From bhilpert@shaw.ca Sat Jun 1 00:38:54 2024 From: Brent Hilpert To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 17:29:42 -0700 Message-ID: <295365B5-8508-43C1-A5CC-8EBA6EFCCC4A@shaw.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6336262080393814059==" --===============6336262080393814059== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2024May 31,, at 4:37 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:02=E2=80=AFPM Dave Dunfield via cctalk wrote: >> Liam Proven wrote: >>> It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify. >>> ... No =C2=B5P =3D not a PC. >>=20 >> Not entirely sure ... >> http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv >>=20 >> Dave >>=20 > I quite agree. I do believe that a *u*P is the minimum that can be accepted > to call a PC a microcomputer. Another is that it must be usable, i.e., > non-programmable, for the average PC owner. Like a car one doesn't need to > know how it works in order to drive/use a car to get from one place to > another. One can use a computer to solve a spreadsheet problem in an > efficient manner without learning the inner-workings of such spreadsheet. > Happy computing, > Murray =F0=9F=99=82 With no expectation of changing the opinion of anyone who thinks they have th= e definitive definition of =E2=80=98first=E2=80=99 or =E2=80=98personal=E2=80= =99, I will just mention that: =E2=80=A2 the HP9830 (1972), =E2=80=A2 Wang 2200 (1973), =E2=80=A2 IBM 5100 (1975) were all: =E2=80=A2 single-user, =E2=80=A2 desktop (2200 with CPU and PS in pedestal)=20 =E2=80=A2 fully integrated (CPU, memory, storage, keyboard and display), =E2=80=A2 boot-to-BASIC (or APL for the 5100) machines. None of them used a microprocessor. And they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal computer o= f ~10 years later. --===============6336262080393814059==-- From sqrfolkdnc@comcast.net Sat Jun 1 00:54:47 2024 From: CAREY SCHUG To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 19:53:45 -0500 Message-ID: <17020185.1240567.1717203225814@connect.xfinity.com> In-Reply-To: <295365B5-8508-43C1-A5CC-8EBA6EFCCC4A@shaw.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0605255314075001435==" --===============0605255314075001435== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would accept a bit-slice. as I understand that, you take 8 of them and dai= sychain them to act on a byte of data. Many early minis used them afaik. 
--Carey
> On 05/31/2024 7:29 PM CDT Brent Hilpert via cctalk wrote: >=20 > =20 > On 2024May 31,, at 4:37 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:02=E2=80=AFPM Dave Dunfield via cctalk wrote: > >> Liam Proven wrote: > >>> It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify. > >>> ... No =C2=B5P =3D not a PC. > >>=20 > >> Not entirely sure ... > >> http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv > >>=20 > >> Dave > >>=20 >=20 > > I quite agree. I do believe that a *u*P is the minimum that can be accept= ed > > to call a PC a microcomputer. Another is that it must be usable, i.e., > > non-programmable, for the average PC owner. Like a car one doesn't need to > > know how it works in order to drive/use a car to get from one place to > > another. One can use a computer to solve a spreadsheet problem in an > > efficient manner without learning the inner-workings of such spreadsheet. > > Happy computing, > > Murray =F0=9F=99=82 >=20 >=20 > With no expectation of changing the opinion of anyone who thinks they have = the definitive definition of =E2=80=98first=E2=80=99 or =E2=80=98personal=E2= =80=99, I will just mention that: >=20 > =E2=80=A2 the HP9830 (1972), > =E2=80=A2 Wang 2200 (1973), > =E2=80=A2 IBM 5100 (1975) > were all: > =E2=80=A2 single-user, > =E2=80=A2 desktop (2200 with CPU and PS in pedestal)=20 > =E2=80=A2 fully integrated (CPU, memory, storage, keyboard and display), > =E2=80=A2 boot-to-BASIC (or APL for the 5100) > machines. >=20 > None of them used a microprocessor. >=20 > And they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal computer= of ~10 years later. --===============0605255314075001435==-- From sqrfolkdnc@comcast.net Sat Jun 1 01:21:10 2024 From: CAREY SCHUG To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 20:11:37 -0500 Message-ID: <1387410361.1240952.1717204298011@connect.xfinity.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3464557154900138015==" --===============3464557154900138015== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry, WRONG. A computer type is "Personal" (capital P as a NAME for a class of computers) = not based upon how ONE instance of it is used, but based upon the intent of i= ts design and how many in practice. Musk could buy the lastest Frontier supe= rcomputer and ONLY use it to play chess with himself, that does NOT make ever= y single instance of them into Personal computers (capitalized). That ONE SI= NGLE instance might be a personal computer (not capitalized), but not the cla= ss of ALL Frontier computers. if One person using one computer made it "personal" then probably every singl= e D*mn computer ever made is, since at some point, somebody came in on down t= ime and used it as a "personal computer" (not capitalized). I used 1620s, an= d 360/30s, a 360/40, and others as a personal computer at times, for things l= ike writing a Tim Conway game of life, keeping track of my vinyl records, etc. So if you want to say "personal computer" (not capitalized), I will stipulate= that EVERY computer is a "personal computer" and the term becomes meaningles= s. Hence we toss that usage, and do away with the need to capitalize the ter= m. 
