29 Oct
2006
29 Oct
'06
10:37 a.m.
On 10/29/06, Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
:-)
I suppose my Acorn System One is probably my smallest
system - two Eurocards,
about 100 x 160 x 30mm in size, complete with built-in keypad, display, tape,
and expansion interfaces.
My Sinclair ZX81 is probably next - but of course lacks a display so needs a
TV in order to really be useful...
cheers
Jules
Would my Microchip PIC18F1320s count? They're 18-pin DIP packages
with built-in serial port (USART), RAM, EEPROM data storage... But of
course it requires a tiny amount of support circuitry and a PC to burn
useful software onto it. (I did, however, have one hooked up to a
terminal to play Tic Tac Toe, though ;)
My actual smallest whole computer are probably my Apple Newton
MessagePads (OMP, 110, or 130). Second to that is my Dauphin DTR-1
with keyboard and pen, and the last of the complete small systems are
probably my Epson PX-8s, and my TRS-80 Model 100s. I miss my Timex
Sinclair 1000. Poor thing got stepped on by a careless friend one
day...
Josef
--
"I laugh because I dare not cry. This is a crazy world
and the only way to enjoy it is to treat it as a joke."
-- Hilda "Sharpie" Burroughs,
"The Number of the Beast" by Robert A. Heinlein
29 Oct
29 Oct
11:40 a.m.
I have to chime in on this.., what about the various programmable
calculators? I might reject those that are only capable of sequenced numeric
functions, but items like the R/S pocket computers, and the TI-74 had it
all. QWERTY keyboard, alphanumeric display, built-in BASIC, peripheral I/O
interface.
John
30 Oct
30 Oct
1:06 a.m.
Hi,
jwhitton said:
I have to chime in on this.., what about the
various programmable
calculators? I might reject those that are only capable of sequenced numeric
functions, but items like the R/S pocket computers, and the TI-74 had it
all. QWERTY keyboard, alphanumeric display, built-in BASIC, peripheral I/O
interface.
I have a Sharp PC-1251 that fits that description. Even with the optional
printer and cassette unit attached it's only about the same size as a ZX-81.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb at dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
3:05 p.m.
Anent this business of mainframe iron, a rather surprising story
about modern trends:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/biztech/10/30/reviving.mainframes.ap/inde
x.html
Cheers,
Chuck
3:57 p.m.
On 30/10/06 23:05, "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Anent this business of mainframe iron, a rather
surprising story
about modern trends:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/biztech/10/30/reviving.mainframes.ap/inde
x.html
Heh, I said just as much to people at work last week while they were
processing an order for 42 servers for one customer :) Of course, 42 HP
boxes are much cheaper than an enterprise class mainframe, but it's the
thought that counts eh.
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?
7:39 p.m.
Anyone have an ANFS-Q7 SAGE system at home?
On 10/30/06, Adrian Graham <witchy at binarydinosaurs.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/10/06 23:05, "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Anent this business of mainframe iron, a rather
surprising story
about modern trends:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/biztech/10/30/reviving.mainframes.ap/inde
x.html
Heh, I said just as much to people at work last week while they were
processing an order for 42 servers for one customer :) Of course, 42 HP
boxes are much cheaper than an enterprise class mainframe, but it's the
thought that counts eh.
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?
31 Oct
31 Oct
4:14 a.m.
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Paul Anderson wrote:
Anyone have an ANFS-Q7 SAGE system at home?
Only parts of one: :-)
http://ripsaw.cac.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldtech/SAGE/
Mike Loewen mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology http://ripsaw.cac.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldtech/
2:44 a.m.
Adrian Graham wrote:
On 30/10/06 23:05, "Chuck Guzis" <cclist
at sydex.com> wrote:
Although working out the cost of those HP servers in terms of power,
reliability, security, systems management and user time wasted due to bad
software - then rinsing and repeating every couple of years due to the upgrade
cycle - might make for some interesting numbers.
But as I said in a message to the Bletchley list just now, if we all wanted a
centralised, thin-client way of working, we'd all be doing it already because
the technology has never gone away. OK, so that's typically based around a
handful of core servers rather than a single giant mainframe, but from a user
and managerial perspective it looks the same - but hasn't been adopted in wide
numbers.
