The reporter stated that they take all donations instead of having them scrapped, so I figured they have multiples of the common computers/servers/mainframes in that area of the world. 50 micro's dont take up much space, 10 mainframes do. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf(a)siconic.com> To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:07 PM Subject: Re: No space for vinatge computers in australia (fwd) the Festival ---- http://www.vintage.org www.VintageTech.com *

I try not to have 2 of the same model/type computer, but I have quite a few spare cards for my computers (mostly pc stuff). If I have more then 20 functioning computers of all types I would be surprised. My problem is once I get a machine I have an itch to max it out with all the cards/memory/options available. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf(a)siconic.com> To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 1:18 PM Subject: Re: No space for vinatge computers in australia (fwd) Festival ---- http://www.vintage.org www.VintageTech.com *

The point of storage is to store stuff, unless its full what you are wasting is space. When your storage is totally full, and more storage isn't possible, THEN you have to start making choices. OTOH if you are a museum why not buy some space in a salt mine or something out in the boonies?

Are the computers at a museum run at all? How much of an old computer/mainframe is repairable with modern components and how much is custom equipment that needs spares? I would think the museums have static displays and are mostly worried about them being complete, but not worried about functionality. Over the years how many people are still around who can operate, repair, or maintain 50's era computers? Power requirements would also be a pain for the older models. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf(a)siconic.com> To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 12:16 AM Subject: Re: Collection policy was Re: No space for vinatge computers in australia (fwd) Festival ---- http://www.vintage.org www.VintageTech.com *

Well some museum people function like archeologists, they want to leave the machine in the state they found it in the wild. People like you want to restore the machine to the same state it left the factory most likely. Very few computers that are put out to pasture are probably in the state they were when they were sold and shipped. Along the way addons are released that increase functionality, speed, reliability, etc just like the PC today that you buy will probably get trashed in 5 years with completely different guts, storage, memory etc. Who is to say whats wrong and whats right in what state is correct for that machine? Like I said before museums have static displays for reasons of power requirements, lack of personnel that can run the machines, spare parts that are expensive and hard to find, and the fact that a screwup during operation could actually destroy one of the few remaining examples (or only one). Most devices in a museum are there for either art or function (or combination). The older machines are not much to look at without being powered up and running. I am 34 years old and I have seen a punch card reader, but never seen one hooked up and running. I have never used an 8" floppy, or run the earliest PC's that did computations via dip switch settings on the front panel. the only mainframe I have ever used was in colege doing fortran programming and that machine wasnt even in the same state. I have to admit there is nothing like running a complex fortran program in .001 seconds (would have taken an hour on the PC's we had at the time) to get an answer and then waiting 20 minutes for the local monster printer to spit out the answer and get it posted into my mailbox. Firearms have evolved over 100's of years and the original versions still have alot in common with current units. People of today can relate to how the original versions were used even without using one. Compare this to computers that are only 60+ years old. Does a person who has a PC today have any idea what the monster computer that took up a whole room in 1946 does and how? There was no monitor, no keyboard, and no mouse they are totally different today, how can people relate to this? While there are still a few people who know how to make a horseshoe at a blacksmiths there will be nobody who knows how to run the early mainframes in 50 years, things are changing too fast. Static displays with a video of what they looked like when running will be all thats left (if people are smart enough to record the thing running before the last operator or machine is to old). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans B Pufal" <hansp(a)citem.org> To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 4:28 AM Subject: Re: Collection policy was Re: No space for vinatge computers in australia (fwd) would

Exactly. I have a rule for my own collection of never making permanent modifications other than possibly mounting screw holes for replacement components. And never changing the design or architecutre (at least not significantly -- sometimes you have to use a differnet chip as a replacement, but make it emulate the part you're replacing). And, of course, document all replacements and changes. Yes, documentation can be lost or become separated from the machine, but it's better to at least start out with the modifications documented. I have _never_ had a failure that's done visible damage to the machine (not even burnt traces on the circuit board). If a chip fails, it looks the same as the chip did before it failed -- it doesn't explode, or fly off the circuit board. So what's to be lost by repairing and running the machine? If some irreplaceable part does fail, you _still_ have the machine as a static exhibit. And by not running it, you don't make buckups of firmware, etc while it's still readable, and you don't record important signals while the machine is still operational, so you _do_ lose something. -tony

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Collection policy was Re: No space for vinatge computers in Anything can be learned if you have the documentation of the machine in question, and a good idea of the technology used up to the time the machine was made. The problem I was trying to show is that the interface to the machines has changed quite a bit, and in 50 to 100 years will probably change quite a bit more. Put somebody that only knows a keyboard, mouse, and supervga screen in front of a IMSAI 8080 and they wont know what to do.

