16 Oct
2010
16 Oct
'10
2:48 p.m.
(I often think that the downside of ebay is that an
item goes to the person > with the deepest pockets, and they're not necessarily the
best person to treat > an item nicely)
So eBay is precisely like every other market on the planet.
Shocking. <rolls eyes>
17 Oct
17 Oct
5:28 p.m.
Ken Seefried wrote:
<rolls eyes back> I don't think that I claimed that it wasn't. My point was
that it often has a downside when it comes to getting items to people who are
best capable of preserving them for future generations.
(I often think
that the downside of ebay is that an item goes to the person > with the deepest
pockets, and they're not necessarily the best person to treat > an item nicely)
So eBay is precisely like every other market on the planet.
Shocking. <rolls eyes> 
5:29 p.m.
<rolls eyes back> I don't think that I
claimed that it wasn't. My point was
that it often has a downside when it comes to getting items to people who
are best capable of preserving them for future generations.
I assume this is the recurring "deep pocket collectors are not the
best caretakers" issue.
What evidence do you have?
I have been knees deep in the antiques trade for quite a few years
now, and this is simply not what I see.
--
Will
6:14 p.m.
William Donzelli wrote:
You have had different experiences to I, then. I've seen it many a time with
vintage computers - items that people have paid good money for, then quickly
grown bored of them once they've satisfied a long-term desire to "own one of
those", at which point they've relegated the item to storage. When it's
"found" again a few years later, they decide that it's too much effort to
find
a new home for it and, as it doesn't seem important to them, they just dump it.
That's not to say that there aren't people with deep pockets who'll do right
by an item - of course there are; it's just that an ability to earn money (or
be blessed with it) doesn't automatically equate to an ability to look after
things :-)
cheers
Jules
<rolls eyes
back> I don't think that I claimed that it wasn't. My point was
that it often has a downside when it comes to getting items to people who
are best capable of preserving them for future generations.
I assume this is the recurring "deep pocket collectors are not the
best caretakers" issue.
What evidence do you have?
I have been knees deep in the antiques trade for quite a few years
now, and this is simply not what I see. 
18 Oct
18 Oct
7:45 a.m.
From: jules.richardson99 at gmail.com
---snip---
You have had different experiences to I, then. I've seen it many a time with
vintage computers - items that people have paid good money for, then quickly
grown bored of them once they've satisfied a long-term desire to "own one of
those", at which point they've relegated the item to storage. When it's
"found" again a few years later, they decide that it's too much effort to
find
a new home for it and, as it doesn't seem important to them, they just dump it.
Hi
I tend to squirrel things away and forget about them. Every now and then
I'll be looking for something else and come across the item that I'd
stashed years ago. It would always be like finding it the first time
for me.
Some people don't see things this way but to me, it is like finding a
new treasure.
The biggest problem I see is things like floads, fires and death.
These seem to be the biggest problems of collectors. I still don't
have a good plan for how to disposition my collect when I depart.
I truly have no idea what to do. There are a couple of rarer items
that the CHM has state interest in but I'd hate to see any part
of my collection sent to the scrapper.
Still, bits and pieces of my collection are useful to others. I recently
read some 1702 EPROMs for Bruce ( of Digi-Barn ) and also
dumped ROMs with PASCAL for the AIM-65. I've reconstructed
to PAL used on the SwyftCard for the Apple IIe from the operation
manual that I hope will be useful to others.
I'm always tinkering with things. I try to document things when I
can but I'm real bad at that. I often go off on tangents. I've been
fiddling with cuckoo clocks lately ( a mechanical sequencial computer ).
I guess the important thing is why the person gets something for
their collection. Some just want the prize and have no intent to
ever explore it. Others will dig into them. Even those that never
run them often find out all that they can about their history. The
ones I tend to think less of are the ones that just see things as
an investment.
What I don't like about museums is that they may take an item
that you treasure and later sell it. I fully understand why they
do this but somehow, it just feels wrong to me.
Dwight
12:50 p.m.
<rolls eyes back> I don't think that I
claimed that it wasn't. My point was
that it often has a downside when it comes to getting items to people who
are best capable of preserving them for future generations.
I assume this is the recurring "deep pocket collectors are not the
best caretakers" issue.
What evidence do you have? from preserving other artefacts, and that at least over
here the people
with the deepest pockets tend not to be scientists or engineers who
would
know how to do that.
-tony
1:56 p.m.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I am not sure there's any correleation at all between deepness of pockets
and ability/desire to look after an artefact...
Certainly if you've bought something as an investment (which I suspect
applies to a lot of antiques, alas), you are going to want to make sure
your investment doesn't lose value, Conversely, thoug, if you've bought a
reare machien for 'only' a few hundred dollars, you may not look after it
as well if you earn that sort of money for an hours work ('Hey, I could
byy another hundred of them easily) than if you earn that amount of money
in a month. Of course you can't buy another hundred of them, for the
simple reason thast there aren't another hundred around on sale
My big worry is that preserving classic computers can be very different
from preserving other artefacts, and that at least over here the people
with the deepest pockets tend not to be scientists or engineers who would
know how to do that.