--Carey
> On 05/31/2024 11:07 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk = wrote: >=20 > =20 >=20 > Any computer can be "personal" if only one person uses it for their > own private purposes, right? > --===============3464557154900138015==-- From c.murray.mccullough@gmail.com Sat Jun 1 01:25:37 2024 From: Murray McCullough To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 21:17:27 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <17020185.1240567.1717203225814@connect.xfinity.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5916404705916574968==" --===============5916404705916574968== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit It appears that I am in error. I see that micro-electronics or something similar can be used in a computer or computer-like device. If a non-uP machine accomplishes the same result then I bow to being corrected. I want/wish to learn new things. Happy computing, Murray 🙂 On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 8:54 PM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > I would accept a bit-slice. as I understand that, you take 8 of them and > daisychain them to act on a byte of data. Many early minis used them afaik. > > 
--Carey
> > > On 05/31/2024 7:29 PM CDT Brent Hilpert via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > > > On 2024May 31,, at 4:37 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:02 PM Dave Dunfield via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > >> Liam Proven wrote: > > >>> It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify. > > >>> ... No µP = not a PC. > > >> > > >> Not entirely sure ... > > >> http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv > > >> > > >> Dave > > >> > > > > > I quite agree. I do believe that a *u*P is the minimum that can be > accepted > > > to call a PC a microcomputer. Another is that it must be usable, i.e., > > > non-programmable, for the average PC owner. Like a car one doesn't > need to > > > know how it works in order to drive/use a car to get from one place to > > > another. One can use a computer to solve a spreadsheet problem in an > > > efficient manner without learning the inner-workings of such > spreadsheet. > > > Happy computing, > > > Murray 🙂 > > > > > > With no expectation of changing the opinion of anyone who thinks they > have the definitive definition of ‘first’ or ‘personal’, I will just > mention that: > > > > • the HP9830 (1972), > > • Wang 2200 (1973), > > • IBM 5100 (1975) > > were all: > > • single-user, > > • desktop (2200 with CPU and PS in pedestal) > > • fully integrated (CPU, memory, storage, keyboard and display), > > • boot-to-BASIC (or APL for the 5100) > > machines. > > > > None of them used a microprocessor. > > > > And they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal > computer of ~10 years later. > --===============5916404705916574968==-- From wrcooke@wrcooke.net Sat Jun 1 01:36:09 2024 From: wrcooke@wrcooke.net To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 20:35:39 -0500 Message-ID: <1510341875.2165064.1717205739557@email.ionos.com> In-Reply-To: <1387410361.1240952.1717204298011@connect.xfinity.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1390516884298020406==" --===============1390516884298020406== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On 05/31/2024 8:11 PM CDT CAREY SCHUG via cctalk = wrote: > > Sorry, WRONG. > > 
--Carey
> Why do I feel like I'm observing a first grade classroom where the boys are a= rguing about whose dad can beat up the others? Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for child= ren to be always and forever explaining things to them, Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince --===============1390516884298020406==-- From c.murray.mccullough@gmail.com Sat Jun 1 02:14:39 2024 From: Murray McCullough To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 22:14:30 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1510341875.2165064.1717205739557@email.ionos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0939519998288221973==" --===============0939519998288221973== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It appears that one can determine what is a personal and/or a microcomputer that satisfies only the author. If one states that and believes it then that is all that=E2=80=99s necessary. I wrote a book based on this line of th= inking and if a reader disagrees with me that is fine. I=E2=80=99m not declaring the= true and only way as the means to change anyone=E2=80=99s view. I wrote it to give= a background on the history of the microcomputer that may or may not be the whole truth. Happy computing, Murray :-) On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 9:36=E2=80=AFPM Will Cooke via cctalk wrote: > > > > On 05/31/2024 8:11 PM CDT CAREY SCHUG via cctalk > wrote: > > > > Sorry, WRONG. > > > > 
--Carey
> > > > Why do I feel like I'm observing a first grade classroom where the boys > are arguing about whose dad can beat up the others? > > Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for > children to be always and forever explaining things to them, > > Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince > --===============0939519998288221973==-- From lproven@gmail.com Sat Jun 1 12:20:20 2024 From: Liam Proven To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)] Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 13:20:01 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <8f270af8-8018-3857-2ffc-9632f1221d68@pico-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4310220388758758229==" --===============4310220388758758229== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 28 May 2024 at 19:32, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > There's a story about a guy in Australia that found an > abandoned IBM 360/30 in a storage/shipper's warehouse and > dragged it to a rented office space that had no elevator. He > carefully dismantled it, dragged the pieces up to at least > the 2nd or 3rd floor, put it back together and got it running! > > QUITE a story! https://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360/Saga.html That one? Lawrence is on this list and posts occasionally. He's real: I've met him. He was kind enough to give me some boxed copies of OS/2. :-) -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 --===============4310220388758758229==-- From lproven@gmail.com Sat Jun 1 12:32:57 2024 From: Liam Proven To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 13:32:40 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1bcd454c-3cd2-45dd-b866-7a0bf04e5098@skogtun.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7895175921010022106==" --===============7895175921010022106== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 31 May 2024 at 18:57, Harald Arnesen via cctalk wrote: > > Liam Proven via cctalk [31/05/2024 18.07]: > > > My first fiancée's dad had what he reckoned was the first mainframe in > > Norway. > > Was it this: > > - in Norwegian, machine translation work ok. Thanks for the link -- an interesting read! (I used to speak basic Norwegian but that was too much for me.) No, this would have been later, I think. Terje Thunem was the man, and I think he worked for Statoil. I only met him after he had retired. -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 --===============7895175921010022106==-- From lproven@gmail.com Sat Jun 1 12:45:07 2024 From: Liam Proven To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 13:44:48 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <295365B5-8508-43C1-A5CC-8EBA6EFCCC4A@shaw.