7 May
2005
7 May
'05
9:31 p.m.
I just got a Dell Pocket PC last week and I want to
start seeking out some "classic" stuff for it. For starters,
I've done some Googling for the adventure game interpreter
ScottFree for thr PocketPC but I've come up empty.
Does anyone have a pointer to one? Also, I'd appreciate
any links to other classic stuff for the PocketPC.
Classic? PocketPC? Kinda new for "classic".
I can help you out with Adventure for the Palm, and the palm is 10 years
old now (or more).
7 May
7 May
10:16 p.m.
Not the PocketPC itself (although Windows CE is about 10 years old by
now), but classic emulators for it. I'm sure that there are a lot of
emulations you can do on PDA platforms. One that comes to mind is the
KIM-1, or maybe even a CP/M emulator if running the PDA in "landscape"
mode.
I actually downloaded the SDK for the PocketPC platform so I can see if
I can get the Altair32 running on it. It's going to be a challenge
fitting the Altair32 into a QVGA screen.
Anyway, I felt that running the Scott Adams text adventure games in an
emulator qualified as "classic".
{OK, a bit of Googling proved that Windows CE 1.0 was introduced in
November 1996. I'm going with the fact that it was in beta in 1995).
Rich
Rich Cini
Collector of classic computers
Build Master for the Altair32 Emulation Project
Web site: http://highgate.comm.sfu.ca/~rcini/classiccmp/
/************************************************************/
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of James Fogg
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 9:32 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: ScottFree interpreter for Pocket PC
I just got a Dell Pocket PC last week and I want to
start seeking out some "classic" stuff for it. For starters,
I've done some Googling for the adventure game interpreter
ScottFree for thr PocketPC but I've come up empty.
Does anyone have a pointer to one? Also, I'd appreciate
any links to other classic stuff for the PocketPC.
Classic? PocketPC? Kinda new for "classic".
I can help you out with Adventure for the Palm, and the palm is 10 years
old now (or more).
10:28 p.m.
{OK, a bit of Googling proved that Windows CE 1.0 was
introduced in
November 1996. I'm going with the fact that it was in beta in 1995).
Yes, but I've said time and time again that there isn't a "10 year rule"
here anymore. 10 year limit just doesn't work, it's gotta be "classic".
Jay
6:14 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Coke - a - Cola. :)
In this case I would guess any computer that has some special quality
as compared to the Millions of Pee Cee's you can find.
Full documentation and reparable are features often needed too.
Yes, but
I've said time and time again that there isn't a "10 year rule"
here anymore. 10 year limit just doesn't work, it's gotta be "classic".
And what is the definition of 'classic'
7:27 p.m.
woodelf wrote:
Tony Duell wrote:
Coke - a - Cola. :)
In this case I would guess any computer that has some special quality
as compared to the Millions of Pee Cee's you can find.
Full documentation and reparable are features often needed too.
I still think that even relatively modern machines could *just* squeeze
into the definition of "classic" - as in, the expectation that they will
be a classic given time - if they're interesting enough.
Gordon.
Yes, but
I've said time and time again that there isn't a "10 year
rule" here anymore. 10 year limit just doesn't work, it's gotta be
"classic".
And what is the definition of 'classic'
10:11 p.m.
Gordon wrote...
I still think that even relatively modern machines
could *just* squeeze
into the definition of "classic" - as in, the expectation that they will
be a classic given time - if they're interesting enough.
You are correct in that some more relatively modern machines could be
considered classic.
Something can only be classic once the current paradigm is sufficiently
different from the paradigm in place at the time of the machine in question.
When Windows based PC's are no longer the mainstay of the market, then,
possibly, they could be considered classic, if the new paradigm is vastly
different. However, we can talk about this when PC's are no longer the
concept of the common computer. That will be a long long time most likely.
My own personal prediction is that (currently) modern PC's won't be classic
in our lifetimes.
Jay West
9 May
9 May
2:12 a.m.
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Jay West wrote:
different. However, we can talk about this when
PC's are no longer the
concept of the common computer. That will be a long long time most likely.
My own personal prediction is that (currently) modern PC's won't be classic
in our lifetimes.
I think you're wrong. Look at how far we've come and how fast.
