24 Jan
2002
24 Jan
'02
6:40 a.m.
Monitors of the time, at least of the NTSC-compatible
type, were typically equipped with PL-259 connectors
on the rear.
Not true, at least in the video industry.
By the time consumer video equipment became popular,
the PL-259, which was also common in the '70's for other
75-ohm applications e.g. antennas and the like, had been
replaced by the 'F' types in video hookups, since those
were MUCH cheaper.
The PL-259 was in use primarily for carrying VHF and UHF
signals, not baseband video.
The PL259/SO259 was originally designed in the 1940's to carry
the then high resolution 3.5MHz 405 line baseband video signal.
They remained as the connector of choice, at least in europe, until
the 70's when the more compact BNC took over. Patch pannels
were, and are still, mostly Musa as they are easy to (un)plug
even when packed closely.
As I said, I may be sorry to have chimed in on this nearly
off-topic conversation, but when I see blanket statements
being made that are obviously incorrect I have a hard time
remaining silent.
Ah, ok. 8^)=
Lee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
This email is intended only for the above named addressee(s). The
information contained in this email may contain information which is
confidential. The views expressed in this email are personal to the sender
and do not in any way reflect the views of the company.
If you have received this email and you are not a named addressee please
delete it from your system and contact Merlin Communications International
IT Department on +44 20 7344 5888.
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
24 Jan
24 Jan
7:30 a.m.
At 08:40 PM 1/24/02 +0000, you wrote:
Sorry, to keep the context I should have said "...the broadcast
video industry of the Apple ][ era in North America."
Do you have a reference for this? My radio books from that era
discuss the development of this type of connector in relation to
carrying modulated voice signals.
Monitors of
the time, at least of the NTSC-compatible
type, were typically equipped with PL-259 connectors
on the rear.
Not true, at least in the video industry. By the time
consumer video equipment became popular,
the PL-259, which was also common in the '70's for other
75-ohm applications e.g. antennas and the like, had been
replaced by the 'F' types in video hookups, since those
were MUCH cheaper.
The PL-259 was in use primarily for carrying VHF and UHF
signals, not baseband video.
The PL259/SO259 was originally designed in the 1940's to carry
the then high resolution 3.5MHz 405 line baseband video signal. They remained as the connector of choice, at least in
europe, until
the 70's when the more compact BNC took over. Patch pannels
were, and are still, mostly Musa as they are easy to (un)plug
even when packed closely.
At the time, the broadcast equipment I dealt with in the United States
and Canada were almost exclusively BNC, which is what our products
were designed for. I can't speak for Europe.
I've seen a lot of video gear with a lot of different connectors and I have no
doubt that video monitors of varying vintage can be found with nearly any type
of connector you can imagine. My objection was Dick's blanket assertion
regarding
BNC connectors in the video industry. During the time period in question,
BNC was
the standard for baseband and composite video and PL-259 was almost exclusively
for the carriage of RF in modern, well-funded broadcast video operations.
Cheers,
Dan
25 Jan
25 Jan
1:09 a.m.
I suppose the distinction is that in the microcomputer market, at least at the
time of the Apple ][+, the PL259 connector was commonly used on what people
could afford to buy to go with their budget microcomputer. The most common
monitor I remember seeing in use, and often as part of a display in the local
computer store, was the 9" (?) Sanyo "security" monitor that was about the
same height as two of the Apple disk drives, one atop the other. That whole
setup was placed on top of the Apple case and that's how one saw them in the
stores and on the desktop or credenza.
I'd say that it is quite possible that BNC's were in use at the time, though,
not working in the video industry myself, I didn't see that sort of equipment
much, though I did see what was being used in computer labs, etc. What I saw
was the PL259's, which is what was common on the large monitors used in the
classrooms and in security systems that distributed video signal.
If BNC's were in wide use in the video industry, I didn't see it because that
sort of equipment was too costly to show up in the microcomputing environment.
After all, if one had the budget for expensive video gear, one didn't have to
use an Apple computer. It didn't make sense to use a computer costing $1500,
when one could afford a monitor costing $15k. If you had that sort of money,
you'd get a "real" computer.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Davison, Lee" <Lee.Davison(a)merlincommunications.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: RE: Bell & Howell Apple II update
Monitors of the time, at least of the
NTSC-compatible
type, were typically equipped with PL-259 connectors
on the rear.
Not true, at least in the video industry.
By the time consumer video equipment became
popular,
the PL-259, which was also common in the '70's for other
75-ohm applications e.g. antennas and the like, had been
replaced by the 'F' types in video hookups, since those
were MUCH cheaper.
The PL-259 was in use primarily for carrying VHF and UHF
signals, not baseband video.
The PL259/SO259 was originally designed in the 1940's to carry
the then high resolution 3.5MHz 405 line baseband video signal.
They remained as the connector of choice, at least in europe, until
the 70's when the more compact BNC took over. Patch pannels
were, and are still, mostly Musa as they are easy to (un)plug
even when packed closely.
As I said, I may be sorry to have chimed in on this nearly
off-topic conversation, but when I see blanket statements
being made that are obviously incorrect I have a hard time
remaining silent.
Ah, ok. 8^)=
Lee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
This email is intended only for the above named addressee(s). The
information contained in this email may contain information which is
confidential. The views expressed in this email are personal to the sender
and do not in any way reflect the views of the company.
If you have received this email and you are not a named addressee please
delete it from your system and contact Merlin Communications International
IT Department on +44 20 7344 5888.
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
6:01 a.m.
No, not even this Subject. The previous post was from Richard
again on his point on BNC not being used in video. While a
second (enough!) reading of it shows Some aspects of giving
in on the issue, the idea that someone would press on is ludicrous.
BNC Is the connector of choice for analog video, just not home video.
John A.
6:28 a.m.
Yeah, John, the BNC is definitely the connector of choice for the application.
However, since there was in 1978, no specific market for microcomputer
monitors, people used what they could buy, and, at the time, that meant,
largely, closed-circuit TV (e.g. security system) monitors, which, for the
most part, at the time, used the PL/SO 259 and not the BNC. I don't know why
this was the case, but it was. If you take a look at the old magazines e.g.
BYTE, Kilobaud, etc, targeted at the microcomputer market, you'll see plenty
of monitors with SO-259's on the back, and very few with BNC's. They might
have been available on video production studio equipment, but that stuff was
VERY expensive, into six figures, anyway, back then, and most microcomputer
stores didn't want to tie up that kind of money in inventory that nobody could
afford anyway.
Perhaps you could take time to read the entire post, rather than concluding it
says what you want it to say, John.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Allain" <allain(a)panix.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
No, not even this Subject. The previous post was from
Richard
again on his point on BNC not being used in video. While a
second (enough!) reading of it shows Some aspects of giving
in on the issue, the idea that someone would press on is ludicrous.
BNC Is the connector of choice for analog video, just not home video.
John A.
1:31 a.m.
And thusly Richard Erlacher spake:
If BNC's were in wide use in the video industry, I didn't see it because that
sort of equipment was too costly to show up in the microcomputing environment.
After all, if one had the budget for expensive video gear, one didn't have to
use an Apple computer. It didn't make sense to use a computer costing $1500,
when one could afford a monitor costing $15k. If you had that sort of money,
you'd get a "real" computer.
Yeah, and this exact same mentality helped to kill the Amiga! Yes the Amiga
was used in a lot of TV stations, but they were mostly Ch. 3 cable companies.
Maybe Commodore should have gold-plated the plugs and sold them for 10x the
price.
Cheers,
Bryan
2:04 a.m.
Yeah, and this exact same mentality helped to kill the
Amiga! Yes the Amiga
was used in a lot of TV stations, but they were mostly Ch. 3 cable companies.
Maybe Commodore should have gold-plated the plugs and sold them for 10x the
price.
Judging from posts on Usenet and eBay, it would appear that a
lot of people are now deciding to get rid of the big-box machines
such as the 2000, 3000, and 4000. A lot of them appearing for sale
lately.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
2:23 a.m.
That's how the MAC came to be a competitor of the PC instead of the
Commodores. You pick your market with your pricetag. There were published
rumors of the original proposed cost of the MAC, in 1985, suggesting it would
be <$1000. However, Apple decided that, though they would have made typical
profits on the sub-$1K price by going after the big-blue market, they not only
added a clear $3k to their profits, but were playing in the major league.
The Amiga didn't need to be gold-plated, it just needed a price appropriate
for its intended market.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Pope" <bpope(a)wordstock.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
companies.
And thusly Richard Erlacher spake:
>
>
> If BNC's were in wide use in the video industry, I didn't see it because
that
> sort of equipment was too costly to show up in
the microcomputing
environment.
