17 Jan
2007
17 Jan
'07
2:15 p.m.
Digital archaeology of the microcomputer, 1974-1994
By Steven Goodwin <http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/user/39>
/Online on: 2007-01-05/
/(Or, how to prevent the Dark Ages of computing through free software)/
In a few years time, it will be impossible to study the history of home
computers since everything at the time was proprietary; both in terms of
the physical hardware, and all the software that ran upon it since most
of it is encumbered by software ?protection? to prevent copying.
To compound the problem, the hardware is dying (literally) and (being
proprietary) can?t be rebuilt in any equivalent manner. In some cases
the software is physically disintegrating too since, in the case of many
8-bit micros from the 1980?s, the storage medium was cassette tape; a
temperamental mechanism at the time, let alone now. It?s not that no
computer innovation took place in the 1980?s, just that none of it will
be recorded.
<snip>
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/digital_archaeology_of_the_microc…
17 Jan
17 Jan
2:43 p.m.
And thusly were the wise words spake by Ray Arachelian
Digital archaeology of the microcomputer, 1974-1994
By Steven Goodwin <http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/user/39>
/Online on: 2007-01-05/
/(Or, how to prevent the Dark Ages of computing through free software)/
In a few years time, it will be impossible to study the history of home
computers since everything at the time was proprietary; both in terms of
the physical hardware, and all the software that ran upon it since most
of it is encumbered by software ???protection??? to prevent copying.
To compound the problem, the hardware is dying (literally) and (being
proprietary) can???t be rebuilt in any equivalent manner. In some cases
the software is physically disintegrating too since, in the case of many
8-bit micros from the 1980???s, the storage medium was cassette tape; a
temperamental mechanism at the time, let alone now. It???s not that no
computer innovation took place in the 1980???s, just that none of it will
be recorded.
It sounds like he is implying in his article that nothing is being done to
preserve software.. TOSEC (The Old School Emulation Center @
http://www.tosec.info ) is one place that is doing a very good job...
Cheers,
Bryan
18 Jan
18 Jan
6:29 p.m.
Bryan Pope wrote:
It sounds like he is implying in his article that
nothing is being done to
preserve software.. TOSEC (The Old School Emulation Center @
http://www.tosec.info ) is one place that is doing a very good job...
Not really, since they don't make anything they've archived available.
--
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/
7:06 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Leonard" <trixter at oldskool.org>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Digital archaeology of the microcomputer, 1974-1994
The archives are available in round about ways, this stuff is copyrighted
material so they do not directly host it themselves.
On the PC side I am still looking for a copy of Halo Desktop Imager (lost my
original disks but have the manual and serial). I have yet to see this on
ebay, and none of the groups you would think would have it do. This was a
heavily advertised app (award winning also I believe) from the Win 3.1 era
that I am sure many people heard about it. While most people have a digital
copy of old Adobe, Microsoft, Borland, etc software, I find quite a few
utils and lesser known apps have faded into oblivion and we are talking 90's
era software.
Bryan Pope wrote:
> It sounds like he is implying in his article that nothing is being done
to
preserve
software.. TOSEC (The Old School Emulation Center @
http://www.tosec.info ) is one place that is doing a very good job...
Not really, since they don't make anything they've archived available.
-- 
17 Jan
17 Jan
3:04 p.m.
Ray Arachelian wrote:
/(Or, how to prevent the Dark Ages of computing
through free software)/
In a few years time, it will be impossible to study the history of home
computers since everything at the time was proprietary; both in terms of
the physical hardware, and all the software that ran upon it since most
of it is encumbered by software ?protection? to prevent copying.
To compound the problem, the hardware is dying (literally) and (being
proprietary) can?t be rebuilt in any equivalent manner. In some cases
the software is physically disintegrating too since, in the case of many
8-bit micros from the 1980?s, the storage medium was cassette tape; a
temperamental mechanism at the time, let alone now. It?s not that no
computer innovation took place in the 1980?s, just that none of it will
be recorded.
Hmm, I'm inclined to disagree. In a few years time it will be impossible to
study the *current* generation of home computers because the expected lifetime
of the hardware and software is much less now, whilst the complexity has
increased.
Service information for modern equipment is harder to find, and the parts are
far more likely to be custom anyway.
Data sizes are much larger these days, making offline backups difficult for
most home users.
Plus there's the nostalgia factor; vintage systems had real character and
required an investment of effort on the part of the user - making them more
likely to be preserved. Modern systems are grey boxes that are so cheap they
get thrown away for a newer model when they are no longer needed.
So... I don't think there's anything like as much of a problem with vintage
systems now as there will be in 20 years time with the systems of today. The
article just smacks of typical "it's old, therefore it's a problem"
writing to me.
cheers
Jules
3:48 p.m.
In article <45AE8162.4080209 at yahoo.co.uk>,
Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> writes:
Hmm, I'm inclined to disagree. In a few years time
it will be impossible
to study the *current* generation of home computers because the expected
lifetime of the hardware and software is much less now, whilst the
complexity has increased.