1950 -> 1960 Major leaps in computing technology
1960 -> 1970 Much change, but not as much as the previous decade
1970 -> 1980 Everything gets smaller, cheaper, and on a single chip
1980 -> 1990 Refinement of what came out in the 1970s
1990 -> 2000 PC dreck
The timeline is getting compressed. Stuff that took 10-20 years to be
considered "ancient" or even "retro" is now only taking 5-10.
To that end, I was just thinking the other day that I better stash away a
generic crap 386 clone before I stop coming across them. We'll need
samples to demonstrate to people 20-30 years now the low-point of
computing in our more recent era ;)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
11:01 a.m.
Sellam wrote...
I think you're wrong. Look at how far we've
come and how fast.
Yeah, I could be wrong. And in this case, I'd be very happy to be wrong.
Again, let's table this for discussion until it's appropriate - which is
when PC/Windows machines are no longer the current paradigm. I say it's
going to be many many years, you say it's not - but neither really matters,
let's see what happens :)
Jay
8:39 p.m.
On Mon, 9 May 2005, Jay West wrote:
Sellam wrote...
I wasn't arguing regarding the "rule". I think the updated definition is
fine. I would just as soon not argue over it ever again and just hope
people have enough sense to understand what "classic" means.
I was just pointing out that things are becoming "classic" more quickly
than you might imagine ;) I also used to think PCs wouldn't be classic or
interesting for decades, but that's proving to be completely wrong--at
least in my case.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
I think you're wrong. Look at how far
we've come and how fast.
Yeah, I could be wrong. And in this case, I'd be very happy to be wrong.
Again, let's table this for discussion until it's appropriate - which is
when PC/Windows machines are no longer the current paradigm. I say it's
going to be many many years, you say it's not - but neither really matters,
let's see what happens :) 
2:44 p.m.
To that end, I was just thinking the other day that I
better stash away
a
generic crap 386 clone before I stop coming across
them. We'll need
samples to demonstrate to people 20-30 years now the low-point of
computing in our more recent era ;)
What makes you think things cannot get any worse :-)
Antonio
--
---------------
Antonio Carlini arcarlini at iee.org
7:05 p.m.
I think you're wrong. Look at how far we've
come and how fast.
1950 -> 1960 Major leaps in computing technology
1960 -> 1970 Much change, but not as much as the previous decade
1970 -> 1980 Everything gets smaller, cheaper, and on a single chip
1980 -> 1990 Refinement of what came out in the 1970s
1990 -> 2000 PC dreck
The timeline is getting compressed. Stuff that took 10-20 years to be
considered "ancient" or even "retro" is now only taking 5-10.
I see it the other way. A lot changed between, say 1960 and 1970. The
older machines were still useful and in use in 1970, but the then-current
machines were quite different.
Whereas now, all that's happening is the clock rate is going up. OK,
that's something of an oversimplfication, but not much :-). Todays PC and
a PC of 5 years ago are still the same, broken, design.
So today's stuff will take longer to become classic, simply because it's
not reallyt changing so fast.
-tony
8:03 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Not sure if you're trolling :-) but I would HOPE that the "10 year rule" is
invalid and that the new rule is "anything that ISN'T what is currently sold
today". Meaning, Windows PCs and Mac OS X -- everything else, being around 10
years old or older, would be valid. For me, this translates to "everything up
to and including Amiga". (1994)
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
Yes, but
I've said time and time again that there isn't a "10 year rule"
here anymore. 10 year limit just doesn't work, it's gotta be "classic".
And what is the definition of 'classic'?
10:16 p.m.
Jim wrote....
but I would HOPE that the "10 year rule" is
invalid and that the new rule
is "anything that ISN'T what is currently sold today".
The ten year rule is invalid. It no longer fits. I'll keep repeating that
till the topic stops coming up ;)
I agree with your definition above, with one addition. Just because it isn't
sold anymore doesn't make it classic. Something that is currently sold may
in fact be classic (but not very commonly). The key is - if the item is
representative of something that is very different, or innovative, that
isn't generally done that way today.
Jay
9 May
9 May
6:56 p.m.
Not sure if you're trolling :-) but I would HOPE
that the "10 year rule" is
invalid and that the new rule is "anything that ISN'T what is currently sold
today". Meaning, Windows PCs and Mac OS X -- everything else, being around 10
One minor problem (I hope...). Unix-like OSes and machines to run are still
sold today, in that I can go to a PC shop and buy a modern PC and a book
with a Linux CD-ROM in the back....