> After all, if one had the budget for expensive
video gear, one didn't have
to
> use an Apple computer. It didn't make sense
to use a computer costing
$1500,
> when one could afford a monitor costing $15k. If
you had that sort of
money,
you'd get
a "real" computer.
Yeah, and this exact same mentality helped to kill the Amiga! Yes the Amiga
was used in a lot of TV stations, but they were mostly Ch. 3 cable Maybe Commodore should have gold-plated the plugs and
sold them for 10x the
price.
Cheers,
Bryan
24 Jan
24 Jan
1:45 p.m.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
That's how the MAC came to be a competitor of the PC instead of the
Commodores. You pick your market with your pricetag. There were published
rumors of the original proposed cost of the MAC, in 1985, suggesting it would
be <$1000. However, Apple decided that, though they would have made typical
profits on the sub-$1K price by going after the big-blue market, they not only
added a clear $3k to their profits, but were playing in the major league.
The Amiga didn't need to be gold-plated, it just needed a price appropriate
for its intended market.
No it needed to develop user APPS not just games. 640x200 dots are the
low
end of computers and the high end of TV. Even the latest new game box
is that res - TV output. Real users don't use a TV for output - they
what a real computer screen and that is what killed it.
I don't buy you pick your market with your price tag, I say too cost
cutting corners hurts your product. If that was the case all computers
would still be milti-million dollar time shared computers with 110 baud
dial up.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
25 Jan
25 Jan
6:21 a.m.
You've lost me here, Ben.
see below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Franchuk" <bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
What do you mean here, Ben? The PC didn't use a TV for output, and the MAC
didn't use TV for output. The Amiga could, I suppose, use TV output, but it
could do it at resolution much better than 640x200, and had a full range of
colors at a time when the MAC and PC didn't.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> That's how the MAC came to be a competitor of the PC instead of the
> Commodores. You pick your market with your pricetag. There were
published
> rumors of the original proposed cost of the MAC,
in 1985, suggesting it
would
> be <$1000. However, Apple decided that,
though they would have made
typical
> profits on the sub-$1K price by going after the
big-blue market, they not
only
> added a clear $3k to their profits, but were
playing in the major league.
>
> The Amiga didn't need to be gold-plated, it just needed a price
appropriate
for its
intended market.
No it needed to develop user APPS not just games. 640x200 dots are the
low
end of computers and the high end of TV. Even the latest new game box
is that res - TV output. Real users don't use a TV for output - they
what a real computer screen and that is what killed it.
I don't buy, "you pick your market with your price tag." I say too [much]
cost
cutting corners hurts your product. If that were the
case, all computers
would still be multi-million dollar time shared computers with 110 baud
dial up.
First of all, within any market segment, investment in improved technology
increases market share. That doesn't apply over different market segments,
however. DEC, for example, stayed with "old" technology, charging WAY more
than "new" technology prices for it for years. They typically lagged two
generations behind in technology, yet exceeded costs of "leading edge" systems
by a couple of orders of magnitude. Just compare the cost and features of the
PC/AT clones sold in, say, '87-88 with a similarly equipped microVAX-II. The
PC/AT would typically cost about $800 bucks, while a similarly equipped uVaxII
cost nearly $100K, partly for the stuff the PC/AT had, and partly for what you
had to add in order to have the stuff the PC/AT had. Inside a year, the power
cost alone exceeded the PC/AT, yet folks LOVED the microVax and hated the
PC/AT clone, that ran half-again as fast. If that DEC gear hadn't been so
expensive, nobody would have bought it for sale to their government clients,
since there would have been more profit in the PC/AT route.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
24 Jan
24 Jan
3:18 p.m.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
What do you mean here, Ben? The PC didn't use a
TV for output, and the MAC
didn't use TV for output. The Amiga could, I suppose, use TV output, but it
could do it at resolution much better than 640x200, and had a full range of
colors at a time when the MAC and PC didn't.
I don't remember much about the Amiga but TV video was a big aspect
because
community channels would often use them for display devices. Local
football
team plays sunday... girlguides are selling cookies... place your
message
here. What I really remember is that dumb bouncing ball demo.
What I remember about the Mac was it only had 128k memory,since I had
a Dr Dobbs magazine on upgrading one to 512k.
First of all, within any market segment, investment in
improved technology
increases market share. That doesn't apply over different market segments,
however. DEC, for example, stayed with "old" technology, charging WAY more
than "new" technology prices for it for years. They typically lagged two
generations behind in technology, yet exceeded costs of "leading edge" systems
by a couple of orders of magnitude. Just compare the cost and features of the
PC/AT clones sold in, say, '87-88 with a similarly equipped microVAX-II. The
PC/AT would typically cost about $800 bucks, while a similarly equipped uVaxII
cost nearly $100K, partly for the stuff the PC/AT had, and partly for what you
had to add in order to have the stuff the PC/AT had. Inside a year, the power
cost alone exceeded the PC/AT, yet folks LOVED the microVax and hated the
PC/AT clone, that ran half-again as fast. If that DEC gear hadn't been so
expensive, nobody would have bought it for sale to their government clients,
since there would have been more profit in the PC/AT route.
That is true but at one time DEC was competitive with technology and
price,
then the suits took over.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
25 Jan
25 Jan
1:26 p.m.
Well, that's possible, but we're talking several generations' difference,
since the MAC was '85 or so while the Apple ][ was '78-'79. They may both be
a long time back, but the ][+ was the guy whose video connector was under
discussion. ISTR that the Apple ][ was capable of generating interlaced video
at something on the order of 512x480. Maybe someone more knowledgable
regarding ][+ video capabilities can clear that up, but it was something not
too far from what the typical TV would do.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Franchuk" <bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
segments,
Richard Erlacher wrote:
> What do you mean here, Ben? The PC didn't use a TV for output, and the
MAC
> didn't use TV for output. The Amiga could, I
suppose, use TV output, but
it
> could do it at resolution much better than
640x200, and had a full range
of
colors at a
time when the MAC and PC didn't.
I don't remember much about the Amiga but TV video was a big aspect
because
community channels would often use them for display devices. Local
football
team plays sunday... girlguides are selling cookies... place your
message
here. What I really remember is that dumb bouncing ball demo.
What I remember about the Mac was it only had 128k memory,since I had
a Dr Dobbs magazine on upgrading one to 512k.
> First of all, within any market segment, investment in improved technology
> increases market share. That doesn't apply over different market
> however. DEC, for example, stayed with
"old" technology, charging WAY
more
> than "new" technology prices for it for
years. They typically lagged two
> generations behind in technology, yet exceeded costs of "leading edge"
systems
> by a couple of orders of magnitude. Just compare
the cost and features of
the
> PC/AT clones sold in, say, '87-88 with a
similarly equipped microVAX-II.
The
> PC/AT would typically cost about $800 bucks,
while a similarly equipped
uVaxII
> cost nearly $100K, partly for the stuff the PC/AT
had, and partly for what
you
> had to add in order to have the stuff the PC/AT
had. Inside a year, the
power
> cost alone exceeded the PC/AT, yet folks LOVED
the microVax and hated the
> PC/AT clone, that ran half-again as fast. If that DEC gear hadn't been so
> expensive, nobody would have bought it for sale to their government
clients,
since there
would have been more profit in the PC/AT route.
That is true but at one time DEC was competitive with technology and
price,
then the suits took over.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
2:44 p.m.
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Well, that's possible, but we're talking
several generations' difference,
since the MAC was '85 or so while the Apple ][ was '78-'79. They may both
be
a long time back, but the ][+ was the guy whose video connector was under
discussion. ISTR that the Apple ][ was capable of generating interlaced video
at something on the order of 512x480. Maybe someone more knowledgable
regarding ][+ video capabilities can clear that up, but it was something not
too far from what the typical TV would do.
That does not aound right for the video capabilities of the ][+.
Wasn't it closer to 280? x 192?? (expanded to 560? x 192? on 2e?)
Apple 2 and IBM CGA both had coonectors explicitly for RF modulator. Most
popular at the time was SupRMod? on ch34.
10:48 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020126/2b52ce22/at…
24 Jan
24 Jan
5:58 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
I always used a Amiga monitor for CGA. But then the PC had cassette
basic too!
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
What do you mean here, Ben? The PC didn't
use a TV for output, and the MAC
Didn't it? That's news to me...
The original CGA card has a composite NTSC output on an RCA phono socket.
It also has a 4 pin header plug inside that was designed to connect to an
RF modulator to get TV output.
IIRC the CGA monitor (5153) came out rather later than the PC or CGA
card, and the original intention was that some users _would_ use a normal
TV and moulator with this card.
