted:
A MicroVAX 3300
A MicroVAX II with a tape drive and two whacking great Fujitsu Eagles
all cables for the above
some spares too
Fairly comprehensive grey wall
a non-disassembleable 19" cabinet about 4' tall (for the MVII)
some other random bits like 80s home computers
into my 1988 Citro?n CX. It took nearly 20 seconds to lift to running
height. I shudder to think what kind of weight was in it, and what kind
of pressure on the hydraulics. But it belted up from Manchester to
Glasgow at a steady 95mph quite happily, if a little thirstier than
usual.
Gordon.
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
...and I put an Origin 2000 into the trunk of said Quattro a couple of
months ago. That's a damn fine automobile our skinny beige friend has,
there. I nearly beat him over the head and took it home. =)
I was quite surprised that it fit so easily. I believe there were three
O200's in there too. >>
I like PDP-11s because they have personality and soul.
> *That* is the primary reason I like mainframes. And European cars.
I hate to break it to you, Sridhar, but your Camry isn't a European
car. :)
I drive an Audi A8 4.2 Quattro. 
9 Aug
9 Aug
5:33 p.m.
On 8/9/2006 at 5:03 PM Dave McGuire wrote:
Scott Quinn wrote:
I had a blast with the CDC STAR-100. Instructions to do almost any thing
you could conceive of an instruction to do. A single instruction to do a
character substring search, with both masks and "near miss" operands. BCD
arithmetic up to 64K digits. Sparse vectors, 256 64-bit registers...a
veritable smorgasbord of instructions, some of which I didn't have the
faintest idea of what they might be good for. Did I mention
bit-addressability in the case of bit vectors?
I once wrote a line editor for use over slow-speed comm lines whose innards
consisted of mostly vector instructions. Input and output files were
mapped into the 64-bit address space (that's right--other than the file
open and close, there are no system I/O calls). Much to my surprise, I
found the same editor being used by the ETA personnel 10 years later. I
didn't know whether to be pleased or depressed that nothing better had been
developed.
Given the very slow speed of scalar instructions, you had to be pretty
clever to vectorize as much of the code as you could. Serquential vector
searches were fastest for most small (< 1000) lists, as was selection sort.
The 100A killed off a lot of the more esoteric instructions, sadly--and it
was much less fun.
Cheers,
Chuck
The second part was the general question, which I
guess was a bit too
specific. What computers have you come across that are
really neat and why. OK.- System/3{60,70,90,z} is
neat for it's
processor instruction set, PERQs for the user-microcode.
SGI Origin 2000's are neat for their
CRAYlink/NUMAlink interconnect
system, AXPs for the PALcode idea (sort of a takeoff
of the PERQ). 
6:42 p.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
I like the fact that, from the programmer's
perspective, plugging
boards into a PDP-8 essentially adds device-specific instructions to the
CPU. I don't think it's the cleanest or most elegant way of doing
things, but I like how different (from today's stuff) it is, and I think
it's clever.
What I liked about the PDP-8/e was how dense it was, for being made
of TTL.
7:08 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Dave McGuire once stated:
Scott Quinn wrote:
The Motorola 68k series did something like that. Not every device, but
there was a method of extending the instruction set through external devices
mapped to certain addresses in "CPU" space. Similar I'm guessing.
-spc (I always liked the 68k architecture)
The second part was the general question, which I
guess was a bit too specific. What computers have you come across that are
really neat and why. OK.- System/3{60,70,90,z} is neat for it's processor instruction
set, PERQs for the user-microcode.
SGI Origin 2000's are neat for their CRAYlink/NUMAlink interconnect system, AXPs for
the PALcode idea (sort of a takeoff of the PERQ).
If you saw a computer that has a serial port implementation that is so elegant that it
struck you as a thing of beauty throw that in ...
I'm just interested in getting a feel for what's out there that members feel is
neat. I was kind of thinking hardware to start with,
but it could be extended to software.