Now this list is not appropriate for linux discussions in general (there
are many better places for such things), but surely we can talk about old
unix boxen...
-tony
7:37 p.m.
One minor problem (I hope...). Unix-like OSes and
machines to run
are still sold today, in that I can go to a PC shop and buy a modern
PC and a book with a Linux CD-ROM in the back....
Now this list is not appropriate for linux discussions
in general
(there are many better places for such things), but surely we can
talk about old unix boxen...
Yes - but not in their capacities as generic Unix boxen. (Except
peripherally, in much the same way that we tolerate some discussion of
modern Wintel stuff, or just about anything else for tha matter,
provided it's got some suitable relevance.)
That is, if someone were to ask here (about a Unix) "how do I see
what's in a directory?" I'd say it's off-topic, or at least
inappropriate, even if the Unix variant in question happens to be V7
running on a PDP-11 - because it's really a generic Unix question. (Of
course, context can modify this; if the poster goes on to say something
like "ls doesn't work for me because..." and makes it relevant to the
way(s) in which the box is outside the commodity-Unix-box paradigm,
then I'd be fine with it.)
And of course not everything inappropriate needs slapping down. One of
the things I like about our mini-society is that we *are* a
mini-society and do a certain amount of socializing and the like, even
if it is, strictly, not proper subject matter for the list. (But that
needs to be kept in moderation, too.)
/~\ 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
8:15 p.m.
On Mon, 9 May 2005 23:56:17 +0100 (BST)
ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
I consider 'classic UNIX hardware' to be anything that isn't a PC,
especially machines specifically designed for UNIX. I have an Altos
586, an 8086 machine that is completely NOT a pee-cee. It runs a Xenix
produced by Microsoft (pre-SCO) and is classic hardware. And is
evidence of a slice of history now mostly forgotten, i.e. the days of
Microsoft before the IBM-PC deal, when they were actually a UNIX vendor
for the 8086 processor. Early Sun boxes are also classic. My oldest
Power1 RS/6000 box is classic hardware.
Truly classic UNIX would be DEC hardware running 'Ancient UNIX' of
course.
Not sure if
you're trolling :-) but I would HOPE that the "10 year
rule" is invalid and that the new rule is "anything that ISN'T what
is currently sold today". Meaning, Windows PCs and Mac OS X --
everything else, being around 10
One minor problem (I hope...). Unix-like OSes and machines to run are
still sold today, in that I can go to a PC shop and buy a modern PC
and a book with a Linux CD-ROM in the back....
Now this list is not appropriate for linux discussions in general
(there are many better places for such things), but surely we can talk
about old unix boxen...
-tony 
8:22 p.m.
On 5/9/05, Scott Stevens <chenmel at earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mon, 9 May 2005 23:56:17 +0100 (BST)
ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
I consider 'classic UNIX hardware' to be anything that isn't a PC,
especially machines specifically designed for UNIX. I have an Altos
586, an 8086 machine that is completely NOT a pee-cee.
This seems to be the general consensus, not only in the classiccmp
lists but pretty much any "older" environment of which I've been a
member. For instance, it's very close to the definition over at
freeshell.org , AKA Super Dimensional Fortress. They run *BSD on
Alpha, as a descendant of the AT&T 3b2's all the way back to an APPLE
][e.
-dhbarr.
Not sure
if you're trolling :-) but I would HOPE that the "10 year
rule" is invalid and that the new rule is "anything that ISN'T what
is currently sold today". Meaning, Windows PCs and Mac OS X --
everything else, being around 10
One minor problem (I hope...). Unix-like OSes and machines to run are
still sold today, in that I can go to a PC shop and buy a modern PC
and a book with a Linux CD-ROM in the back....
Now this list is not appropriate for linux discussions in general
(there are many better places for such things), but surely we can talk
about old unix boxen...
-tony
10 May
10 May
12:41 p.m.
I have an Altos 586, an 8086 machine that is
completely NOT a
pee-cee.
Hm, that might be an interesting question. What machines are there
built around x86 CPUs but which are definitely not peecees?
I suspect there are more of them with the earlier CPUs (8086) than with
the later ('386, '486, Pentium, etc). The latest one that comes to my
mind immediately is Sun's 386i (the "Road Runner").