25 Jan
25 Jan
1:45 p.m.
What meant by that was that the PC didn't put out standard NTSC (interlaced)
video but something considerably less than that. IIRC, the Amiga was capable
of interlaced display. Consequently, they were frequently used for titling
"educational" (read limited-budget) productions, which is often quite obvious.
The PC didn't support the functions necessary for such titling, though I
suppose one could have written a smooth-scrolling utility easily enough.
Summing the titles with an external video stream was not on the menu for PC's,
though.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
> What do you mean here, Ben? The PC didn't
use a TV for output, and the
MAC
Didn't it? That's news to me...
Nope ... it required additional (3rd-party) hardware for that ...
The original CGA card has a composite NTSC output on an RCA phono socket.
It also has a 4 pin header plug inside that was designed to connect to an
RF modulator to get TV output.
IIRC the CGA monitor (5153) came out rather later than the PC or CGA
card, and the original intention was that some users _would_ use a normal
TV and moulator with this card.
Since I didn't jump on the PC bandwagon right away, I'm not sure what the
original package was, but my original (Aug '81) PC technical reference
includes schematics for the CGA monitor and adapter but mentions nothing about
an RF modulator. I'd be surprised to learn there wasn't such a thing in the
mill, though.
24 Jan
24 Jan
6:30 p.m.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
What meant by that was that the PC didn't put out standard NTSC (interlaced)
video but something considerably less than that. IIRC, the Amiga was capable
of interlaced display. Consequently, they were frequently used for titling
"educational" (read limited-budget) productions, which is often quite obvious.
The PC didn't support the functions necessary for such titling, though I
suppose one could have written a smooth-scrolling utility easily enough.
Summing the titles with an external video stream was not on the menu for PC's,
though.
Often they used a TARGA 16 board there for digital video and editing.
That was is 512 pixels wide 15 bit color, 1 bit for video overlay.
I have two kicking around here. DOS only -- never had a video drive for
windows. They later moved to Mac products.
Dick
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
25 Jan
25 Jan
2:33 p.m.
Yeah ... I remember hearing about those Targa boards. That's derived from an
AT&T product, isn't it?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Franchuk" <bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> What meant by that was that the PC didn't put out standard NTSC
(interlaced)
> video but something considerably less than that.
IIRC, the Amiga was
capable
> of interlaced display. Consequently, they were
frequently used for
titling
> "educational" (read limited-budget)
productions, which is often quite
obvious.
> The PC didn't support the functions necessary
for such titling, though I
> suppose one could have written a smooth-scrolling utility easily enough.
> Summing the titles with an external video stream was not on the menu for
PC's,
though.
Often they used a TARGA 16 board there for digital video and editing.
That was is 512 pixels wide 15 bit color, 1 bit for video overlay.
I have two kicking around here. DOS only -- never had a video drive for
windows. They later moved to Mac products.
Dick
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
11:27 a.m.
- - - -point
however. DEC, for example, stayed with "old" technology, charging WAY more
than "new" technology prices for it for years. They typically lagged two
generations behind in technology, yet exceeded costs of "leading edge"
systems
by a couple of orders of magnitude. Just compare the cost and features of
the
PC/AT clones sold in, say, '87-88 with a similarly equipped microVAX-II.
The
PC/AT would typically cost about $800 bucks, while a similarly equipped
uVaxII
cost nearly $100K, partly for the stuff the PC/AT had, and partly for what
you
had to add in order to have the stuff the PC/AT had. Inside a year, the
power
cost alone exceeded the PC/AT, yet folks LOVED the microVax and hated the
PC/AT clone, that ran half-again as fast. If that DEC gear hadn't been so
- - - -
- - - -counterpoint
I have two machines sold in 1987, and the original bills of sale for both.
One I bought used for 35 bucks 5 years ago, the other, new.
1987: PS/2m60 10Mhz $2,200 and microVaxII ??20Mhz?? $39,000
Looks bad, doesn't it? Except the PS2 had 1M/mem and 44M/disk
and the VAX had 16M/mem, 310M/disk. So the price differential was
18x, not 120x, and there was enough difference in capacity to see why.
So, personally I have few problems with DEC.
- - - -
John A.
1:58 p.m.
I never tried a comparison between the vastly overpriced PS/2's and the DEC
stuff, but they apparently played in the same ballpark. Unfortunately, the
PS/2 series was vastly outperformed by PC/AT clones sporting 20 MHz and even
25 MHz '286's (I still have one of the latter.) at a teensy fraction of the
price of a slow PS/2.
My 25 MHz '286 w/IIT '287 and 8 MB of RAM cost about $400 including the box,
keyboard, etc. I got the pair of 1.2 GB drives as discontinued sample stock
from the Maxtor salesman. Those were pretty big, fast
drives (and could keep
your coffee warm all day) for the time. The controller cost
$188. Comparable
drives cost about $3k back then, but the biggest drives that we could buy for
our uVAX-II's at the time were 360MB and they cost $4375 each. The controller
cost $2375, IIRC.
Theynever did build a microVAX that would outrun that 25 MHz '286.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Allain" <allain(a)panix.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
- - - -point
however. DEC, for example, stayed with "old" technology, charging WAY more
than "new" technology prices for it for years. They typically lagged two
generations behind in technology, yet exceeded costs of "leading edge"
systems
by a couple of orders of magnitude. Just compare the cost and features of
the
PC/AT clones sold in, say, '87-88 with a similarly equipped microVAX-II.
The
PC/AT would typically cost about $800 bucks, while a similarly equipped
uVaxII
cost nearly $100K, partly for the stuff the PC/AT had, and partly for what
you
had to add in order to have the stuff the PC/AT had. Inside a year, the
power
cost alone exceeded the PC/AT, yet folks LOVED the microVax and hated the
PC/AT clone, that ran half-again as fast. If that DEC gear hadn't been so
- - - -
- - - -counterpoint
I have two machines sold in 1987, and the original bills of sale for both.
One I bought used for 35 bucks 5 years ago, the other, new.
1987: PS/2m60 10Mhz $2,200 and microVaxII ??20Mhz?? $39,000
Looks bad, doesn't it? Except the PS2 had 1M/mem and 44M/disk
and the VAX had 16M/mem, 310M/disk. So the price differential was
18x, not 120x, and there was enough difference in capacity to see why.
So, personally I have few problems with DEC.
- - - -
John A.
9:58 a.m.
From: "Richard Erlacher"
<edick(a)idcomm.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:58:06 -0700
Reply-to: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
My 25 MHz '286 w/IIT '287 and 8 MB of RAM cost
about $400 including the box,
cost $2375, IIRC.
Theynever did build a microVAX that would outrun that 25 MHz '286.
Lucky to u on that 1.2GB monsters. About right for that time, GASP!
That 286 25MHz motherboard is certainly pcchips. what a POS and had
few 286-20 also. Having 287XL in it doesn't work too well!
That was back in 1991 or so.
Cheers,
Wizard Had homebuilt of POS cacheless 386-25 shitbox when I was
new to the PC w/ whopping 80MB IDE. :-D I learned better after few
problems w/ 486 boards then went w/ Asus and quality parts.
Dick
26 Jan
26 Jan
3:38 a.m.
You're thinking about a PC-CHIPS mobo, which came out a little later than the
first "fast" '286 I got. The one I kept, however, was a later PC-CHIPS
NEAT
mobo, which used the IIT '287, which was designed from the gound up to run at
the higher rates compatible with the CMOS parts produced by vendors like
Harris. It was a mite tricky to operate, but once you had the tools and read
the data sheets, it was quite impressive and quite solid.
I found (and still find) the NEAT mobo to be VERY useful, having worked for a
company that produced a software set that enabled one to load drivers in the
adapter space and produced boards that mapped a modest amount of memory into
that space, on 512K or 640K PC/AT's.
One thing I did determine back then was that Win3.0 and later, v3.1x, ran
faster on the '286 at a given clock rate than did a '386 at the same rate. I
suppose this was at least in part because the first thing the software did was
lie to the CPU and tell it, "OK ... you're a '286 now ..."
By '91, folks were playing with their '486's.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: <jpero(a)sympatico.ca>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
box,
From:
"Richard Erlacher" <edick(a)idcomm.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:58:06 -0700
Reply-to: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
> My 25 MHz '286 w/IIT '287 and 8 MB of RAM cost about $400 including the
<snip>
cost $2375, IIRC.
They never did build a microVAX that would outrun that 25 MHz '286.
Lucky to u on that 1.2GB monsters. About right for that time, GASP!
That 286 25MHz motherboard is certainly pcchips. what a POS and had
few 286-20 also. Having 287XL in it doesn't work too well!
