17 Nov
17 Nov
5:17 p.m.
Despite the crazy high price - I must say I am very impressed with the
original box, even the original sales receipt, now THAT is a nice
collectable, I wish the seller and possible buyer good luck.
Question - I've never seen the bottom of an Apple 1 - are those jumper
wires original "fix" wires to the board or did someone do some repair
work on the board?
Curt
Evan Koblentz wrote:
320447681957
... Speaking of crazy prices ...
5:31 p.m.
I predict zero bids.
If the seller feels this unit is worth more than the others, then he
should price it at a slight premium vs. the others, for example $30k vs.
$20-25k. However $50k is insane, especially in this economy.
---------------------------------------------
Despite the crazy high price - I must say I am very
impressed with the
original box, even the original sales receipt, now THAT is a nice
collectable, I wish the seller and possible buyer good luck.
Question - I've never seen the bottom of an Apple 1 - are those jumper
wires original "fix" wires to the board or did someone do some repair
work on the board?
Curt
Evan Koblentz wrote:
320447681957
... Speaking of crazy prices ...
5:50 p.m.
I agree Evan, the extra's do add to its value, but not by significant
amounts reflected in the opening bid price. What he should've done
was started at $1,000 and let bids go nuts with tons of bids and it
would've gotten a lot of traffic and attention.
Curt
Evan Koblentz wrote:
I predict zero bids.
If the seller feels this unit is worth more than the others, then he
should price it at a slight premium vs. the others, for example $30k
vs. $20-25k. However $50k is insane, especially in this economy.
---------------------------------------------
Despite the crazy high price - I must say I am
very impressed with
the original box, even the original sales receipt, now THAT is a nice
collectable, I wish the seller and possible buyer good luck.
Question - I've never seen the bottom of an Apple 1 - are those
jumper wires original "fix" wires to the board or did someone do some
repair work on the board?
Curt
Evan Koblentz wrote:
320447681957
... Speaking of crazy prices ...
6:43 p.m.
I agree Evan, the extra's do add to its value, but
not by significant
amounts reflected in the opening bid price. ? ?What he should've done was
started at $1,000 and let bids go nuts with tons of bids and it would've
gotten a lot of traffic and attention.
Or put it up for $50K, get no bids, but get plenty of eyes looking at
it, with perhaps a later private sale for an undisclosed amount off
Ebay later.
Not an insane tactic - it works with high end collectibles and antiques.
--
Will
8:43 p.m.
Evan Koblentz wrote:
If the seller feels this unit is worth more than the
others, then he
should price it at a slight premium vs. the others, for example $30k vs.
$20-25k. However $50k is insane, especially in this economy.
Maybe someone can explain this to me - what the heck is the big deal about
Apple 1s? Obviously I'm in the crowd that just doesn't get it - but there's a
big crowd out there that *does* get it - whatever "it" is.
cheers
Jules
9:01 p.m.
There are only around 250 of them, they were hand built in Woz's garage,
mostly by Steve Woz and Jobs and only a few have surfaced over the years
making them rare and they have continued to go up in value over the
years as more and more publicly known auctions and sales have made
headlines on major site and the SJ Mercury Newspaper, so they fetch big
bucks.
For those just wanting to experience an Apple 1's functional Vince Briel
makes "Replica-1" boards which are functionally the same and Vince even
got Steve Woz's nod of approval and the use of the bootcode on it.
Curt
Jules Richardson wrote:
Evan Koblentz wrote:
If the seller feels this unit is worth more than
the others, then he
should price it at a slight premium vs. the others, for example $30k
vs. $20-25k. However $50k is insane, especially in this economy.
Maybe someone can explain this to me - what the heck is the big deal
about Apple 1s? Obviously I'm in the crowd that just doesn't get it -
but there's a big crowd out there that *does* get it - whatever "it" is.
cheers
Jules
9:35 p.m.
Curt @ Atari Museum wrote:
There are only around 250 of them, they were hand
built in Woz's garage,
mostly by Steve Woz and Jobs and only a few have surfaced over the years
making them rare and they have continued to go up in value over the
years as more and more publicly known auctions and sales have made
headlines on major site and the SJ Mercury Newspaper, so they fetch big
bucks.
It's the insanely high price I can't work out, I suppose. History's littered
with early 'home' machines with low production runs, and machines from that
sort of era (give a couple of years!) and with that sort of spec.
In terms of experience, yes it's special - but the same sort of special can be
had for a fraction of the price, which means I'm struggling to get past
thinking that it's maybe $2k for the physical item + ephemera, and $48k for
the name of a certain piece of fruit :-)
Maybe it simply comes down to the age-old "Apple people" vs. "non Apple
people" thing and it just won't make sense no matter how hard I try...
Or maybe, like you say, it's all just fueled by the media - one sells, media
report it, generates more interest when the next one sells, media report it
etc. etc. (and I do believe ebay tends to make prices go up way over and above
what they'd be like if ebay didn't exist, so it can't help either)
cheers
Jules
9:40 p.m.
I think a fairly high price is warranted based on what I've seen before. They
don't come up that often for sale, but I think the starting bid is out of whack. Also
out of whack is the $3000 S&H to "discourage" shipping. You'll
definitely not get your price if you do that, and that's what shipping insurance is
for.
________________________________
From: Jules Richardson <jules.richardson99 at gmail.com>
To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 3:35:36 PM
Subject: Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
Curt @ Atari Museum wrote:
There are only around 250 of them, they were hand
built in Woz's garage, mostly by Steve Woz and Jobs and only a few have surfaced over
the years making them rare and they have continued to go up in value over the years as
more and more publicly known auctions and sales have made headlines on major site and the
SJ Mercury Newspaper, so they fetch big bucks.
It's the insanely high price I can't work out, I suppose. History's littered
with early 'home' machines with low production runs, and machines from that sort
of era (give a couple of years!) and with that sort of spec.
In terms of experience, yes it's special - but the same sort of special can be had for
a fraction of the price, which means I'm struggling to get past thinking that it's
maybe $2k for the physical item + ephemera, and $48k for the name of a certain piece of
fruit :-)
Maybe it simply comes down to the age-old "Apple people" vs. "non Apple
people" thing and it just won't make sense no matter how hard I try...
Or maybe, like you say, it's all just fueled by the media - one sells, media report
it, generates more interest when the next one sells, media report it etc. etc. (and I do
believe ebay tends to make prices go up way over and above what they'd be like if ebay
didn't exist, so it can't help either)
cheers
Jules
10:03 p.m.
On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Jules Richardson wrote:
Curt @ Atari Museum wrote:
Why is an ounce of gold worth $1000? Because that's what people will
pay for it. It has no inherent use; you can't eat it, you can't live
in it, you can't keep warm with it. But someone will give you $800 for
it and come away feeling like they've got a great bargain indeed.
They are expensive because they are very rare. They are expensive
because they are the "first" for a very well known company. Why is the
first issue of "Action Comics" worth so much more than the sixth issue
(by a factor of 24!), or worth so much more than the first issue of
"Wonder Comics"? Because it's a first, and because it's very rare, and
it's from a very well known name, and therefore people will pay money
for it. Same with the Apple I.
There's nothing to get, really, apart from human nature.
-Seth
There are only around 250 of them, they were hand
built in Woz's
garage, mostly by Steve Woz and Jobs and only a few have surfaced
over the years making them rare and they have continued to go up in
value over the years as more and more publicly known auctions and
sales have made headlines on major site and the SJ Mercury
Newspaper, so they fetch big bucks.
It's the insanely high price I can't work out, I suppose. History's
littered with early 'home' machines with low production runs, and
machines from that sort of era (give a couple of years!) and with
that sort of spec.
10:10 p.m.
I agree with this completely. It is rare, historically relevant, and was a fairly popular
kit computer for the time. It's also by a company that still exists today, unlike
every other kit computer from the 70's, and as such has a wide fanbase.
________________________________
From: Seth Morabito <sethm at loomcom.com>
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 4:03:32 PM
Subject: Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Jules Richardson wrote:
Curt @ Atari Museum wrote:
Why is an ounce of gold worth $1000? Because that's what people will pay for it. It
has no inherent use; you can't eat it, you can't live in it, you can't keep
warm with it. But someone will give you $800 for it and come away feeling like they've
got a great bargain indeed.
They are expensive because they are very rare. They are expensive because they are the
"first" for a very well known company. Why is the first issue of "Action
Comics" worth so much more than the sixth issue (by a factor of 24!), or worth so
much more than the first issue of "Wonder Comics"? Because it's a first, and
because it's very rare, and it's from a very well known name, and therefore people
will pay money for it. Same with the Apple I.
There's nothing to get, really, apart from human nature.
-Seth
There are only around 250 of them, they were hand
built in Woz's garage, mostly by Steve Woz and Jobs and only a few have surfaced over
the years making them rare and they have continued to go up in value over the years as
more and more publicly known auctions and sales have made headlines on major site and the
SJ Mercury Newspaper, so they fetch big bucks.
It's the insanely high price I can't work out, I suppose. History's littered
with early 'home' machines with low production runs, and machines from that sort
of era (give a couple of years!) and with that sort of spec. 
10:21 p.m.
Seth Morabito wrote:
Why is an ounce of gold worth $1000? Because
that's what people will pay
for it. It has no inherent use; you can't eat it, you can't live in it,
you can't keep warm with it. But someone will give you $800 for it and
come away feeling like they've got a great bargain indeed.
Bad example. Gold is quite useful, inherently.
Peace... Sridhar
11:31 p.m.
On Nov 17, 2009, at 2:21 PM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Seth Morabito wrote:
Alright, I will concede that gold is a useful metal, but I stand firm
in that its price is not _primarily_ tied to its usefulness to
industry or science. And I think my larger point is still quite valid.
If another example is needed, I'll simply state a name that should be
familiar to fans and critics of modern art alike: Jackson Pollock. His
1948 painting "No. 5" sold for $140,000,000.00 in 2006. I can't judge
its aesthetics, but that is certainly more than I can possibly imagine
it is worth inherently. Yet someone was willing to pay it, so that's
its value -- with the caveat, of course, that tomorrow it may be worth
half as much, or twice as much, depending on what the market demands.
The same goes for anything, Apple I's included.
-Seth
Why is an ounce of gold worth $1000? Because
that's what people
will pay
for it. It has no inherent use; you can't eat it, you can't live in
it,
you can't keep warm with it. But someone will give you $800 for it
and
come away feeling like they've got a great bargain indeed.
Bad example. Gold is quite useful, inherently. 
10:32 p.m.
>> There are only around 250 of them
http://www.vintage.org/content.php?id=a02
Only 200 Apple-1's were ever sold, and fewer still exist today.
"Most Apple-1 owners took advantage of a two-for-one deal offered
by Apple when they came out with their then new Apple ][ computer",
reports Ismail. "They traded in two Apple-1 computers for a new
Apple ][. All but one of the Apple-1's that were turned in to Apple
were destroyed." Ismail estimates that fewer than 50 examples of
the Apple-1 exist today.
10:37 p.m.
On 17 Nov 2009 at 14:03, Seth Morabito wrote:
Why is an ounce of gold worth $1000? Because
that's what people will
pay for it. It has no inherent use; you can't eat it, you can't live
in it, you can't keep warm with it.
On the other hand, it resists corrosion, has good electrical and
thermal conductivity and is quite ductile. Not many metals share the
same characteristics. So it does have inherent use. My wife plays a
flute that's made of a gold alloy and she says it lends a warmer tone
to the sound than does silver.
But then, polonium is even more uncommon than gold but I wouldn't
want to make wearable trinkets with it unless I were a sociopath.
--Chuck
11:18 p.m.
If anyone is keeping track,
the current one
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?VISuperSize&item=320447681957
is #82
the one that sold for 19K
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?VISuperSize&item=320431509242
is #49
and the one I scanned that is on bitsavers is #37
11:18 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
As far as commodity values of metals, isn't the peak rhodium or iridium
or something like that?
Peace... Sridhar
Why is an
ounce of gold worth $1000? Because that's what people will
pay for it. It has no inherent use; you can't eat it, you can't live
in it, you can't keep warm with it.
On the other hand, it resists corrosion, has good electrical and
thermal conductivity and is quite ductile. Not many metals share the
same characteristics. So it does have inherent use. My wife plays a
flute that's made of a gold alloy and she says it lends a warmer tone
to the sound than does silver.
But then, polonium is even more uncommon than gold but I wouldn't
want to make wearable trinkets with it unless I were a sociopath.
18 Nov
18 Nov
12:39 a.m.
On 17 Nov 2009 at 18:18, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
As far as commodity values of metals, isn't the
peak rhodium or
iridium or something like that?
The current spot price of rhodium is about USD$2500 per troy ounce,
or about twice the price of the same weight of gold.