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5264088493165676756==" --===============5264088493165676756== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > With no expectation of changing the opinion of anyone who thinks they have = the definitive definition of =E2=80=98first=E2=80=99 or =E2=80=98personal=E2= =80=99, I will just mention that: > > =E2=80=A2 the HP9830 (1972), > =E2=80=A2 Wang 2200 (1973), > =E2=80=A2 IBM 5100 (1975) > were all: > =E2=80=A2 single-user, > =E2=80=A2 desktop (2200 with CPU and PS in pedestal) > =E2=80=A2 fully integrated (CPU, memory, storage, keyboard and disp= lay), > =E2=80=A2 boot-to-BASIC (or APL for the 5100) > machines. > > None of them used a microprocessor. > > And they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal computer= of ~10 years later. I had some of those in mind -- I mentioned the IBM 5100 in passing. I don't think any qualify, no, myself. Only if one looks backwards from a world with PCs in it and looks for earlier similar devices. It's like saying that steam trains were early cars. They weren't. Motor vehicles, yes. Self-contained, move under their own power... but not wherever you want to go, not steerable by the driver, and most of all, too big for private ownership for all but royalty. The thing with the handful of very-late-1960s/very-early-1970s all-in-one desktops is that they were _vastly_ expensive, mostly only ran one program (possibly a programming language) and only did one task. Most did not let you go and buy 3rd party software and run it on your machine. There's a line here, and it is somewhere around being ownable by an individual for their own use, usable for multiple tasks via pre-existing software that can be loaded and used by a non-expert, and which is usable and useful without programming skills. A dedicated word processor isn't a PC. An IBM Displaywriter has a lot in common with the IBM PC but it's not a PC. An IBM System 9000 isn't really a PC. A desktop machine that can run APL, one of the most inscrutable and opaque programming languages ever designed this side of INTERCAL, isn't a PC. It's not even a calculator. What APL can do can't even be *described* to the average person who might productively use a spreadsheet. "Matrix arithmetic" is of even less relevance to everyday life than algebra. --=20 Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 --===============5264088493165676756==-- From rice43@btinternet.com Sat Jun 1 13:32:10 2024 From: Joshua Rice To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 14:32:04 +0100 Message-ID: <9b7d67f7-9407-436f-82de-ee2481a42796@btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3234022988165469880==" --===============3234022988165469880== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01/06/2024 13:44, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: >> d they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal computer = of ~10 years later. > I had some of those in mind -- I mentioned the IBM 5100 in passing. > > I don't think any qualify, no, myself. Only if one looks backwards > from a world with PCs in it and looks for earlier similar devices. > > It's like saying that steam trains were early cars. They weren't. > Motor vehicles, yes. Self-contained, move under their own power... but > not wherever you want to go, not steerable by the driver, and most of > all, too big for private ownership for all but royalty. That's a terrible analogy. The first cars were indeed ludicrously=20 expensive and owned almost exclusively by the wealthy and upper classes.=20 It took a good 20 years for the car to become affordable to the masses,=20 in the shape of the Ford Model T. And even then, the Model T wasn't=20 driven in any way similar to a modern car, it would take the Austin 7,=20 first built 15 years after the Model T, to truly standardize driving=20 controls. So given the whole "car" analogy, the first "personal=20 computer" could well date back much further than you claim. Whether it=20 is affordable to the masses does not dictate whether it is "personal" or=20 not. It's the same argument many use for the Alto being the first=20 computer with a GUI. We don't define it by how accessible by regular=20 consumers it is, we define it as the first, because it was the first.=20 The fact no-one could buy one is irrelevant. I don't see how the=20 definition of a "personal" computer is any different. A PDP-8 could be=20 defined as a personal computer. It's single user, interactive, it sits=20 on a desk, and it doesn't require a team of trained professionals to=20 operate it. This argument has been made time and time again. I don't=20 think any solid definition could ever be made, because it's so=20 subjective. it's the same as asking what is the cutoff for "retro" or=20 "vintage" computers. There's no point discussing it because no-one will=20 agree on an exact definition. And you can hate me, but in my opinion=20 Pentium 4's are definitely retro. Thanks, Josh Rice --===============3234022988165469880==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Sat Jun 1 19:02:09 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)] Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 14:02:01 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4505441047434770404==" --===============4505441047434770404== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/1/24 07:20, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > On Tue, 28 May 2024 at 19:32, Jon Elson via cctalk > wrote: > >> There's a story about a guy in Australia that found an >> abandoned IBM 360/30 in a storage/shipper's warehouse and >> dragged it to a rented office space that had no elevator. He >> carefully dismantled it, dragged the pieces up to at least >> the 2nd or 3rd floor, put it back together and got it running! >> >> QUITE a story! > https://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360/Saga.html > > That one? Lawrence is on this list and posts occasionally. He's real: > I've met him. He was kind enough to give me some boxed copies of OS/2. > :-) > Yes, this is exactly they guy and story I was referring to.  Unfortunately, I've never been to NZ (I got the location slightly wrong) but I'm sure meeting him would result in the exchange of many great war stories. Jon --===============4505441047434770404==-- From rickb@bensene.com Sat Jun 1 19:36:39 2024 From: Rick Bensene To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 19:36:23 +0000 Message-ID: <90aa3df70dfb41b3b37e9af070e3d9b2@bensene.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3764392343390857665==" --===============3764392343390857665== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Liam Proven wrote: > Microprocessors are what created the PC. No =C2=B5P =3D not a PC. So, if I get this right, the term "PC" to means something like the "personal = computer" of today (children of IBM PC or Apple Macintosh) or at least perhap= s something as old as an Apple II, a Commodore PET. Perhaps even an Altair or IMSAI, though these are a bit different than an App= le II or a PET or TRS-80 because they required additional "stuff" to make the= m comparable the Apple, Commodore, or Radio Shack machines. You'd have to ad= d some sort of display and a controller card for the display, a keyboard of s= ome sort, and at least an output port for an external printer, and perhaps a = serial port to make it roughly equivalent to an Apple II or a TRS-80. I find it had to make distinctions in some cases, because some machines tend = to bend the rules a bit. How about the Hewlett Packard 9830 "calculator"? It had BASIC in ROM, and ca= me up in BASIC when powered-on. No microprocessor, though. Instead, it had a= TTL implementation of a somewhat scaled down version of HP's 2100 minicomput= er CPU. It had a 40-character LED dot matrix display, a digital cassette ta= pe drive, and you could sit a fast thermal printer on top of it and plug it r= ight into a connector on the back of the machine. It had ROMpack slots for = additional functionality, and I/O expansion slots that could provide connecti= ons to external hard disk subsystems (that could be shared among multiple 983= 0's), a plotter, a punched paper tape reader, and a punched card reader, amon= g others. It was expensive. But, it was intended as a single-user computer= . For the most part, this sounds like some early personal computers.=20 Some HP 9830s were bought new by people with the means for their home use as = a "personal computer, and for the time, a quite capable one at that. This o= ne is a little tricky because of its lack of a microprocessor. But, it still= seems to be pretty PC-ish to me. I assume by the definition that since a Tektronix 4051 has a Motorola 6800 in= side, it's a PC, right? The 4051 had no multi-user capabilities, and was ful= ly intended for one person to sit down in front of it and do whatever it was = they wanted to do, be it playing a game (there were a lot of games for the ma= chine), or do some data acquisition, visualization and manipulation, or even = mundane stuff like inventory, payroll, receivables, payables...you get the pi= cture. It was a truly general-purpose computer. That said, what about a Tektronix 4052(1978)? =20 It doesn't have a microprocessor in it, but it was definitely designed as a p= ersonal computing device with a graphics display and built-in mass storage (c= artridge tape), just like the 4051. In fact, looking at a 4052, if you ignore= the "4052" badge on the machine, you can't tell it apart from a 4051, and fr= om a BASIC programming standpoint, they are the same. =20 While the 4051 was very successful, and absolutely did end up in the homes of= individual buyers (base price of $5,995, but there were individuals that had= the means to buy one as their own personal computer for at home). The 4051'= s intended markets were engineering, scientific, and data acquisition/data re= duction work.