That was back in 1991 or so.
Cheers,
Wizard Had homebuilt of POS cacheless 386-25 shitbox when I was
new to the PC w/ whopping 80MB IDE. :-D I learned better after few
problems w/ 486 boards then went w/ Asus and quality parts.
Dick
1:28 a.m.
From: "Richard Erlacher"
<edick(a)idcomm.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:38:21 -0700
Reply-to: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
You're thinking about a PC-CHIPS mobo, which came
out a little later than the
first "fast" '286 I got. The one I kept, however, was a later PC-CHIPS
NEAT
Hmm...
I'm not referring to chipset maker, I'm referring to maker of MB
pcchips used to do "PC Mate" I think also. I agree CHIPS is good
chipset on 286 boards especially single chipset type. But I'm not
too impressed w/ 386 and 486 that used CHIPS chipsets, lackluster
performance and very delicate both settings and they breakdown
easily. 82C206 is always blowing like fuses for any reason
especially by CHIPS, anything else that made this clone of this
82C206 is much better. I remmeber now, CHIPS is Chipset and
Technologies, in short: C&T.
One thing I did determine back then was that Win3.0
and later, v3.1x, ran
faster on the '286 at a given clock rate than did a '386 at the same rate. I
suppose this was at least in part because the first thing the software did was
lie to the CPU and tell it, "OK ... you're a '286 now ..."
Yuk.
My primary reasons for having 386DX early on was full 32bits and
speed, games likes 386DX. (WC II) I can buy a 386SX board but
that's kidding myself to straw-pipe of 16 bits to memory.
By '91, folks were playing with their
'486's.
I got it well after '93, AMD 486DX 40 o/c'ed to 50 once I found a
good motherboard for it much later, turned out a clone motherboard w/
SiS 460, 8 pieces of cache chips for 256K, 2 xVLB.
Dick
Cheers,
Wizard
8:44 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: <jpero(a)sympatico.ca>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
the
Well, there was little installed base of '386 software.
From:
"Richard Erlacher" <edick(a)idcomm.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:38:21 -0700
Reply-to: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
> You're thinking about a PC-CHIPS mobo, which came out a little later than
> first "fast" '286 I got. The one I
kept, however, was a later PC-CHIPS
NEAT
Hmm...
I'm not referring to chipset maker, I'm referring to maker of MB
pcchips used to do "PC Mate" I think also. I agree CHIPS is good
chipset on 286 boards especially single chipset type. But I'm not
too impressed w/ 386 and 486 that used CHIPS chipsets, lackluster
performance and very delicate both settings and they breakdown
easily. 82C206 is always blowing like fuses for any reason
especially by CHIPS, anything else that made this clone of this
82C206 is much better. I remember now, CHIPS is Chipset and
Technologies, in short: C&T.
Well, the databook say "chips and technologies" but that's close
enough ...
The 82C206 is the part that lived the longest of all the parts in these sets.
It's the one with the clock/calendar, etc in it. They even used it with the
'386's and early '486's before they put the I/O board components, i.e.
FDC,
serial ports, parallel port, etc, on the motherboard. If they broke, it was
usually from some form of abuse and even that was difficult to do.
> One thing I did determine back then was that Win3.0 and later, v3.1x, ran
> faster on the '286 at a given clock rate than did a '386 at the same rate.
I
> suppose this was at least in part because the
first thing the software did
was
lie to the CPU
and tell it, "OK ... you're a '286 now ..."
Yuk.
My primary reasons for having 386DX early on was full 32bits and
speed, games likes 386DX. (WC II) I can buy a 386SX board but
that's kidding myself to straw-pipe of 16 bits to memory.
I had a Peltier-cooled '386 running at 50 MHz for some time. It worked fine,
though it wasn't easy finding memory that would track it. Some of the cache
chips weren't even available in speeds suitable for a 50 MHz '386 back then,
particularly since most cache designs were single-line write-through caches.
By '91, folks were playing with their
'486's.
I got it well after '93, AMD 486DX 40 o/c'ed to 50 once I found a
good motherboard for it much later, turned out a clone motherboard w/
SiS 460, 8 pieces of cache chips for 256K, 2 xVLB.
Cheers,
Wizard
12:04 p.m.
--- John Allain <allain(a)panix.com> wrote:
- - - -point
Just compare the cost and features of the
PC/AT clones sold in, say, '87-88 with a similarly equipped microVAX-II.
The PC/AT would typically cost about $800 bucks, while a similarly
equipped uVaxII cost nearly $100K...
$100K? An 11/750 in 1982 cost that. In 1986, when they were first
out, a uVAX-II was about $30K for a standard system - 9MB of RAM and
a 73MB MFM drive. Yes the drives from DEC were expensive. They always
were poor at a price/capacity ratio, especially compared to third-parties.
That $800 AT may have had a larger disk, but it sure didn't have much
RAM. 41256 RAM chips in the tube (not assembled into boards) shot from
$3.50 each to $17.50 *each* in 1987 due to the U.S. Dept of Commerce
imposing dumping fees on Korean DRAM vendors. I was trying to populate
a Spirit Inboard (1.5MB) on my Amiga - 1MB x 9bits (parity) was going
for literally $630 per megabyte.
Also, the AT was old tech in 1987 and the uVAX-II was a year old. That
AT was $5K a couple years earlier when _it_ first came out - with 1Mb of
RAM and a 40Mb ST-251 drive.
Inside a year, the power cost alone exceeded the
PC/AT...
8A max draw for a BA-23 is 880 watts. At $0.08 / KWH (our rates in
Columbus), that's $0.07/hour in electricity, or $1.68/day or $613/year...
less than the cost of 1MB of RAM chips.
yet folks LOVED
the microVax and hated the PC/AT clone, that ran half-again as fast.
How many terminals could you put on that stock PC/AT clone? The regular
complement on a uVAX-II was 5 - console plus 4 DZV11 ports. How many
people could use the PC/AT clone at the same time? 1? Don't forget
that a *big* chunk of the price from DEC was the software license. If
you needed VMS, you *needed* VMS. The uVAX was near the *bottom* end of a
line of expensive machines and could nearly match integer (not I/O)
performance of an 11/780 that cost 10 times as much ($300K new in 1978 vs
$30K new in 1986).
That's another point - how fast could you pump bytes through a PC? The
ISA bus was 8MHz - and that doesn't mean 8 million 16-bit words per second.
The Qbus in a uVAX can pump over 1MB/sec, but I don't have the numbers
here in front of me.
Apples and oranges. Comparing a PC-AT and a uVAX-II - Yes... the PC clone
can add numbers faster, but there's lots of things it couldn't do, things
people with MicroVAXen *wanted* to do (1 machine for e-mail for the entire
department, as a personal example).
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
3:25 p.m.
I don't know where you were buying DRAMs for that kind of money. I was
working a baseband processor design in '87 (VERY cost-sensitif due to volume)
and was constantly seeing prices of about $1 for 41256's at the time. I heard
rumors of price surges, but they didn't show up in distributor prices, and
certainly not in direct pricing from the vendors.
If you didn't mind the teensy hard disk, you might get by at $30K, but if you
wanted it equipped with a video display capable of 1024x768, 24 MB of RAM, a
pair of 750 MB hard disks, you were looking at a MUCH bigger price tag, and
particularly if you wanted to use a DEC monitor.
Then there was the networking hardware. If you wanted to be compatible with
non-DEC stuff, you had to "dig deeeep" as the preacher used to say ...
more below ...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ethan Dicks" <erd_6502(a)yahoo.com
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
--- John Allain <allain(a)panix.com> wrote:
Terminals? Who wanted to use terminals? Nevertheless, with an add-on board
costing a fraction of what a DEC terminal cost, you could add a 16-port board
to a PC/AT along with the software. Now, I don't know what you'd do with such
a thing.
- - - -point
Just compare the cost and features of the
PC/AT clones sold in, say, '87-88 with a similarly equipped microVAX-II.
The PC/AT would typically cost about $800 bucks, while a similarly
equipped uVaxII cost nearly $100K...
$100K? An 11/750 in 1982 cost that. In 1986, when they were first
out, a uVAX-II was about $30K for a standard system - 9MB of RAM and
a 73MB MFM drive. Yes the drives from DEC were expensive. They always
were poor at a price/capacity ratio, especially compared to third-parties.
That $800 AT may have had a larger disk, but it sure didn't have much
RAM. 41256 RAM chips in the tube (not assembled into boards) shot from
$3.50 each to $17.50 *each* in 1987 due to the U.S. Dept of Commerce
imposing dumping fees on Korean DRAM vendors. I was trying to populate
a Spirit Inboard (1.5MB) on my Amiga - 1MB x 9bits (parity) was going
for literally $630 per megabyte.