I disagree with your characterization of software having a short
lifespan. Dusty decks from the 1950s are still with us and in use
today, we just store them in a .FOR file instead of storing them in a
physical card deck. Because few, if any, applications these days use
machine language, software is more portable and more long-lived than
ever. There are still OS and architecture dependencies that make some
transitions difficult and may cause an application to be rewritten
instead of modified. This may cause one lineage of the application to
be abandoned. However, the gap isn't insurmountable. If you're luck
you can just ditch the existing UI and write a new front end for the
application as most of the big changes in platform are at the UI end.
I've just spent some time since the holidays of moving the FRACTINT
code base from a 16-bit DOS application circa 1990 and moved it to the
Win32 environment circa 2006. There is a huge shift in the viewpoint
of the application there -- a DOS app polls for IO or runs brute force
at full blast ignoring any input until its ready. Some programs can't
even be ^C'ed in the middle until they try to print something and if
they take a long time to print something, you're at the mercy of the
application unless you decide to soft boot. Contrast that with an
event-driven architecture of any application built for window system
(whether its MacOS, X or Win32 or even Win16 doesn't really matter).
(FRACTINT v1 was released as open source software in 1988, BTW.)
This all assumes everything is written in a high-level language. If
your application is a 1960s or 1970s variety where large chunks of it
are written in assembly, then it may simply be easier to reimplement a
new version in a high-level language instead of transliterating the
assembly into a HLL. It would be interesting to see a survey of
software applications and their source languages over time.
--
"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/>
3:35 p.m.
On 17 Jan 2007 at 14:15, Ray Arachelian wrote:
In a few years time, it will be impossible to study
the history of home
computers since everything at the time was proprietary; both in terms of
the physical hardware, and all the software that ran upon it since most
of it is encumbered by software "protection" to prevent copying.
I don't buy that "most" software is encumbered by software protection-
-unless the author is talking about games. Even so, much of the
early software protection is easy to hack. What concerns me more is
modern software that requires activation via the internet to run.
When companies disappear (as they are wont to do), the user is left
with no recourse.
To compound the problem, the hardware is dying
(literally) and (being
proprietary) can?t be rebuilt in any equivalent manner.
As Tony has pointed out, early hardware is usually far easier to
repair than the modern variety.
In some cases the software is physically
disintegrating too since, in
the case of many 8-bit micros from the 1980?s, the storage medium was
cassette tape; a temperamental mechanism at the time, let alone now.
It?s not that no computer innovation took place in the 1980?s, just
that none of it will be recorded.
Feh. Most of the software of the 80's was written to floppy, an
excellent storage medium. Give me a 20-year old 8" floppy any day to
a 2-year old 1.44MB 3.5" diskette. How many 80's (not 70's) systems
used cassette tape as primary storage? True, the DC-xxxx carts are
starting to have problems, but in most cases, this was used as
backup, not a distribution medium. In many cases, the problem is
with the aging rubber in the drive, not the medium itself.
I'd be more worried about the various writeable DVD types lasting 20-
30 years.
Cheers,
Chuck
3:53 p.m.
In article <45AE180C.28494.1CAC23DF at cclist.sydex.com>,
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
I don't buy that "most" software is
encumbered by software protection-
-unless the author is talking about games. Even so, much of the=20
early software protection is easy to hack. What concerns me more is=20
modern software that requires activation via the internet to run.=20
When companies disappear (as they are wont to do), the user is left=20
with no recourse.
As with copy protection in the past, activation protection will be
reverse engineered and patched out in order to keep abandonware
running -- assuming people care enough to do the work. Now, what's
really important is to keep the bits archived, even if they are
license locked. Eventually someone may care and by then having the
archived bits is what will count.
[...] True, the DC-xxxx carts are=20
starting to have problems, but in most cases, this was used as=20
backup, not a distribution medium.
The big exception here seems to be the workstation market. QIC was
used as the primary distribution medium for the ESV, for instance.
In many cases, the problem is=20
with the aging rubber in the drive, not the medium itself.
I thought people had reported problems with QIC medium recently?
--
"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/>
4:18 p.m.
On 17 Jan 2007 at 13:53, Richard wrote:
As with copy protection in the past, activation
protection will be
reverse engineered and patched out in order to keep abandonware
running -- assuming people care enough to do the work. Now, what's
really important is to keep the bits archived, even if they are
license locked. Eventually someone may care and by then having the
archived bits is what will count.
Back in the bad old days, it was pretty easy to unlock protection
schemes. Nowadays, what with warez lists and crackz lists being
published, software producers have had to resort to some very
elaborate schemes. Yes, it's possible that someone may want to
unravel them in the future, but given the size of the task, I'm not
holding my breath.
I thought people had reported problems with QIC medium
recently?
It depends on the medium. The large DC600/6150/6250 seem to be
pretty robust--at least I've had no problems reading old specimens.
The smaller media, such as DC1000/2000/2120 etc. were never any good
to start with. I have absolutely no confidence that a tape from a
Pereos drive would be readable today.