=20 One criticism of the 4051 was that it was a bit too slow on number crunching = and drawing graphics, requiring some patience if you are doing some serious n= umerical processing/graphics. =20 To respond to those critics saying that the 4051 being too slow, Tektronix de= signed a bit-slice implementation of the 6800 (using the 2901 bit-slice devic= es, fast bipolar ROM for microcode storage, and a 16-bit wide bus versus 8 bi= ts of the 6800 to speed up double-byte operations), added a few tweaks to the= instruction set to address more memory than the 6800 could natively address(= separate RAM and ROM space, so RAM could be 64K, and ROM could be 64K, but ba= nking of the ROM made even more space available), and hooked in the rest of t= he 4051 (storage tube graphical display, cartridge tape unit, keyboard, GPIB,= and ROMPACK slot) such that it was for all intents and purposes, a faster 4= 051. With no microprocessor. Of course, it cost more than the 4051. Howe= ver, like the 4051, some 4052's did sell to individuals to get themselves a p= owerful personal computer at home. The 4052 was much more powerful than any = Apple II, Atari 400/800, TRS-80, or Commodore PET/VIC-20/64. Yes, most of t= hose machines could do graphics, and they were raster bitmapped or tricky equ= ivalents thereof(Atari), but their graphics were primitiS1281ve in comparison= to the 4051/4052's 1024x780 point vector storage display. What about a Three Rivers/ICL PERQ 1(1980)? It had a microprocessor in it, a= Z-80. However, the Z-80 was relegated to being used as an I/O processor for = the hard disk, floppy disk, speech synthesizer, IEEE-488, and RS232-serial po= rt. The main CPU was a bipolar custom CPU that used 74S181 high-speed ALU sli= ces, and a microcoded architecture. The cool thing is that the microcode sto= re was writable! It had up to 2M (256K minimum) of 64-bit wide RAM (with a 1= 6-bit bus), and a built-in 12MB or 24MB hard disk drive and an 8" floppy driv= e. It also had a 768x1024 bitmapped monochrome (portrait) display, and a grap= hics tablet. It cost somewhere between $20,000 and $27,500 in base form, wi= th the variance being uncertainties in prices due to varying configurations t= hat have price information available, but not much in the way of actual confi= guration. =20 Yes, that's a bit much for someone to buy as a personal computer, but it's ce= rtainly possible for a person of substantial means. It wasn't a multi-user = system, it was intended to be used by a single person sitting at the machine.= It plugged into a regular wall outlet. It actually had a GUI, perhaps on= e of the earliest to exist, and was something that did not exist for the stor= age-tube Tektronix machines or most certainly not for an HP 9830. I'm absolutely not arguing with Liam's point. =20 I do believe that the microprocessor was the driving force in making possible= a device that fits the full definition of a computer, that an average person= could buy, take home and unpack and set up in fairly short order, and be up = and running with their TV as a display, running BASIC, and a cassette tape re= corder for storing and loading programs. A true personal computer, no doubt. I think that in a general sense, it certainly fits that a personal computer i= s more commonly a microcomputer, and thus, has a microprocessor (perhaps more= than one) as its main processing element. =20 With that said, any time that generalities are used, there always seem to be = exceptions that sneak their way in and cloud any general definition of a term= . I believer that as time goes on, the definition is going to get more and= more difficult. With technology advancing as fast as it is, it seems feasible that a small de= vice could be implanted in one's brain that utilizes generation of neural im= pulses to generate imagery that appears as it is being seen by the eyes, and = similarly with sound, and communicates at least initially by recognizing spok= en commands (and likely later, just thinking about what you want done), that = is connected to (whatever the Internet becomes) full time, with full AI capab= ilities embedded as part of its operation. I believe one of Elon Musk's comp= anies is working on that and has been for some time. Perhaps that device m= ay well redefine the meaning of a "personal" computer. =20 Perhaps more appropriately the "computer personal" (the computer first, the p= erson secondary). =20 Would I want one? Hell no. -Rick -- Rick Bensene The Old Calculator Museum https://oldcalculatormuseum.com Beavercreek, Oregon USA =20 --===============3764392343390857665==-- From ljw-cctech@ljw.me.uk Sat Jun 1 20:11:22 2024 From: Lawrence Wilkinson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)] Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 21:41:55 +0200 Message-ID: <4e210c6d-6670-4756-a2db-98e164ae4586@ljw.me.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3251795735131846177==" --===============3251795735131846177== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/06/24 14:20, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > https://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360/Saga.html > > That one? Lawrence is on this list and posts occasionally. He's real: > I've met him. He was kind enough to give me some boxed copies of OS/2. > :-) > Yes, I can confirm that I am real. Incidentally, I found some of the documents from the time, including templates I made to sort out the room layout. The templates have a basic version, and one that includes the doors and logic 'gates' which swing out for servicing. 2030 is the CPU with the 1051/1052 typewriter, 2841 is the Storage Control (Disk Controller, if you like.) The small things are the three 2311 disk drives and the disk pack rack. Room layout: https://flic.kr/p/2pDGdZc Templates: https://flic.kr/p/2pDFyZi -- Lawrence Wilkinson lawrence at ljw.me.uk The IBM 360/30 pagehttp://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360 --===============3251795735131846177==-- From commodorejohn@gmail.com Sun Jun 2 15:51:51 2024 From: John Ames To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 08:51:42 -0700 Message-ID: <20240602085142.2e973f95@coppelia.commodorejohn.com> In-Reply-To: <171726120848.2847341.7109061972213092827@classiccmp.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2870023938473692772==" --===============2870023938473692772== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: CAREY SCHUG > I used 1620s, and 360/30s, a 360/40, and others as a personal > computer at times, for things like writing a Tim Conway game of life, > keeping track of my vinyl records, etc. It's like John Conway's "game of life," but more prone to cause uncontrollable fits of laughter. --===============2870023938473692772==-- From spectre@floodgap.com Mon Jun 3 01:10:55 2024 From: Cameron Kaiser To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 18:10:47 -0700 Message-ID: <3d30ea0a-4355-4651-b223-436a917e9720@floodgap.com> In-Reply-To: <20240602085142.2e973f95@coppelia.commodorejohn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8035191180807796277==" --===============8035191180807796277== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> I used 1620s, and 360/30s, a 360/40, and others as a personal >> computer at times, for things like writing a Tim Conway game of life, >> keeping track of my vinyl records, etc. > > It's like John Conway's "game of life," but more prone to cause > uncontrollable fits of laughter. You owe me a new keyboard (and another glass of milk). --=20 ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ = -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser(a)floodgap.c= om -- If ignorance is bliss, shouldn't I be happier? ---------------------------= -- --===============8035191180807796277==-- From mjd.bishop@emeritus-solutions.com Mon Jun 3 07:51:47 2024 From: Martin Bishop To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] TinyTapeOut and the Z80 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:50:44 +0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8394406280960072658==" --===============8394406280960072658== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit https://www.eenewseurope.com/en/tiny-tapeout-7-readies-open-source-z80-design/ May be of interest both in the context of the Z80 and other unobtanium silicon The lead time is long, ~6 months Martin --===============8394406280960072658==-- From lproven@gmail.com Mon Jun 3 12:09:15 2024 From: Liam Proven To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)] Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 13:08:53 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4e210c6d-6670-4756-a2db-98e164ae4586@ljw.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0591138444515082713==" --===============0591138444515082713== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 at 21:11, Lawrence Wilkinson via cctalk wrote: > Yes, I can confirm that I am real. :-D And better still, extant. -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 --===============0591138444515082713==-- From commodorejohn@gmail.com Mon Jun 3 17:18:21 2024 From: John To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 10:18:11 -0700 Message-ID: <20240603101811.00000b9d@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <171743400879.2847341.18427286829818018126@classiccmp.