Also, the AT was old tech in 1987 and the uVAX-II was a year old. That
AT was $5K a couple years earlier when _it_ first came out - with 1Mb of
RAM and a 40Mb ST-251 drive.
Inside a year, the power cost alone exceeded the
PC/AT...
8A max draw for a BA-23 is 880 watts. At $0.08 / KWH (our rates in
Columbus), that's $0.07/hour in electricity, or $1.68/day or $613/year...
less than the cost of 1MB of RAM chips.
yet folks LOVED
the microVax and hated the PC/AT clone, that ran half-again as fast.
How many terminals could you put on that stock PC/AT clone? The regular
complement on a uVAX-II was 5 - console plus 4 DZV11 ports. How many
people could use the PC/AT clone at the same time? 1? Don't forget
that a *big* chunk of the price from DEC was the software license. If
you needed VMS, you *needed* VMS. The uVAX was near the *bottom* end of a
line of expensive machines and could nearly match integer (not I/O)
performance of an 11/780 that cost 10 times as much ($300K new in 1978 vs
$30K new in 1986).
That's another point - how fast could you pump bytes through a PC? The
ISA bus was 8MHz - and that doesn't mean 8 million 16-bit words per second.
The Qbus in a uVAX can pump over 1MB/sec, but I don't have the numbers
here in front of me.
It can, in theory, but, having had to do performance testing, I'd say that on
a good day, with a tailwind, it will do 200 KBps. The ISA bus was operated
from an 8MHz bus clock, but it used two clock ticks per
bus cycle, and
typically one for an idle cycle if it had to go back to the bus for
anyting.
It didn't typically use the bus for memory, however, unless you had a big RAM
board plugged in, though with linear addressing that was limited to 16 MB and
couldn't practically use all that either. Normally one split a big RAM board,
like my 24MB board between "extended" and "expanded" (banked) memory.
In any
case, the ISA couldn't really transfer much more than about 200 KBps, either,
when doing useful work.
Apples and oranges. Comparing a PC-AT and a uVAX-II - Yes... the PC clone
can add numbers faster, but there's lots of things it couldn't do, things
people with MicroVAXen *wanted* to do (1 machine for e-mail for the entire
department, as a personal example).
Fact is, the PC/AT can compute faster. The uVax-II had a more flexible and
more secure OS, though. However, it's silly to compare a computer costing
many tens of thousands of dollars with one costing a few hundred when the
cheaper one has more MIPS, more STORAGE, and, in fact, costs less per user
just on the basis of the cost of a terminal, which nobody wanted anymore by
then. Fact is that DEC's gone now because they took the wrong approach to
marketing their hardware. They made the stuff slower, larger, and VASTLY more
costly because it gave them some quick profit. That didn't provide them a
future, though. Others have yet to learn that same lesson.
It's that notion of using a single machine for email for the entire department
that killed DEC, and other dinosaurs like it.
I'm glad they're gone because they made their money by making computing
expensive and the domain of the very rich, while they could have made a lot
more money by making their computers cheaper, more avaialble, and more
compatible with the rest of the world. Hindsight's always 20/20, though.
4:28 p.m.
No matter how hard you try to wriggle, John, your original assertion that the
BNC was common in microcomputer video was off base, and you simply had to
insist that wasn't the case. I simply looked at the old catalogs and mag's
and could clearly see that monitors of the day, as used on microcomputers (it
was the Apple-][ that was under discussion) used PL/SO-259's since those were
what was on the common and inexpensive NTSC hardware used in CCTV and security
applications already in wide distribution back in the '70's, and unlike the
workstation hardware and high-end video production studio hardware that was
brought up at that point, which nobody would have tried to justify for use
with late-'70's microcomputer hardware, the price was the determining factor.
Sure, BNC's were probably better, but those aren't what was already built in
to the hardware of the time. Those are easily verifiable historical facts. A
single look at a catalog of the time would settle that, but ...
It's not so much about the "last word," by the way, but somebody's got
to keep
you hip-shooters honest.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Allain" <allain(a)panix.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
Apples and
oranges. Comparing a PC-AT and a uVAX-II
Has there ever been a case where he hasn't taken the last word?
I think if I had enough wind to outblow Richard I'd be set for a
long and successful career in politics. Thank-You no.
John A.
27 Jan
27 Jan
3:20 a.m.
Sorry, I see you're a tough fighter, but to me things are about the
truth, provable facts, etc. and not long winded explanations. I'll
listen to long explanations on things that need to be explained,
but to me right and wrong are sort of an intuitive thing. If a person
cant reach an "Aha!" explanation in some reasonable time I have
to just "Cut 'em loose". Some people just like to talk. I'll let them
talk (this is America, after all) and when I listen and when I go about
my own business is based on the relevance, and "lack of coersion"
of the facts in the presentation. And I acknowledge that you know
quite a few things in fields that I don't, or at least hope that you do,
for the sake of your reputation.
Here's your quote.
Actually, back in the Apple][ days, the BNC was not
commonly
used for video and particularly not for NTSC video.
No.
John A.
6:04 a.m.
It's not about fighiting or winning or losing, but rather about preventing
rewriting of history, intentional or inadvertent, by skewing the relative
timeline. This happens because people unwittingly take things out of context
as you've perhaps done here.
The discussion was about microcomputers and, specifically, the video connector
on the Apple ][. When the Apple ][ came out, cable TV was not yet a common
reality (That changed rapidly in the early '80's, but, in '77-'78, was not
yet
the case.) Video in this context, did not include notions like the VCR and
set-top boxes, nor did it include other sorts of equipment that most folks
outside the TV production industry had not even yet seen, simply because it
was too costly for the microcomputing arena. Apple put the RCA jack on the
back of their computer because (a) it was cheap, and (b) the signal wouldn't
have to travel far. That way they ensured they could "get away" with that
choice. They, and others in their field had to make choices on the basis of
what things cost at the time.
In the TV production studio equipment market, where things cost in the 5- or
6-figure price range, the presence of a connector that would cost on the order
of $20 per connection point (remember what it cost to assemble the things!)
didn't matter so much. BNC had been around for a long time, and so had the
PL/SO-259. Both were capable of carrying wideband signals, and both cost
about the same. Someone had made the choice, probably in the '50's, to use
the latter in closed-circuit TV applications, and that's what one found on the
back of most of the production monitors priced suitably for microcomputer
applications in the '70's. As the term "video" came to mean what it
does
today, i.e. something that you see via TV equipment, the 'F' connector became
the common connector of that market. I doubt the BNC is worse than the 'F'
but the 'F' is quite a bit cheaper and offers the fact that it directly uses
the center conductor of the cable as its medium rather than requiring a
crimped or soldered center pin. I don't know that it makes a big difference
in NTSC video, but in broadband transmission it probably does reduce
discontinuities in the transmisison line.
As far as reaching that "Aha!" to which you've referred, I'd have
thought
you'd at least have taken a peek at the ads in an old BYTE or Kilobaud mag of
the '77 to '80 period, where you'd easily see what I meant. I've given
away
my old mag's from back then, though I still find 'em lying about. However, I
have catalogs and other trade mags that I can look at. Looking at production
studio video equipment wouldn't shed light on the subject, but looking the
trade mag's for the microcomputer industry would do it.
Being right in the sense of winning an argument isn't as important as having
the facts straight when you get done. What bothers me about such remarks as
the one that was originally made, sort-of on the line of, "our video lab had
BNC connectors on all the equipment ..." might well have been quite correct,
but it distorted the context, i.e. microcomputer video equipment and TV studio
equipment were entirely different universes in the '70's. That it's changed
should surprise noone, but skewing the timeline leads to conclusions such as
how stupid it was to use one connector, when, in fact, the decision was made
strictly on the basis of price and availability, and the relative cleverness
of the underlying decision from an engineering standpoint was not a primary
concern. (It leads to tiresome and inane complaints about how dumb it was to
use a VAX when a Pentium III would have been so much better.) I seriously
doubt that Jobs and Wozniak considered the BNC for more than about 1
microsecond because of cost, and other factors played no role at all.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Allain" <allain(a)panix.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
Sorry, I see you're a tough fighter, but to me
things are about the
truth, provable facts, etc. and not long winded explanations. I'll
listen to long explanations on things that need to be explained,
but to me right and wrong are sort of an intuitive thing. If a person
can't reach an "Aha!" explanation in some reasonable time I have
to just "Cut 'em loose". Some people just like to talk. I'll let
them
talk (this is America, after all) and when I listen and when I go about
my own business is based on the relevance, and "lack of coersion"
of the facts in the presentation. And I acknowledge that you know
quite a few things in fields that I don't, or at least hope that you do,
for the sake of your reputation.