Commercial uses of silver abound. In addition to being a component
of certain solders/brazes, it's used extensively in electroplating
Indeed, flutes are commonly made with at least the headjoint being
solid silver. Several of my tubas are plated with it. Unlike, say,
nickel, contact dermatitis is rare.
(Silver plating actually hails back before electroplating techniques;
in the 16th--18th centuries, an amalgam was made and painted on brass
or copper, then heated, which boiled off the mercury and left the
silver behind as a thin plating).
How about those dental fillings? Another amalgam of silver.
Among metals, silver has the highest thermal and electrical
conductivity. It's also used for mirrors.
Silver is still used in photography and much is still used for
radiography.
Indeed, one can argue that silver has far more uses than gold, even
if you leave out high-end audiophile speaker cables.
--Chuck
12:47 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
I just remembered. It's rhenium. $6000-*mumble* per ounce.
Peace... Sridhar
As far as
commodity values of metals, isn't the peak rhodium or
iridium or something like that?
The current spot price of rhodium is about USD$2500 per troy ounce,
or about twice the price of the same weight of gold.
1 a.m.
On 17 Nov 2009 at 19:47, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I just remembered. It's rhenium. $6000-*mumble*
per ounce.
No, 6 large will get you about a kg:
http://www.minormetals.com/index.aspx?mode=re
Rhodium on the other hand, is priced per troy oz.
--Chuck
1:24 a.m.
I just remembered. ?It's rhenium. ?$6000-*mumble*
per ounce.
The most expensive thing I can think of is Boron - specifically the
purified B10 isotope. I once had a pair of ancient neutron detector
probes, with the inner surfaces coated with the stuff. The price makes
gold look like dog food - $10K per gram, roughly.
--
Will
1:34 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Donzelli" <wdonzelli at gmail.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
I just remembered. It's rhenium. $6000-*mumble*
per ounce.
The most expensive thing I can think of is Boron - specifically the
purified B10 isotope. I once had a pair of ancient neutron detector
probes, with the inner surfaces coated with the stuff. The price makes
gold look like dog food - $10K per gram, roughly.
--
Will
Easier to find and cheaper then pure Plutonium I would think.
2:07 a.m.
On 17 Nov 2009 at 20:44, William Donzelli wrote:
I do not think so - the process is pretty much the
same (centrifuges).
It is sort of like heavy water - abundant like crazy, but just try to
isolate it.
Yes, but wouldn't that be true of many isotopically-pure substances,
not just boron 10?
--Chuck
2:19 a.m.
Yes, but wouldn't that be true of many
isotopically-pure substances,
not just boron 10?
Yes, but most of those other substances are not useful, or no more
useful that the normal mix of isotopes found in nature. B10 is (or
was, I think they use something else these days), even if it is a one
trick pony.
--
Will
6:05 a.m.
On 17 Nov 2009 at 21:19, William Donzelli wrote:
Yes, but most of those other substances are not
useful, or no more
useful that the normal mix of isotopes found in nature. B10 is (or
was, I think they use something else these days), even if it is a one
trick pony.
I wonder what the price of a microgram of U235 is currently?
Doing a little reading, I see the that use of B10 is as a neutron
capture agent. It apparently has a role in some experimental
nuclear medicine (Google BNCT for "Boron Neutron Capture Therapy").
Cheers,
Chuck
6:38 a.m.
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 17 Nov 2009 at 21:19, William Donzelli wrote:
I have some uranium-bearing rocks. There's bound to be a gram or two in
there.
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Yes, but most of those other substances are not
useful, or no more
useful that the normal mix of isotopes found in nature. B10 is (or
was, I think they use something else these days), even if it is a one
trick pony.
I wonder what the price of a microgram of U235 is currently?
8:02 a.m.
On 17 Nov 2009 at 22:38, David Griffith wrote:
I have some uranium-bearing rocks. There's bound
to be a gram or two
in there.
I don't know the exact numbers, but I'll wager there must be at least
an ounce of gold in a cubic mile of sea water. No--like Will's B-10,
I meant a microgram of HEU 235.
--Chuck
7:58 p.m.
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I don't know the exact numbers, but I'll wager
there must be at least
an ounce of gold in a cubic mile of sea water. No--like Will's B-10,
I meant a microgram of HEU 235.
But, . . .
do you actually intend to USE it?
Or, as the original poster was trying to point out, is its value in being
rare (as Paris Hilton's fame is for being famous), and it would be
destined to sit on a shelf?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
9:08 p.m.
On 18 Nov 2009 at 11:58, Fred Cisin wrote:
do you actually intend to USE it?
Sure--as a neutron source for the microgram of B-10...
You never know--I recall a replica of the monolith from "2001: A
Space Odyssey" being turned out sometime in the early 70's at
Lawrence Livermore out of some exotic metal as a bootleg project.
Your tax dollars at work...
Back to the Apple I--is there inherently anything unique to the Apple
I to prevent the market from being flooded with fakes? At even $5K,
it might be a great cottage industry for someone who's become tired
of forging postal money orders. Particularly if said forger was
located in a country with lots and lots of old "pulls" that are
usually being offered on the net whenever one looks for datasheets...
My point is that it's not irreplaceable, like, say, a 1000 year old
sequoia or Abraham Lincoln's fingernail clippings... It would seem
to me that any intrinsic value would be hard to assess.
--Chuck
2:21 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 18 Nov 2009 at 20:30, Dan Roganti wrote:
It's not only the substance which defines the age, but also the timespan
in which solder is exposed to the elements and subsequently degrades. I
can look at 40yr.old solder that somebody put on a fake circuit card
that's only 1yr.old and know it's not 40yr.old solder on a 40yr.old
circuit card.
=Dan
35yr.old solder is not easy to fake
I could make some by mixing in some 20 year old solder with my 100
year old solder...
2:11 a.m.
Dan Roganti wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
The solder mask. The dark green matte stuff they used to use hasn't been around
for at least 25 years, though oxidation of 20+ year old solder is a pretty easy
giveaway as well.
There's also an upper limit on the number of ICs (esp the MOS parts) with the
right date code range. I know a friend had a lot of trouble finding the MOS
shift registers and clock drivers when that first batch of replica boards was
produced.
Back to the Apple I--is there inherently anything
unique to the Apple
I to prevent the market from being flooded with fakes?
3:34 a.m.
The solder mask. The dark green matte stuff they used
to use hasn't been
around
for at least 25 years, though oxidation of 20+ year old solder is a pretty
easy
giveaway as well.
The mask is not too hard to fake visually - a properly tinted clear
coat will do. A chemical test might be a giveaway, however.
Old solder can also be faked - there are plenty of old radio guys that know how.
There's also an upper limit on the number of ICs
(esp the MOS parts) with
the
right date code range.
Harder to do, but the chips can be faked as well - at least the older
inked ones, and not the more modern laser engraved types.
The tube market is plagued with fakes, ever since the 1950s. Guys in
their garage would get used tubes, wash the original inks off, and
reink with a silkscreen. Certainly ICs could be faked the same way.
--
Will
4:34 a.m.
On 18 Nov 2009 at 22:34, William Donzelli wrote:
Harder to do, but the chips can be faked as well - at
least the older
inked ones, and not the more modern laser engraved types.
The tube market is plagued with fakes, ever since the 1950s. Guys in
their garage would get used tubes, wash the original inks off, and
reink with a silkscreen. Certainly ICs could be faked the same way.
The modern IC market is plagued with fakes also. Even for modern
ICs, such as flash memories, fakes are manufactured to order.
--Chuck
9:35 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
But how many people would know what to look for?
Wasn't the Apple 1 originally a kit? In which case I am suprised some
joker hasn't tried a L@@K ULTRA RARE Apple 1 unassembled kit. That would
get round the solder problem.
-tony
Back to the Apple I--is there inherently anything
unique to the Apple
I to prevent the market from being flooded with fakes?
yes,
35yr.old solder is not easy to fake
:)
20 Nov
20 Nov
6:21 a.m.
In every picture I've seen, the Apple I's board has been wave-soldered.
Peace... Sridhar
On Nov 19, 2009 5:00 PM, "Tony Duell" <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Chuck Guzis wrote: > > Back to the Apple
I--is there inherently anything
unique to the Apple >...
But how many people would know what to look for?
Wasn't the Apple 1 originally a kit? In which case I am suprised some
joker hasn't tried a L@@K ULTRA RARE Apple 1 unassembled kit. That would
get round the solder problem.
-tony
7:45 a.m.
On 20 Nov 2009 at 1:21, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
In every picture I've seen, the Apple I's
board has been
wave-soldered.
I recall that there was some chatter about being able to buy the bare
PCB, but it never happened as far as I knew. I only saw the
completed boards. With only 4K of memory, I wasn't interested--I
already had my MITS box with 8K and several of my friends had IMSAIs.
Discussion at the time in my circle usually centered around how much
better constructed the IMSAI box was than the MITS. I couldn't
argue. Within about a year, I had an IMSAI, then migrated to an
Integrand box. But I still have the lowly and dusty Altair sitting
on a shelf...
The 6502 to me always seemed to be a little "brain dead" compared to
the 8080. But that was a subject then of much debate.
I'm still trying to remember who, about that time, brought out a 6502
S100 board. Was it Solid State Music?
--Chuck
1:05 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 20 Nov 2009 at 1:21, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
> In every picture I've seen, the Apple I's board has been
> wave-soldered.
Yes, I think that was one of their selling points - that they *weren't* kits,
unlike so many other systems of the time.
The 6502 to me always seemed to be a little
"brain dead" compared to
the 8080. But that was a subject then of much debate.
With me it was always 6502 vs Z80 (I came in too late for the 8080), but same
thought - although, having seen some of the impressive things people have done
with 6502s, I don't think it necessarily matters (whether that's true of *any*
CPU I'm not sure - presumably there were some around that really did make life
incredibly difficult!)
cheers
Jules
2:21 p.m.
Keep in mind that the 6502 debuted for $25, which was far and away cheaper than any of the
Intel and Motorola offerings. So, there's a cost/performance consideration as well.
________________________________
From: Jules Richardson <jules.richardson99 at gmail.com>
To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Fri, November 20, 2009 7:05:11 AM
Subject: Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 20 Nov 2009 at 1:21, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
> In every picture I've seen, the Apple I's board has been
> wave-soldered.
Yes, I think that was one of their selling points - that they *weren't* kits, unlike
so many other systems of the time.
The 6502 to me always seemed to be a little
"brain dead" compared to the 8080. But that was a subject then of much debate.
With me it was always 6502 vs Z80 (I came in too late for the 8080), but same thought -
although, having seen some of the impressive things people have done with 6502s, I
don't think it necessarily matters (whether that's true of *any* CPU I'm not
sure - presumably there were some around that really did make life incredibly difficult!)
cheers
Jules
4:16 p.m.
Jules Richardson wrote:
> The 6502 to me always seemed to be a little
"brain dead" compared to
> the 8080.
Chuck Peddle told me a couple of months ago that the 6502 was never intended
to be a general-purpose microprocessor, it was designed to be a replacement
for hard-wired logic.
They had a die size target to hit to get to the price point they wanted
and pulled out things they thought were unnecessary for its use in that market.
In particular, the length of the registers. I had always wondered why they built
a microprocessor with an 8 bit stack pointer, when the previous 6800 design had
16.
4:34 p.m.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote:
Chuck Peddle told me a couple of months ago that the
6502 was never
intended
to be a general-purpose microprocessor, it was designed to be a replacement
for hard-wired logic.
They had a die size target to hit to get to the price point they wanted
and pulled out things they thought were unnecessary for its use in that
market.
In particular, the length of the registers. I had always wondered why they
built
a microprocessor with an 8 bit stack pointer, when the previous 6800 design
had
16.
lol Who needs multiply and divide operations anyway?
Great info, I never knew that.
brian
4:40 p.m.
Interesting. I wonder if Bill Mensch's take is different?
________________________________
From: Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org>
To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Fri, November 20, 2009 10:16:25 AM
Subject: Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
Jules Richardson wrote:
> The 6502 to me always seemed to be a little
"brain dead" compared to the 8080.
Chuck Peddle told me a couple of months ago that the 6502 was never intended
to be a general-purpose microprocessor, it was designed to be a replacement
for hard-wired logic.
They had a die size target to hit to get to the price point they wanted
and pulled out things they thought were unnecessary for its use in that market.
In particular, the length of the registers. I had always wondered why they built
a microprocessor with an 8 bit stack pointer, when the previous 6800 design had
16.
6:02 p.m.
On 20 Nov 2009 at 8:16, Al Kossow wrote:
Chuck Peddle told me a couple of months ago that the
6502 was never
intended to be a general-purpose microprocessor, it was designed to be
a replacement for hard-wired logic. They had a die size target to hit
to get to the price point they wanted and pulled out things they
thought were unnecessary for its use in that market. In particular,
the length of the registers. I had always wondered why they built a
microprocessor with an 8 bit stack pointer, when the previous 6800
design had 16.