Aside:
Anyone here have experience of mainframe design? I mean, sure they're reliable
and fast and everything - but how much of the cost is due to design effort
and how much is purely due to the fact that they don't sell many and need to
pay the bills?
(I just had this vision of an IBM engineer seeing how many buses, CPUs and I/O
interfaces they could draw on a napkin, then adding in a few redundant power
supplies and calling it done ;-)
cheers
Jules
Anent this business of mainframe iron, a rather
surprising story
about modern trends:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/biztech/10/30/reviving.mainframes.ap/inde
x.html
Heh, I said just as much to people at work last week while they were
processing an order for 42 servers for one customer :) Of course, 42 HP
boxes are much cheaper than an enterprise class mainframe, but it's the
thought that counts eh. 
30 Oct
30 Oct
6:55 p.m.
On Oct 30, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Anent this business of mainframe iron, a rather
surprising story
about modern trends:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/biztech/10/30/reviving.mainframes.ap/inde
x.html
That's an interesting read. I was amused to see that the author
of the article knows somewhere between "jack" and "squat" about how
software is developed today, but sadly I could find no way by which
to send any sort of feedback to the author. :-(
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Cape Coral, FL
7:31 p.m.
On 30 Oct 2006 at 21:55, Dave McGuire wrote:
That's an interesting read. I was amused to
see that the author
of the article knows somewhere between "jack" and "squat" about how
software is developed today, but sadly I could find no way by which
to send any sort of feedback to the author. :-(
Yeah, I liked the quip about the "green screen" programming....
Cheers,
Chuck
29 Oct
29 Oct
1:25 p.m.
On 10/29/06, Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I suppose my Acorn System One is probably my
smallest system - two Eurocards,
> about 100 x 160 x 30mm in size, complete with built-in keypad, display, tape,
> and expansion interfaces.
> My Sinclair ZX81 is probably next - but of course lacks a display so needs a
> TV in order to really be useful...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Josef Chessor wrote:
My actual smallest whole computer are probably my
Apple Newton
MessagePads (OMP, 110, or 130). Second to that is my Dauphin DTR-1
with keyboard and pen, and the last of the complete small systems are
probably my Epson PX-8s, and my TRS-80 Model 100s. I miss my Timex
Epson RC20: Z80 computer in wrist watch form factor
Nobody ever ported CP/M to it.
Serial port
"ROM Roader" (which I don't have): external unit to copy EPROMs into it
through the serial port
Ruputer: palm pilot like computer in wrist watch form factor
Fossil: Palm OS 4.1 in wrist watch form factor. USB port
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
1:51 p.m.
On Oct 29, 2006, at 1:25 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Fossil: Palm OS 4.1 in wrist watch form factor. USB
port
That would be the Fossil "Abacus". It also has I/R. It's a bit big
for a watch, but no bigger than the old-school Casio wrist
calculator. I picked one up when Amazon was closing them out at $50.
It's been rather handy. Battery life is rotten, as you might expect---
about 26 to 28 hours. I have to charge mine every night.
I'm a Mac user so the Zaurus was a non-starter, though I didn't find
that out until after I bought an SL-5600. I carried around my
PowerBook G4 for a while, because it worked better and was less of a
pain in the butt than the Zaurus. The Abacus has been a fair Godsend
in that regard. I don't think I would have paid full retail for one
when it was new, but having my entire calendar and address book on my
wrist is pretty great.
It even has a tiny stylus in the wristband. Not on topic yet though.
ok
bear
2:53 p.m.
> Fossil: Palm OS 4.1 in wrist watch form factor.
USB port
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, r.stricklin wrote:
That would be the Fossil "Abacus". It also
has I/R.
Actually, both "Fossil" AND "Abacus" were brand name
labels for the same
product. It was made by Fossil, and the "cheaper" version was sold under
their "Abacus" brand name.
It's a bit big for a watch, but no bigger than the
old-school Casio
wrist calculator.
It is much larger than the Casio CFX40/400.
It is a little larger than the Epson RC20.