I like the fact that, from the programmer's perspective, plugging
boards into a PDP-8 essentially adds device-specific instructions to the
CPU. I don't think it's the cleanest or most elegant way of doing
things, but I like how different (from today's stuff) it is, and I think
it's clever. 
6:59 p.m.
I'm just interested in getting a feel for
what's out there that
members feel is neat. I was kind of thinking hardware to start with,
but it could be extended to software.
The keyboard on the HP9810 and HP9820. OK, not really a computer (they're
proggammable calculators, but hey, they've got a bit-serial 16-bit
processor, I/O (HPIB was avalable for the '20, are user programmable,
etc). The PCB under the keyboard has spiral tracks under each key,
connected by vias. These forma a pair of pulse transformers, with the
primaries and secondaries in series, but in antiphase. Thus a pulse
through the peimaries produces no output, since the pulses in the
secondaries cancel each other out. Pressing a key brings a disk of metal
against one side of the PCB, damping that transformer, and the pulse from
the other one then appears on the output. The primaries form an X-Y
matrix that's scanned by electronic under the keyboard, the output pulses
are detected, and the state of the scan counter is then fed to the
processor. Actually, I've missed out one detail, there are 2 keys at each
location of the matrix with the secondary pairs connected in antiphase.
Pressing one key produces a +ve output pulse, the other key a -ve pulse.
These pulses are detected by a LM711 comaparator that looks for one
polarity of pulse, then the outher (each location in the matrix is thus
driven twice in succession).
A trivial example. The wiring of the serial port on the Epson HX20. It
uses an 8 pin DIN plug. As is well-knonw (>) th 8 pin socket will also
take 3, 5 and 7 pin plugs). And all of them give a useful subset of the
signals :
3 pin : Ground, TxD, RxD
5 pin : adds RTS and CTA
7 pin : adds DSR and DTR
8 pin : adds CD
And the serial port on the Tatung Einstein. It uses the quincuncial 5 pin
DIN plug, the one that fits either way up. Turning it over swaps TxD and
Rxd, and also RTS and CTS. Oh, and a big raspberry to Acorn for the way
they wired the same type of connector on the Beeb. Turning that one over
swaps the data nad handshake lines, which is rarely, if ever, helpful
Another beautiful design is the I2S Model 70 (and 75) Image
processor/display systems. I must dig out the manuals and post the
details again.
I've already mentioned the PERQ (great CPU!) and the HP9100 (the most
elegant piece of electronics I've ever worked on).
-tony
7:22 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
The keyboard on the HP9810 and HP9820. OK, not really
a computer (they're
proggammable calculators, but hey, they've got a bit-serial 16-bit
processor, I/O (HPIB was avalable for the '20, are user programmable,
etc). The PCB under the keyboard has spiral tracks under each key,
connected by vias. These forma a pair of pulse transformers, with the
primaries and secondaries in series, but in antiphase. Thus a pulse
through the peimaries produces no output, since the pulses in the
secondaries cancel each other out. Pressing a key brings a disk of metal
against one side of the PCB, damping that transformer, and the pulse from
the other one then appears on the output. The primaries form an X-Y
matrix that's scanned by electronic under the keyboard, the output pulses
are detected, and the state of the scan counter is then fed to the
processor. Actually, I've missed out one detail, there are 2 keys at each
location of the matrix with the secondary pairs connected in antiphase.
Pressing one key produces a +ve output pulse, the other key a -ve pulse.
These pulses are detected by a LM711 comaparator that looks for one
polarity of pulse, then the outher (each location in the matrix is thus
driven twice in succession).
OMG. That is TOO COOL.
It's almost criminal that the suits have taken over HP and ruined it.
They came up with SO much amazing stuff over the years.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Cape Coral, FL
7:47 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
> The keyboard on the HP9810 and HP9820. OK, not really a computer (they're
[....]
OMG. That is TOO COOL.