/~\ 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
12:56 p.m.
der Mouse wrote:
The SGI 320 and 540 are arguably not PeeCees even though they run
Windows. The firmware is nothing like the normal x86 BIOS.
Doc
I have an Altos
586, an 8086 machine that is completely NOT a
pee-cee.
Hm, that might be an interesting question. What machines are there
built around x86 CPUs but which are definitely not peecees?
I suspect there are more of them with the earlier CPUs (8086) than with
the later ('386, '486, Pentium, etc). The latest one that comes to my
mind immediately is Sun's 386i (the "Road Runner"). 
1:10 p.m.
der Mouse wrote:
Hm, that might be an interesting question. What
machines are there
built around x86 CPUs but which are definitely not peecees?
Depending on how generous or tight ones defintion of 'peecee' is,
perhaps the NCR 34xx line... ISTR we had quad P90s with 4? 8?
Microchannels and wads of SCSI cards and local disks when I was at
Lucent c. 1996. From one standpoint, a box the size of a small fridge
is not a peecee, from the other, I was told that one could plug a VGA
monitor in, boot from a DOS floppy and play Doom... I think these
uber-peecees were around $100K. They were certainly tens of thousands
of dollars base, plus disk.
These ran UNIX, for the record, but if one ignored the multiprocessor
aspect of them, they'd run Windows fine, too.
-ethan
1:45 p.m.
Ethan Dicks wrote:
Depending on how generous or tight ones defintion of
'peecee' is,
perhaps the NCR 34xx line... ISTR we had quad P90s with 4? 8?
Microchannels and wads of SCSI cards and local disks when I was at
Lucent c. 1996. From one standpoint, a box the size of a small fridge
is not a peecee, from the other, I was told that one could plug a VGA
monitor in, boot from a DOS floppy and play Doom... I think these
uber-peecees were around $100K. They were certainly tens of thousands
of dollars base, plus disk.
I work at Lucent, and I support these things (which I hate, btw -- I'd rather
admin a clone PC running ANYTHING (BSD, Linux, whatever) than the NCR boxen I
have assigned to me :-) They are more Unix-ish than a regular winbox --
multiple CPUs, Microchannel -- but they are, technically, x86 PCs.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
4:20 p.m.
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Doc Shipley wrote:
der Mouse wrote:
The SGI 320 and 540 are arguably not PeeCees even though they run
Windows. The firmware is nothing like the normal x86 BIOS.
Convergent Technologies IWS
http://wwwacs.gantep.edu.tr/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?Convergent+Technologies
Convergent Technologies stackable stuff (forgot what it's called)
Seattle Computer Products Gazelle (argubly non-PC)
Can't think of any more off the top of my head but there are more,
including the 8086 S-100 boards that CompuPro made.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
I have an
Altos 586, an 8086 machine that is completely NOT a
pee-cee.
Hm, that might be an interesting question. What machines are there
built around x86 CPUs but which are definitely not peecees?
I suspect there are more of them with the earlier CPUs (8086) than with
the later ('386, '486, Pentium, etc). The latest one that comes to my
mind immediately is Sun's 386i (the "Road Runner"). 
1:46 p.m.
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:41, der Mouse wrote:
There's a few that I can think of off the top of my head.
DEC Rainbow. (got one at home) 8088(?) and Z80. It ran a somewhat
modified version of DOS IIRC, but isn't really what I'd call a PC.
NCR WorldMark 5100 - up to 32-way Pentium Pro machine, dual microchannel
busses, ran NCR Unix or potentially a somewhat modified Redhat. These
are in the same class as what Ethan talks about in a message, except I
don't think that these are capable of running Windows.
They're not classic, but Cray's (use to be OctigaBay) XD1 and their XT3
(aka Sandia's Redstorm) use AMD Opterons in a very non-PC-like
configuration.
Those are the examples I could think of off the top of my head.
Pat
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
I have an
Altos 586, an 8086 machine that is completely NOT a
pee-cee.
Hm, that might be an interesting question. What machines are there
built around x86 CPUs but which are definitely not peecees?
I suspect there are more of them with the earlier CPUs (8086) than
with the later ('386, '486, Pentium, etc). The latest one that comes
to my mind immediately is Sun's 386i (the "Road Runner"). 
2:04 p.m.