-tony
I completely agree... but then again, when I rescue something, it
kills me if it's just sitting there, not doing anything. :) Right
now, my housing situation completely prevents me from doing lots of
work on several machines I've rescued over the last year, simply
because I have no room. Hell, I gave up my office for my kid (so that
he could have a bedroom by himself) and my girlfriend has GOT to be
the most understanding person in the world. She puts up with a garage
full of machines, a dining room table that has an IBM PC and an Epson
QX-10 sitting on them, an HP3000 with it's drives sitting next to the
dining room table, a corner of the living room with a pile of boxes
containing software and manuals (as well as another stack of
machines), and a corner of the bedroom completely overtaken with two
desks, several machines and the top of the dresser (literally) piled
hight with 2 1/2 feet of software. God love her, I'm a lucky man.
The point is, she's made it clear that, when we move in a few months,
I'm damn well getting an office so that she can have most of the house
back. :) And also so I have room to work on my machines and have room
to lay them out, power them up and do something with them.
I just realized I had written this and still hadn't made a point. I
believe that preserving classic computers is VERY different from
preserving many other types of collectibles. I know of very few
possessions that can become unusable paperweights when something
ethereal (like disk contents or tape records) become unreadable, and
this is something a lot of people (outside this industry) understand.
When I rescue something, I want to make it WORK, damn it. :)
Mark
<rolls eyes back> I don't think that I
claimed that it wasn't. My point was
that it often has a downside when it comes to getting items to people who
are best capable of preserving them for future generations.
I assume this is the recurring "deep pocket collectors are not the
best caretakers" issue.
What evidence do you have?
2:17 p.m.
I completely agree... but then again, when I rescue
something, it
kills me if it's just sitting there, not doing anything. :) Right
Yep. The purpose of a computer is to 'compute' (whatever that may mean).
I try to get all my machines operationa, but I keep them as origianl as I
can. What I mean by that is that I replace the smallest part I can (chip
rather than PCN, for example), but I don't worry too much if the
rpelacement is not exactly the same as the original part (I'll replace a
74xx with a 74LSxx if it'll work and I can't get the former). Of course I
keep record of what I've done.
There are plenty of machines I've not got round to working on yet, but I
will...
I just realized I had written this and still
hadn't made a point. I
believe that preserving classic computers is VERY different from
preserving many other types of collectibles. I know of very few
possessions that can become unusable paperweights when something
ethereal (like disk contents or tape records) become unreadable, and
Or EPROM contents, of course.
this is something a lot of people (outside this
industry) understand.
When I rescue something, I want to make it WORK, damn it. :)
Indeed. Whike I generally keep the casaings on my machines (at least when
I am not usinfg them :-), _I_ am not very interested in the styling. Some
people woould want an HP2623 terminal for the rather odd styling, I'm
interested in it because of the little state machine to draw lines. And
thus my inteest comes from the intnerals, and they have to work to be
interesting.
-tony
3:17 p.m.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Good point. My problem is that I know very little about the details
of hardware. I am a software guy, through and through, and while I
can debug SCSI bus problems and other kinds of simple problems, I'm at
a complete loss when it comes to chips. Fortunately, the wonderful
people on this list are a huge help. :)
Of course. I certainly didn't mean to leave that out.
Same here. Styling is interesting (my kid was fascinated by the
keyboard on my QX-10 because of the special function keys; he wondered
why newer machines didn't have those things).
Mark
I completely
agree... but then again, when I rescue something, it
kills me if it's just sitting there, not doing anything. :) ?Right
Yep. The purpose of a computer is to 'compute' (whatever that may mean).
I try to get all my machines operationa, but I keep them as origianl as I
can. What I mean by that is that I replace the smallest part I can (chip
rather than PCN, for example), but I don't worry too much if the
rpelacement is not exactly the same as the original part (I'll replace a
74xx with a 74LSxx if it'll work and I can't get the former). Of course I
keep ?record of what I've done. There are plenty of machines I've not got round to
working on yet, but I
will...
Same here!
I just
realized I had written this and still hadn't made a point. ?I
believe that preserving classic computers is VERY different from
preserving many other types of collectibles. ?I know of very few
possessions that can become unusable paperweights when something
ethereal (like disk contents or tape records) become unreadable, and
Or EPROM contents, of course. this is
something a lot of people (outside this industry) understand.
When I rescue something, I want to make it WORK, damn it. :)
Indeed. Whike I generally keep the casaings on my machines (at least when
I am not usinfg them :-), _I_ am not very interested in the styling. Some
people woould want an HP2623 terminal for the rather odd styling, I'm
interested in it because of the little state machine to draw lines. And
thus my inteest comes from the intnerals, and they have to work to be
interesting.
19 Oct
19 Oct
10:52 a.m.
Yep. The
purpose of a computer is to 'compute' (whatever that may mean).
I try to get all my machines operationa, but I keep them as origianl as I
can. What I mean by that is that I replace the smallest part I can (chip
rather than PCN, for example), but I don't worry too much if the
rpelacement is not exactly the same as the original part (I'll replace a
74xx with a 74LSxx if it'll work and I can't get the former). Of course I
keep =A0record of what I've done.