I got part-way to working it out by dismantling a machine and testing
signals. But not being able to determine the phasing of each transformer,
I thoght that the metal disk increased the coupling on the 'top' side of
the PCB. Fortunately I read the patent which explained it all.
They don't have much of a following, but I think the HP desktop
calculators up to about 1977 (that's things like the 9100, 9810, 9820,
9830, 9815, 9825) are very interesting and elegant machines. Maybe
they're not computers in the strictest sense, but they're darn close.
Totally useless trivial point about the 9810 (and none of the others). It
can be claimed to be a 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 or 16 bit machine :
1 bit is the width of the binary ALU path (bit-serial processor)
3 bits is the physical width of user program memory (it's doubled-up in
hardware to store 6 bit keycodes)
4 bits ithe width of the BCD ALU path (from the A and T registers and
back to the A register)
6 bits is the logical width of user program memory
8 bits is the physical width of user data memory (again doubled-up in
hardware)
16 bits is the logical width of user data memory, and also the size of
the CPU (shift) registers.
It's almost criminal that the suits have taken over HP and ruined it.
They came up with SO much amazing stuff over the years.
Agreed. Time was when I read about a new HP handheld calculator and I
wondered how I'd afford it. Now that worry has been taken away, I don't
_want_ it. I made the mistake of buying an HP49G as soon as I saw it.
The first ROM versions were so buggy as to be unusable (and to be
honest, while later flash upgrades have fixed some bugs, they've also
added some), it was mis-advertised, the keyboard is horrible, and so on.
I wrote a letter to HP complaining about this, they didn't even bother to
reply (and yes, I did include return postage). That is not the attitude I
expected from a once-great company.
No, I'll stick with my old 67, 41, 71, etc machines. Those work, they
behave as advertised. And I can understand them.
And that's just calculators. Their test gear was great too. As an
example, take a look at the manual for the 5245 counter (the 5243 must be
similar, probably others too). Building a decade counter, latch and
display (nixie) driver using 8 transistors and no ICs is a major hack
IMHO. Every time I read an _old_ HP service manual, I am filled with
admiration for the way it was designed and constructed.
Alas not any more. Their modern stuff (printers, digital cameras, etc)
seems to be cheap and nasty. Probably no worse than anybody elses, but no
better either.
-tony
8:04 p.m.
On 8/10/2006 at 12:47 AM ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk wrote:
Alas not any more. Their modern stuff (printers,
digital cameras, etc)
seems to be cheap and nasty. Probably no worse than anybody elses, but no
better either.
I sometimes wonder if the batteries in my HP11C will outlast me. Bought
the thing when it first came out and, on impulse, about 10 years ago,
replaced the batteries--not because they were flat, just thought it would
be a good idea.
Cheers,
Chuck
8:13 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
They don't have much of a following, but I think
the HP desktop
calculators up to about 1977 (that's things like the 9100, 9810, 9820,
9830, 9815, 9825) are very interesting and elegant machines. Maybe
they're not computers in the strictest sense, but they're darn close.
I have a 9815 and a 9830 in my storage locker, both with power supply
problems. I hope to move into a house with more workspace within the
next couple of months; when that happens I'll pull them (and lots of
other goodies) out and try to bring them back to life.
Are schematics around for those machines, do you know?
Totally useless trivial point about the 9810 (and none
of the others). It
can be claimed to be a 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 or 16 bit machine :
You, sir, are a geek of the very highest order. ;)
Agreed. Time was when I read about a new HP handheld
calculator and I
wondered how I'd afford it. Now that worry has been taken away, I don't
_want_ it. I made the mistake of buying an HP49G as soon as I saw it.
The first ROM versions were so buggy as to be unusable (and to be
honest, while later flash upgrades have fixed some bugs, they've also
added some), it was mis-advertised, the keyboard is horrible, and so on.
I wrote a letter to HP complaining about this, they didn't even bother to
reply (and yes, I did include return postage). That is not the attitude I
expected from a once-great company.
They didn't even REPLY!?!