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5656186481573452787==" --===============5656186481573452787== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 12:00:08 -0500 cctalk-request(a)classiccmp.org wrote: > > It's like John Conway's "game of life," but more prone to cause > > uncontrollable fits of laughter. > > You owe me a new keyboard (and another glass of milk). Even in death, his power remains ;) --===============5656186481573452787==-- From jeffrey@vcfed.org Mon Jun 3 21:52:19 2024 From: Jeffrey Brace To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Richmond Retro Computer Meetup - Sat. Jun. 15, 2024 - Richmond, VA Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 17:51:47 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5209531790769090558==" --===============5209531790769090558== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Richmond Retro Computer Meetup Sat. Jun. 15, 2024 at the Richmond Public Library in Richmond, VA https://www.meetup.com/richmond-retro-computers/events/301122005/?utm_medium= =3Dreferral&utm_campaign=3Dshare-btn_savedevents_share_modal&utm_source=3Dlink --===============5209531790769090558==-- From lproven@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 12:17:47 2024 From: Liam Proven To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 13:17:27 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <9b7d67f7-9407-436f-82de-ee2481a42796@btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1469711790108459859==" --===============1469711790108459859== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 at 14:32, Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote: > That's a terrible analogy. The first cars were indeed ludicrously > expensive and owned almost exclusively by the wealthy and upper classes. > It took a good 20 years for the car to become affordable to the masses, > in the shape of the Ford Model T. And even then, the Model T wasn't > driven in any way similar to a modern car, it would take the Austin 7, > first built 15 years after the Model T, to truly standardize driving > controls. You are missing the point of the analogy. Here is the argument I parody: "look, cars were not the first motor vehicles, because there were trains. Trains are motor vehicles that move people and therefore you are wrong when you say cars were the first motor vehicles." I was comparing this with computers. Yes, there were standalone single-user desktop computers before the microprocessor. But the point is that _because_ they did not have microprocessors, they cost many thousands of dollars (HP, IBM) to tens of thousands of dollars (Tektronix) at that time, meaning tens to hundreds of thousands today. It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it. You can't say "but home plumbing isn't new -- the Romans had running water and people had inside toilets in the 18th century!" when the "people" who had indoor toilets were only the monarchs. That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe. Not kings and emperors and captains of industry. It's like saying "by the early 21st century, everyone had their own private jet". It is not true: the 0.001% of the richest of the rich have private jets. They exist as private transport but we do not all have personal jets. -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 --===============1469711790108459859==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 12:30:52 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:30:31 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8079103754522919463==" --===============8079103754522919463== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > > It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it. > > > that's an important distinction, affordability. You define personal computers to contain microprocessors, which made them affordable. The demand was always there, it's the point in the demand curve that allowed x% of the population of an affluent country to afford them. Above the point, not personal past it, personal. Is that what you're saying? --===============8079103754522919463==-- From wrcooke@wrcooke.net Wed Jun 5 13:03:21 2024 From: wrcooke@wrcooke.net To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:03:16 -0500 Message-ID: <1818682922.2574297.1717592596949@email.ionos.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0936718706597357066==" --===============0936718706597357066== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On 06/05/2024 7:17 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk = wrote: > > It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it. > > > > That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means > ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only > personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe. > To my mind, there are two things that define a computer as a personal compute= r. The first is what you say above, affordable by the masses. The second is= "intended for" the masses. When the Jan 75 issue of Popular Electronics came out I was 9 years old. I d= idn't know the magazine existed, nor could I have afforded a subscription if = I did. But I knew what computers were, and I knew I wanted one. But they we= re untouchable to me. I had seen one at my dad's office, and even seen some = programmers (up near the same category as seeing an astronaut to me.) But ha= ving a computer was a dream, like owning an F-4 Phantom. A couple of years later I saw the TRS-80 in a Radio Shack catalog. That was = my first sight of a "personal" computer. The price ($599?) was WELL outside = what I could afford, but it was achievable. AND... it was marketed toward "a= verage" people! Until I saw the TRS-80, owning a computer was a dream. After, it was a goal.= I strongly suspect that many people felt much the same way when they saw th= eir own first personal computer, whether it was a TRS-80 or an Altair or what= ever. But very few had that reaction to, say, A 9830. And the masses didn't= get a flyer in the mail advertising a 5100 to them. Just my 1/2 cent worth. Will Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for child= ren to be always and forever explaining things to them, Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince --===============0936718706597357066==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 13:33:28 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 09:33:09 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1818682922.2574297.1717592596949@email.ionos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6664041819845843044==" --===============6664041819845843044== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03=E2=80=AFAM Will Cooke via cctalk wrote: > > > > On 06/05/2024 7:17 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk > wrote: > > > > > It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it. > > > > > > > > That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means > > ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only > > personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe. > > > > To my mind, there are two things that define a computer as a personal > computer. The first is what you say above, affordable by the masses. The > second is "intended for" the masses. > > > So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing, it's not a "personal computer"? --===============6664041819845843044==-- From bill.gunshannon@hotmail.com Wed Jun 5 13:50:30 2024 From: Bill Gunshannon To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 09:48:25 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0730920676133268375==" --===============0730920676133268375== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/5/2024 9:33 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03=E2=80=AFAM Will Cooke via cctalk > wrote: >=20 >> >> >>> On 06/05/2024 7:17 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk >> wrote: >> >>> >>> It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it. >>> >>> >>> >>> That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means >>> ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only >>> personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe. >>> >> >> To my mind, there are two things that define a computer as a personal >> computer. The first is what you say above, affordable by the masses. The >> second is "intended for" the masses. >> >> >> > So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general > purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the > masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine > was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing, > it's not a "personal computer"? I think the term "personal computer" is impossible to define. Its meaning will mean something different to just about anybody. Kinda like "intelligence". Some accept IQ as a measurement. Some accept membership in Mensa as a measure of very high IQ. I, on the other hand, I see membership in Mensa a a factor requiring the subtraction of at least 50 points from IQ because they were stupid enough to pay someone for it. :-) bill --===============0730920676133268375==-- From wrcooke@wrcooke.net Wed Jun 5 14:21:59 2024 From: wrcooke@wrcooke.net To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 09:21:54 -0500 Message-ID: <701673281.2596382.1717597314843@email.ionos.