In message <001401c3224e$8007e3a0$cd2b1941(a)neo.rr.com> "TeoZ" <teoz(a)neo.rr.com> wrote: Point taken. An average Joe Bloggs probably won't know what to do with the IMSAI, but most programmers could skim through the manual and program the thing in about an hour. It took me twelve minutes to get my Cosmac Elf to accept a program and most of that was fixing a few dry joints and bad toggle switches. Later. -- Phil. philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/

TeoZ wrote: No, but they can learn. I do EXACTLY that with a PDP-8/e cpu I drag around to show at school exhibitions. The first question I get, of course, is where is the screen and keyboard. I teach the kids binary, than, with the aid of a small program left in the core we calculate the mean of a sequence of numbers entered in binary. And not a screen or keybaord in sight. This demo ALWAYS gets good reviews.... This reminds me ao another story. I was talking with a young colleague a few years ago, e must have been in his early twenties. We were talking about old machines and his main question was : "How DID you use thos old machine without screens and keyboards?". And this from a software engineer! -- hbp

In message <m19JhvL-000IzIC@p850ug1> ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote: That's more or less my opinion exactly. As long as I had at least a manual for the CPU, I could probably sit down in front of a computer and program it. I'd probably curse the designers or the CPU a few times, but I could probably do it. I know basic x86 assembler (yuck), some CDP1802 assembler, 6502 assembler, C, PASCAL and (rusty) BASIC. I could sit down in front of nearly any 1980s home computer and program it. I say "nearly any" because I don't know FORTH, but I do intend to learn it when the Ace is up and running again. So the ICs are datestamped 2002. They're the same chips that were available in 1984, the electrical characteristics have improved slightly, but the chip itself hasn't changed that much. Wirewrap wire was available in 1984, so were turned-pin IC sockets. Sure, mine are dated 2002, but without them it would be a real pig to fix the machine if any of the ICs were to fail again. So my Ace doesn't have the original ICs. It's not as if it matters. If I see some 1984-dated 74LS chips somewhere, I'll probably buy them just for the heck of it. To me, priority number one is getting the machine running and keeping its exterior casing in good condition. Priority two is historical accuracy - IC datecodes and suchlike. I'm surprised the Ace's electrolytic capacitors are still OK! Later. -- Phil. philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/

In message <m19K2Ij-000IzmC@p850ug1> ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote: Same here. Give me the machine and the documentation and I'll most likely be able to do the same. Aargh! Another FORTH coder :-) In which case, it'll probably take me about a week when the Ace is up and running. Like I said, this time I'm going to buy a power supply and cut off all the unused connectors. That should reduce the probability of another catastrophic failure.. Well, that's true. I've seen two year old computers with faulty capacitors, yet my ZX Spectrum +2A (anyone got a spare disc controller?) still works fine. I used to have the lightgun and the "James Bond Games Pack" (IIRC), but that bit the dust when my 14" TV landed on top of the tape box and lightgun. Cause? A former friend who couldn't accept that he couldn't get past level 1 on "Operation Wolf"... Hmm... With friends like that, who needs enemies? Later. -- Phil. philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/