No, I'll stick with my old 67, 41, 71, etc
machines. Those work, they
behave as advertised. And I can understand them.
Yep. I have a 41CX and a 28S on my desk, and a 41CV (with HPIL module
and HPIL<->HPIB converter) in my electronics lab. I have a 48SX (I
actually have most models of HP handhelds in my collection) and I
actually do like it, but it really doesn't see much use.
And that's just calculators. Their test gear was
great too. As an
example, take a look at the manual for the 5245 counter (the 5243 must be
similar, probably others too). Building a decade counter, latch and
display (nixie) driver using 8 transistors and no ICs is a major hack
IMHO. Every time I read an _old_ HP service manual, I am filled with
admiration for the way it was designed and constructed.
Is that the one that used the cool trick with the neon lamps and the
photocells? That's really good stuff.
Alas not any more. Their modern stuff (printers,
digital cameras, etc)
seems to be cheap and nasty. Probably no worse than anybody elses, but no
better either.
Yep, gone the way of the suit. Quality and innovation are things of
the past...along with repeat customers. No modern company will ever
have the customer loyalty that HP had for test equipment and DEC had for
computers. It is a shame.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Cape Coral, FL
8:30 p.m.
On 8/9/2006 at 8:13 PM Dave McGuire wrote:
Yep, gone the way of the suit. Quality and
innovation are things of
the past...along with repeat customers. No modern company will ever
have the customer loyalty that HP had for test equipment and DEC had for
computers. It is a shame.
Nope, just reality. Silicon's cheap. And you can pay a Chinese IC
designer $28K per year to design whatever your heart desires.
Cheers,
Chuck
10 Aug
10 Aug
7:59 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Well if "reality" means "profit at any cost", sure. But as I
mentioned in another message, if everything does finally get reduced to
that (a point things seem to be approaching very quickly these days),
then the world will be a very boring place.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Cape Coral, FL
Yep, gone the
way of the suit. Quality and innovation are things of
the past...along with repeat customers. No modern company will ever
have the customer loyalty that HP had for test equipment and DEC had for
computers. It is a shame.
Nope, just reality. Silicon's cheap. And you can pay a Chinese IC
designer $28K per year to design whatever your heart desires.
9 Aug
9 Aug
9:58 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Why do you think it's PSU problems?
On the 9830, the display will be blank if there's a problem almost
anywhere in the machine. In particular, the processor, memory controller,
ROM, RAM, display driver and display boards all have to be working
correctly. Oh, and the PSU. Even a fault on some of the other boards can
mess up the I/O bus and cause the display to be blank.
The 9815 is a ltitle more conventional (there's a 6800 microprocessor in
there), but even so, the display is driven in software. So problems in
the CPU/memory ares could blank the displau (or could cause a line of
dashes to appear across the display -- that 'busy' display is
hardware-generated).
They don't have much of a following, but I
think the HP desktop
calculators up to about 1977 (that's things like the 9100, 9810, 9820,
9830, 9815, 9825) are very interesting and elegant machines. Maybe
they're not computers in the strictest sense, but they're darn close.
I have a 9815 and a 9830 in my storage locker, both with power supply
problems. I hope to move into a house with more workspace within the next couple of months; when that happens I'll pull
them (and lots of
other goodies) out and try to bring them back to life.
Are schematics around for those machines, do you know?
Oh yes... But last time I mentioned this I was flamed alive....
Anyway, the site to go to for documentation for larger HP machines
(desktop calculators, HP9000s, minis, peripherals, etc) is
http://www.hpmseum.net/ . I assume you have a graphical display and can
read pdf files, and have a reasonably fast connection. If not, it may be
worth going to an internet cafe or something.
Either follow the links for the machine you have, or click on the
'documentation' link on the first page.
For both of the machines you mention, the HP service manuals are there.