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0200313274800126697==" --===============0200313274800126697== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On 06/05/2024 8:33 AM CDT Bill Degnan via cctalk = wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03=E2=80=AFAM Will Cooke via cctalk > wrote: >=20 > > > So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general > purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the > masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine > was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing, > it's not a "personal computer"? Yes. For my own definition. I have no real interest if anyone agrees or disagrees= . As I said, "to my mind" and "my 1/2 cent worth." I think there is a diffe= rence between a personal computer and a "Personal Computer." I only offer it= in case it is useful to someone else. Will Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for child= ren to be always and forever explaining things to them, Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince --===============0200313274800126697==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 14:46:54 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 10:46:34 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <701673281.2596382.1717597314843@email.ionos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4551057053639019368==" --===============4551057053639019368== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 10:21 AM Will Cooke via cctalk wrote: > > > > On 06/05/2024 8:33 AM CDT Bill Degnan via cctalk > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03 AM Will Cooke via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general > > purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the > > masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine > > was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing, > > it's not a "personal computer"? > > Yes. > For my own definition. I have no real interest if anyone agrees or > disagrees. As I said, "to my mind" and "my 1/2 cent worth." I think there > is a difference between a personal computer and a "Personal Computer." I > only offer it in case it is useful to someone else. > Fair enough. B > --===============4551057053639019368==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 15:26:18 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:25:58 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7836878773116348444==" --===============7836878773116348444== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 5:30=E2=80=AFAM Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it. > > > > > > > that's an important distinction, affordability. You define personal > computers to contain microprocessors, which made them affordable. The > demand was always there, it's the point in the demand curve that allowed x% > of the population of an affluent country to afford them. Above the > point, not personal past it, personal. > > Is that what you're saying? > The DigiComp 1 affordable for basically everyone. Sellam > --===============7836878773116348444==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 15:28:39 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:28:21 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1818682922.2574297.1717592596949@email.ionos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3546874212952298370==" --===============3546874212952298370== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 6:03 AM Will Cooke via cctalk wrote: > > When the Jan 75 issue of Popular Electronics came out I was 9 years old. > I didn't know the magazine existed, nor could I have afforded a > subscription if I did. But I knew what computers were, and I knew I wanted > one. But they were untouchable to me. I had seen one at my dad's office, > and even seen some programmers (up near the same category as seeing an > astronaut to me.) But having a computer was a dream, like owning an F-4 > Phantom. > > A couple of years later I saw the TRS-80 in a Radio Shack catalog. That > was my first sight of a "personal" computer. The price ($599?) was WELL > outside what I could afford, but it was achievable. AND... it was marketed > toward "average" people! > So, now we're adding the age of the buyer as an element of what defines a "personal" computer? Sellam > --===============3546874212952298370==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 15:30:39 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:30:19 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5587786851655636894==" --===============5587786851655636894== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What I have taken away from this whole now weeks-long debate is this: Everything is a personal computer; and nothing is. Sellam --===============5587786851655636894==-- From wrcooke@wrcooke.net Wed Jun 5 15:33:28 2024 From: wrcooke@wrcooke.net To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 10:33:21 -0500 Message-ID: <1393786408.2614506.1717601601932@email.ionos.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7999786255851650630==" --===============7999786255851650630== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable no > On 06/05/2024 10:28 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > > So, now we're adding the age of the buyer as an element of what defines a > "personal" computer? > > Sellam > > > No. Not sure where I said that. But, no. Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for child= ren to be always and forever explaining things to them, Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince --===============7999786255851650630==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 15:33:59 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 11:33:41 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4420035532778346470==" --===============4420035532778346470== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 11:30 AM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > What I have taken away from this whole now weeks-long debate is this: > > Everything is a personal computer; and nothing is. > > Sellam > Then there is the question of personnel computing. Is this computer used by an HR department? --===============4420035532778346470==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 15:37:22 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:37:04 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1393786408.2614506.1717601601932@email.ionos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0590882067235800056==" --===============0590882067235800056== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 8:33 AM Will Cooke via cctalk wrote: > no > > > On 06/05/2024 10:28 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > > So, now we're adding the age of the buyer as an element of what defines a > > "personal" computer? > > > > Sellam > > > > > > > No. Not sure where I said that. But, no. > You mentioned that an Altair 8800 and even a subscription to Popular Electronics was too much for your 9 year old self, but the TRS-80 wasn't? Perhaps I misinterpreted. At any rate, it matters not: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERSONAL COMPUTER. There, I've done it. You can all move on with living again. You Are Welcome. Sellam > --===============0590882067235800056==-- From wrcooke@wrcooke.net Wed Jun 5 15:39:42 2024 From: wrcooke@wrcooke.net To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 10:39:37 -0500 Message-ID: <109699247.2615869.1717601977132@email.ionos.