Cheers,
Chuck
4:25 p.m.
In article <45AE2231.12230.1CD3C3D5 at cclist.sydex.com>,
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
Back in the bad old days, it was pretty easy to unlock
protection
schemes. Nowadays, what with warez lists and crackz lists being
published, software producers have had to resort to some very
elaborate schemes. Yes, it's possible that someone may want to
unravel them in the future, but given the size of the task, I'm not
holding my breath.
As with most things, the amount of work done to protect an application
is directly in response to the perceived threat. Yeah, some people
may have gone overboard, but I know in the flexlm licensed 3DPaint
application I worked on it was a simple license check at the start of
the app. Patch up to jump over the check and you're done. I suspect
that most software is like this -- find the one place where it polls
the dongle and jump over that code.
--
"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/>
4:45 p.m.
New subject: Cracking (was Digital archaeology)
Richard wrote...
As with most things, the amount of work done to
protect an application
is directly in response to the perceived threat.
Nah, I think it was more along the
lines of how good a particular programmer
or group of programmers a software manufacturer happened to have on staff. I
don't think most companies actually spent time analyzing the threat and
keeping their response equally measured. That's why a lot of companies
eventually contracted with other companies who specialized in copy
protection (everlok, etc.).
I suspect
that most software is like this -- find the one place where it polls
the dongle and jump over that code.
Oh no... definitely not. Sure, there was
definitely some code that was a
simple no-op. But I wouldn't say that was the majority of applications. Even
very very old applications got much more crafty than that. Those dongle
checks were often spread all over the code, not just one place. Look at some
of the copyprotection schemes used on the C64 "inside the drive" and it's
amazing how complex they were back in that day even. Sierra had stuff that
would make an adventure game take an unsolvable twist much later in the game
if it sensed the copyprotection had been broken. Some games decrypt the code
on the fly as it accesses the disk... so at least in my experience, there
were definitely some "no-op the branch" and you're done, but that was a far
minority of programs.
Jay West
7:20 p.m.
New subject: Cracking (was Digital archaeology)
In article <024501c73a80$c8a9e1f0$6600a8c0 at BILLING>,
"Jay West" <jwest at classiccmp.org> writes:
Richard wrote...
As always, I chose my words carefully :-). I said "perceived" threat,
not measured or analyzed threat level. Yeah, you get harder to
decruft stuff from a good programmer, but even a bad programmer can
make your life hell by inserting tons of checkForValidLicense() calls
sprinkled throughout the code. Companies worried about this stuff,
particularly games companies in the early days, but they didn't spend
their entire development budget on it. There's a point where they all
said "that's good enough". How much they decided they needed is
proportionate to their perception of the threat. If they don't feel
threatened by copying, then they don't bother. If they feel mildly
threatened they take mild measures. If they feel absolutely paranoid
about it, they take extreme measures. I'm simply saying that like
most things in life, most people won't feel the need to take extreme
measures.
As with most things, the amount of work done to
protect an application
is directly in response to the perceived threat.
Nah, I think it was more along
the lines of how good a particular programmer
or group of programmers a software manufacturer happened to have on staff. I
don't think most companies actually spent time analyzing the threat and
keeping their response equally measured. That's why a lot of companies
eventually contracted with other companies who specialized in copy
protection (everlok, etc.). > [simply NOP out the check or jump over the check]
Oh no... definitely not. Sure, there was definitely
some code that was a
simple no-op. But I wouldn't say that was the majority of applications. Even
very very old applications got much more crafty than that.
Well, you have that weird situation in the "old days" where
programmers were cheap and machines were expensive, so yeah in that
environment I can see people putting more resources into the copy
prevention.
[...] so at least in my experience, there
were definitely some "no-op the branch" and you're done, but that was a far
minority of programs.
I have no experience in these matters, merely suspicions :-).
--
"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/>
19 Jan
19 Jan
12:36 a.m.
New subject: Cracking (was Digital archaeology)
Yeah, you get harder to decruft stuff from a good
programmer, but
even a bad programmer can make your life hell by inserting tons of
checkForValidLicense() calls sprinkled throughout the code.
Naw, just means you have to patch checkForValidLicense() itself. :)
[...] so at
least in my experience, there were definitely some
"no-op the branch" and you're done, but that was a far minority of
programs.
I have no experience in these matters, merely suspicions :-). 
17 Jan
17 Jan
4:47 p.m.
On 1/17/07, Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote:
As with most things, the amount of work done to
protect an application
is directly in response to the perceived threat. Yeah, some people
may have gone overboard, but I know in the flexlm licensed 3DPaint
application I worked on it was a simple license check at the start of
the app. Patch up to jump over the check and you're done. I suspect
that most software is like this -- find the one place where it polls
the dongle and jump over that code.