Here's your quote.
Actually, back in the Apple][ days, the BNC was
not commonly
used for video and particularly not for NTSC video.
No.
John A.
8:54 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2250 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020127/ac05d6cc/at…
4:44 p.m.
See below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
> The discussion was about microcomputers and,
specifically, the video
connector
> on the Apple ][. When the Apple ][ came out,
cable TV was not yet a
common
No it is not. You are darn good at subtly changing the terms of an
argument and thus proving your point to be correct.
That was not my intent at any point since it really doesn't matter whether I
prove my point or not. However, it's possible I misunderstood what the point
was. If that's the case, I certainly apologize.
This discussion is about connectors that were used for composite video at
the approximate time of the Apple ][. Not whether or not the Apple ][
(itself) ever used that connector.
That's certainly not disputable. One needs merely to look. I certainly
didn't perceive THAT to be central to the discussion. I certainly inferred
from the reference to the Apple ][ and from allusions
to various other related
details, that it was video signal of that era's
microcomputers that were at
the heart of the discussion, and not the more general field of television
signals.
Nobody is disputing that the external video connector on an Apple ][ is
an RCA phono socket.
There seemed, initially, to be some doubt about whether the BNC's were used
on/with video signal from microcomputers of that time, however.
> reality (That changed rapidly in the early '80's, but, in '77-'78,
was not
yet
> the case.) Video in this context, did not
include notions like the VCR
and
> set-top boxes, nor did it include other sorts of
equipment that most folks
> outside the TV production industry had not even yet seen, simply because
it
At the time of the Apple ][, few people owned any video equipment other
than a TV set. Maybe a VCR, but if so, then it was connected to the TV
set via the aerial socket (the VCR had an internal modulator). Most home
TVs, at least the ones sold in the UK, did not have composite video input
sockets, or similar.
The Honeywell VTR I had back then (1977) used the UHF connectors, IIRC. I
never used it, though I did use the camera that came with it from time to
time, though not for any of the obvious purposes. I doubt I'd even seen a
VCR at that time, and if I did, it was probably a Beta type, normally found in
"component" groups rather than an integrated VHS unit as we have come to know
and love.
[As an aside, the first home VCR sold in the UK didn't have a composite
video input or output either. It had an audio input/output socket (a 5
pin DIN) and a video output (separate luma and chroma), also a DIN
socket, for use with a specially-modified TV. The optional video camera
included a modulator and connected to the aerial input. ]
Also at the time of the Apple ][ there were no special
microcomputer monitors.
Which is exactly the reason folks went out looking for "something that would
work" yet not break the bank. The TV hardware that sported BNC connectors was
generally out of reach for use in the microcomputer market. Since
microcomputer graphics hardware of the time wasn't able to make full
utilization of an NTSC monitor, it made little sense to buy a monitor for that
purpose that was in the "high-end" market, and that's where the then
somewhat
rapidly evolving repertoire using the more modern connection hardware was to
be found. Things are different now, of course.
So if you wanted to display the output of an Apple ][ you had 2 main
choices. Either get an RF modulator, connect it to the header plug inside
the Apple (which carried power and composite video) and plug the other
end into the aerial socket of a TV.
What I remember was that the modulator was tuned to channel 3 and, since that
was, then, scarcely used, it could be received by the TV tuner without much
help. I also remember seeing commercial 75-ohm RG-59 (coax) cables that had
an RCA plug at one end and a PL-259 at the other, and, in fact, still have
one.
The other was to link up a standard composite video (mono, or NTSC
colour) monitor. One used for CCTV applications, or security, or.... It's
the connector on those monitors that this discussion seems to be about.
I will happily agree that one popular connector on such monitors was the
'UHF' (PL259, SO239) connector. But another was most definitely the 75
ohm BNC.
I've never seen in the flesh or in catalogs of various sorts, monitors for
low-end (costing as much as or less than an equivalent TV set) video equipment
that had BNC connectors on it. I do recall that some of the "component"
monitors from Hitachi, SONY and others, intended for the high-end NTSC market
had/have BNC's, however. The typical monitor on a microcomputer was of 9" -
12" diagonal, however, and these guys were in the 20"-27" range. No doubt
there were smaller ones, but for composite displays used on a microcomputer,
which I, oddly enough, concluded was what was being discussed, the connectors
were either the PL/SO-259 type, or the RCA type, to wit, the LEEDEX model I
still have in the original box, albeit well used, from 1978. The remaining
models I have tucked away all have the SO259 on their backs, and none have
BNC's. The first place in a microcomputer video application that I saw with a
BNC was on a Sync-On-Green monitor attached to a CAD system of the early
'80's.
28 Jan
28 Jan
8:56 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 3779 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020128/a5249f5b/at…
9:36 a.m.
Richard it would help immeasureably to follow the discussion if you would
separate the various replies in the posts as other list-members do. Otherwise
it appears as an incredible jumble including your reply.
Lawrence
See below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
Reply to:
lgwalker(a)mts.net
> The discussion was about microcomputers and,
specifically, the video
connector
> on the Apple ][. When the Apple ][ came
out, cable TV was not yet a
common
No it is not. You are darn good at subtly changing the terms of an
argument and thus proving your point to be correct.
That was not my intent at any point since it really doesn't matter whether I
prove my point or not. However, it's possible I misunderstood what the point
was. If that's the case, I certainly apologize. > > This discussion is about
connectors that were used for composite video at > the approximate time of the
Apple ][. Not whether or not the Apple ][ > (itself) ever used that connector. >
That's certainly not disputable. One needs merely to look. I certainly didn't
perceive THAT to be central to the discussion. I certainly inferred from the
reference to the Apple ][ and from allusions to various other related details,
that it was video signal of that era's microcomputers that were at the heart of
the discussion, and not the more general field of television signals. > > Nobody
is disputing that the external video connector on an Apple ][ is > an RCA phono
socket. > There seemed, initially, to be some doubt about whether the BNC's were
used on/with video signal from microcomputers of that time, however. > > >
reality (That changed rapidly in the early '80's, but, in '77-'78, was
not yet >
the case.) Video in this context, did not
include notions like the VCR and >
set-top boxes, nor did it include other sorts of equipment that most folks > >
outside the TV production industry had not even yet seen, simply because it >
>
At the time of the Apple ][, few people owned any video equipment other > than a
TV set. Maybe a VCR, but if so, then it was connected to the TV > set via the
aerial socket (the VCR had an internal modulator). Most home > TVs, at least the
ones sold in the UK, did not have composite video input > sockets, or similar. >
The Honeywell VTR I had back then (1977) used the UHF connectors, IIRC. I never
used it, though I did use the camera that came with it from time to time, though
not for any of the obvious purposes. I doubt I'd even seen a VCR at that time,
and if I did, it was probably a Beta type, normally found in "component"
groups
rather than an integrated VHS unit as we have come to know and love. > > [As an
aside, the first home VCR sold in the UK didn't have a composite > video input
or output either. It had an audio input/output socket (a 5 > pin DIN) and a
video output (separate luma and chroma), also a DIN > socket, for use with a
specially-modified TV. The optional video camera > included a modulator and
connected to the aerial input. ] > > Also at the time of the Apple ][ there were
no special > microcomputer monitors. > Which is exactly the reason folks went
out looking for "something that would work" yet not break the bank. The TV
hardware that sported BNC connectors was generally out of reach for use in the
microcomputer market. Since microcomputer graphics hardware of the time wasn't
able to make full utilization of an NTSC monitor, it made little sense to buy a
monitor for that purpose that was in the "high-end" market, and that's
where the
then somewhat rapidly evolving repertoire using the more modern connection
hardware was to be found. Things are different now, of course. > > So if you
wanted to display the output of an Apple ][ you had 2 main > choices. Either get
an RF modulator, connect it to the header plug inside > the Apple (which carried
power and composite video) and plug the other > end into the aerial socket of a
TV. > What I remember was that the modulator was tuned to channel 3 and, since
that was, then, scarcely used, it could be received by the TV tuner without much
help. I also remember seeing commercial 75-ohm RG-59 (coax) cables that had an
RCA plug at one end and a PL-259 at the other, and, in fact, still have one. > >
The other was to link up a standard composite video (mono, or NTSC > colour)
monitor. One used for CCTV applications, or security, or.... It's > the
connector on those monitors that this discussion seems to be about. > > I will
happily agree that one popular connector on such monitors was the > 'UHF'
(PL259, SO239) connector. But another was most definitely the 75 > ohm BNC. >
I've never seen in the flesh or in catalogs of various sorts, monitors for
low-end (costing as much as or less than an equivalent TV set) video equipment
that had BNC connectors on it. I do recall that some of the "component"
monitors from Hitachi, SONY and others, intended for the high-end NTSC market
had/have BNC's, however. The typical monitor on a microcomputer was of 9" -
12" diagonal, however, and these guys were in the 20"-27" range. No doubt
there
were smaller ones, but for composite displays used on a microcomputer, which I,
oddly enough, concluded was what was being discussed, the connectors were either
the PL/SO-259 type, or the RCA type, to wit, the LEEDEX model I still have in
the original box, albeit well used, from 1978. The remaining models I have
tucked away all have the SO259 on their backs, and none have BNC's. The first
place in a microcomputer video application that I saw with a BNC was on a
Sync-On-Green monitor attached to a CAD system of the early '80's.