Good point. My problem is that I know very little about the details
of hardware. I am a software guy, through and through, and while I Indeed. Whike
I generally keep the casaings on my machines (at least when
I am not usinfg them :-), _I_ am not very interested in the styling. Some
people woould want an HP2623 terminal for the rather odd styling, I'm
interested in it because of the little state machine to draw lines. And
thus my inteest comes from the intnerals, and they have to work to be
interesting.
Same here. Styling is interesting (my kid was fascinated by the keyboard on my QX-10 because of the special function
keys; he wondered
why newer machines didn't have those things).
Err, don't they? What are the 'F1' to 'F12' keys on this PC keyboard,
then? The 'Insert', 'Delete', 'Home', etc keys. The
Windows-specific keys
(which the keyboard driver here does nothing with, but they're still on
this cheap keyboard)?
If you mean very special and specific keys, I guess they rather limit the
sort of software you can run, or at least which will make sensible use of
the keyboard.
-tony
12:21 p.m.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I have no intetnion to belittle those who collect machiens because of
their styling, all I will sway it that it's not _my_ primary interest.
Becasue of my hardware interests, i find beauty in a well-designed bit of
electronics, for example/
I certainly hope no one thought I was belittling someone's decision to
collect machines because of style, because that wasn't my intention.
:)
Indeed. Whike I generally keep the casaings on my
machines (at least when
I am not usinfg them :-), _I_ am not very interested in the styling. Some
people woould want an HP2623 terminal for the rather odd styling, I'm
interested in it because of the little state machine to draw lines. And
thus my inteest comes from the intnerals, and they have to work to be
interesting.
Same here. ?Styling is interesting (my kid was fascinated by the That aaid, I do like particularly unusual bits of
mechanical design too.
Like the HP9816 where all the PCBs apart from the PSU can be removed by
undoing 2 quarter-trun fasteners nad removing 1 screw.
I actually did mean that. He's only 14, so he's used to the keyboards
most in use these days, with F1-F12, Insert, Delete, etc. I think he
was fascinated by the differences in the QX-10 keyboard. He had never
seen anything like it.
Mark
keyboard on my QX-10 because of the special
function keys; he wondered
why newer machines didn't have those things).
Err, don't they? What are the 'F1' to 'F12' keys on this PC
keyboard,
then? The 'Insert', 'Delete', 'Home', etc keys. The
Windows-specific keys
(which the keyboard driver here does nothing with, but they're still on
this cheap keyboard)?
If you mean very special and specific keys, I guess they rather limit the
sort of software you can run, or at least which will make sensible use of
the keyboard. 
2:02 p.m.
New subject: Funky keyboards (was: Xerox Alto on ebay (not mine!))
In article <AANLkTikPOCKN41xS97kZ_Vyk9_k7uT81_Wic_wf9JHk3 at mail.gmail.com>,
Mark Davidson <mdavidson1963 at gmail.com> writes:
When people are geeky enough to be interested in my collection of
serial terminals, this is one of the things I point out. I give them
a tour of the different keyboards. Most people don't realize that
there was a time when lower case was a luxury :-). I show them
Tektronix 4010 keyboards where punctuation characters are available on
the shifted alphabetic keys.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
If you mean
very special and specific keys, I guess they rather limit the
sort of software you can run, or at least which will make sensible use of
the keyboard.
I actually did mean that. He's only 14, so he's used to the keyboards
most in use these days, with F1-F12, Insert, Delete, etc. I think he
was fascinated by the differences in the QX-10 keyboard. He had never
seen anything like it.
20 Oct
20 Oct
12:56 p.m.
New subject: Funky keyboards (was: Xerox Alto on ebay (not mine!))
When people are geeky enough to be interested in my
collection of
serial terminals, this is one of the things I point out. I give them
a tour of the different keyboards. Most people don't realize that
I have an old (obviously) video terminal here which, while it can display
lower case, the origianl keyboard circuit could only send upper case.
Alas (for historical interest), I made one of the modifications shown in
the manual (a couple of TTL chips wired togther and soldered to points on
the keybaord PCB) which enables it ot send lower case too.
there was a time when lower case was a luxury :-). I
show them
Tektronix 4010 keyboards where punctuation characters are available on
the shifted alphabetic keys.
You want to find one of the old 3-row keyboards on a 5-bit terminal,
like my Creed 7E. On those, the digits are the figs shift of the top row
of alphabetical keys (so Q->1, W->2, etc0. And Punctuation marks are
scattered on the the other letters.
-tony
12:41 p.m.
If you mean
very special and specific keys, I guess they rather limit the
sort of software you can run, or at least which will make sensible use of
the keyboard.
I actually did mean that. He's only 14, so he's used to the keyboards
most in use these days, with F1-F12, Insert, Delete, etc. I think he
was fascinated by the differences in the QX-10 keyboard. He had never
seen anything like it.
5177
days inactive
5181
days old
13 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
dkelvey＠hotmail.com -
jules.richardson99＠gmail.com -
ken＠seefried.com -
legalize＠xmission.com -
mdavidson1963＠gmail.com -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com