That technique was common with the C-64... typically there were bad
tracks intentionally written to the distribution floppy - in part of
the app startup or perhaps the loader (small program that knew how to
get the rest of the app into memory), some subroutine would be called
that would check a normally unaccessed part of the disk and check the
drive error code against what was expected, then either allow the
program to run or not. There were techniques for simple utilities to
write any useful error pattern to the disk except perhaps one or two
tricky ones, permitting a working copy of a protected floppy, but all
of that is irrelevant when you run into a copy protection subroutine
that, rather than returning success or failure, is easy to identify
because "success" is returning at all and failure is calling the C-64
ROM reset routine... the memory clears on the next start cycle,
"protecting" the memory from post-mortem (they think). Once you have
identified that style of routine, it's easy to either patch over the
JSR to the protection routine, or to just stick an RTS at the front of
the routine. Since there's a known ROM address in the code, it's also
not hard to find the copy protection routine in the first place.
4:35 p.m.
Richard wrote:
As with copy protection in the past, activation
protection will be
reverse engineered and patched out in order to keep abandonware
running -- assuming people care enough to do the work. Now, what's
really important is to keep the bits archived, even if they are
license locked. Eventually someone may care and by then having the
archived bits is what will count.
One thing I'd like to add to this, is that you'd want to copy the
installation on the machine that it is installed on. i.e. entire hard
drive, and any relevant bits such as MAC address, kind of hardware,
etc. You'd want to do this with at least two identically installed
systems (but different serial #'s, so not site licensed) so that way you
can diff the installs. The differences will point the future reverse
engineer to where the serial numbers or whatever else involved in the
DRM are stored and will help in stripping it away.
4:29 p.m.
I don't buy that "most" software is
encumbered by software protection-
-unless the author is talking about games. Even so, much of the
early software protection is easy to hack. What concerns me more is
modern software that requires activation via the internet to run.
When companies disappear (as they are wont to do), the user is left
with no recourse.
Even modern copy protection does not really stand a chance, even with
programs that require activation by the net. Just look at all the
warez sites with cracked programs of recent vintage.
I am not worried, as I know that in 20 years or so, when we are
playing with today's junk, the tools and technology will be able to
deal with the stuff. We will have programs that can easily and quickly
crack even the toughest of today's encryptions, FPGAs that will easily
emulate today's ASICs, and hardware tools that will allow us to get a
damn good idea of what is happening inside of today's black boxes.
I am not worriesd about today's stuff. In time, yes, it will be worth
expending lots of effort to save. And it should be saved, as it is
very important in the whole historic timeline. For me, right now, I
would rather expand my resources on the stuff that is tipping over the
brink (this is why I do not get excited about saving Suns, PDP-11s,
Altairs, etc. - lots of them still out there.).
--
Will
7:14 p.m.
In article <e1d20d630701171329l7f4bd3f2xbc1e0a29f3331f70 at mail.gmail.com>,
"William Donzelli" <wdonzelli at gmail.com> writes:
I am not worriesd about today's stuff. In time,
yes, it will be worth
expending lots of effort to save. And it should be saved, as it is
very important in the whole historic timeline. For me, right now, I
would rather expand my resources on the stuff that is tipping over the
brink (this is why I do not get excited about saving Suns, PDP-11s,
Altairs, etc. - lots of them still out there.).
Ditto. Except that I focus on graphics and terminals and you'd be
surprised how many terminals have "already gone over the brink" as it
were. People keep CPUs for nostalgia. They chuck the terminal.
--
"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 p.m.
On 17 Jan 2007 at 17:14, Richard wrote:
Ditto. Except that I focus on graphics and terminals
and you'd be
surprised how many terminals have "already gone over the brink" as it
were. People keep CPUs for nostalgia. They chuck the terminal.
Richard, what you do for terminals is certainly worthwhile. However,
given the description of a terminal (e.g. user's manual), I can
easily emulate one or, if worse comes to worst, build one from modern
components.
A CPU is much harder.
Peripherals (e.g. tapes, disks, printers) are the hardest. If I
were to collect something for preservation, it'd be peripherals.
Cheers,
Chuck
9:48 p.m.
In article <45AE5627.4579.1D9EB8ED at cclist.sydex.com>,
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
Richard, what you do for terminals is certainly
worthwhile. However,
given the description of a terminal (e.g. user's manual), I can
easily emulate one or, if worse comes to worst, build one from modern
components.
This completely misses the point that the terminal is the tactile
physical interface for the user. When you can emulate that (utility
fog, anyone?) let me know.
--
"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/>
11:10 p.m.
On 17 Jan 2007 at 19:48, Richard wrote:
This completely misses the point that the terminal is
the tactile
physical interface for the user. When you can emulate that (utility
fog, anyone?) let me know.
You mean as in "keyboard"? Boy, there have been a bunch of
variations, haven't there? My most/least (love-hate) favorite was an
EBCDIC keyboard with individual enclosed dry reed switches for each
key (it was a George Risk model). A couple of Fairchild RTL ICs,
mostly a diode encoder matrix. Diecast housing.
I used it for a time with my TV Typewriter--the control keys were set
to impose a higher resistance force than the others (remember the
Beehive Super Bee?). It would make you very tired using it for
extended periods.