New subject: x86 non-PeeCees.
Rumor has it that Patrick Finnegan may have mentioned these words:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:41, der Mouse wrote:
DEC Rainbow. (got one at home) 8088(?) and Z80. It ran a somewhat
modified version of DOS IIRC, but isn't really what I'd call a PC.
Off the top of my head:
Zenith(Heathkit) Z100 -- 8085 and 8086, IIRC. Ran both CP/M and a
specialized MS-DOS.
Tandy 600 "laptop" -- ran Microsoft's HH/OS (Hand Held OS) - don't
remember
if it was an 8088 or 8086; I'll have to look next chance I get, tho it'll
be a little while.
CompuGraphic PowerView 5 & 10. Computerized typesetting machines;
monochrome grafix. Very specialized; runs only the built-in OS. Haven't
touched one in *years* so the memory's a little rusty. IIRC, 1Meg Max RAM,
80186 CPU. Somewhat "macro" programmable; I did some *weird* things with
the colon character and the macro loops to make "screened areas" on forms.
Only good for *small* areas -- else the computer would run out of memory
(if you're lucky) or totally crash.
;-)
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | Anarchy doesn't scale well. -- Me
zmerch at 30below.com. |
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
5:58 p.m.
On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:41:12 -0400 (EDT)
der Mouse <mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca> wrote:
Hm, that might be an interesting question. What
machines are there
built around x86 CPUs but which are definitely not peecees?
- Sequent build early
SMP and a bit later big NUMA machines based on
80[3456]86 CPUs. The early machines run some BSD UNIX, IIRC 4.2BSD,
later replaced by some SysV flavor. Finaly they supported WinNT...
- Siemens MX300. The first models had some NatSemi 32k CPU, the later
80486. Used Multibus, designed to run Sinix, the Siemes interpretation
of Unix.
- Cray XT3. Current machine, based on AMD Opteron, "scale steadily from
200 to 30,000 processors". =:-()
- SGI Visual Workstation 320 and 540, dual / quad Intel P II / P III,
doomed to run WinNT but finaly there came some Linux support.
- Didn't DG build some Intel based machines to replace the M88k based
AViiON?
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
10:20 p.m.
Jochen Kunz wrote:
- SGI Visual Workstation 320 and 540, dual / quad
Intel P II / P III,
doomed to run WinNT but finaly there came some Linux support.
Not so's you'd notice. The 320 runs NT or Win2K like a scalded ape,
and runs Linux very well, but there's no support at all for the SGI
graphics. Under Linux, it's Just Another PC.
Which really sucks, because I have a nice 320 with flat panel adapter
and 1600SW, but I can't abide looking at Explorer. :(
Doc
6 p.m.
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 12:41:12PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
AFAIK Sequent built a massive parallel system with 80386
CPUs running Dynix/ptx.
Regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
I have an
Altos 586, an 8086 machine that is completely NOT a
pee-cee.
Hm, that might be an interesting question. What machines are there
built around x86 CPUs but which are definitely not peecees? 
6:25 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great der Mouse once stated:
Siemens telephone switches use Intel chips (started with the 8086, back
when my friend worked there they were up to 80486s I believe); software
written in a proprietary langauge called Chill.
-spc (Which was a very Intel x86 specific langauge ... )
I have an Altos 586, an 8086 machine that is
completely NOT a
pee-cee.
Hm, that might be an interesting question. What machines are there
built around x86 CPUs but which are definitely not peecees?
7:03 p.m.
I have an Altos 586, an 8086 machine that is
completely NOT a
pee-cee.
Hm, that might be an interesting question. What machines are there
built around x86 CPUs but which are definitely not peecees?
9 p.m.
On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:41:12 -0400 (EDT)
der Mouse <mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca> wrote:
I would love to have a Sun 386i.
I have an
Altos 586, an 8086 machine that is completely NOT a
pee-cee.
Hm, that might be an interesting question. What machines are there
built around x86 CPUs but which are definitely not peecees?
I suspect there are more of them with the earlier CPUs (8086) than
with the later ('386, '486, Pentium, etc). The latest one that comes
to my mind immediately is Sun's 386i (the "Road Runner").
1:20 a.m.