There were variants of the 6502 with mask-programmed ROM on board (I
have a Micropolis floppy drive with one) and 3M Iomat quarter-inch
tape drives had a controller that's not much bigger than a file card
that holds a 6502, EPROM, a little SRAM and a VIA. So the thing
*was* suited to what we'd call microcontroller use.
The $25 price tag may be a red herring. ISTR that MOS started a
price war at Wescon, and the other exhibitors soon followed with
severly reduced pricing. Within one or two years, a Wescon attendee
could go home with not only a sample CPU, but databooks as well, for
free. I used to have a National PACE that I received in that way. I
think my GI CP1600 was a Wescon freebie. The microprocessor war was
heating up fast...
--Chuck
6:47 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 20 Nov 2009 at 8:16, Al Kossow wrote:
The Osborne book lists 9 variants:
65x2 x=0|1
65x3
65x4
65x5
6506
varying in clock pins, interrupt pins, number of address-bus pins, and on-board
ROM. I didn't know about this until I ran across it while reading the Osborne
book, and then started noticing when I'd run across some of the small 28-pin
variants on occasion.
I believe this would be the first u-proc to take this approach of creating a
family by paring down a 'standard', that the PIC family and other u-controllers
would later leverage.
Chuck Peddle told me a couple of months ago that
the 6502 was never
intended to be a general-purpose microprocessor, it was designed to be
a replacement for hard-wired logic. They had a die size target to hit
to get to the price point they wanted and pulled out things they
thought were unnecessary for its use in that market. In particular,
the length of the registers. I had always wondered why they built a
microprocessor with an 8 bit stack pointer, when the previous 6800
design had 16.
There were variants of the 6502 with mask-programmed ROM on board (I
have a Micropolis floppy drive with one) and 3M Iomat quarter-inch
tape drives had a controller that's not much bigger than a file card
that holds a 6502, EPROM, a little SRAM and a VIA. So the thing
*was* suited to what we'd call microcontroller use.
9:06 p.m.
On 20 Nov 2009 at 10:47, Brent Hilpert wrote:
I believe this would be the first u-proc to take this
approach of
creating a family by paring down a 'standard', that the PIC family and
other u-controllers would later leverage.
Did these precede the 6800 microcontrollers? (e.g. 6801, 6803)?
--Chuck
9:19 p.m.
New subject: 6502/6800 variants / was Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 20 Nov 2009 at 10:47, Brent Hilpert wrote:
I'll presume so, inasmuch as the Osborne book (1976) lists and discusses the
nine 6502 variants, and of course the 6800, but makes no mention of any 6800 variants.
I believe this would be the first u-proc to take
this approach of
creating a family by paring down a 'standard', that the PIC family and
other u-controllers would later leverage.
Did these precede the 6800 microcontrollers? (e.g. 6801, 6803)?
8:01 p.m.
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Brent Hilpert wrote:
> The Osborne book lists 9 variants:
> 65x2 x=0|1
> 65x3
> 65x4
> 65x5
> 6506
I'p pretty suee I've seen a 6507, at least in a databook. And the 6509
was a Commodore-special with a built-in MMU sicruit used in the PET II
(P500 etc).
SOme of the cut-down ones turn up in old Commodore printers, BTW.
And there's the 6500 (yes, '00'). It's a 40 pin microcontroller, and
it was used eg. on Seagate ST-225 drives.
Yes, I've come across that one...
I have an old Rockwell databook which lists most of the varients with
pinouts and specs. Very handy...
-tony
8:24 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
The 6507 was used in the Atari VCS (2600). Basically a 6502 limited to
an 8K address space, and in a smaller (28-pin?) package.
- Josh
On Fri, 20 Nov
2009, Brent Hilpert wrote:
> The Osborne book lists 9 variants:
> 65x2 x=0|1
> 65x3
> 65x4
> 65x5
> 6506
>
I'p pretty suee I've seen a 6507, at least in a databook. And the 6509
was a Commodore-special with a built-in MMU sicruit used in the PET II
(P500 etc).
9:19 p.m.
The 6507 is also used in the atari 1050 drive.
On 11/21/09 12:24 PM, "Josh Dersch" <derschjo at mail.msu.edu> wrote:
Tony Duell wrote:
The 6507 was used in the Atari VCS (2600). Basically a 6502 limited to
an 8K address space, and in a smaller (28-pin?) package.
- Josh
On Fri,
20 Nov 2009, Brent Hilpert wrote:
> The Osborne book lists 9 variants:
> 65x2 x=0|1
> 65x3
> 65x4
> 65x5
> 6506
>
I'p pretty suee I've seen a 6507, at least in a databook. And the 6509
was a Commodore-special with a built-in MMU sicruit used in the PET II
(P500 etc).
11:44 p.m.
Many Atari periperals used the 6507:
Atari 810 Disk drive
Atari 815 dual disk drive
Atari 1050
Atari 820 printer
Most of the peripherals had to have some form of CPU in them as they
needed to intelligently communicate over the SIO (Serial I/O) bus of the
Atari 8bit computers. The SIO was a primitive form of what is now the
USB interface, interestingly enough - the designer of the SIO Bus went
on to work for Microsoft and holds one of the USB patents - Joe Decuir.
Curt
Geoffrey Reed wrote:
The 6507 is also used in the atari 1050 drive.
On 11/21/09 12:24 PM, "Josh Dersch" <derschjo at mail.msu.edu> wrote:
Tony Duell wrote:
The 6507 was used in the Atari VCS (2600). Basically a 6502 limited to
an 8K address space, and in a smaller (28-pin?) package.
- Josh
On Fri,
20 Nov 2009, Brent Hilpert wrote:
> The Osborne book lists 9 variants:
> 65x2 x=0|1
> 65x3
> 65x4
> 65x5
> 6506
>
>
I'p pretty suee I've seen a 6507, at least in a databook.
And the 6509
was a Commodore-special with a built-in MMU sicruit used in the PET II
(P500 etc).
8:46 p.m.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 15:01, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I believe most, if not all, Amiga keyboards use a 6500/1.
--
Joachim Thiemann :: http://www.tsp.ece.mcgill.ca/~jthiem
And
there's the 6500 (yes, '00'). It's a 40 pin microcontroller, and
it was used eg. on Seagate ST-225 drives.
Yes, I've come across that one...
8:03 a.m.
On 11/19/09 11:45 PM, "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 20 Nov 2009 at 1:21, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I miss my altair 8800. And my northstar horizon (think it was) and my
morrow MDIII and..... -sigh-
In every picture I've seen, the Apple I's
board has been
wave-soldered.
I recall that there was some chatter about being able to buy the bare
PCB, but it never happened as far as I knew. I only saw the
completed boards. With only 4K of memory, I wasn't interested--I
already had my MITS box with 8K and several of my friends had IMSAIs.
Discussion at the time in my circle usually centered around how much
better constructed the IMSAI box was than the MITS. I couldn't
argue. Within about a year, I had an IMSAI, then migrated to an
Integrand box. But I still have the lowly and dusty Altair sitting
on a shelf...
The 6502 to me always seemed to be a little "brain dead" compared to
the 8080. But that was a subject then of much debate.
I'm still trying to remember who, about that time, brought out a 6502
S100 board. Was it Solid State Music?
--Chuck
19 Nov
19 Nov
11:29 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Back to the Apple I--is there inherently anything
unique to the Apple
I to prevent the market from being flooded with fakes?
Yes - the fact that it's so rare :-) I reckon someone could pull it off once
or twice, but soon it would become obvious that at least some of the systems
that were floating around were fakes, and buyers would start worrying about
independent testing before they put their cash down.
My point is that it's not irreplaceable, like,
say, a 1000 year old
sequoia or Abraham Lincoln's fingernail clippings... It would seem
to me that any intrinsic value would be hard to assess.
Well to my mind a reproduction would be just that, no matter how faithful it
was to the original. So does it have value because it's art? I don't really
think so. Does it have value because it it's historically significant? Sure -
but then shouldn't that value be in line with other things that have made
similar contributions to computing?
(I know I'm not getting any closer to understanding this, but the discussion's
interesting :-)
cheers
Jules
20 Nov
20 Nov
12:14 a.m.
Jules Richardson wrote:
Does it have value because it it's historically
significant? Sure - but then shouldn't that value be in line with other
things that have made similar contributions to computing?
The main thing seems to be that the two guys that created it are cult
figures.
The Xerox Alto is one machine I can think of that has never sold for
anywhere near the price that Apple I's can get, and is actually fun to play
with. Apple I's are really boring machines to actually use.
Very few people outside Silicon Valley even know who created the Alto,
but everyone knows who the two Steves are.
2:40 p.m.
New subject: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay / Xerox Alto
The Xerox Alto is one machine I can think of that has
never sold for
anywhere near the price that Apple I's can get, and is actually fun to
play
with. Apple I's are really boring machines to actually use.
Very few people outside Silicon Valley even know who created the Alto,
but everyone knows who the two Steves are.
Does that mean that Alto's do change hand ? If so, at what prices ?
I would not mind spending some USD's on an Alto, to accompany the ETH
Lilith..
Always wondered what a Lilith would fetch......
Jos
12:39 a.m.
Yes - the fact that it's so rare :-) I reckon
someone could pull it off once
or twice, but soon it would become obvious that at least some of the systems
that were floating around were fakes
A smart crook could pull it off many times.
Try this:
Make a *really* convincing fake Apple 1. Put it on Ebay for $100K, but
maybe hint that if it might be available off the site. Say you have
*two* Apple 1s. Make it sound like you really need the money -
foreclosure or something, and you need to sell your crown jewels. If
it sells for $100K, laugh all the way to the bank. If it does not,
collect contacts to a bunch of rich prospective buyers. Sell them each
a machine for maybe $30K. Chances are they will not boast about
getting an Apple 1, for fear of theft or hundreds of geeks trying to
buy it. If someone boasts, explain it as the second Apple 1. Laugh all
the way to the bank, a few times. Repeat in a few years.
--
Will
1:11 p.m.
William Donzelli wrote:
Someone that is *rich* enough to fork over this amount of money *should*
have enough common sense to authenticate a rare item like this in the
first place, before paying for it on ebay -- of all places --. And I'm
sure they would have several ties to find someone to take care of this
for them. I bet that the faker wouldn't stand up to the pressure of
being scrutinized over such a large transaction.
=Dan
--
http://www2.applegate.org/~ragooman/
http://www.midatlanticretro.org/
Yes - the fact
that it's so rare :-) I reckon someone could pull it off once
or twice, but soon it would become obvious that at least some of the systems
that were floating around were fakes
A smart crook could pull it off many times.
Try this:
Make a *really* convincing fake Apple 1. Put it on Ebay for $100K, but
maybe hint that if it might be available off the site. Say you have
*two* Apple 1s. Make it sound like you really need the money -
foreclosure or something, and you need to sell your crown jewels. If
it sells for $100K, laugh all the way to the bank. If it does not,
collect contacts to a bunch of rich prospective buyers. Sell them each
a machine for maybe $30K. Chances are they will not boast about
getting an Apple 1, for fear of theft or hundreds of geeks trying to
buy it. If someone boasts, explain it as the second Apple 1. Laugh all
the way to the bank, a few times. Repeat in a few years.
1:47 p.m.
Someone that is *rich* enough to fork over this amount
of money *should*
have enough common sense to authenticate a rare item like this in the first
place, before paying for it on ebay -- of all places --.
You only use Ebay to get the word out, looking as naive as possible.
If all goes well, the sales of the fakes will be off Ebay.
And I'm sure they
would have several ties to find someone to take care of this for them. I bet
that the faker wouldn't stand up to the pressure of being scrutinized over
such a large transaction.
The art and antiques world is full of fakes, and there the science of
authentication is way further advanced compared to whatever
authentication methods we apply to vintage computer items.
(sorry about the double post - Gmail farted).
--
Will
4:59 p.m.
William Donzelli wrote:
The art and antiques world is full of fakes, and there
the science of
authentication is way further advanced compared to whatever
authentication methods we apply to vintage computer items.
My understanding was that it's more-or-less known how many Apple 1 boards
survived, and where those surviving boards are now (I think Sellam has done a
lot of work on this?) - which makes it harder to suddenly explain the
existence of a new board which nobody knew about. I'm not saying that it'd be
impossible to pull it off, just more difficult than with a lot of other rare
systems.
AIUI, fake antiques are usually items where there's less of an understanding
of how many were ever made in the first place, or of where all the surviving
ones currently are; it seems there's a bit more of a paper trail in the case
of an Apple 1. Give it a hundred years and it'll probably be a different matter.
cheers
Jules
6:57 p.m.