Of course... Here's a _very_ brief introduction to Forth. Forth consists of 'words' sepeared by whitespace. When the Forth system reads your command line, it looks up each word in its 'dictionary'. If it can find it, it executes it. If not, it attempts to translate the sequence of characters as a number in the current base. If that fails too, it gives an error message. Forth arithmetic is done using reverse polish notation (it virtually has to be using that method of esecution), and is often integer only. So, when you get your Forth system running, type something like 2 3 + (the spaces are, of course important, although you can type more than 1 if you like). This pushs 2 on the stack (the first thing was not found in the dictionary, so was taken as a numbner [1]), then pushes 3, then executes the word '+' when pops 2 numbers off the stack ans pushes the sum. The stack now contains 5. [1] OK, experienced Forth hackers will realise I've simplified things here. It's common to have small numbers (generally -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 and maybe others) defined as words in the dictionary so as to speed up execution. These words just push the obvious value onto the stack when executed. But there's no reason to have these defined -- the system can run without them. But you can't see it. The forth word . (that's a single period, and is pronounced 'dot') pops the top of stack and displays it as a number in the currnet base. Try it. You should get '5' displayed somewhere. The stack is now empty. So far it's just an integer-only calculator. What makes Forth interesting is that you can add your own words to the dictionary (in fact that's how you generally program in Forth, you just keep on defining new words). There are sevveral ways to do this, the simplest is the 'colon definition'. This defines a new word (immediately following a colon) in terms of existing words. The definition is ended by a semicolon. OK, let's try that : SQ DUP * ; This defines a new word called 'SQ' (for 'square') as being the same as DUP *. That means duplicate the number on top of stack, then multiply the 2 numbers on the stack. This, of course, multiplies the top of stack by itself (a reasonable way to square it :-)). OK, yuou can now try out the new definition 4 SQ . (don't forget the 'dot') should display 16 Or 4 SQ 3 SQ + . should display 25 Note you can use 'home made' words just like the ones in the system. You can even use them in new definitions, e.g. ; 4TH-POWER SQ SQ ; Obviously there's a lot more to the language than that (loops, conditionals, etc), but that should be a start. -tony

I'd have to agree with Andy - up to a point. My aunt was senior programmer at Harrow borough council for years. I'm 46 now, but when I was 11, I remember my aunt discussing with my grandfather, the decommissioning of the computer that the had become so familiar with. From memory it was an English Electric Co. "LEO" (Lyons Electronic Office) machine, I think mostly built from vacuum tubes/valves, and dependent on card punches and readers for much of it's input. I remember seeing guys in white coats tending the machine in its less effective moments, and the general air of respect and authority they commanded from the programmers and operators. About 10 years later, I got my first job in the industry as a field engineer for Data General. I remember I spent some time explaining to my aunt how I'd written a simple disk subsystem diagnostic which I'd keyed in through a 'virtual console' in hex. I then had to explain to her what a virtual console was, followed by an explanation of why parts of the machines she knew so well had to be re-wired as part of the programming process. The aim of a business is to make money - and most would agree that homo-sapiens is essentially a lazy creature (at least, I am)! In terms of hardware and software design and production, this means more and more layers of abstraction between the basic computational structures and the functions that users desire. Doesn't it seem like a natural progression then, that not only do fewer and fewer people understand less and less about machine and system architecture, but given sufficient time, the nature of the IO devices and operations has/is becoming so different from the earliest systems, that it is becoming a non-trivial task to understand even their function, let alone their correct modus operandi (e.g. how many hardware engineers today would recognise, let alone understand the detail in the design of a mercury delay line)? It seems to me that there is nothing at all wrong with this, its just that times/fashions change, and so do our reasons for doing things. On the other hand, the reasons given by the perpetrators of software bloat and the apparently unconnected increasing hardware complexity that always seems to accompany it (I'd often prefer the term sophistry) are highly suspect....... Tim On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 07:09 AM, Andy Holt wrote:

Thats another point, miniturization and design optimization. Today there are chips that do what a whole box of chips did before. Older machines had a seperate circuit for each function, and were easier to follow what was going on. Newer equipment just has a data in and final product out and nobody knows how it does anything inside because it is proprietary and you dont get schematics. Also techs coming out of school today troublshoot a product to a circuit board and swap that out (usually there is only 1 board in the whole device), unlike in years past where they had the knowledge to find and repair any problem using the schematics that were easy to obtain. Everything in computing today (except maybe some embedded designs) are built using tools that use preprogrammed routines that are many layers away from the actual hardware. I know quite a few programmers today who have no clue how their hardware operates, I know nobody that started programming on the C64 that didnt have a good understanding of the hardware they used. ----- Original Message ----- From: "ben franchuk" &lt;bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca&gt; To: &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 11:03 AM Subject: Re: Operating old Mainframes was RE: Collection policy