On Sat, 7 May 2005, Richard A. Cini wrote:
Not the PocketPC itself (although Windows CE is about
10 years old by
now), but classic emulators for it. I'm sure that there are a lot of
emulations you can do on PDA platforms. One that comes to mind is the
KIM-1, or maybe even a CP/M emulator if running the PDA in "landscape"
mode.
Heck, I have an Apple //e emulator on my Psion Series 5. It turns it into
a miniature Apple //e :)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
7:45 a.m.
Last night after some googling I came up with a //e emulator and a
"Pocket Atari 2600". There's also a pocket C64, including a
"commercial"
one from Commodore. There are some others, like a pocket Sinclair.
There's also a commercial Pocket PC-XT ($40), and a port of the MAME
emulator.
I would really like to find a "pocket CP/M" machine.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Vintage Computer
Festival
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 1:20 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: ScottFree interpreter for Pocket PC
On Sat, 7 May 2005, Richard A. Cini wrote:
Not the PocketPC itself (although Windows CE is about
10 years old by
now), but classic emulators for it. I'm sure that there are a lot of
emulations you can do on PDA platforms. One that comes to mind is the
KIM-1, or maybe even a CP/M emulator if running the PDA in "landscape"
mode.
Heck, I have an Apple //e emulator on my Psion Series 5. It turns it
into a miniature Apple //e :)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage
Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at
http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
9:35 a.m.
On 5/8/05, Richard A. Cini <rcini at optonline.net> wrote:
Last night after some googling I came up with a //e
emulator and a
"Pocket Atari 2600". There's also a pocket C64, including a
"commercial"
one from Commodore. There are some others, like a pocket Sinclair.
There's also a commercial Pocket PC-XT ($40), and a port of the MAME
emulator.
I would really like to find a "pocket CP/M" machine.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Vintage Computer
Festival
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 1:20 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: ScottFree interpreter for Pocket PC
On Sat, 7 May 2005, Richard A. Cini wrote:
It depends on how big your pockets are, but this is a fun machine and
it runs BBC Basic and has a cp/m emulator. Not only that it's even on
topic.
http://www.ncus.org.uk/
Dan
Not the PocketPC itself (although Windows CE is
about 10 years old by
now), but classic emulators for it. I'm sure that there are a lot of
emulations you can do on PDA platforms. One that comes to mind is the
KIM-1, or maybe even a CP/M emulator if running the PDA in "landscape"
mode.
Heck, I have an Apple //e emulator on my Psion Series 5. It turns it
into a miniature Apple //e :)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage
Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at
http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
12:49 p.m.
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Dan Williams wrote:
It depends on how big your pockets are, but this is a
fun machine and
it runs BBC Basic and has a cp/m emulator. Not only that it's even on
topic.
http://www.ncus.org.uk/
That's in the portable class.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
12:46 p.m.
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Richard A. Cini wrote:
Last night after some googling I came up with a //e
emulator and a
"Pocket Atari 2600". There's also a pocket C64, including a
"commercial"
one from Commodore. There are some others, like a pocket Sinclair.
There's also a commercial Pocket PC-XT ($40), and a port of the MAME
emulator.
Oh yeah? Post some links! :)
I would really like to find a "pocket CP/M"
machine.
Install CP/M-86 on a Poqet PC ;)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
1:18 p.m.
Rumor has it that Vintage Computer Festival may have mentioned these words:
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Richard A. Cini wrote:
Being from the CoCo world, I've always wanted a pocket OS-9 machine -- I
always thought that would be "the next logical upgrade" to my CoCo - and I
wish Radisys/MicroWare would've ported it to the 68K palms...
I could see the headlines: "OS-9: Small, Fast, Portable. Pick any 3."
;-)
Speaking of them, I have a Palm3c I've been wanting to resurrect and just
maybe "depalmatize" -- any good memory maps, I/O maps or somesuch for older
68K palms?
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | Anarchy doesn't scale well. -- Me
zmerch at 30below.com. |
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
I would really like to find a "pocket
CP/M" machine.
Install CP/M-86 on a Poqet PC ;)
2:49 p.m.