Be warned they are boardswapper guides, but I think they include
scheamtics of the PSU area. You'll also find 'HPxxxxSchematicsByTonyDuell'
(or some name like that) for many of the machines, including the 2 you
mention. Those are diagrams I've drawn out from an actual machine. Be
warned you'll have to put up with my handwriting (I don't use a CAD
system...), that there are very likely to be errors (darn it, I must have
drawn out several _thousand_ pages for all the machines, there will be
errors). And you might have a different version of the machine. But they
should be a start (and I do include everything, not just PSUs). Of course
I'd appreciate being told of errors, or different versions.
Now for the bit that dras flamage. You can buy a CD-ROM of 'my' diagrams
from HPCC. I don't produce this CD-ROM, a friend
does. And there have
been comments about the wrong file format being used, and the
fact that
it's not free.
I didn't pick the format, he did. So please comment to him, not me, about
it. And I don't make a penny from this. All profits go to HPCC.
Totally
useless trivial point about the 9810 (and none of the others). It
can be claimed to be a 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 or 16 bit machine :
You, sir, are a geek of the very highest order. ;) Agreed. Time was when I read about a new HP
handheld calculator and I
wondered how I'd afford it. Now that worry has been taken away, I don't
_want_ it. I made the mistake of buying an HP49G as soon as I saw it.
The first ROM versions were so buggy as to be unusable (and to be
honest, while later flash upgrades have fixed some bugs, they've also
added some), it was mis-advertised, the keyboard is horrible, and so on.
I wrote a letter to HP complaining about this, they didn't even bother to
reply (and yes, I did include return postage). That is not the attitude I
expected from a once-great company.
They didn't even REPLY!?! No, I'll stick with my old 67, 41, 71, etc
machines. Those work, they
behave as advertised. And I can understand them.
Yep. I have a 41CX and a 28S on my desk, and a 41CV (with HPIL module
and HPIL<->HPIB converter) in my electronics lab. I have a 48SX (I
actually have most models of HP handhelds in my collection) and I
actually do like it, but it really doesn't see much use. And that's just calculators. Their test gear
was great too. As an
example, take a look at the manual for the 5245 counter (the 5243 must be
similar, probably others too). Building a decade counter, latch and
display (nixie) driver using 8 transistors and no ICs is a major hack
IMHO. Every time I read an _old_ HP service manual, I am filled with
admiration for the way it was designed and constructed.
Is that the one that used the cool trick with the neon lamps and the
photocells? That's really good stuff. 
8:17 p.m.
It's almost criminal that the suits have taken
over HP and ruined it.
They came up with SO much amazing stuff over the years.
Amazing and cool yes, but a really foolish way to do things from just
about any engineering standpoint. Back in the 1700s they actually
invented something called the "switch", and often made it into a shape
that could be pressed, so one bit of metal touches another. Works
amazingly well. Cheap and reliable, too.
Of course, back then HP (and Tek, and just about everyone else) could
get away with over the top wet dream engineering, with all that Cold
War era military business. These days, those same keyboard engineers
would be flipping burgers after a week of such nonsense.
But then, I must admit that often I like the silly, backwards,
all-to-clever designs that make their way into vintage electronics.
Makes all those 68Ks and PDP-11s look boring...
--
Will
10:03 p.m.
It's almost criminal that the suits have
taken over HP and ruined it.
They came up with SO much amazing stuff over the years.
Amazing and cool yes, but a really foolish way to do things from just
about any engineering standpoint. Back in the 1700s they actually invented something called the "switch", and
often made it into a shape
that could be pressed, so one bit of metal touches another. Works
amazingly well. Cheap and reliable, too.
Cheap yes. Reliable, I beg to differ. Or perhaps you've never had a dodgy
switch contact, a key that doesn't always work, that sort of thing.
I assume you also think the Keytronics capacitive keyboard is a daft
design. I don't think many will agree with you.
If you want a cheap, standard, design, go and get a PC. One of the things
I like about classic computers is the ingenious, odd, bits of design you
find in them. If you don't, I have to wonder why you bother with this list.