27 Jan
27 Jan
6:10 p.m.
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Tony Duell wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if there were some sort of rating system for
subscribers to the list? It would be nice to be able to vote on each
message that gets posted. Those getting a thumbs up vote boost the score
of the subscriber. Those getting a thumbs down would lower it. Newbies
would start off at 0.
The subscriber's score would automatically be prepended to the subject
line so you could see at a glance whether a message was worth it to
you to read or not.
Of course there's the delete command, but a scoring system would prevent
run-on threads arguing over senseless matters as promulgated over and over
again by certain subscribers.
Oh well, I don't think Majordomo is equipped to handle this sort of thing.
I guess we're doomed to being annoyed.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
The discussion
was about microcomputers and, specifically, the video connector
on the Apple ][. When the Apple ][ came out, cable TV was not yet a common
No it is not. You are darn good at subtly changing the terms of an
argument and thus proving your point to be correct. 
28 Jan
28 Jan
5:45 a.m.
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Sellam Ismail wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Tony Duell wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if there were some sort of rating system for
subscribers to the list? It would be nice to be able to vote on each
message that gets posted. Those getting a thumbs up vote boost the score
of the subscriber. Those getting a thumbs down would lower it. Newbies
would start off at 0.
The subscriber's score would automatically be prepended to the subject
line so you could see at a glance whether a message was worth it to
you to read or not.
One problem with that approach is that it presumes that no one new or
with a low score ever will write anything worthwhile. Not altogether
reasonable, I think.
- don
The
discussion was about microcomputers and, specifically, the video connector
on the Apple ][. When the Apple ][ came out, cable TV was not yet a common
No it is not. You are darn good at subtly changing the terms of an
argument and thus proving your point to be correct. Of course there's the delete command, but a
scoring system would prevent
run-on threads arguing over senseless matters as promulgated over and over
again by certain subscribers.
Oh well, I don't think Majordomo is equipped to handle this sort of thing.
I guess we're doomed to being annoyed.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
1:07 a.m.
New subject: OT: Scoring system for messages to avoid annoying dweebs?
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Don Maslin wrote:
One problem with that approach is that it presumes
that no one new or
with a low score ever will write anything worthwhile. Not altogether
reasonable, I think.
Not exactly. True it's your choice whether or not to skip the message
with a score of 0 (i.e. new user). But I'm sure a handful will read the
message and if it's OK they'll give it a thumbs up and boost the score to
positive numbers. If it's lame (i.e. uses no punctuation, has horrible
spelling, offers lame information or silly flames) the votes are thumbs
down and the score goes negative; the negative score is then a black flag
that tells readers to beware.
It could work well, but it's only an idea. Since we can't boot annoying
people off the list we may as well be able to mark regular schmucks as
such. Again, the primary purpose I have I have in mind for this would be
to hopefully prevent long and stupid off-topic threads.
For instance, this message would get negative votes for being off-topic,
my score would go down, and then some people might find it preferable to
ignore future messages from me based on my score ;)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
10:38 a.m.
New subject: OT: Scoring system for messages to avoid annoying dweebs?
,,,,,,,,,;::::
-_ ....? ::::: ", ",,.,.,.,.,.,?
,.::;;;; .... ! ,,. . . .
.
.
On Monday, January 28, 2002, at 10:07 , Sellam Ismail wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Don Maslin wrote:
One problem with that approach is that it
presumes that no one new or
with a low score ever will write anything worthwhile. Not altogether
reasonable, I think.
Not exactly. True it's your choice whether or not to skip the message
with a score of 0 (i.e. new user). But I'm sure a handful will read the
message and if it's OK they'll give it a thumbs up and boost the score
to
positive numbers. If it's lame (i.e. uses no punctuation, has horrible
spelling, offers lame information or silly flames) the votes are thumbs
down and the score goes negative; the negative score is then a black
flag
that tells readers to beware.
It could work well, but it's only an idea. Since we can't boot annoying
people off the list we may as well be able to mark regular schmucks as
such. Again, the primary purpose I have I have in mind for this would
be
to hopefully prevent long and stupid off-topic threads.
For instance, this message would get negative votes for being off-topic,
my score would go down, and then some people might find it preferable to
ignore future messages from me based on my score ;)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at
www.VintageTech.com *
12:59 p.m.
New subject: OT: Scoring system for messages to avoid annoying dweebs?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, I wonder?
Cheers
Benito Mussolini
9:36 a.m.
Please Gods, NOOOOOOO. Can you see the arguments arising over a
rating ? I miss Ward, his libertarian instincts would jump on this like a dog
with a bone. Provided balance of a sort and he did know TRS80s. Mini and
micro people would be all over each other. And I would be in a minus rating
because of my non-industry ignorance. Then how would I get help in simple
repair tasks for my collection ?
Lawrence
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Tony Duell wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if there were some sort of rating system for
subscribers to the list? It would be nice to be able to vote on each
message that gets posted. Those getting a thumbs up vote boost the score
of the subscriber. Those getting a thumbs down would lower it. Newbies
would start off at 0.
The subscriber's score would automatically be prepended to the subject
line so you could see at a glance whether a message was worth it to
you to read or not.
Of course there's the delete command, but a scoring system would prevent
run-on threads arguing over senseless matters as promulgated over and over
again by certain subscribers.
Oh well, I don't think Majordomo is equipped to handle this sort of thing.
I guess we're doomed to being annoyed.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
Reply to:
lgwalker(a)mts.net
The
discussion was about microcomputers and, specifically, the video
connector on the Apple ][. When the Apple ][ came out, cable TV was not yet
a common
No it is not. You are darn good at subtly changing the terms of an
argument and thus proving your point to be correct.
27 Jan
27 Jan
10:01 a.m.
From >: It's not about fighiting or winning or
losing, but rather...
To >: ...cost, and other factors played no role at
all.
Richard,
OK, I read all 3,876 bytes of your explanation.
I'm willing to make peace on this. The video market, as restricted
to computers for the hobbyist, used alot of PL/SO-259 connectors.
Note thats doubly restricted and exclusive of professional video
and professional video computing. Great, now I agree with you.
I forced myself to walk outside and have a nice day. I hope that
you are also able to enjoy yourself between all the typing.
John A.
5:23 a.m.
--- John Allain <allain(a)panix.com> wrote:
John... check the attribution... that was _my_ reply refuting that
in 1987 a PC-AT was an obvious choice for a computer as compared to
an uVAX-II. It was long winded, yes, but I included some datapoints
Apples and
oranges. Comparing a PC-AT and a uVAX-II
Has there ever been a case where he hasn't taken the last word?
I think if I had enough wind to outblow Richard I'd be set for a
long and successful career in politics. Thank-You no. from my memories of the time to support _my_ assertion
that the PC-AT,
IBM or clone, was not the one-and-only obvious choice for computing
15 years ago. We were an all-DEC shop and did not get a PC until the
acct. dept purchased a PS/2 Model 30 (which I still have) for *big*
moola. We only got it so we could run PC accounting software. Even
the accountants still used MASS-11 for wordprocessing and VAX MAIL
for e-mail, even though they had a PC... back then, each PC was an island,
and the VAX was our common work place.
I still say, if you need VMS, for 1987, the uVAX-II was the way to go
for a new machine. If you didn't need VMS, there were plenty of other
computers to buy.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
6:36 a.m.
No one can argue with that! At Martin Marietta, very much a DEC-loving
establishment in '87, we were contemplating building a microVAX equivalent on
the extended VME bus just to get away from the extreme cost problems with
rotating memory and graphics display equipment from DEC, though. This was
because we'd been building our own enclosure, backplane, etc, in order to make
the uVAX-II hardware, which was COTS stuff, happy with the required mil-spec
temperature range. The reason for all this effort was VMS, which seemed to
satisfy most of the requirements for functionality and security that other OS'
left hanging in one way or another. I've not heard much criticism of VMS over
the years.