But, it is slightly smaller than the Ruputer.
I picked one up when Amazon was closing them out at
$50. It's been rather handy. Battery life is rotten, as you might
expect--- about 26 to 28 hours. I have to charge mine every night.
yeah.
and I'm going to have to set up a newer micro, since it only has USB (and
IR) to synch with.
It even has a tiny stylus in the wristband. Not on
topic yet though.
It has been almost 10 years since it was first announced (and delivery was
"delayed") :-)
3:34 p.m.
I have a collection of approximately 50 electronic organizers, "pocket"
computers, and PDAs from the mid-1970s to early 1990s.
Now I'm getting into Big Iron .... vintage laptops. Hey, it's all
relative!! :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Cisin [mailto:cisin at xenosoft.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 4:26 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Collections of (physically) small computers
On 10/29/06, Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I suppose my Acorn System One is probably my
smallest system - two
> Eurocards, about 100 x 160 x 30mm in size, complete with built-in
> keypad, display, tape, and expansion interfaces.
> My Sinclair ZX81 is probably next - but of course lacks a display so
> needs a TV in order to really be useful...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Josef Chessor wrote:
My actual smallest whole computer are probably my
Apple Newton
MessagePads (OMP, 110, or 130). Second to that is my Dauphin DTR-1
with keyboard and pen, and the last of the complete small systems are
probably my Epson PX-8s, and my TRS-80 Model 100s. I miss my Timex
Epson RC20: Z80 computer in wrist watch form factor Nobody ever ported CP/M
to it.
Serial port
"ROM Roader" (which I don't have): external unit to copy EPROMs into it
through the serial port
Ruputer: palm pilot like computer in wrist watch form factor
Fossil: Palm OS 4.1 in wrist watch form factor. USB port
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
3:45 p.m.
4:05 p.m.
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Tony Duell wrote:
More seriously, I think we need to define
'computer'.
a very risky endeavor
It should be user-programmable (which rules out most
watches and cellular
phones).
OK
It should have alphanumeric (and not just numeric)
I/O.
KIM-1?
It should be complete, not needing a terminal or TV,
or something like
that (well, you can have those, but you have to count their volume as
part of the size of the computer)
OK
4:33 p.m.
On 10/30/06, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
One can do alpha on a 7-segment display, plus one could connect a
TVT-6 "TV Typewriter" to a KIM-1 without too much difficulty
(installing the "upstream tap" being the most invasive step).
I think the point here was to differentiate simple "four-banger
calculators" from computing devices, not to exclude something that is
by nearly all definitions a "computer". Think of the basic Elf design
- the primary display is a pair of LED hex displays (TIL-311 or
similar HP displays) - unlike a KIM's soft-driven 7-segment LEDs, a
TIL-311 can *only* display 0-9/A-F, hardly full alphanumeric, but who
would dispute an Elf is a computer?
-ethan
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Tony Duell wrote:
A slippery-slope indeed.
More seriously, I think we need to define
'computer'.
a very risky endeavor It should have
alphanumeric (and not just numeric) I/O.
KIM-1? 
31 Oct
31 Oct
12:57 p.m.
Ethan Dicks wrote:
I think the point here was to differentiate simple
"four-banger
calculators" from computing devices, not to exclude something that is
"Four-banger"?
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
1:49 p.m.
On 11/1/06, Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:
Ethan Dicks wrote:
A slang term that refers to simple calculators that only know how to
do do the basic four operations, addition, subtraction,
multiplication, division.
I.e. - you can only "bang out" four types of operations on the keyboard.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Four+Banger (meaning 2)
http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/archv013.cgi?read=40869
-ethan
I think the point here was to differentiate
simple "four-banger
calculators" from computing devices, not to exclude something that is
"Four-banger"? 
2:04 p.m.
Rumor has it that Jim Leonard may have mentioned these words:
Ethan Dicks wrote:
Four functions: Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication and Division.
I've said it here a coupla times and I'll say 'er again:
When I was in high school, the "accepted" definition of a computer was: "A
device that performs both arithmetic and logic functions without the aid of
a human."