Does anyone have any idea what this may have belonged to?
Cheers,
Chuck
11:28 p.m.
In article <45AE82C0.8882.1E4CEDCA at cclist.sydex.com>,
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
On 17 Jan 2007 at 19:48, Richard wrote:
Yes, that's the part you touch generally speaking. But terminals also
had tablets and mice as attachments as well. Granted, not your
average terminal, but the graphics terminals often had support for
these. Hell, the Megatek I purchased from Patrick has a joystick
*and* dial valuators built into the keyboard as well as a whole slew
of other stuff.
There are the printing terminals that you sit at like the ASR33, the
LA36, LA120 and there's one made by Data General that is a pedestal,
but I don't know the model # on that one.
For CRTs there are the integral units like the ADM3/ADM5, the VT52, the
Z9/Z19 and hey, while we're at it, the Basic/Four Model 7250. Making the
keyboard an integrated part of the system cabinet changes the experience
because of the limited ergonomics. It forces you to sit with your face
right in the screen, filling your field of view even if its only 80x24.
The detachable keyboard CRTs change this dynamic entirely.
Then there are the portable terminals like the TI Silent 700 series.
At first they're portable but not the sort of thing you want sitting
on your lap, so you set them on the desk, but you could take them
*home* and use your lowly phone to contact the computer from the
luxury of your bedroom with the stereo system and your record
collection and comfy chair instead of that stuffy office with the
flourescent overhead lighting in endless banks. Give 'em a decade and
they've evolved into the precursors of laptops like the later models
in the Silent 700 series and the Random Colleague (yes, from Random
Corp.).
So yeah, I think there's a lot to the experience that isn't provided
by an emulator.
And we haven't even gotten to the feel of the keyboards and their
layouts...
Emulators don't sound like this either:
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/vintage/sounds/teletype_sounds.mp3>
--
"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/>
This completely misses the point that the
terminal is the tactile
physical interface for the user. When you can emulate that (utility
fog, anyone?) let me know.
You mean as in "keyboard"?
18 Jan
18 Jan
12:02 a.m.
On 1/17/07, Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote:
So yeah, I think there's a lot to the experience
that isn't provided
by an emulator.
Agreed.
And we haven't even gotten to the feel of the
keyboards and their
layouts...
Too true - for me, I type fast enough that tactile feedback and layout
_matters_. I have spent many hours on DEC keyboards (VT52, VT100,
LK201 (VT220, DECmate...), etc), and Commodores (PET, VIC-20, C-64),
Amiga, etc., and I fall into a different rhythm with each one.
Emulators don't sound like this either:
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/vintage/sounds/teletype_sounds.mp3>
I should make a recording of my ASR-33 doing something "interesting"
like an OS/8 directory or reading papertape. I was thinking that if I
played that mp3 for my 8-year-old nephew, he would have *no* idea what
it was.
-ethan
1:26 a.m.
On 18 Jan 2007 at 0:02, Ethan Dicks wrote:
I was never able to touch-type on an ASR-33. I automatically
degraded to a two-finger approach.
Otherwise, I was raised on keypunch. You learn to type *very*
accurately and blindly on an 026 (or if you were really unlucky, an
024 that didn't print on the card). Chunka-chunka-chunk. clickety-
clunk...
I hated terminals, probably because most of them were on the end of a
300 baud link at best. The first ones I used were something like
64x8--old CDC models without the memory upgrade to 64x16. I try to
forget them.
Personal computers changed a lot--you had a keyboard and display, as
in a terminal, but you talk to the local computer at 9600 or 19200
baud. I wrote programs for my Altair (and succeeding computers) and
talked to the remote boxes with a modem scavenged from a Silent 700
(acoustic coupler). I initially used a Techtran dual-cassette paper-
tape emulator as my offline storage and moved to floppy when I could.
Editing was local and fast. It was wonderful. The Silent 700
terminal eventually was replaced with a nice Racal Vadic that could
do 1200 baud (and use Racal protocol to do, what?--2000 baud when
talking to another Racal).
When I was later setting up a programming shop, everyone got a VT220
clone (I don't recall whose--it may have been Tab) on their desks--
except me. I brought in my IBM PC and my homebrew hard disk (one of
those Shugart 4MB 8" jobs; I recently discovered my interface card
for it). I was a lot more productive than the guys with the 220's and
wasn't bothered nearly as much when the VAX went down.
I don't miss terminals (or keypunches or teletypes) one bit.
Cheers,
Chuck
And we
haven't even gotten to the feel of the keyboards and their
layouts...
Too true - for me, I type fast enough that tactile feedback and layout
_matters_. I have spent many hours on DEC keyboards (VT52, VT100,
LK201 (VT220, DECmate...), etc), and Commodores (PET, VIC-20, C-64),
Amiga, etc., and I fall into a different rhythm with each one.
9:24 a.m.
In article <45AEA29A.25038.1EC959AF at cclist.sydex.com>,
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
I don't miss terminals (or keypunches or
teletypes) one bit.