BTW, that MASS-11 was claimed to work on the PC in the same way as it worked
under VMS, but it didn't. It was claimed to be capable of editing in columns,
which it did only "sorta" since it scrambled the columns if you handled it
incorrectly and the resulting mess was irreparable. This was a minor point,
but one that bit us in the *ss, as the presentation layour for the testing
procedures, of which there were thousands, relied on the ability to edit the
procedures after they'd been prepared in columnar form.
At one point I had the ignominious task of itemizing the points on which
MASS-11 failed to meet our requirements, and, as it turned out, every point
that had been used to justify its acquisition for project-wide use turned out
to be on that list. The big boss (engineering manager) had been convinced,
since he didn't have to use the thing, that it worked fine, due to clever
presentation and salesmanship. He had one of his subordinates fire me from
the project, and the VP-level program manager had to hire me back a week or
two later.
That's not to say that MASS-11 wasn't a good and valuable tool, only that it
had been sorely misrepresented in this case, in order to make the sale.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ethan Dicks" <erd_6502(a)yahoo.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
--- John Allain <allain(a)panix.com> wrote:
John... check the attribution... that was _my_ reply refuting that
in 1987 a PC-AT was an obvious choice for a computer as compared to
an uVAX-II. It was long winded, yes, but I included some datapoints
from my memories of the time to support _my_ assertion that the PC-AT,
IBM or clone, was not the one-and-only obvious choice for computing
15 years ago. We were an all-DEC shop and did not get a PC until the
acct. dept purchased a PS/2 Model 30 (which I still have) for *big*
moola. We only got it so we could run PC accounting software. Even
the accountants still used MASS-11 for wordprocessing and VAX MAIL
for e-mail, even though they had a PC... back then, each PC was an island,
and the VAX was our common work place.
I still say, if you need VMS, for 1987, the uVAX-II was the way to go
for a new machine. If you didn't need VMS, there were plenty of other
computers to buy.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
Apples
and oranges. Comparing a PC-AT and a uVAX-II
Has there ever been a case where he hasn't taken the last word?
I think if I had enough wind to outblow Richard I'd be set for a
long and successful career in politics. Thank-You no.
10:48 a.m.
--- Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com> wrote:
BTW, that MASS-11 was claimed to work on the PC in the
same way as it
worked under VMS, but it didn't...
I wrote:
> Even the accountants still used MASS-11 for
wordprocessing and
> VAX MAIL for e-mail, even though they had a PC...
I didn't mean to suggest that we used MASS-11 on the PC - we only used
it on the 11/750. It was a dog, but since we had daisy-wheel printers,
the output was quite acceptable. We mostly wrote sales letters and
end-user documentation with it anyway, well within its abilities.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
2:44 p.m.
I didnt' test it or tax it in any way. I just wrote down everyone else's
complaints and added to that the one that I had, nameley that it wouldn't do
the columns the way the salesman had sworn (not that anyone other than the
boss believed it). It was a claim that has caused me to look askance at any
editor that made the claim that it could do column editing, since that's not
very well defined.
I've yet to see an editor that could, with simple commands edit a page laid
out in two columns such that it didn't mess up the right column when a word
was deleted or added. (It just occurs to me that I've never tied this on a
Mac or Windows.) It's clearly not a trivial thing to do.
see below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ethan Dicks" <erd_6502(a)yahoo.com
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
--- Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com> wrote:
The assertion, true or not, that it worked the same on VMS and DOS was why it
was present on 20 or so microVaxes and 150 or so PC's on that project.
After giving MASS-11 one try, I went back to using Wordstar. When my hardware
work was moved to a different facility some months later, they were still
tring to make some software tool do what MASS-11 couldn't, namely edit in
separate columns under DOS or VMS. It became an interesting challenge, and
one fellow thought he could do it with a database application. I tried to
edit the original source with a task-specific 'C' program that parsed out the
two corresponding entries, since there was, purportedly, distinctive
punctuation that identified each block for each column. Unfortunately, I
never got that in place either, and my parser fell apart completely once the
punctuation scheme was violated. It was, in retrospect, quite comical. Here
we had about 60 people trying to do this, and, in the end, we (they) still did
it all by hand, which was what one consultant had predicted, when the task was
started, would be the easiest solution. I guess there is reason to give them
the big bucks.
BTW, that MASS-11 was claimed to work on the PC
in the same way as it
worked under VMS, but it didn't...
I wrote:
> Even the accountants still used MASS-11 for
wordprocessing and
> VAX MAIL for e-mail, even though they had a PC...
I didn't mean to suggest that we used MASS-11 on the PC - we only used
it on the 11/750. It was a dog, but since we had daisy-wheel printers,
the output was quite acceptable. We mostly wrote sales letters and
end-user documentation with it anyway, well within its abilities.
9:26 a.m.
John... check the attribution... that was _my_ reply
refuting that
in 1987 a PC-AT was an obvious choice for a computer as
Sorry If I wasn't clear in what or who I was talking about.
No offence intended to you Ethan. Yeah, there's no question
that DEC is dead now, that it was expensive, and that if you
were lucky to use it, most often impressive. Sometimes
I feel I should work on a good defense for the company, for
that time sometime --in the future-- when somebody wants
to call their history or parts of it B.S.
John A.
31 Jan
31 Jan
7:59 p.m.
New subject: uVAXs in 1987 (Was Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update)
At 11:23 AM 27/01/2002 -0800, Ethan Dicks wrote:
I still say, if you need VMS, for 1987, the uVAX-II was
the way to go
for a new machine. If you didn't need VMS, there were plenty of other
computers to buy.
As someone who'd been involved buying three uVAXen in the 1985 to 1987 time
frame I'd have to agree. As I was working in an all DEC shop I didn't look
to see what else was available but does anyone have ideas on what other
multi-user timesharing systems were available in that time frame at about
the same price (let's say $50K to $100K)?
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au
| "If God had wanted soccer played in the
| air, the sky would be painted green"
6:02 a.m.
New subject: uVAXs in 1987 (Was Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update)
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, John Allain wrote:
Can any of these do billed processor/I/O time?
Peace... Sridhar
does anyone
have ideas on what other multi-user timesharing
systems were available in {87} at about ... $50K to $100K)?
How about... any Unix system (Sun, HP, Apollo, others)?
25 Jan
25 Jan
10:04 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1106 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020126/d2bafa5b/at…
1:37 p.m.
Yes, that's the monitor, though the ones I remember were branded Sanyo, and
I've got one of 'em, still.
These were probably the most common and most widely used closed-circuit
monitors for small security systems and the like, and they did/do have that
SO259 connector on the back. There were, of course, adapters form that to the
BNC, and I used 'em when I had 75-ohm BNC-terminated cable, but most of what I
found back then, from buildings being torn down, etc, was the PL259-terminated
stuff, and that wasn't what you'd call "old" but it was being left in
place,
as were the old DEC machines and teletype hardware. I got one old teletype
CRT complete with a "band" printer and one of the then (1979)-fancy Bell 212
modems from a building being torn down. I couldn't haul off the several
PDP-whatevers that were present the night before demolition, else I'd have
snagged 'em.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
>
> I suppose the distinction is that in the microcomputer market, at least at
the
> time of the Apple ][+, the PL259 connector was
commonly used on what
people
> could afford to buy to go with their budget
microcomputer. The most
common
Quite likely...
> monitor I remember seeing in use, and often as part of a display in the
local
> computer store, was the 9" (?) Sanyo
"security" monitor that was about the
> same height as two of the Apple disk drives, one atop the other. That
whole
This sounds a little like the common Apple monitor in the UK. It had a 9"
CRT (although there is also a 12" model) and looked like a grey metal
cube with a black plastic front panel. IIRC the user controls were a
rocker switch for power, then knobs for brightness, contrast, vhold and
hhold.
The video input was, indeed, a pair of (parallel-connected) SO239s
(socket for the PL259 plug, aka 'UHF plug') with a termination switch to
connect a 75 ohm resistor across the input.
It was made bu Hitachi. I am certain about this as I found the
instruction sheet and schematic for it the other day.
-tony
26 Jan
26 Jan
6:54 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1193 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020126/17acbe51/at…
8126
days inactive
8134
days old
53 comments
18 participants
participants (18)
-
allain＠panix.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bpope＠wordstock.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dan＠ekoan.com -
donm＠cts.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
erd_6502＠yahoo.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
Huw.Davies＠kerberos.davies.net.au -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
jpero＠sympatico.ca -
jpl15＠panix.com -
Lee.Davison＠merlincommunications.com -
lgwalker＠mts.net -
vance＠ikickass.org -
wpointon＠earthlink.net