Of course, back then HP (and Tek, and just about everyone else) could
get away with over the top wet dream engineering, with all that Cold
War era military business. These days, those same keyboard engineers
would be flipping burgers after a week of such nonsense.
Which is why I won't buy a modern keyboard, I keep on with the old ones...
But then, I must admit that often I like the silly, backwards,
all-to-clever designs that make their way into vintage electronics.
Makes all those 68Ks and PDP-11s look boring...
Have you ever looked at the design of a PDP11? Try analysing the 11/45 at
gate level sometime...
-tony
10 Aug
10 Aug
7:57 a.m.
William Donzelli wrote:
Not sure I'd agree on the reliability...I've spilled my fair share of
coke into keyboards, and contact-closure keyswitches just don't cut it
for me unless they're sealed. I don't really think it's all that bad of
an idea.
But aside from that, I firmly believe there should be more to
designing than just doing the minimum required to get by. There is a
certain amount of art involved in what we do.
Or, at least, there *was*.
Just my opinion of course..
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Cape Coral, FL
It's
almost criminal that the suits have taken over HP and ruined it.
They came up with SO much amazing stuff over the years.
Amazing and cool yes, but a really foolish way to do things from just
about any engineering standpoint. Back in the 1700s they actually
invented something called the "switch", and often made it into a shape
that could be pressed, so one bit of metal touches another. Works
amazingly well. Cheap and reliable, too.
11:57 p.m.
Not sure I'd agree on the reliability...I've
spilled my fair share of
coke into keyboards, and contact-closure keyswitches just don't cut it
for me unless they're sealed.
You can make switches that are cheap and nasty, and you can make
switches that will last 100 years - and everything in between. If you
want a fair comparison, match the HP keyboard against a quality
"mechanical switch" keyboard, not a Chinese piece of crap. Lets face
it, HP stuff of that era was pretty much the pinnacle of engineering.
But aside from that, I firmly believe there should
be more to
designing than just doing the minimum required to get by. There is a
certain amount of art involved in what we do.
Yes, there is (I have trouble explaining this to some artist friends).
Or, at least, there *was*.
It is a blurred line, that of marketting, economics, and engineering.
Certainly there are still plenty of products that have much more than
the minimum to get buy - high end sports cars are a good non-computer
example. These things, however, are a much smaller share of the global
market these days than they were in the past. With the end of the Cold
War and the increase in Asian production, it is getting extremely
difficult to justify going over the minimum in a design - for the most
part that is just wasting money. Shareholders do not like that.
--
Will
11 Aug
11 Aug
12:37 a.m.
On 8/10/2006 at 11:57 PM William Donzelli wrote:
You can make switches that are cheap and nasty, and you
can make
switches that will last 100 years - and everything in between. If you
want a fair comparison, match the HP keyboard against a quality
"mechanical switch" keyboard, not a Chinese piece of crap. Lets face
it, HP stuff of that era was pretty much the pinnacle of engineering.
Was the HP keyboard really that good, or merely clever? For example, at
that same time, keyboards were using individual Hall effect switches,
sealed reed switches and wiping-contact enclosed switches. To my eye, the
HP keyboard looks like a clever way to make a keyboard on the cheap.
Cheers,
Chuck
5:37 p.m.
Not sure I'd agree on the
reliability...I've spilled my fair share of
coke into keyboards, and contact-closure keyswitches just don't cut it
for me unless they're sealed.
You can make switches that are cheap and nasty, and you can make
switches that will last 100 years - and everything in between. If you
want a fair comparison, match the HP keyboard against a quality
"mechanical switch" keyboard, not a Chinese piece of crap. Lets face it, HP stuff of that era was pretty much the pinnacle
of engineering.
One reason why I like their _old_ machines.
-tony
6557
days inactive
6563
days old
30 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cclist＠sydex.com -
compoobah＠valleyimplants.com -
gordon＠gjcp.net -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
spc＠conman.org -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com