My understanding was that it's more-or-less known
how many Apple 1 boards
survived, and where those surviving boards are now (I think Sellam has done
a lot of work on this?)
HA! You are likely very wrong.
When it comes to antiques, there are ALWAYS more to find. I suspect
there are at least Apple 1s still accounted for.
One of my other interests is in military radio from the interbellum,
and many of these radios were made in quantities on par or smaller
than the run of Apple 1s. I have been collecting these for fifteen
years, and pretty much know most of the players, and what they have.
Certain types are presumed extinct, or maybe a singular example
exists, and most collectors assume that example is all there will be.
And Ebay still dredges up a few more radios each year...
AIUI, fake antiques are usually items where
there's less of an understanding
of how many were ever made in the first place, or of where all the surviving
ones currently are; it seems there's a bit more of a paper trail in the case
of an Apple 1.
Having Jobs and Woz around certainly helps, but one must realize that
(I assume) early Apple records were spotty, and frankly, with age,
their memories can be assumed to be getting spotty. The paper trail
may not have much value.
--
Will
2:47 p.m.
take care of this for them. I bet that the faker wouldn't stand up to the
pressure of being scrutinized over such a large transaction.
Easy: Put someone in charge of selling it for you. Preferably someone with
no
vintage computer knowledge.
Imagine a woman. His father died a month ago. Only now she had the guts to
open his "treasured chest" with lots of old electronics and like. She founds
an apple board, and this board has a good resale value. She is selling on
ebay, $3000 first bid, let the market regulate from now on. Easily it will
surpass $10000 I believe. AND she can be 90% honest to herself, since the
board she got from a friend (a scammer) and has not much info about that.
It is easy to scam people, as it is easier to be scammed. Take care.
And I still think it is a **crazy** thing to pay more than a hundred on an
apple I board.
1:36 p.m.
Yes - the fact that it's so rare :-) I reckon
someone could pull it off once
or twice, but soon it would become obvious that at least some of the systems
that were floating around were fakes
A smart crook could pull it off many times.
Try this:
Make a *really* convincing fake Apple 1. Put it on Ebay for $100K, but
maybe hint that if it might be available off the site. Say you have
*two* Apple 1s. Make it sound like you really need the money -
foreclosure or something, and you need to sell your crown jewels. If
it sells for $100K, laugh all the way to the bank. If it does not,
collect contacts to a bunch of rich prospective buyers. Sell them each
a machine for maybe $30K. Chances are they will not boast about
getting an Apple 1, for fear of theft or hundreds of geeks trying to
buy it. If someone boasts, explain it as the second Apple 1. Laugh all
the way to the bank, a few times. Repeat in a few years.
--
Will
18 Nov
18 Nov
9:10 a.m.
David Griffith wrote:
I have some uranium-bearing rocks. There's bound to be a gram or two in
there.
It's not how much is in there, it's how hard it is to get it out.
Peace... Sridhar
Yes, but most of those other substances are not
useful, or no more
useful that the normal mix of isotopes found in nature. B10 is (or
was, I think they use something else these days), even if it is a one
trick pony.
I wonder what the price of a microgram of U235 is currently? 
6:53 p.m.
I just remembered. It's rhenium.
$6000-*mumble* per ounce.
The most expensive thing I can think of is Boron -
specifically the purified B10 isotope. I once had a pair of
ancient neutron detector probes, with the inner surfaces
coated with the stuff. The price makes gold look like dog
food - $10K per gram, roughly.
7:13 p.m.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:53 PM, <arcarlini at iee.org> wrote:
Finally I get to hear of something that costs more
than inkjet ink :-)
Antonio
:-)
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/mlm/BloodInk.jpg
1:34 a.m.
New subject: OT expensive stuff / was Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
William Donzelli wrote:
For expensive-stuff-by-weight, one need look no further than the local
grocery store to find Saffron at $12/g, or (arguably the equivalent
of) $12,000/Kg.
I just remembered. ?It's rhenium.
?$6000-*mumble* per ounce.
The most expensive thing I can think of is Boron - specifically the
purified B10 isotope. I once had a pair of ancient neutron detector
probes, with the inner surfaces coated with the stuff. The price makes
gold look like dog food - $10K per gram, roughly.
4:40 a.m.
New subject: OT expensive stuff / was Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Brent Hilpert wrote:
For expensive-stuff-by-weight, one need look no
further than the local
grocery store to find Saffron at $12/g, or (arguably the equivalent
of) $12,000/Kg.
I would guess that what one of my neighbors grows in his back yard would
probably fetch a lot of money.
19 Nov
19 Nov
11:17 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
The Helium3 they use for microKelvin heatpumps for radio telescopes is
pretty pricey by the gram, but I don't remember the exact cost - it is
in the thousands-per-gram range, though.
-ethan
I just
remembered. ?It's rhenium. ?$6000-*mumble* per ounce.
The most expensive thing I can think of is Boron - specifically the
purified B10 isotope. I once had a pair of ancient neutron detector
probes, with the inner surfaces coated with the stuff. The price makes
gold look like dog food - $10K per gram, roughly. 
18 Nov
18 Nov
12:58 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Silver is still used in photography and much is still
used for
radiography.
Argh, Silver Halide film emulsions. I'm surprised I didn't get that
one... I spent most of last week mixing ID11 and Rapid Fixer. Good fun.
Until you forget to measure the temperature of the developer,
under-develop the film, and don't wash it enough in the stopbath to
remove the anti-halation dye. Then for bonus points I caught the film on
the worktop and ripped half the emulsion off.
ID11 and Delta400 are not forgiving. Not in the least. At least HP5 is a
bit more idiot-proof.
--
Phil.
classiccmp at philpem.me.uk
http://www.philpem.me.uk/
1:10 a.m.
On 18 Nov 2009 at 0:58, Philip Pemberton wrote:
ID11 and Delta400 are not forgiving. Not in the least.
At least HP5 is
a bit more idiot-proof.
Sorry Phil, I grew up on Kodak photo chemicals. Mostly D-76 for
film and Dektol for paper. But it's been several decades since I
last had brown hands...
--Chuck
9:38 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Sorry Phil, I grew up on Kodak photo chemicals.
Mostly D-76 for
film and Dektol for paper.
ID11 is basically D76 with an Ilford twist. Same basic chemical
constituents, same process times and temperatures, and so on.
But it's been several decades since I
last had brown hands...
Photochemicals don't usually turn your hands brown -- most of them are
clear (with the exception of indicator stopbaths which are either
yellow, purple or some colour in between depending on their current pH).
Now ferric chloride PCB etchant on the other hand.... That stuff is just
nasty.
Normally when I etch PCBs, I drill a hole into the corner and insert a
bit of hookup wire into the hole to when removing the board from the
tank. Problem is, in this case I forgot to do that -- so I drained the
tank and retrieved the board from the bottom of the tank.
In hindsight I should have washed the inside of the tank before shoving
my hand in there.. I ended up with bright yellow stains half-way up my
arm. That's not a mistake you tend to make twice.
On the plus side, it's still cheaper (and somewhat easier to handle)
than persulphate based etchants.
--
Phil.
classiccmp at philpem.me.uk
http://www.philpem.me.uk/
5:32 p.m.
On 18 Nov 2009 at 9:38, Philip Pemberton wrote:
ID11 is basically D76 with an Ilford twist. Same basic
chemical
constituents, same process times and temperatures, and so on.
A favorite of mine was a home-cooked developer made simply of metol
and borax. Slow-acting, but wonderfully long-scale. It's in the
Kodak "cookbook", but I don't recall the number.
Photochemicals don't usually turn your hands brown
-- most of them are
clear (with the exception of indicator stopbaths which are either
yellow, purple or some colour in between depending on their current
pH).
Eventually, doing too many prints barehanded in Dektol (an old
technique was to "push" areas on a print by rubbing with developer-
soaked hands to raise the temperature locally.) Same idea as
breathing on the area. Eventually, the developer that permeates the
skin oxidizes and the hands become stained a nice brown.
Tongs? They were for sissies and kept disappearing anyway. Another
episode in a misspent youth.
--Chuck
8:20 p.m.
Is there a website where Apple-1 owners register their board & serial#
so there is an active tracking of who owns a real board and their serial # ?
Curt
10:26 p.m.
Curt @ Atari Museum wrote:
Is there a website where Apple-1 owners register their
board & serial#
so there is an active tracking of who owns a real board and their serial
# ?
As far as I know, only Sellam keeps an owners list, and it is obviously
private.
The fiascos with Shelby Cobra owners (and fakes..) got me thinking about
this too.
I hadn't noticed significance of the little number tags, for example, until
this latest one came up and I started comparing PCB pictures.
10:21 p.m.
Philip Pemberton wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
And HC110
Silver is still used in photography and much is
still used for
radiography.
Argh, Silver Halide film emulsions. I'm surprised I didn't get that
one... I spent most of last week mixing ID11 and Rapid Fixer. Good fun.
Until you forget to measure the temperature of the developer,
under-develop the film, and don't wash it enough in the stopbath to
remove the anti-halation dye. Then for bonus points I caught the film on
the worktop and ripped half the emulsion off.
ID11 and Delta400 are not forgiving. Not in the least. At least HP5 is a
bit more idiot-proof.
1:31 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben" <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Back in the 90's I noticed higher amperage mechanical contactors had large
silver pads for contacts. Also some quick disconnect cables for power were
silver as well. There are probably other industrial applications that use
gold and silver that nobody notices.
On a side note the ancient romans used to use silver staples to close
wounds, something doctors might have started doing again recently.
Indeed, one can argue that silver has far more uses than gold, even if
you leave out high-end audiophile speaker cables.
You forgot silver wire in audio transformers.!
> --Chuck
> 
1:48 a.m.
----------------------------------------
From: teoz at neo.rr.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:31:32 -0500
---snip---
Back in the 90's I noticed higher amperage mechanical contactors had large
silver pads for contacts. Also some quick disconnect cables for power were
silver as well. There are probably other industrial applications that use
gold and silver that nobody notices.
On a side note the ancient romans used to use silver staples to close
wounds, something doctors might have started doing again recently.
We used to rewind slotcar motors with silver plated
wire. Even though the plating was thin, it made
a difference.
Dwight
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
1:58 a.m.
On Nov 17, 2009, at 8:48 PM, dwight elvey wrote:
I^2R, with lots of I and a nontrivial R...I can easily see that
making a noticeable difference.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Back in the
90's I noticed higher amperage mechanical contactors
had large
silver pads for contacts. Also some quick disconnect cables for
power were
silver as well. There are probably other industrial applications
that use
gold and silver that nobody notices.
On a side note the ancient romans used to use silver staples to close
wounds, something doctors might have started doing again recently.
We used to rewind slotcar motors with silver plated
wire. Even though the plating was thin, it made
a difference.
17 Nov
17 Nov
11:48 p.m.
Seth Morabito wrote:
Why is an ounce of gold worth $1000? Because
that's what people will pay
for it. It has no inherent use; you can't eat it, you can't live in it,
you can't keep warm with it. But someone will give you $800 for it and
come away feeling like they've got a great bargain indeed.
I was thinking about this while I was on the bus the other day. Diamond
I can see going for a significant amount (it has a fair few industrial
and commercial uses) though the only use I could come up with for gold
was the plating on edge connectors...
Then we get onto platinum.. Catalytic converters were the only use I
could think of for that. Didn't manage to think of a single commercial
or industrial use for silver at all...
All I came up with was the obvious one -- jewellery, aka "some people
think it makes them more attractive". A dog with a silver collar is
still a dog.
Then my thoughts moved towards "so what's the point of the universe?".
This happens more than you might think. Speaking of which I'd kill for a
clear sky, and a citywide power cut! Heck, even killing off the
neighbours' security lights would be a nice compromise... Missed the
Leonids last night, and it's been nigh-impossible to stargaze around
here for ages. You can sort-of see Orion's Belt (though not at this time
of year, obviously), but that's it. Even a long exposure on the DSLR
doesn't fare much better.
--
Phil.
classiccmp at philpem.me.uk
http://www.philpem.me.uk/
11:57 p.m.
I was thinking about this while I was on the bus the other day. Diamond I
can see going for a significant amount (it has a fair few industrial and
commercial uses)
Diamond is a bad example. Thank DeBeers.
though the only use I could come up with for gold was
the
plating on edge connectors...
Plating on a whole lot of other things as well.
Didn't manage to think of a single commercial or
industrial use for silver at all...
Plating and contacts. I think (much) more silver is used by industry than gold.
Wiki for more info.
--
Will
18 Nov
18 Nov
12:04 a.m.