Ok, here's a few:
http://www.pdagold.com/software/list.asp?p=1&c=3&sc=37
http://www.pocketdos.com/
http://www.pocketemulator.com/
http://www.pocketgear.com/software_browse.asp?cat=96 (at the bottom:
Pocket //e and 2600)
http://pocketvcs.emuunlim.com/ (same as above I think but the home site)
http://www.retrogames.com/pocketpc.html
http://www.xt-ce.com/
http://www.zophar.net/ppc/ppc.phtml
Most of these are arcade-related except for the //e XT-CE and PocketDOS
ones. What I was toying with was getting XT-CE and running CP/M-86 on
it. Or, if I have some time, taking the MESS distribution and developing
a PPC Z80 emulation.
Rich
Rich Cini
Collector of classic computers
Build Master for the Altair32 Emulation Project
Web site: http://highgate.comm.sfu.ca/~rcini/classiccmp/
/************************************************************/
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Vintage Computer
Festival
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 12:46 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: ScottFree interpreter for Pocket PC
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Richard A. Cini wrote:
Last night after some googling I came up with a //e
emulator and a
"Pocket Atari 2600". There's also a pocket C64, including a
"commercial" one from Commodore. There are some others, like a pocket
Sinclair. There's also a commercial Pocket PC-XT ($40), and a port of
the MAME emulator.
Oh yeah? Post some links! :)
I would really like to find a "pocket CP/M"
machine.
Install CP/M-86 on a Poqet PC ;)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage
Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at
http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
8:04 p.m.
Richard A. Cini wrote:
There's also a commercial Pocket PC-XT ($40), and
a port of the MAME
Do you have more information on this? I would love to carry around a pocket XT
(that didn't cost $200 like HP 200lx's do)
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
8:40 p.m.
pocket XT
Getting back to the ten-year rule, many of the "smart" barcode
scanners used for inventory/warehouse tracking are 8088- or 80286-based and
in fact run MS-DOS (or compatible) from ROMdisk. These have a multi-line
LCD character display and a fairly full keyboard, and will fit in a
really big shirt pocket. I first saw these around 1990/1991 and the ones
I see today are in fact very little different than the ones from 15 years
ago.
Tim.
9 May
9 May
8:18 p.m.
On Sun, 08 May 2005 19:04:21 -0500
Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:
Richard A. Cini wrote:
You should get an HP 95LX. Mine set me back under $40 on eBay and it's
a full XT. I have masm installed and fiddle with assembly language on
it. It's not anywhere near as nice or expandable as the HP 100LX or
200LX but the price is sure right.
The HP pocket machines have the distinction of coming from the HP
Corvalis division, the folks who made the HP calculators. These
machines have the same build quality as the HP calculators.
There's also a commercial Pocket PC-XT ($40),
and a port of the MAME
Do you have more information on this? I would love to carry around a
pocket XT (that didn't cost $200 like HP 200lx's do) 
8:29 p.m.
Do you have
more information on this? I would love to carry around a
pocket XT (that didn't cost $200 like HP 200lx's do)
You should get an HP 95LX. Mine set me back under $40 on eBay and it's
a full XT. I have masm installed and fiddle with assembly language on
it. It's not anywhere near as nice or expandable as the HP 100LX or
200LX but the price is sure right.
10 May
10 May
6:31 p.m.
I also have a stack of 95LXes. They're cheap and
in the rush for the
I also have a coyple. Great little machines, I use mine for making notes
when working on classic computers (things like : 'Wires on terminal strip
starting from the ledt : red, black, blcak, orange, blue') and as a
portable terminal. The built-in spreadsheet (essentially Lotus 123) does
all I'll ever need from such a program. And there's a reasonable
calculator with an RPN mode (standard 4 level stack).
I don't find the 40 column display to be a major disadvantage, in fact I
find it more readable than the 80 column display of later machines.
bigger better LX series palmtops are often overlooked.
Mine was my only
PDA until I got a Palm.
Mine were my only PDAs until I got an HP100LX. And that's all I have now...
I don't need the functions of a normal PDA. A good programmable
calculator on the other hand....
-tony
7013
days inactive
7016
days old
44 comments
22 participants
participants (22)
-
a.carlini＠ntlworld.com -
als＠thangorodrim.de -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
chenmel＠earthlink.net -
dhbarr＠gmail.com -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
gordon＠gjcp.net -
James＠jdfogg.com -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
rcini＠optonline.net -
shoppa_classiccmp＠trailing-edge.com -
spc＠conman.org -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org -
vcf＠siconic.com -
williams.dan＠gmail.com -
zmerch＠30below.com