I don't know that I "miss" them in the sense of wanting to use them
over what I have available to me now. Graphics on PCs these days blow
away US$1E6 machines from ten years ago, never mind 20 or more years
ago.
However, since my first computing experiences were all through
terminals (some of them graphical, notably HP2648A and Tektronix
4010), its defines the "nostalgia" element for 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/>
1:57 p.m.
On 18 Jan 2007 at 7:24, Richard wrote:
However, since my first computing experiences were all
through
terminals (some of them graphical, notably HP2648A and Tektronix
4010), its defines the "nostalgia" element for me.
Perhaps that explains why there's so much interest in DEC equipment
here. A lot of folks had first work experience on the stuff--and
it's readily available.
If someone offered me an 026 keypunch, I don't know that I'd be eager
to take it in, even though it probably has the same place in my mind
that a terminal does in yours. What would I do with it? The
hardware that used cards for I/O is long gone. It's sort of like
having a victrola with no records to play.
At least terminals can stilll be put to some use.
Cheers,
Chuck
2:09 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
If someone offered me an 026 keypunch, I don't
know that I'd be eager
to take it in, even though it probably has the same place in my mind
that a terminal does in yours. What would I do with it? The
hardware that used cards for I/O is long gone. It's sort of like
having a victrola with no records to play.
Do me a favor. If you get offered an 026 keypunch, let me have it. 8-)
I still have hardware that can use cards.
Peace... Sridhar
8:20 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sridhar Ayengar" <ploopster at gmail.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: Digital archaeology of the microcomputer, 1974-1994
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Well that makes the 10 punches I have now trash I guess? Since they can run
without having a computer I still enjoy playing on them. Most who see them
remember the days in school that they sat at one.
If someone offered me an 026 keypunch, I
don't know that I'd be eager to
take it in, even though it probably has the same place in my mind that a
terminal does in yours. What would I do with it? The hardware that used
cards for I/O is long gone. It's sort of like having a victrola with no
records to play.
Do me a favor. If you get offered an 026 keypunch, let me have it. 8-)
I still have hardware that can use cards.
Peace... Sridhar
8:41 p.m.
On 18 Jan 2007 at 19:20, Keys wrote:
Well that makes the 10 punches I have now trash I
guess? Since they can run
without having a computer I still enjoy playing on them. Most who see them
remember the days in school that they sat at one.
The nub of my statement was that having a keypunch wouldn't enable me
to do anything useful, except generate chad. I can still think of a
couple of uses for a terminal.
Running a keypunch again would do little more than remind me how
noisy the darned things were--and how people kept stealing my drum
cards.
Cheers,
Chuck
20 Jan
20 Jan
10:09 a.m.
If someone offered me an 026 keypunch, I don't
know that I'd be eager
to take it in, even though it probably has the same place in my mind
that a terminal does in yours. What would I do with it? The
hardware that used cards for I/O is long gone. It's sort of like
having a victrola with no records to play.
Maybe not for you, but I'd love to. I have enough hardware knowledge to
make it become a serial-feed keypunch
(no, I can't, I'm in Brazil)
12:01 p.m.
On 20 Jan 2007 at 12:09, Alexandre Souza wrote:
Maybe not for you, but I'd love to. I have
enough hardware knowledge to
make it become a serial-feed keypunch
Wonderful. What would you do with the cards thus punched?
Cards are another thing about the old gear that I don't miss.
Undoubtedly, they were one of the things that kept programmer
productivity down. At 2000 cards per box, 10,000 statements took 5
boxes--and a very nervous trip down to the CPU room until the cards
could be written to tape---several times (Use several loadpoints on a
tape; use the first copy until the tape starts giving errors, whack
off the first loadpoint and use the second copy...). Having some
idiot (including yours truly) knock a box of cards to the floor or
watching the card reader going through a mulch-and-mangle cycle was
SO much fun.
People not raised on card methods really don't appreciate the
difficulties. When you're punching, you really can't see what you've
typed (on an 026/029 at least--some later keypunches buffered the
whole card up before punching) and mistakes are not reversible except
by repunching the entire card. A good memory and absoute accuracy
was essential.
On the other hand, it was great that CDC Sunnyvale ops viewed used
cards as a nuisance. We had a bunch of volunteers who'd go around to
all of the waste paper-and-card bins outside of every sixpack every
evening and collect paper and cards for recycling to raise money for
the Sierra Club. It went wonderfully until the SC decided to give us
an achievement award for contributing something like $50K one year.
Other company activities clubs got wind of that and wanted a piece of
the pie. Unfortuantely, they couldn't get the dedicated volunteer
labor and the whole affair collapsed and was eventually turned over
to a paid employee, which didn't leave much money left over.
Cheers,
Chuck
9:12 p.m.
Maybe not
for you, but I'd love to. I have enough hardware knowledge
to
make it become a serial-feed keypunch
Wonderful. What would you do with the cards
thus punched? off the first loadpoint and use the second copy...).