Tony Duell wrote: Did you suggest that they check the date code on all the other cards ;-) An makes the demonstration closer to real life when machines DID break down. I even imagine demonstrations of engineers fixing and testing the machines, a regular occurrence. Today you simply go aout an buy a new one :-( They ARE entiely the same, the difference is that to see that resemblance you need to run the machine. The museum s stance of showing only statc display accentuates only the differences without explaining the similarities. Precisely! and I see the older machines as offering a path towards better understanding. -- hbp

TeoZ wrote: But what is destroyed? Only the functionaliity, the physical machine can still be used as a static display You obviously need to visit Grenoble ;-) Excellent point, this is what we need to communicate in one way or another. Unless we make a determined effort and preserve the old trades. It is done in other industries, your exmaple of blacksmith is one. Computing has, as you state, eveolved out of all recognition. The simple static display put on by museums do not, and cannot, present that evolution in any real way. -- hbp

I agree. The problem seems to be that many of the traditional exhibits in museums (fine art, archeology, etc) _are_ static objects and the appearence is, in general all that matters and all that can be observed. This is _not_ true of computers (or other scientific and engineering-related objects), but the museums don't seem to realise this and apply the same policies to all objects. If all the meusume is interested in is the appearance of the case, then why does it matter if somebody restores the internals? The case is unchanged by doing this. The fact that the machine might well run again and would thus give additional information as to the state of computing <n> years ago would seem to be a bonus. Can somebody please explain to me why it is so difficult to _learn_ these skills? I will admit I've enver worked on a 1950's computer (the oldest machine I've worked on dates from 1969 [1]), but I don't see why I'd find it impossible given a little bit of time to learn the tricks that were used then. [1] An HP9100B. I had to start out by writing the repair manual... It's interesting that a small private computer history group that I belong to states its aims as 'preserving old computers, programs, methods and operating practices as far as possible'. Clearly they think (as do I) there's more that need to be preserved than just circuit boards :-) -tony

Even then you'd not be totally lost without a schematic if you knew the type of valve that was supposed to go there (quite likely to be a double triode, actually). The heater connections should be darn obvious, and you can easily distinguish grid from anode from cathode with a little practice. The only problem would be keeping the right anode/grid/cathode together. I suspect if the holder was broken into a fairly small number of pieces you could fit them back together well enough to work out which pin was which. Anway, can somebody please tell me how running a machine (as opposed to having it on statick display) is going to cause valve holders to break in half? Oh, a relatively new machine (must be, it's got one of those new-fangled microprocessors [1] in it) :-) [1] As opposed to an old-fashioned microprocessor, meaning a sequencer running microcode. Both DEC and HP used the word in this sense in the 1970s. -tony

I'll go further than that -- I'd have a go at fixing just about anything. Being able to get the right spares and having the original schematics and service manuals helps, but it is not essential (as I have proved many times :-)) The best way I've found for pin-through-hole DIPs is to suck off all the solder I can with a good solder sucker [1], and then to press the leads inwards towards the body of the chip on the component side to break the remaing bit of solder. The chip then comes out without damage. [1] A smear of petroleum jelly (vaseline, etc) on the O-ring of a solder sucker really improves it! I have _never_ seen this happen, and I run a lot of valved equipment still.. Anyway, if this happened, I suspect you'd still be able to see how the parts should fit together, and thus would be able to record which wires went to each pin. -tony

Argh!! I knew I disliked most museums for a good reason :-)... This is simply rediculous. A PDP9 is a PDP9 no matter what cabinet it's installed in, of even if it's jsut loose backplanes and PSUs... Mind you, I once saw a list of valves (vacuum tubes) that one museum was offering to another. The list had a column of 'condition'. No, it didn't give the emission and gm figures. It didn't even say if the heater was continous, and the getter silver (not white, which would indicate air had leaked into the valve). No, it described how clean the glass was... The obvious extension of this is that art galleries should throw out all but 10 of their paintains on the ground that they 'already have 10 pieces of canvas with paint on them' :-)... And that libraries only need to keep 10 books ('we already have 10 sets of bound pieces of paper with ink on them'). Somebody is going to have to educate museum curators about the importance and meaning of technical and computer artefacts... -tony