Which, in my eyes, seems a pretty decent and logical benchmark.
A "four-banger" is not a computer; it can perform arithmetic but it cannot
perform any logic on said arithmetic. Even the non-programmable scientific
calcs; if there's no logic, it's not a computer. It needs the aid of a
human for the logic aspect.
Even simple macro-based calcs I wouldn't consider computers if they don't
have some form of if/then/else or looping structures (i.e. implying the
logic part of the equation).
I've had "programmable calculators" that had more memory and nearly as
powerful programming language(s) than my first computer - To me, they'd fit
the definition of a computer...
Anyway, that's my take, and it seems pretty levelheaded to me. When someone
comes up with something that makes more logic, I'll either change my mind,
or I won't. ;-)
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | "Bugs of a feather flock together."
sysadmin, Iceberg Computers | Russell Nelson
zmerch at 30below.com |
I think the point here was to differentiate simple
"four-banger
calculators" from computing devices, not to exclude something that is
"Four-banger"?
29 Oct
29 Oct
6:47 p.m.
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Tony Duell wrote:
Yes, agreed :-)
More seriously, I think we need to define
'computer'.
a very risky endeavor It should have
alphanumeric (and not just numeric) I/O.
KIM-1?
4:41 p.m.
On 29 Oct 2006 at 23:45, Tony Duell wrote:
More seriously, I think we need to define
'computer'.
Says who? If it can do I/O and has CPU and memory, what doesn't make
it a computer?
Let's play by your rules. Your definitions immediately let in iPAQs,
Blackberries, Palms, and quite a few other devices. How about the
HTC Meteor smartphone? Llots of programs available there--and with
more processor horsepower than most "vintage" "computers".
Does anyone have a "computer" (by Tony's rules) lighter than 120g?
Cheers,
Chuck
5:02 p.m.
I say any automated mechanism for doing math is a computer.
Size, speed, memory, I/O, features, analog v. digital -- all just details
and qualifications.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Guzis [mailto:cclist at sydex.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:41 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Collections of (physically) small computers
On 29 Oct 2006 at 23:45, Tony Duell wrote:
More seriously, I think we need to define
'computer'.
Says who? If it can do I/O and has CPU and memory, what doesn't make it a
computer?
Let's play by your rules. Your definitions immediately let in iPAQs,
Blackberries, Palms, and quite a few other devices. How about the HTC
Meteor smartphone? Llots of programs available there--and with more
processor horsepower than most "vintage" "computers".
Does anyone have a "computer" (by Tony's rules) lighter than 120g?
Cheers,
Chuck
5:30 p.m.
On 29 Oct 2006 at 20:02, Evan Koblentz wrote:
I say any automated mechanism for doing math is a
computer.
Well, IIRC, the ANSI X3J3 (FORTRAN) spec says that a human being is
also considered to be a "computer" as well. :) But I'm hardly
lighter than 120g, nor smaller than a smartphone!
Cheers,
Chuck
5:35 p.m.
I assume we're talking about the machine definition of "computer" and not
the previous definition of "a person who computes."
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Guzis [mailto:cclist at sydex.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:30 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: Collections of (physically) small computers
On 29 Oct 2006 at 20:02, Evan Koblentz wrote:
I say any automated mechanism for doing math is a
computer.
Well, IIRC, the ANSI X3J3 (FORTRAN) spec says that a human being is also
considered to be a "computer" as well. :) But I'm hardly lighter than
120g,
nor smaller than a smartphone!
Cheers,
Chuck
5:36 p.m.
On 10/29/06, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 at 20:02, Evan Koblentz wrote:
Then how about my pet hamster? or my pet cricket? They are computers too.
Cheers,
I say any automated mechanism for doing math is a
computer.
Well, IIRC, the ANSI X3J3 (FORTRAN) spec says that a human being is
also considered to be a "computer" as well. :) But I'm hardly
lighter than 120g, nor smaller than a smartphone! Chuck
5:51 p.m.
Even more seriously ..... why?
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Cisin [mailto:cisin at xenosoft.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:48 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Collections of (physically) small computers
More seriously, I think we need to define
'computer'.
> I say any automated mechanism for doing math
is a computer.