Very good point Will -- DeBeers regulates just how many diamonds are out
in the open market at any time, hence keeping demand at a high and
keeping diamonds from devaluing... all the while hording immense
amounts of diamonds in its private stash and releasing them at a
controlled rate.
William Donzelli wrote:
I was thinking
about this while I was on the bus the other day. Diamond I
can see going for a significant amount (it has a fair few industrial and
commercial uses)
Diamond is a bad example. Thank DeBeers.
though the only use I could come up with for gold
was the
plating on edge connectors...
Plating on a whole lot of other things as well.
Didn't manage to think of a single commercial
or
industrial use for silver at all...
Plating and contacts. I think (much) more silver is used by industry than gold.
Wiki for more info.
--
Will
12:37 a.m.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:48:53PM +0000, Philip Pemberton wrote:
Seth Morabito wrote:
Thanks to DeBeers the prices for (jewelry) diamonds are nowhere near
realistic prices and _massively_ controlled.
Why is an ounce of gold worth $1000? Because
that's what people will
pay for it. It has no inherent use; you can't eat it, you can't live in
it, you can't keep warm with it. But someone will give you $800 for it
and come away feeling like they've got a great bargain indeed.
I was thinking about this while I was on the bus the other day. Diamond
I can see going for a significant amount (it has a fair few industrial
and commercial uses) though the only use I could come up with for gold
was the plating on edge connectors...
For ICs, the bonding wires between chip and chip carrier. Also various
gold plated contacts (for durability and good connections).
Then we get onto platinum.. Catalytic converters were
the only use I
could think of for that. Didn't manage to think of a single commercial
or industrial use for silver at all...
There a quite a few:
- traces on PCBs as well as contacts for superior conductivity
- batteries
- optics (both for mirrors and coatings, although the way cheaper
aluminium is often used)
- as a catalyst and quite a few more uses
Also as a permanent germ killer (silver is rather unhealthy to a lot of
germs, while quite harmless to humans).
Regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
1:02 a.m.
Alexander Schreiber wrote:
(Uses for silver)
There a quite a few:
- traces on PCBs as well as contacts for superior conductivity
Can't say I've ever seen a silver-plated PCB. I've seen tin-plated and
gold-plated, though.
- batteries
Ah, good old silver-oxide watch batteries. Forgot about those. The
slightly longer-life alternative to alkalines that nobody seems to stock
(LR44s are everywhere but SR44s are considerably harder to find).
Also as a permanent germ killer (silver is rather
unhealthy to a lot of
germs, while quite harmless to humans).
*searches the Wiki*
Huh. Forgot about that one too.
Silver tableware? Although that's on the boundary line between ornament
and tool...
--
Phil.
classiccmp at philpem.me.uk
http://www.philpem.me.uk/
3:25 a.m.
Philip Pemberton wrote:
Can't say I've ever seen a silver-plated PCB. I've seen tin-plated and
gold-plated, though.
Silver immersion:
http://www.jbrain.com/vicug/gallery/uIEC/IMG_1861_001
http://www.jbrain.com/vicug/gallery/uIEC/IMG_1857
Jim
1:43 a.m.
On 18 Nov 2009 at 1:37, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Also as a permanent germ killer (silver is rather
unhealthy to a lot
of germs, while quite harmless to humans).
But see "argyria" and for a Y2K slant, "Stan Jones"...
I once had a friend (now deceased) who believed that she could not
get enough selenium.
--Chuck
2:48 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 05:43:15PM -0800, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 18 Nov 2009 at 1:37, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Cue old Paracelsus "Sola dosis facit venenum" (It's the dose that makes
the poison). Yes, while silver is normally quite harmless to humans, if
you ingest enough (especially in a finely divided form, "colloidal
silver" *cough*), you can poison yourself. There is also water
poisoning. In other news, being stupid was found to be not so healthy
after all ;-)
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
Also as a permanent germ killer (silver is rather
unhealthy to a lot
of germs, while quite harmless to humans).
But see "argyria" and for a Y2K slant, "Stan Jones"...
I once had a friend (now deceased) who believed that she could not
get enough selenium. 
2:50 a.m.
Also as a permanent germ killer (silver is rather
unhealthy to a lot of
germs, while quite harmless to humans).
On surfaces, yes. But I've encountered people who picked up serious
permanent deposits from ingesting it. Probably not harmful, but I doubt
they liked the effect.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- "Now you're playing with POWER!"
-------------------------------------------
2:53 a.m.
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
What? Their skin turned blue?
Peace... Sridhar
Also as a
permanent germ killer (silver is rather unhealthy to a lot of
germs, while quite harmless to humans).
On surfaces, yes. But I've encountered people who picked up serious
permanent deposits from ingesting it. Probably not harmful, but I doubt
they liked the effect.
6:39 a.m.
Also as a permanent germ killer (silver is rather
unhealthy to a lot of
germs, while quite harmless to humans).
On surfaces, yes. But I've encountered people who picked up serious
permanent deposits from ingesting it. Probably not harmful, but I doubt
they liked the effect.
9:11 a.m.
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
What? Their skin turned blue?
As a matter of fact, yes.
Yeah, I figured as much. *the Smurfs' theme song plays*
Peace... Sridhar
Also as a
permanent germ killer (silver is rather unhealthy to a lot of
germs, while quite harmless to humans).
On surfaces, yes. But I've encountered people who picked up serious
permanent deposits from ingesting it. Probably not harmful, but I doubt
they liked the effect.
4:17 a.m.
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Philip Pemberton wrote:
and commercial uses) though the only use I could come
up with for gold
was the plating on edge connectors...
or anything else that needs to be inert
could think of for that. Didn't manage to think of
a single commercial
or industrial use for silver at all...
remember photographic film?
Then my thoughts moved towards "so what's the
point of the universe?".
must have been a helluva bus ride!
9:41 a.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
45 minutes stuck in traffic. If nothing else, it was a LONG bus ride.
(It normally takes about 20 minutes)
--
Phil.
classiccmp at philpem.me.uk
http://www.philpem.me.uk/
Then my
thoughts moved towards "so what's the point of the universe?".
must have been a helluva bus ride! 
12:39 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
Relay contacts, low resistance films, plating for high power RF tanks
and wave guides where surface corrosion is a problem.
Allison
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Philip Pemberton wrote:
Gold doped semiconductors like Schotkey diodes.
and commercial uses) though the only use I could
come up with for gold
was the plating on edge connectors...
or anything else that needs to be inert
could think of
for that. Didn't manage to think of a single commercial
or industrial use for silver at all...
remember photographic film?
7:42 p.m.
could think of for that. Didn't manage to think of
a single commercial
or industrial use for silver at all...
WQell, apart from silver-plated wires and silver-containing solders (both
the 'soft' solder usef for SMD assembly and the 'hard' silver solders
used for engineering), I routinely buy one of a number of procducts
coated with silver salts. After I've used said product, some of those
salts are reduced to metalic silver. I refer, of course, to photograhpic
film and paper.
-tony
17 Nov
17 Nov
10:36 p.m.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:01:11 -0500
From: curt at atarimuseum.com
To:
Subject: Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
There are only around 250 of them, they were hand built in Woz's garage,
mostly by Steve Woz and Jobs and only a few have surfaced over the years
making them rare and they have continued to go up in value over the
years as more and more publicly known auctions and sales have made
headlines on major site and the SJ Mercury Newspaper, so they fetch big
bucks.
Hi
While there may have been only 250 made, many where returned
to Apple in exchange for a Apple II. The number must be someplace
in the low tens.
At least it is a real one and not a known replica like that
previous scum bucket tried to pass off as a real one. I wish no one
had bought it, for any price. That guy was a lier and dishonest
from the start. He gave me a story that turned out to
be a
complete lie.
As was mentioned, the starting price is unlikely to get any takers.
Dwight
_________________________________________________________________
Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&a…
18 Nov
18 Nov
7:21 p.m.
Evan Koblentz wrote:
They're rare. They're the first product of a computer company that's
still going and that just about everybody has heard of.
Why will some people pay a ridiculous amount of money for a square inch
or so of paper with some ink on it? (known as a rare postage stamp, of
course). I think I'd rather have an Apple 1 :-)
And to get back on topic, why is a Sinclar ZX80 (which I don't own) worth
many times the value of an HP workstation (which is a much better
designed and built machine)?
To be honest, I don't care about the value of my machines. If I see
somethign that iterensts me and which I can afford, then I'll probably
buy it.
-tony
If the seller feels this unit is worth more than
the others, then he
should price it at a slight premium vs. the others, for example $30k vs.
$20-25k. However $50k is insane, especially in this economy.
Maybe someone can explain this to me - what the heck is the big deal about
Apple 1s? Obviously I'm in the crowd that just doesn't get it - but there's a
big crowd out there that *does* get it - whatever "it" is.
11:02 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
I'm not sure that on it's own makes much difference, though; there are plenty
of rare systems out that that probably survive in lower numbers than an A1...
Evan Koblentz
wrote:
They're rare. If the seller feels this unit is worth more than
the others, then he
should price it at a slight premium vs. the others, for example $30k vs.
$20-25k. However $50k is insane, especially in this economy.
Maybe someone can
explain this to me - what the heck is the big deal about
Apple 1s? Obviously I'm in the crowd that just doesn't get it - but there's a
big crowd out there that *does* get it - whatever "it" is. They're the first product of a computer company
that's
still going and that just about everybody has heard of.
Now *that* may well carry some weight. Personally I like quirky stuff that
very few folk have heard about, but I can understand how many want something
where there's a link to the modern era.
Why will some people pay a ridiculous amount of money
for a square inch
or so of paper with some ink on it? (known as a rare postage stamp, of
course). I think I'd rather have an Apple 1 :-)
Given that choice, so would I - but then the postage stamp thing makes no
sense to me, either ;)
And to get back on topic, why is a Sinclar ZX80 (which
I don't own) worth
many times the value of an HP workstation (which is a much better
designed and built machine)?
No idea. I like my ZX80 but I don't really understand its value (or want to
part with it - and of all my machines, it's probably the easiest to ship
around :-)
Or, to look at it another way, if an Apple 1 is worth $50k then surely a ZX80
should be worth at least $10k, or a MK14 even more etc. etc. and they're not.
I can understand the A1 being desirable - but $50k's worth of desirable just
seems totally crazy for something that was only a very small part of computing
history.
cheers
Jules
11:31 p.m.
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Jules Richardson wrote:
Or, to look at it another way, if an Apple 1 is worth
$50k then surely a ZX80
should be worth at least $10k, or a MK14 even more etc. etc. and they're not.
I can understand the A1 being desirable - but $50k's worth of desirable just
seems totally crazy for something that was only a very small part of computing
history.
Thanks to Cringely, and similar, public perception attributes a
disproportionate amount of computing history to the Apple 1.
Way too many people think that computing history consists in its entirety
of:
Apple 1
Apple ][
IBM PC
Macintosh
along with Wordstar, WordPervert, Word
(which of course was Cringely's personal history of computing experience)
How many "documentaries" never even mention S100, TRS80, Atari, Commodore,
Northstar, Proctology, KIM-1, Electric Pencil, Easy Writer, etc.
and mention CP/M only as an introduction to Bill Gates?
19 Nov
19 Nov
3:31 a.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
You're doing it too. You're only listing microcomputer advances.
8-)
Peace... Sridhar
Or, to look at
it another way, if an Apple 1 is worth $50k then surely a ZX80
should be worth at least $10k, or a MK14 even more etc. etc. and they're not.
I can understand the A1 being desirable - but $50k's worth of desirable just
seems totally crazy for something that was only a very small part of computing
history.
Thanks to Cringely, and similar, public perception attributes a
disproportionate amount of computing history to the Apple 1.
Way too many people think that computing history consists in its entirety
of:
Apple 1
Apple ][
IBM PC
Macintosh
along with Wordstar, WordPervert, Word
(which of course was Cringely's personal history of computing experience)
How many "documentaries" never even mention S100, TRS80, Atari, Commodore,
Northstar, Proctology, KIM-1, Electric Pencil, Easy Writer, etc.
and mention CP/M only as an introduction to Bill Gates?
9:30 p.m.
Way too many people think that computing history
consists in its entirety
of:
Apple 1
Apple ][
IBM PC
Macintosh
along with Wordstar, WordPervert, Word
(which of course was Cringely's personal history of computing experience)
How many "documentaries" never even mention S100, TRS80, Atari, Commodore,
Northstar, Proctology, KIM-1, Electric Pencil, Easy Writer, etc.
and mention CP/M only as an introduction to Bill Gates?
Isn't that a very biased list too? What about all the larger machines?
What about Xerox/3 Rivers? What about DEC and HP (I still think the 9830
doesn't get the attention it deserves). What about larger IBM machines?
What about non-US micros (Acorn, for example). And so on (No, I know I am
missing stuff out too).
-tony
10:51 p.m.