Having some
idiot (including yours truly) knock a box of cards to the floor or
watching the card reader going through a mulch-and-mangle cycle was
SO much fun.
Didn't it had a cover? :oO
18 Jan
18 Jan
2:43 a.m.
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 20:10 -0800, Chuck Guzis wrote:
You mean as in "keyboard"? Boy, there have
been a bunch of
variations, haven't there? My most/least (love-hate) favorite was an
EBCDIC keyboard with individual enclosed dry reed switches for each
key (it was a George Risk model). A couple of Fairchild RTL ICs,
mostly a diode encoder matrix. Diecast housing.
I used it for a time with my TV Typewriter--the control keys were set
to impose a higher resistance force than the others (remember the
Beehive Super Bee?). It would make you very tired using it for
extended periods.
Does anyone have any idea what this may have belonged to?
I'm just kind of vamping here, but it sounds like the keyboard on
the standard main terminal for an RCA Spectra 70... Is there a larger
than usual "step" between rows of keys?
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
3:16 a.m.
On 18 Jan 2007 at 2:43, Warren Wolfe wrote:
I'm just kind of vamping here, but it sounds
like the keyboard on
the standard main terminal for an RCA Spectra 70... Is there a larger
than usual "step" between rows of keys?
As I recall, yes--but it's been years since I've actually had the
thing in my hands. Someone once told me it looked like a relic from
a Spectrola, but I could never verify it.
Thanks, I can sleep tonight. ;)
Cheers,
Chuck
2:38 p.m.
On 17 Jan 2007 at 17:14, Richard wrote:
OK, I have a terminal here. I also have the user manual, which takes up
most of a bookshelf. I'd love to see you emulate _that_ easily.
BTW, it's an Eveans and Sutherland PS390. Complete with tablet,
twiddlebox (with LED displays to label the knobs), keyboard (with LED
displays to lable the fucntion keys) and 3D spectacles.
Ditto. Except that I focus on graphics and
terminals and you'd be
surprised how many terminals have "already gone over the brink" as it
were. People keep CPUs for nostalgia. They chuck the terminal.
Richard, what you do for terminals is certainly worthwhile. However,
given the description of a terminal (e.g. user's manual), I can
easily emulate one or, if worse comes to worst, build one from modern components.
A CPU is much harder.
Peripherals (e.g. tapes, disks, printers) are the hardest. If I
were to collect something for preservation, it'd be peripherals.
As an electroncis (as opposed to computer) enthusaist, I can see as much
interest in, say, an unusual printer as in a CPU. So I try to preserve both.
-tony
5:48 p.m.
On 18 Jan 2007 at 19:38, Tony Duell wrote:
OK, I have a terminal here. I also have the user
manual, which takes up
most of a bookshelf. I'd love to see you emulate _that_ easily.
Point taken. But to be completely fair, this doesn't sound like the
"hook-it-up-to-a-dialup-modem-and-look-at-the-text-scroll-by" widgets
that most people think of when you mention "terminal".
On the other hand, take the CDC Plato terminal. Plasma display, big
box, and probably in the 5-digit pre-1980 dollar range in price.
Move on a couple of years and the terminal's been given a CRT and is
considerably smaller and cheaper. Move on a couple of years and it's
a diskette one boots in an IBM PC. Very cheap and just as functional
(perhaps even more so, now that one has access to colors).
An ADM-3A? One could write an emulation program in an afternoon and
still have time to watch "As the World Turns".
Cheers,
Chuck
5:55 p.m.
In article <45AF88B1.812.224C2367 at cclist.sydex.com>,
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
On the other hand, take the CDC Plato terminal. [...]
I wish I could! Either Plasma or CRT-based, I don't know of *any*
that have survived in anyone's collection. I think the CHM has *one*.
--
"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/>
6:23 p.m.
On 18 Jan 2007 at 15:55, Richard wrote:
I wish I could! Either Plasma or CRT-based, I
don't know of *any*
that have survived in anyone's collection. I think the CHM has *one*.
Chalk that up to CDC's not-so-imaginative "asset disposal" policy;
things must be mangled beyond all usability before disposal. I saw
CE's take sledgehammers to disk drives. There was much stuff that I
wish I could have made disappear before it headed for the dumpster.
Cheers,
Chuck
6:39 p.m.
On 1/18/07, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Chalk that up to CDC's not-so-imaginative
"asset disposal" policy;
things must be mangled beyond all usability before disposal. I saw
CE's take sledgehammers to disk drives.
It's not just manufacturers (who are trying to comply with various
regulations on scrapping equipment and taxes)... When I was at Lucent
in Columbus, they started drilling through the HDAs of discarded
drives, not to protect against data theft from a working drive, but
against employee harvesting of the scrap bins.
Saw a lot of things there I wish I could have saved, including a 3 cu
ft box loaded with PDP-11 core memory, and other DEC items from the
1970s and 1980s. I would have happily have paid many times the gold
scrap value of the boards, but, for obvious bean counter reasons, no
mechanism exists for that.
-ethan
17 Jan
17 Jan
5:13 p.m.