Then how about my pet hamster? or my pet cricket? They are computers
too.
5:48 p.m.
Okay, okay, an automated MAN-MADE mechanism for doing math.
A brain is not a computer. It's just a highly improbable biological
coincidence.
-----Original Message-----
From: 9000 VAX [mailto:vax9000 at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:37 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Collections of (physically) small computers
On 10/29/06, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 at 20:02, Evan Koblentz wrote:
Then how about my pet hamster? or my pet cricket? They are computers too.
Cheers,
I say any automated mechanism for doing math is a
computer.
Well, IIRC, the ANSI X3J3 (FORTRAN) spec says that a human being is
also considered to be a "computer" as well. :) But I'm hardly lighter
than 120g, nor smaller than a smartphone! Chuck
30 Oct
30 Oct
7:45 a.m.
On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 20:48 -0500, Evan Koblentz wrote:
A brain is not a computer. It's just a highly
improbable biological
coincidence.
Yikes. This turned into a religious argument faster than I
expected...
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
6:03 p.m.
> Then how about my pet hamster? or my pet cricket?
They are computers too.
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Yes, but the real question is "Can they read the
FORTRAN 90 spec?" :)
If that's the requirement, then hansters, crickets, and college
administrators do not qualify.
7:03 p.m.
Well, IIRC, the ANSI X3J3 (FORTRAN) spec says that a
human being is
also considered to be a "computer" as well. :) But I'm hardly
lighter than 120g, nor smaller than a smartphone!
That, I believe was the original definition (particularly in the sense of
'somebody who operates a computing machine'). Similarly a 'Typewriter'
was a person who operates a typing machine.
-tony
11:33 p.m.
Evan Koblentz wrote:
Does anyone have a "computer" (by Tony's
rules) lighter than 120g?
That has memory, IO, and has a CPU? Well doesn't that make the
matchbox-sized ECU that my Nissan had to tell it to turn on the
"idle-up" solenoid when the headlights, heated rear window, heater fan
or radiator fan came on? If I recall correctly that had one of the
mask-programmed 6502 28-pin variants, a 6116 and some TTL buffers
driving a big transistor.
Gordon
30 Oct
30 Oct
5:22 a.m.
He also mentioned 'user-programmable' and 'alphanumeric I/O.'
Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
Evan Koblentz wrote:
Does anyone have a "computer" (by
Tony's rules) lighter than 120g?
That has memory, IO, and has a CPU? Well doesn't that make the
matchbox-sized ECU that my Nissan had to tell it to turn on the
"idle-up" solenoid when the headlights, heated rear window, heater fan
or radiator fan came on? If I recall correctly that had one of the
mask-programmed 6502 28-pin variants, a 6116 and some TTL buffers
driving a big transistor.
Gordon
6:11 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com>
Date: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:20 am
Subject: Re: Collections of (physically) small computers
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
On 29 Oct 2006 at 23:45, Tony Duell wrote:
Yup, Nokia 7610 118g, speaks C++ though you do have to cross compile.
All the best
Laurence Cuffe
More seriously, I think we need to define
'computer'.
Says who? If it can do I/O and has CPU and memory, what doesn't
make
it a computer?
Let's play by your rules. Your definitions immediately let in
iPAQs,
Blackberries, Palms, and quite a few other devices. How about the
HTC Meteor smartphone? Llots of programs available there--and with
more processor horsepower than most "vintage" "computers".
Does anyone have a "computer" (by Tony's rules) lighter than 120g?
Cheers,
Chuck
6627
days inactive
6629
days old
35 comments
21 participants
participants (21)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bear＠typewritten.org -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
evan＠snarc.net -
gordon＠gjcp.net -
jim＠covington.name -
josefcub＠gmail.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
jwhitton＠bellsouth.net -
Laurence.Cuffe＠ucd.ie -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mloewen＠cpumagic.scol.pa.us -
stanb＠dial.pipex.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org -
useddec＠gmail.com -
vax9000＠gmail.com -
witchy＠binarydinosaurs.co.uk -
wizard＠voyager.net -
zmerch-cctalk＠30below.com