> Way too many people think that computing history
consists in its entirety
> of:
> Apple 1
> Apple ][
> IBM PC
> Macintosh
> along with Wordstar, WordPervert, Word
> (which of course was Cringely's personal history of computing experience)
> How many "documentaries" never even mention S100, TRS80, Atari,
Commodore,
> Northstar, Proctology, KIM-1, Electric Pencil, Easy Writer, etc.
> and mention CP/M only as an introduction to Bill Gates?
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Tony Duell wrote:
Isn't that a very biased list too? What about all
the larger machines?
What about Xerox/3 Rivers? What about DEC and HP (I still think the 9830
doesn't get the attention it deserves). What about larger IBM machines?
What about non-US micros (Acorn, for example). And so on (No, I know I am
missing stuff out too).
I was specifically listing machines that were VERY similar to the ones
that get covered, but never get mentioned by the "historians" of mass
media, rather than supplying a corrected list.
To be an APPROPRIATE sampling of computing history, DEC minis, IBM
mainframes, need to be included, as well as acknowledging the machines
from all of the seven dwarves, the era of EAM (my first
computing work was
alphabetizing using an 084 counting sorter), the fundamental
relationships
between personal computers, timesharing, "client/server", etc.
I am NOT going to attempt to create an exhaustive, nor thorough, list so
assume that lack of inclusion of your favorites is not intended to
diminish their importance. Each of us KNOWS what the most important and
significant machine was.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
11:07 p.m.
I suppose that would be true if such books/documentaries were covering the history of
computing. At some point you have to define the scope of your history though. For the case
of the history of the personal computer however, it is probably sufficient to have a
limited overview of computing prior to the emergence of the PC, and cover the reasons for
such emergence and/or contrast with prior computers.
If I were writing a book on the personal computer, I would probably start with the kit
computers (S100 machines, KIM1, Apple I, etc.) of the 70's, with a cursory look at the
minis/mainframe/timesharing era.
________________________________
From: Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com>
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thu, November 19, 2009 4:51:31 PM
Subject: Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
> Way too many people think that computing history
consists in its entirety
> of:
> Apple 1
> Apple ][
> IBM PC
> Macintosh
> along with Wordstar, WordPervert, Word
> (which of course was Cringely's personal history of computing experience)
> How many "documentaries" never even mention S100, TRS80, Atari,
Commodore,
> Northstar, Proctology, KIM-1, Electric Pencil, Easy Writer, etc.
> and mention CP/M only as an introduction to Bill Gates?
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Tony Duell wrote:
Isn't that a very biased list too? What about all
the larger machines?
What about Xerox/3 Rivers? What about DEC and HP (I still think the 9830
doesn't get the attention it deserves). What about larger IBM machines?
What about non-US micros (Acorn, for example). And so on (No, I know I am
missing stuff out too).
I was specifically listing machines that were VERY similar to the ones
that get covered, but never get mentioned by the "historians" of mass
media, rather than supplying a corrected list.
To be an APPROPRIATE sampling of computing history, DEC minis, IBM
mainframes, need to be included, as well as acknowledging the machines
from all of the seven dwarves, the era of EAM (my first
computing work was
alphabetizing using an 084 counting sorter), the fundamental
relationships
between personal computers, timesharing, "client/server", etc.
I am NOT going to attempt to create an exhaustive, nor thorough, list so
assume that lack of inclusion of your favorites is not intended to
diminish their importance. Each of us KNOWS what the most important and
significant machine was.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
11:08 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
I am NOT going to attempt to create an exhaustive, nor
thorough, list so
assume that lack of inclusion of your favorites is not intended to
diminish their importance. Each of us KNOWS what the most important and
significant machine was.
The one I am sending email on is. :)
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
20 Nov
20 Nov
12:59 a.m.
From: Fred Cisin
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 2:52 PM
>> How many "documentaries" never even
mention S100, TRS80, Atari, Commodore,
>> Northstar, Proctology, KIM-1, Electric Pencil, Easy Writer, etc.
>> and mention CP/M only as an introduction to Bill Gates?
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Tony Duell wrote:
> Isn't that a very biased list too? What about
all the larger machines?
To be an APPROPRIATE sampling of computing history,
DEC minis, IBM
mainframes, need to be included, as well as acknowledging the machines
from all of the seven dwarves, the era of EAM (my first computing work was
alphabetizing using an 084 counting sorter), the fundamental relationships
between personal computers, timesharing, "client/server", etc.
That last clause is very interesting: That is where we have concentrated our
efforts. We are most interested in the development of interactive computing,
both single-user (usually minis) and timeshared systems (usually mainframes,
but not always), into the personal computing model that grew out of the Alto
into the microcomputers of the later 70s and the 80s. Our general time period
is the 1960s through the 1980s.
We are also interested in the other side of the coin, the batch processing big
iron that many people think of as computing in that era, but every museum has
to have a focus. We think that there are others who have a better handle on
what is required to show off EAM and tube-based computers, for example, so we
would rather cooperate with them than compete.
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at livingcomputermuseum.org
(206) 342-2239
(206) 465-2916 cell
http://www.pdpplanet.org/
http://www.livingcomputermuseum.org/
1:42 a.m.
diminish their importance. Each of us KNOWS what the
most important and
significant machine was.
Which of course is the Commodore 64. :D
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
2:16 p.m.
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Fred Cisin wrote:
It's entirely possible. Tramiel was (and probably still is) a pretty
crafty dude. The Vic-20 was also the first computer I ever earned.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
> diminish
their importance. Each of us KNOWS what the most important and
> significant machine was.
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Gene Buckle wrote:
Which of course is the Commodore 64. :D
Would it have come about without the Vic-20?
10:27 p.m.
Isn't that
a very biased list too? What about all the larger machines?
What about Xerox/3 Rivers? What about DEC and HP (I still think the 9830
doesn't get the attention it deserves). What about larger IBM machines?
What about non-US micros (Acorn, for example). And so on (No, I know I am
missing stuff out too).
I was specifically listing machines that were VERY similar to the ones
that get covered, but never get mentioned by the "historians" of mass
media, rather than supplying a corrected list. I am NOT going to attempt to create an exhaustive, nor
thorough, list so
assume that lack of inclusion of your favorites is not intended to
diminish their importance. Each of us KNOWS what the most important and
significant machine was.
So I? I am not sure I do....
-tony
21 Nov
21 Nov
1:13 a.m.
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Tony Duell wrote:
I specifically mentioned the HP9830 becasue it _is_
IMHO similar to many
early micros. A rough spec :
-- All-in-one desktop machine, just plug into the mains and go
-- Built-in QWERTY keyboard, 1-line (upper case) alphanumeic display and
digital cassette drive
-- Built-in ROM BASIC.. OK, the built-in BASIC was pretty minimal, there
weren't even stirng variables, for example, but it was still BASIC. You
turned on the machine and started programming
-- Plug-in ROM modules to extend the BASIC (string variables/operations,
matris operations, plotter cotnrol, extended I/O are the ones I have in
my machine)
-- 16-bit bit-serial proecessor
-- 2K words to 8K words of RAM (IIRC). A word is 16 bits.
-- Built-in interface to a thermal 80-column printer
-- And slots for 4 more interface modules to intruments, paper tape,
other printers, modem, etc. I have the 8-bit parallel I/O, BCD input (to
link to DVMs, etc), serial printer (half-duplex RS232), modem (bit-banged
RS232, advanced modem (a hardware RS232 interface handling async and sync
modes) and another parallel printer interface. There wrre many others.
And that was in early 1973. OK, it was called a 'calculator' but IMHO
that was for marketting rasons. It's a computer, surely. And it is, IMHO,
a reasonable candidate for 'first personal computer'
Although you did just make a reasonably good case for the HP9830 :-)
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
I am NOT going to attempt to create an
exhaustive, nor thorough, list so
assume that lack of inclusion of your favorites is not intended to
diminish their importance. Each of us KNOWS what the most important and
significant machine was.
So I? I am not sure I do....
7:28 p.m.
diminish their importance. Each of us KNOWS what the
most important and
significant machine was.
So I? I am not sure I do....
19 Nov
19 Nov
6:02 a.m.
----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0600
From: jules.richardson99 at gmail.com
To:
Subject: Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
Tony Duell wrote:
I'm not sure that on it's own makes much difference, though; there are plenty
of rare systems out that that probably survive in lower numbers than an A1...
Hi
A fellow on the VCForum found a BIT 483. Now that is
at least as rare as the A1. I have a Nicolet 1080 that I only know
of 5 total. There may be more but they are not likely in
another collectors hands without them contacting me or Sellam.
Dwight
_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more.
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727::T:WL…
Evan
Koblentz wrote:
They're rare. If the seller feels this unit is worth more than
the others, then he
should price it at a slight premium vs. the others, for example $30k vs.
$20-25k. However $50k is insane, especially in this economy.
Maybe someone can
explain this to me - what the heck is the big deal about
Apple 1s? Obviously I'm in the crowd that just doesn't get it - but there's
a
big crowd out there that *does* get it - whatever "it" is.
6:40 a.m.
New subject: BIT 483 / was Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
A fellow on the VCForum found a BIT 483. Now that is
at least as rare as the A1. I have a Nicolet 1080 that I only know
of 5 total. There may be more but they are not likely in
another collectors hands without them contacting me or Sellam.
I was going to ask about the BIT 483, but I see you and Chuck are already on
top of it:
http://www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum/showthread.php?p=120353
I love hearing about these little-known machines. Wish there was picture of the
internals. Anybody know what sort of market these things found?, or more about
the company origins/destiny?
20 Nov
20 Nov
3:54 p.m.
New subject: BIT 483 / was Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
Brent Hilpert wrote:
That link is quite interesting, especially the pictures. From the way
the front panel is laid out, I would assume values are stated in octal
rather than hex. The bits on the panel seem to have a 2-3-3 pattern so
hex FF would be thought of as octal 377. This appears to be true of the
2 address bytes as well. I think this means that for example address
hex FFFF would be represented as 377,377. That would take some real
mental gymnastics to deal with if one was entering a short program or
debugging manually. Maybe you can stay under 000,377 for short programs
and avoid that problem. Not having read any of the docs I don't know if
that is possible.
My old Microdata 820 has a 4-4-4-4 front panel pattern which is rather
easier to deal with I think. Of course you realize this discussion has
me wanting to drag it out of the garage and get it going again. :)
Later,
Charlie C.
A fellow on
the VCForum found a BIT 483. Now that is
at least as rare as the A1. I have a Nicolet 1080 that I only know
of 5 total. There may be more but they are not likely in
another collectors hands without them contacting me or Sellam.
I was going to ask about the BIT 483, but I see you and Chuck are already on
top of it:
http://www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum/showthread.php?p=120353
I love hearing about these little-known machines. Wish there was picture of the
internals. Anybody know what sort of market these things found?, or more about
the company origins/destiny?
21 Nov
21 Nov
4:22 p.m.
New subject: BIT 483 / was Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:54:04 -0600
From: csquared3 at tx.rr.com
To:
Subject: Re: BIT 483 / was Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
Brent Hilpert wrote:
That link is quite interesting, especially the pictures. From the way
the front panel is laid out, I would assume values are stated in octal
rather than hex. The bits on the panel seem to have a 2-3-3 pattern so
hex FF would be thought of as octal 377. This appears to be true of the
2 address bytes as well. I think this means that for example address
hex FFFF would be represented as 377,377. That would take some real
mental gymnastics to deal with if one was entering a short program or
debugging manually. Maybe you can stay under 000,377 for short programs
and avoid that problem. Not having read any of the docs I don't know if
that is possible.
My old Microdata 820 has a 4-4-4-4 front panel pattern which is rather
easier to deal with I think. Of course you realize this discussion has
me wanting to drag it out of the garage and get it going again. :)
Later,
Charlie C.
Hi
The splitting of the octal address is called split octal.
Heathkit did this on there H8/89. Of course it makes more
sense on a 8 bit processor. It even makes sense to use
octal for the 8080 type of instruction codes.
On the BIT 483, it had some sense because of what they
call page size. It was only 256 bytes.
As I think Chuck mentioned, this limited the size of
the variable length arithmatic. The only time while
programming one uses an address greater than 377o is
indirect addressing. This means that it makes sense
to split it rather than have a complete full octal
address.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: I wanted simpler, now it's simpler. I'm a rock star.
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?h=myidea?ocid=PID24…
A fellow
on the VCForum found a BIT 483. Now that is
at least as rare as the A1. I have a Nicolet 1080 that I only know
of 5 total. There may be more but they are not likely in
another collectors hands without them contacting me or Sellam.
I was going to ask about the BIT 483, but I see you and Chuck are already on
top of it:
http://www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum/showthread.php?p=120353
I love hearing about these little-known machines. Wish there was picture of the
internals. Anybody know what sort of market these things found?, or more about
the company origins/destiny?