To compound
the problem, the hardware is dying (literally) and (being
proprietary) can=B4t be rebuilt in any equivalent manner.
As Tony has pointed out, early hardware is usually far easier to=20
repair than the modern variety.
> In some cases the software is physically disintegrating too since, in
> the case of many 8-bit micros from the 1980=B4s, the storage medium was
> cassette tape; a temperamental mechanism at the time, let alone now.
Ah. but that doesn't mean it's got more temperamental with age.
TO be fair, a lot of cassette loading problems were caused by having to
get the volume level just right. I would think (although I've not tried
this, not having suitable hardware) that a modern computer/soundcard
could extract the information from a marginal home computer cassette tape
rather better than the simple interface hardware in the origianl computer
could.
> It=B4s not that no computer innovation took place
in the 1980=B4s, just
> that none of it will be recorded.=20
This sounds a little like something that struck me in May 1986 when I
bought my P850 minicomputer. I, and a couple of friends, realised that
unless somebody did something then 20 years of computer history were
going to vanish -- at the time very few prople were preserving the
once-commonplace onld minis and micros. So we did something.
Fordunately, other people thought likewise and there now is a great group
of people around the world preserving different aspects of classic
computing in different ways (and I am certainly not trying to judge what
is, and is not, valuable here!). And to be honest, I think it's now
unlikely that _any_ machine will be totally forgotten.
Feh. Most of the software of the 80's was written to floppy, an=20
excellent storage medium. Give me a 20-year old 8" floppy any day to=20
a 2-year old 1.44MB 3.5" diskette. How many 80's (not 70's) systems=20
Agreed!
used cassette tape as primary storage? True, the
DC-xxxx carts are=20
starting to have problems, but in most cases, this was used as=20
backup, not a distribution medium. In many cases, the problem is=20
with the aging rubber in the drive, not the medium itself.
I'd be more worried about the various writeable DVD types lasting 20-
30 years.
The other problem is finding something to read it. The old storage drives
were relatively simple and well-docuemtned. Apart from the heads, just
about any part could be made in a good home workshop. Stopage formats
were often well docuemtned, so if there's some way of reading the
magnetic trasitions on the medium, it will be possuible to recover the
data.
But I wouldn't fancy making a DVD drive from scratch (even given the
laser pickup). Many of them are undocuemtned ('they're not worth
repairing' -- maybe not now, but what about in 20 years time when you
can't buy a replacement). In some cases the storage format is
delibearately undocumetned.
To be honest I think it'll be a lot easier to keep a 1970's machine
running than a 2000's machine.
-tony
18 Jan
18 Jan
9 a.m.
And thusly were the wise words spake by Chuck Guzis
Feh. Most of the software of the 80's was written to floppy, an
That is true for America, but for the C64 in Europe most of the
game software was on tape as the floppy drives were so
expensive there.
Cheers,
Bryan
excellent storage medium. Give me a 20-year old
8" floppy any day to
a 2-year old 1.44MB 3.5" diskette. How many 80's (not 70's) systems
used cassette tape as primary storage? True, the DC-xxxx carts are
starting to have problems, but in most cases, this was used as
backup, not a distribution medium. In many cases, the problem is
with the aging rubber in the drive, not the medium itself.
17 Jan
17 Jan
4:09 p.m.
On 17/1/07 19:15, "Ray Arachelian" <ray at arachelian.com> wrote:
Digital archaeology of the microcomputer, 1974-1994
By Steven Goodwin <http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/user/39>
/Online on: 2007-01-05/
/(Or, how to prevent the Dark Ages of computing through free software)/
In a few years time, it will be impossible to study the history of home
computers since everything at the time was proprietary; both in terms of
the physical hardware, and all the software that ran upon it since most
of it is encumbered by software ?protection? to prevent copying.
I love it when someone publishes an article without doing any proper
research. Is he saying that no copy-protected software of the late 70s and
80s hasn't already been reverse engineered and/or broken many years ago? So
what if the hardware was proprietary? Has there been a home computer that
hasn't been recreated in some form or another, either by a hardware rebuild
or emulation of some sort? (MESS springs to mind).
To compound the problem, the hardware is dying
(literally) and (being
proprietary) can?t be rebuilt in any equivalent manner. In some cases
the software is physically disintegrating too since, in the case of many
8-bit micros from the 1980?s, the storage medium was cassette tape; a
temperamental mechanism at the time, let alone now. It?s not that no
computer innovation took place in the 1980?s, just that none of it will
be recorded.
Now I *know* he's done no research! Aside from my own BinaryDinosaurs
website how many other home computer museums are there online? Books by the
likes of Gordon Laing and others?
Meh, sloppy journalism.
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?
6393
days inactive
6397
days old
40 comments
17 participants
participants (17)
-
alexandre-listas＠e-secure.com.br -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bpope＠wordstock.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
jrkeys＠concentric.net -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
legalize＠xmission.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
ray＠arachelian.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com -
witchy＠binarydinosaurs.co.uk -
wizard＠voyager.net