5:59 p.m.
New subject: BIT 483 / was Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
On 20 Nov 2009 at 9:54, CSquared wrote:
My old Microdata 820 has a 4-4-4-4 front panel pattern
which is rather
easier to deal with I think. Of course you realize this discussion
has me wanting to drag it out of the garage and get it going again. :)
The switches on the MITS Altair are grouped in threes; the IMSAI
allowed one to (by virtue of paddle colors) group in 3 or 4 (or 2).
I simply ignored the grouping on the MITS and thought in hex anyway.
It would have been much more difficult had the display on the system
been octal via 7-segment displays.
(I know that 8080 instructions, especially register moves, lend
themselves to octal representation, but that was less important to
me).
--Chuck
24 Nov
24 Nov
3:42 a.m.
New subject: BIT 483 / was Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 20 Nov 2009 at 9:54, CSquared wrote:
I suppose it is all about what one becomes familiar with. I always
wanted but could never seem to afford one of the Altairs, IMSAI's,
Cromemco's etc. and had to be content with the stuff at work. Besides
the Microdata, that consisted of 6800's, then 6809's (what a great chip
IMHO) with no switches or blinkey lights at all - just a debugger
running from a terminal. Then there were Datacraft/Harris 6024's and
SDS 910's which had both switches and blinkey lights but were 24 bit
word length machines with everything in octal and in groupings of 3 bits
per group. I think it would have been tough thinking in hex for those.
Characters for the SDS were only 6 bits so one could pack 4 per word.
Since we only had 4K or 8K words in the 910, packing characters that
way was fairly important. Hmm, lets see, there was also a bit of Z80
and lots of 8086 but none of those devices had a really fun control
panel either. I do seem to recall from the Z80 days noticing that some
of the instruction coding seemed more natural in octal than hex which
fits with your thoughts about the 8080.
Later,
Charlie C.
My old Microdata 820 has a 4-4-4-4 front panel
pattern which is rather
easier to deal with I think. Of course you realize this discussion
has me wanting to drag it out of the garage and get it going again. :)
The switches on the MITS Altair are grouped in threes; the IMSAI
allowed one to (by virtue of paddle colors) group in 3 or 4 (or 2).
I simply ignored the grouping on the MITS and thought in hex anyway.
It would have been much more difficult had the display on the system
been octal via 7-segment displays.
(I know that 8080 instructions, especially register moves, lend
themselves to octal representation, but that was less important to
me).
--Chuck
5:53 p.m.
New subject: BIT 483 / was Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
On 23 Nov 2009 at 21:42, CSquared wrote:
I suppose it is all about what one becomes familiar
with.
At various times in my life, I've worked with systems whose
documentation radix was variously decimal, octal and hex (and octal
and hex at the same time in the same company). Talking about 60 bit
words divided into 15-bit parcels makes sense in octal; 64-bit words
make plenty of sense in hexidecimal, particularly if they're 8-bit
byte oriented.
It's kind of like musical notation--if you learn to read all clefs
and can handle common transpositions without actively thinking about
it, then there are many fewer surprises in store.
--Chuck
21 Nov
21 Nov
6:57 p.m.
New subject: BIT 483 / was Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
That link is quite interesting, especially the
pictures. From the way
the front panel is laid out, I would assume values are stated in octal
rather than hex. The bits on the panel seem to have a 2-3-3 pattern so
hex FF would be thought of as octal 377. This appears to be true of the
2 address bytes as well. I think this means that for example address
hex FFFF would be represented as 377,377. That would take some real
That ecame failry common on early 8-bit microprocessor developement
systems. If you had to load the address as 2 separae bytes it was
actually a lot easier to handle each of them separately as an octal
number from 0-377.
I mentioned the HP9830 in another message. The microcode on that machine
is 256 words long, oviously with an 8 bit address. But owing the the
hardware design of the processor, you consider it as 2 separate nybbles
(belice-it-or-not, one of the 4-bit fields in the microode word that is
used to determine the next address [1] also selects the branch
condition). Anyway, the patents for this series of machines, which
contain a tremendous amount of information about them, give those address
as _4 digit_ octal numbers. Each nybble is represented by a number in the
range 0-17 (octal). So, for example hex E3 becomes 1603. It's not hard to
get used to...
[1] Being an strange HP machine, the fields that are used to determine
the next address don't simply contain the next address. Rather, they tell
the microocde program counter which bits to change to get the new address
(effectively, the next address fields are XORed with the current address
to get the next one. Yes I do work on these machines at this sort of level.
-tony
19 Nov
19 Nov
9:25 p.m.
I'm not sure that on it's own makes much
difference, though; there are plenty
of rare systems out that that probably survive in lower numbers than an A1...
There certainly are. I suspect I have one or two such machines myself
They're the first product of a computer
company that's
still going and that just about everybody has heard of.
Now *that* may well carry some weight. Personally I like quirky stuff that
very few folk have heard about, but I can understand how many want something
where there's a link to the modern era.
> Why will some people pay a ridiculous amount of money for a square inch
> or so of paper with some ink on it? (known as a rare postage stamp, of
> course). I think I'd rather have an Apple 1 :-)
And I'd certainly prefer an Apple 1 to a couple of microwaved Macs that
claim to be 'art'. At least the Apple 1 would give me something to stick
a logic analyser on...
Given that choice, so would I - but then the postage stamp thing makes no
sense to me, either ;)
I'll bet there are many, many, people who don't get why we (I assume
we're all 'guilty' of this) will actively look for some ancient computer
that nobody has heard of, then drive <mumble> miles to collect it, spend
$diety knows how long figuring out what's wrong with it, spend even more
time and money finding ICs that haven't been made for ages, and spend yet
mroe time repairing it. And in the end a modern PC from PC World or
wherever would be cheaper and faster (although to be fair, probably less
reliabled ...)
But then I don;'t get why other people enjoy their hobbies in a lot of
cases. And I don';t ahve to. THey're welcome to do what they enjoy,
provided they don't try to stop me repairing old HP desktops or whatver.
And to get back on topic, why is a Sinclar ZX80
(which I don't own) worth
many times the value of an HP workstation (which is a much better
designed and built machine)?
No idea. I like my ZX80 but I don't really understand its value (or want to part with it - and of all my machines, it's
probably the easiest to ship
around :-)
By all acounts the plastic case is pretty fragile (I've handled one
once...). I think the sort of machines I work on (old minis, HPs, etc)
would stand up to shipping a lot better, although they are heavier, of
course. Byt my HP handheld computers are solid and easy to carry...
Or, to look at it another way, if an Apple 1 is worth
$50k then surely a ZX80
should be worth at least $10k, or a MK14 even more etc. etc. and they're not.
I acutally have an MK14, I have no idea what it's worth. I must get round
to repairing it (the unheatsinked -- thanks Sinclair! -- 7805 went dead
short and wiped out many of the chips. Fortuanely the monitor ROMs
survived, and I do have a replacement SC/MP somehwere). It was my first
computer, which means it has some sentimental value to me, but that's
about the only reason I keep it. The hardware design is not pleasant
(It's pretty obvious from the circuit diagram that the display latches
should be 74175s, but some idiot oredered 74157s by misatake and they
were kludged in (a mux with one input tied to the output will make a
transparent latch -- most of the time)
I can understand the A1 being desirable - but
$50k's worth of desirable just
seems totally crazy for something that was only a very small part of computing
history.
I agree with you. If I had $50k spare, I would not buy an Apple 1. But
clearly some people want one, and who am I to judge them?
-tony
11:01 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
I suspect a lot of us do...
Personally, I don't care whether the company is one that 'people have
heard of' or not. I am interested in good designs. I don't consider the
Apple 1 to be in that cantegory....
I think it has its place, personally I'm not disputing that - I'm just trying
to get my head around where this business of it being worth quite so much
hails from.
Each to his own. From what I've heard it is not the sort of design
(either electroncially or mechancially) that I would like.
I like it because it's such utter garbage. That appeals, somehow. It it were
as bad as it is *and* were common, I wouldn't like it so much.
Yes, I was thinking in terms of money - it's not big and not heavy. It'd
certainly need some serious packaging, though.
Yes, another not-very-good design, although I'd still quite like one. I used
to work for a guy who had one in his warehouse, sitting on a shelf, and I kind
of regret not seeing if he'd sell it. I think it was his first machine though
and he kept it more for sentimental reasons, so I suspect he wouldn't have
passed it on.
Yes, there is that. The hoo-hah they attract just seems so out of proportion
given what they are, though.
cheers
J.
I'm not
sure that on it's own makes much difference, though; there are plenty
of rare systems out that that probably survive in lower numbers than an A1...
There certainly are. I suspect I have one or two such machines myself They're the first product of a computer company
that's
still going and that just about everybody has heard of.
Now *that* may well carry
some weight. Personally I like quirky stuff that
very few folk have heard about, but I can understand how many want something
where there's a link to the modern era. And to get back on topic, why is a Sinclar ZX80 (which
I don't own) worth
many times the value of an HP workstation (which is a much better
designed and built machine)?
No idea. I like my ZX80 but I don't really
understand its value (or want to part with it -
and of all my machines, it's probably the easiest to ship
around :-)
By all acounts the plastic case is pretty fragile (I've handled one
once...). I think the sort of machines I work on (old minis, HPs, etc)
would stand up to shipping a lot better, although they are heavier, of
course. Byt my HP handheld computers are solid and easy to carry... Or, to look at
it another way, if an Apple 1 is worth $50k then surely a ZX80
should be worth at least $10k, or a MK14 even more etc. etc. and they're not.
I acutally have an MK14, I have no idea what it's worth. I must get round
to repairing it (the unheatsinked -- thanks Sinclair! -- 7805 went dead
short and wiped out many of the chips. Fortuanely the monitor ROMs
survived, and I do have a replacement SC/MP somehwere). It was my first
computer, which means it has some sentimental value to me, but that's
about the only reason I keep it. The hardware design is not pleasant
(It's pretty obvious from the circuit diagram that the display latches
should be 74175s, but some idiot oredered 74157s by misatake and they
were kludged in (a mux with one input tied to the output will make a
transparent latch -- most of the time) I can
understand the A1 being desirable - but $50k's worth of desirable just
seems totally crazy for something that was only a very small part of computing
history.
I agree with you. If I had $50k spare, I would not buy an Apple 1. But
clearly some people want one, and who am I to judge them?
20 Nov
20 Nov
10:35 p.m.
I think it has its place, personally I'm not
disputing that - I'm just trying
Oh, it certainly has a place in the history of computing. I can't
disagree with that. It doesn;'t mean I have to want one :-)
to get my head around where this business of it being
worth quite so much
hails from.
It's 'worth' that amount of money because somebody will pay that for it.
That's the only reason.
I've seen reports of antique clocks selling for a lot more than that
(horology is another of my interests). Yes, they are beautiful pieces of
machineru, and I'd love one. But realisitcally, a 5 quid quartx clock is
going to be a much better timekeeper. So why are the antiques so
valuable? Beacuse somebody will pay that.
And I've already mentioned postage stamps. And there must be many other
'collectables'
I seem to rememebr you can buy a replica Apple 1 for considerably less
money (although still a significant sum). Personally, I'd be as happy
with that as with an origianl, becuase it does the same thingsi n the
same way, I can connect my 'scope or logic analyser to it and see the
same waveforms, and so on. Of course I do accept an original has more
'collector cvalue' and would be really unhappy if I'd paid for an
original and ended up witha copy.
I acutally
have an MK14, I have no idea what it's worth. I must get round
to repairing it (the unheatsinked -- thanks Sinclair! -- 7805 went dead
short and wiped out many of the chips. Fortuanely the monitor ROMs
survived, and I do have a replacement SC/MP somehwere). It was my first
computer, which means it has some sentimental value to me, but that's
about the only reason I keep it. The hardware design is not pleasant
(It's pretty obvious from the circuit diagram that the display latches
should be 74175s, but some idiot oredered 74157s by misatake and they
were kludged in (a mux with one input tied to the output will make a
transparent latch -- most of the time)
Yes, another not-very-good design, although I'd still quite like one. I used 
19 Nov
19 Nov
10:18 a.m.
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Tony Duell wrote:
And to get back on topic, why is a Sinclar ZX80 (which
I don't own) worth
many times the value of an HP workstation (which is a much better
designed and built machine)?
The cost of a machine does not necessarily relate to its value.
I'd say a ZX80 or an Apple-I don't have a value, but they cost much.
On the other hand, we have the only two working LGP-30s on earth (only 450
were ever built), and we will probably restore a third one some time in
future. They all didn't cost anything (there is just no price and market),
but their value is very high (first generation tube computer with drum
memory). And there's the fun factor, I can't imagine having fun with an
Apple-I... playing the original Blackjack by Mel Kaye is something
completely different.
Christian
3:01 p.m.
Christian Corti wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Tony Duell wrote:
Yes, and on that note there are probably *many* systems out there that survive
in numbers of five or less, and some of those doubtless did something
different or unusual and were somehow innovative in their own way - yet their
"cost" is essentially scrap value. That's probably a good thing for us
collectors, but doesn't really explain why someone wants to put $50k down on
an A1.
I'm still left kind of thinking it's a small percentage for the system itself
and a large percentage for the name of the company that built it, and I
suppose I've never been one to 'get' why a brand is important, so I'm
probably
doomed to never make any sense of this :-)
And to get back on topic, why is a Sinclar ZX80
(which I don't own) worth
many times the value of an HP workstation (which is a much better
designed and built machine)?
The cost of a machine does not necessarily relate to its value.
I'd say a ZX80 or an Apple-I don't have a value, but they cost much.
On the other hand, we have the only two working LGP-30s on earth (only
450 were ever built) I can't imagine having fun with an Apple-I...
I think I'd enjoy messing around with it - but $50k's worth of messing around?
Not a chance. I suppose it'd be interesting to know whether the buyer of this
one ever uses it, or if it's treated just as an artifact to hold/gain value or
hang on the wall (and let's face it, if it were used it's unlikely to turn
into a big fireball when it does eventually fail - may as well use the darn
thing and only hang it on the wall once it can no longer be fixed).
cheers
Jules
4:55 p.m.
I think if I had $50k just lying around, a fast car would do it for me... or it would go a
long way toward a really nice sailboat. :)
________________________________
From: Jules Richardson <jules.richardson99 at gmail.com>
To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thu, November 19, 2009 9:01:04 AM
Subject: Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
Christian Corti wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Tony Duell wrote:
Yes, and on that note there are probably *many* systems out there that survive in numbers
of five or less, and some of those doubtless did something different or unusual and were
somehow innovative in their own way - yet their "cost" is essentially scrap
value. That's probably a good thing for us collectors, but doesn't really explain
why someone wants to put $50k down on an A1.
I'm still left kind of thinking it's a small percentage for the system itself and
a large percentage for the name of the company that built it, and I suppose I've never
been one to 'get' why a brand is important, so I'm probably doomed to never
make any sense of this :-)
And to get back on topic, why is a Sinclar ZX80
(which I don't own) worth
many times the value of an HP workstation (which is a much better
designed and built machine)?
The cost of a machine does not necessarily relate to its value.
I'd say a ZX80 or an Apple-I don't have a value, but they cost much.
On the other hand, we have the only two working LGP-30s on earth (only 450 were ever
built) I can't imagine having fun with an Apple-I...
I think I'd enjoy messing around with it - but $50k's worth of messing around? Not
a chance. I suppose it'd be interesting to know whether the buyer of this one ever
uses it, or if it's treated just as an artifact to hold/gain value or hang on the wall
(and let's face it, if it were used it's unlikely to turn into a big fireball when
it does eventually fail - may as well use the darn thing and only hang it on the wall once
it can no longer be fixed).
cheers
Jules
7:43 p.m.
New subject: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay - diy
geoffrey oltmans wrote:
I think if I had $50k just lying around, a fast car
would do it for
me... or it would go a long way toward a really nice sailboat. :)
Cement is cheap ... build your boat from that ... not fast but you can
crush the other boats as you ram through them. :)
7:50 p.m.
New subject: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay - diy
On Nov 19, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Ben wrote:
Cement is cheap up there? It sure isn't down here.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
I think if I
had $50k just lying around, a fast car would do it for
me... or it would go a long way toward a really nice sailboat. :)
Cement is cheap ... build your boat from that ... not fast but you
can crush the other boats as you ram through them. :)
7:52 p.m.
New subject: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay - diy
Dave McGuire wrote:
Cement is cheap up there? It sure isn't down here.
It's a lot cheaper here than it is by you. It's hard to run a rock
quarry where you are. The water table is very high. Here we have
rolling hills. Makes it easier.
Peace... Sridhar
I think if I had $50k just lying around, a fast car
would do it for
me... or it would go a long way toward a really nice sailboat. :)
Cement is cheap ... build your boat from that ... not fast but you can
crush the other boats as you ram through them. :)
7:57 p.m.
New subject: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay - diy
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Nov 19, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Ben wrote:
Cement is cheap up there? It sure isn't down here.
Well relative to other boat building materials. Iron,wood or fiberglass come
to mind. This is a DIY project, I don't see many cement trucks needed
for a small boat. The real problem is how big you can make your mold.
I suspect there is only hand full of people who have made a boat this
way at home.
I think
if I had $50k just lying around, a fast car would do it for
me... or it would go a long way toward a really nice sailboat. :)
Cement is cheap ... build your boat from that ... not fast but you can
crush the other boats as you ram through them. :) -Dave
7:52 p.m.
New subject: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay - diy
And with the additional moneys, I could buy.... ;)
________________________________
From: Ben <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca>
To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thu, November 19, 2009 1:43:35 PM
Subject: Re: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay - diy
geoffrey oltmans wrote:
I think if I had $50k just lying around, a fast car
would do it for
me... or it would go a long way toward a really nice sailboat. :)
Cement is cheap ... build your boat from that ... not fast but you can crush the other
boats as you ram through them. :)
17 Nov
17 Nov
5:35 p.m.
On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Curt @ Atari Museum wrote:
Question - I've never seen the bottom of an Apple
1 - are those jumper wires original "fix" wires to the board or did someone do
some repair work on the board?
It looks like a mod. Based upon what's wired up, my guess would be somebody had some
custom external interface for something (looks like CPU I/O and interrupt lines and power)
and used a DIP socket for convenience. Very common use for the breadboarding area.
That seems to be the only thing that would reduce it's "collector" value.
But, that could be a plus if the mod is well documented.
5:43 p.m.
Quoting "Curt @ Atari Museum" <curt at atarimuseum.com>:
Despite the crazy high price - I must say I am very
impressed with
the original box, even the original sales receipt, now THAT is a
nice collectable, I wish the seller and possible buyer good luck.
Question - I've never seen the bottom of an Apple 1 - are those
jumper wires original "fix" wires to the board or did someone do
some repair work on the board?
If you read the Q&A to the seller near the bottom of the auction he
answers this one, the way I read it, it's an after market thing.....
Cheers.
Phill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
20 Nov
20 Nov
12:56 a.m.
On 11/17/09 12:17 PM, "Curt @ Atari Museum" <curt at atarimuseum.com>
wrote:
Despite the crazy high price - I must say I am very
impressed with the
original box, even the original sales receipt, now THAT is a nice
collectable, I wish the seller and possible buyer good luck.
Question - I've never seen the bottom of an Apple 1 - are those jumper
wires original "fix" wires to the board or did someone do some repair
work on the board?
Curt
Evan Koblentz wrote:
> 320447681957
>
> ... Speaking of crazy prices ...
>
Out of curiosity, the listing mentions that "(btw, When Steve Wozniak saw
this unit he told me that the first batches of Apple 1's used a brand of
chip they later replaced? because they blew out easily.? He said those chips
were on this unit, which is probably why the unit didn't boot in the
mid-80s.)"
Anyone know what's this is about? I also didn't notice anything that says it
actually works. If fact, the above implies that it doesn't.
Rich
--
Rich Cini
Collector of Classic Computers
Build Master and lead engineer, Altair32 Emulator
http://www.altair32.com
http://www.classiccmp.org/cini
17 Nov
17 Nov
5:51 p.m.
On 17 Nov 2009 at 11:53, Evan Koblentz wrote:
... Speaking of crazy prices ...
I've noticed a similar trend on Craigslist. An Atari 800XL offered
for $250 "first come, first served". 70's era solid-state stereo
receivers for $300. Pentium 3 desktops for $150; Dell CRT VGA
monitors for $50.
This is the sort of stuff that used to appear on Freecycle or be left
at the curbside. It smells a bit of desperation.
--Chuck
6:39 p.m.
Well, this is certainly better then the asshole who blow-torched a Mac
and calls it "art" and wants $50K for it.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 17 Nov 2009 at 11:53, Evan Koblentz wrote:
... Speaking of crazy prices ...
I've noticed a similar trend on Craigslist. An Atari 800XL offered
for $250 "first come, first served". 70's era solid-state stereo
receivers for $300. Pentium 3 desktops for $150; Dell CRT VGA
monitors for $50.
This is the sort of stuff that used to appear on Freecycle or be left
at the curbside. It smells a bit of desperation.
--Chuck
7 p.m.
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, William Donzelli wrote:
Chris Sullivan and I were looking at something a while ago which I
described as "Dada". His reply was "That's not Dada. That's
doo-doo.".
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Well, this is
certainly better then the asshole who blow-torched a Mac and
calls it "art" and wants $50K for it.
Wiki "Dada".
7:57 p.m.
Doo-Doo sums it up much more accurately.
David Griffith wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, William Donzelli wrote:
Chris Sullivan and I were looking at something a while ago which I
described as "Dada". His reply was "That's not Dada. That's
doo-doo.".
Well,
this is certainly better then the asshole who blow-torched a
Mac and
calls it "art" and wants $50K for it.
Wiki "Dada". 
7:19 p.m.
...and shipping is only $3,092.27 UPS Next Day Air!
--- On Tue, 11/17/09, Evan Koblentz <evan at snarc.net> wrote:
From: Evan Koblentz <evan at snarc.net>
Subject: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
To: "On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 8:53 AM
320447681957
... Speaking of crazy prices ...
7:42 p.m.
That may be Ebay's fault, unless the guy put in shipping costs. Their
shipping cost calculator is notorious for coming up with bad estimates.
Maybe he put in armed escort by air for the cost...
Jim
steven stengel wrote:
...and shipping is only $3,092.27 UPS Next Day Air!
--- On Tue, 11/17/09, Evan Koblentz <evan at snarc.net> wrote:
From: Evan Koblentz <evan at snarc.net>
Subject: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
To: "On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 8:53 AM
320447681957
... Speaking of crazy prices ...
18 Nov
18 Nov
11:21 p.m.
Nope, he specifically stated in the auction that shipping was 3k
On 11/17/09 11:42 AM, "jim s" <jws at jwsss.com> wrote:
That may be Ebay's fault, unless the guy put in
shipping costs. Their
shipping cost calculator is notorious for coming up with bad estimates.
Maybe he put in armed escort by air for the cost...
Jim
steven stengel wrote:
...and shipping is only $3,092.27 UPS Next Day
Air!
--- On Tue, 11/17/09, Evan Koblentz <evan at snarc.net> wrote:
From: Evan Koblentz <evan at snarc.net>
Subject: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
To: "On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 8:53 AM
320447681957
... Speaking of crazy prices ...
11:55 p.m.
On 18 Nov 2009 at 15:21, Geoffrey Reed wrote:
Nope, he specifically stated in the auction that
shipping was 3k
Scroll down and you'll see that $3,000 is essentially a "handling"
fee because he doesn't want to ship it. (IOW, "Cross my palm with
silver and I'll ship it even though I don't want to...")
--Chuck
17 Nov
17 Nov
7:57 p.m.
What a bargain !!! Put me down for 2 of them! ;-)
steven stengel wrote:
...and shipping is only $3,092.27 UPS Next Day Air!
--- On Tue, 11/17/09, Evan Koblentz <evan at snarc.net> wrote:
From: Evan Koblentz <evan at snarc.net>
Subject: Non-fake Apple 1 on ebay
To: "On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 8:53 AM
320447681957
... Speaking of crazy prices ...
5609
days inactive
5616
days old
149 comments
41 participants
participants (41)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
afra＠aurigae.demon.co.uk -
ajp166＠verizon.net -
als＠thangorodrim.de -
arcarlini＠iee.org -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
brain＠jbrain.com -
brianlanning＠gmail.com -
cc＠informatik.uni-stuttgart.de -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
classiccmp＠philpem.me.uk -
csquared3＠tx.rr.com -
curt＠atarimuseum.com -
derschjo＠mail.msu.edu -
dgriffi＠cs.csubak.edu -
dkelvey＠hotmail.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
evan＠snarc.net -
feedle＠feedle.net -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
geoffr＠zipcon.net -
hilpert＠cs.ubc.ca -
jdr_use＠bluewin.ch -
joachim.thiemann＠gmail.com -
jules.richardson99＠gmail.com -
jws＠jwsss.com -
leolists＠seidkr.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
oltmansg＠bellsouth.net -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
pu1bzz.listas＠gmail.com -
ragooman＠comcast.net -
rcini＠optonline.net -
RichA＠vulcan.com -
sethm＠loomcom.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
tosteve＠yahoo.com -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com