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6711265803678227283==" --===============6711265803678227283== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On 06/05/2024 10:37 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 8:33=E2=80=AFAM Will Cooke via cctalk > wrote: >=20 > > no > > > On 06/05/2024 10:28 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via cctalk < > > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > >=20 > > > So, now we're adding the age of the buyer as an element of what defines= a > > > "personal" computer? > > > Sellam > > > >=20 > > No. Not sure where I said that. But, no. >=20 > You mentioned that an Altair 8800 and even a subscription to Popular > Electronics was too much for your 9 year old self, but the TRS-80 wasn't? > Perhaps I misinterpreted. >=20 > At any rate, it matters not: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERSONAL COMPUTER. >=20 > There, I've done it. >=20 > You can all move on with living again. You Are Welcome. >=20 > Sellam >=20 > > One simple question. If this "discussion" bothers you so much, why do you continue to drag it out?= =20 Thanks for making it all clear for me, though. Will Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for child= ren to be always and forever explaining things to them, Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince --===============6711265803678227283==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 15:45:40 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:45:21 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1971706135737896219==" --===============1971706135737896219== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 8:34=E2=80=AFAM Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 11:30=E2=80=AFAM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > What I have taken away from this whole now weeks-long debate is this: > > > > Everything is a personal computer; and nothing is. > > > > Sellam > > > > Then there is the question of personnel computing. Is this computer used > by an HR department? > I learned recently that the Plexus line of micro-mainframes (my term) were dubbed "Departmental Computers". Speaking of which, I have a Plexus P/75 Departmental Computer I'm selling right now =3D=3D> https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?threads/plexus-p-75-68000-based-departmenta= l-computer-500-obo.1248378/ Based on a Motorola 68020, definitely affordable at $500, and if you use it by yourself then it's a personal computer. In addition, it rolls on casters, so it's also portable! Buy it now before I lower the price again! (Glad I was able to get some utility out of this thread after all =F0=9F=98= =84) Sellam > --===============1971706135737896219==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 15:49:10 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:48:52 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <109699247.2615869.1717601977132@email.ionos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9053511549822731956==" --===============9053511549822731956== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 8:39 AM Will Cooke via cctalk wrote: > > One simple question. > If this "discussion" bothers you so much, why do you continue to drag it > out? > > Thanks for making it all clear for me, though. > > Will > Perhaps you haven't noticed but I've actually been trying to end it for a while. It's the "If you can't beat'em, join'em (then subvert them from within)" gambit. MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sellam --===============9053511549822731956==-- From rice43@btinternet.com Wed Jun 5 16:25:06 2024 From: Joshua Rice To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 17:24:59 +0100 Message-ID: <620a5687-bea5-4060-a249-3fe4a9507beb@btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8935710800508228733==" --===============8935710800508228733== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sellam, Adrian Black of Adrian's Digital Basement has a series on the Plexus=20 machines ongoing at the moment. I'd highly suggest contacting him, as i'm sure he'd be very interested=20 in adding to his collection. Josh Rice On 05/06/2024 16:45, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 8:34=E2=80=AFAM Bill Degnan via cctalk > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 11:30=E2=80=AFAM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < >> cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: >> >>> What I have taken away from this whole now weeks-long debate is this: >>> >>> Everything is a personal computer; and nothing is. >>> >>> Sellam >>> >> Then there is the question of personnel computing. Is this computer used >> by an HR department? >> > I learned recently that the Plexus line of micro-mainframes (my term) were > dubbed "Departmental Computers". > > Speaking of which, I have a Plexus P/75 Departmental Computer I'm selling > right now =3D=3D> > https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?threads/plexus-p-75-68000-based-departmen= tal-computer-500-obo.1248378/ > > Based on a Motorola 68020, definitely affordable at $500, and if you use it > by yourself then it's a personal computer. In addition, it rolls on > casters, so it's also portable! Buy it now before I lower the price again! > > (Glad I was able to get some utility out of this thread after all =F0=9F=98= =84) > > Sellam > --===============8935710800508228733==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 16:52:24 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 09:52:00 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <620a5687-bea5-4060-a249-3fe4a9507beb@btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0432134380887533001==" --===============0432134380887533001== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:25=E2=80=AFAM Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote: > Sellam, > > Adrian Black of Adrian's Digital Basement has a series on the Plexus > machines ongoing at the moment. > > I'd highly suggest contacting him, as i'm sure he'd be very interested > in adding to his collection. > > Josh Rice > Maybe, but I doubt it. Before his video came out I had no idea there was a small tower model of the Plexus. This one is quite larger than anything he's ever worked on, and I'm guessing it would be a great feat to get this thing down into his basement. Sellam --===============0432134380887533001==-- From rice43@btinternet.com Wed Jun 5 17:03:14 2024 From: Joshua Rice To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 18:03:08 +0100 Message-ID: <2df4387c-5ef6-4368-a2f6-442c7078bdc0@btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4224680229797911055==" --===============4224680229797911055== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/06/2024 16:37, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > *snip* > You mentioned that an Altair 8800 and even a subscription to Popular > Electronics was too much for your 9 year old self, but the TRS-80 wasn't? > Perhaps I misinterpreted. > > At any rate, it matters not: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERSONAL COMPUTER. > > There, I've done it. > > You can all move on with living again. You Are Welcome. > > Sellam > To quote a popular Australian childrens show, "It's just monkeys singing songs, mate", meaning "There's no reason to over think it" The argument as to what defines a personal computer is as nuanced and varied as "what defines a retro computer". No-one will ever agree, because no-one has exactly the same opinions on what defines such a thing. There is literally no way for everyone to nail down a precise definition, because everyone's definitions are different. Attempting to justify your position is ultimately pointless, because you will never get a majority to agree with your position. To spin things round to a personal opinion of mine (not related to the "Personal Computer" argument here), i'm of the opinion that the "minicomputer" never died. Modern multicore x86 servers with attached iSCSI SANs and ultra high speed connectivity are topologically similar to a PDP-11 with a bunch of RL02's serving a room full of VT220's. But then there's a lot of people who would scoff at the comparison. But that's my opinion. As someone once said "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and they all stink." Josh Rice --===============4224680229797911055==-- From brianb1224@aol.com Wed Jun 5 17:12:53 2024 From: brianb1224 To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 12:12:44 -0500 Message-ID: <496159052.263687.1717607569026@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3291209626900460967==" --===============3291209626900460967== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit If I had his digital basement I would never come out.  --===============3291209626900460967==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 17:30:39 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 10:30:14 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2df4387c-5ef6-4368-a2f6-442c7078bdc0@btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0891352547419524022==" --===============0891352547419524022== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:03 AM Joshua Rice via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > As someone once said "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and > they all stink." > > Josh Rice > Nothing but opinions and assholes around here ;) Sellam --===============0891352547419524022==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 17:30:47 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 10:30:20 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <496159052.263687.1717607569026@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4567799177355204192==" --===============4567799177355204192== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Come on by my warehouse, I'll hook you up to where you make Adrian look like a rank amateur ;) Sellam On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:12=E2=80=AFAM brianb1224 via cctalk wrote: > If I had his digital basement I would never come out. > --===============4567799177355204192==-- From bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca Wed Jun 5 17:39:30 2024 From: ben To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 11:39:13 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6169951642479052244==" --===============6169951642479052244== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2024-06-05 9:45 a.m., Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > I learned recently that the Plexus line of micro-mainframes (my term) were > dubbed "Departmental Computers". >=20 > Speaking of which, I have a Plexus P/75 Departmental Computer I'm selling > right now =3D=3D> > https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?threads/plexus-p-75-68000-based-departmen= tal-computer-500-obo.1248378/ >=20 > Based on a Motorola 68020, definitely affordable at $500, and if you use it > by yourself then it's a personal computer. In addition, it rolls on > casters, so it's also portable! Buy it now before I lower the price again! >=20 > (Glad I was able to get some utility out of this thread after all =F0=9F=98= =84) >=20 Nope. I want 36 bits and not a PDP 10 or 6. > Sellam >=20 --===============6169951642479052244==-- From brianb1224@aol.com Wed Jun 5 18:01:12 2024 From: brianb1224 To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 13:00:51 -0500 Message-ID: <1563487461.208191.1717610460542@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4170943960531421101==" --===============4170943960531421101== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 😀 --===============4170943960531421101==-- From lproven@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 22:25:26 2024 From: Liam Proven To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 23:25:09 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4670415383233346774==" --===============4670415383233346774== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 13:30, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: > that's an important distinction, affordability. You define personal > computers to contain microprocessors, which made them affordable. The > demand was always there, it's the point in the demand curve that allowed x% > of the population of an affluent country to afford them. Above the > point, not personal past it, personal. > > Is that what you're saying? Yep, pretty much. This is one way of _describing_ it. There are others. Another way of looking at it is this: a personal computer is a type of microcomputer. This is using the old classification of microcomputer, minicomputer and mainframe. If a device is not a microcomputer, it then must be either a minicomputer or a mainframe. Early on many mainframes didn't even support interactive sessions so they more or less disqualified themselves from being "personal" in any commonly-understood sense. Which leaves minicomputers. A single-user desktop (or deskside) minicomputer isn't a personal computer, because it's not a microcomputer. (And it costs as much as a car.) Then what is it? What do you call a single-user minicomputer? The other, often overlooked category: it's a workstation. Workstations, for as long as they existed, were personal computer _like_ devices but typically an order of magnitude more powerful and an order of magnitude more expensive. They also generally ran what ben mononym calls a proper OS. Workstations existed before microcomputers and before personal computers, and continued happily existing for about 30 more years, but by the time of 32-bit high-performance PCs with grown-up OSs, they were teetering, and by the time of commodity _64-bit_ PCs, or multiprocessor/multicore PCs with OSes that could use that, or of course both (64-bit multi-core), they were dead. A workstation wasn't really a type of PC. They exceeded PCs in specification, in performance, in price, and in sophistication of the OS... and when PCs caught up, they obliterated workstations because workstations also exceeded PCs in price by, as I said, at least an additional zero. -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 --===============4670415383233346774==-- From cisin@xenosoft.com Wed Jun 5 22:49:07 2024 From: Fred Cisin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 15:49:01 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0233987135873856150==" --===============0233987135873856150== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Workstation"??!? Several decades ago, out department chairPERSON, who was a recent UC Berkeley PhD graduate, came running into the lab, shouting, "I think that we're getting SUN computers!" (we had a few dozen cheap PCs). She had heard from the loading dock that they had a couple of boxes labeled "Computer Workstation" arriving for us. She was so disappointed, when the "Computer Workstations" turned out to be work tables on casters for holding a computer, to provide a fancier stand for holding the computer that the instructor uses in the classroom. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 13:30, Bill Degnan via cctalk > wrote: > >> that's an important distinction, affordability. You define personal >> computers to contain microprocessors, which made them affordable. The >> demand was always there, it's the point in the demand curve that allowed x% >> of the population of an affluent country to afford them. Above the >> point, not personal past it, personal. >> >> Is that what you're saying? > > Yep, pretty much. > > This is one way of _describing_ it. There are others. > > Another way of looking at it is this: a personal computer is a type of > microcomputer. This is using the old classification of microcomputer, > minicomputer and mainframe. > > If a device is not a microcomputer, it then must be either a > minicomputer or a mainframe. Early on many mainframes didn't even > support interactive sessions so they more or less disqualified > themselves from being "personal" in any commonly-understood sense. > Which leaves minicomputers. > > A single-user desktop (or deskside) minicomputer isn't a personal > computer, because it's not a microcomputer. (And it costs as much as a > car.) Then what is it? What do you call a single-user minicomputer? > > The other, often overlooked category: it's a workstation. > > Workstations, for as long as they existed, were personal computer > _like_ devices but typically an order of magnitude more powerful and > an order of magnitude more expensive. They also generally ran what ben > mononym calls a proper OS. > > Workstations existed before microcomputers and before personal > computers, and continued happily existing for about 30 more years, but > by the time of 32-bit high-performance PCs with grown-up OSs, they > were teetering, and by the time of commodity _64-bit_ PCs, or > multiprocessor/multicore PCs with OSes that could use that, or of > course both (64-bit multi-core), they were dead. > > A workstation wasn't really a type of PC. They exceeded PCs in > specification, in performance, in price, and in sophistication of the > OS... and when PCs caught up, they obliterated workstations because > workstations also exceeded PCs in price by, as I said, at least an > additional zero. > > -- > Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven > Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com > Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven > IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 > Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 > --===============0233987135873856150==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Thu Jun 6 04:10:32 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 21:10:08 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8235671601921125803==" --===============8235671601921125803== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 3:25=E2=80=AFPM Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > > If a device is not a microcomputer, it then must be either a > minicomputer or a mainframe. Early on many mainframes didn't even > support interactive sessions so they more or less disqualified > themselves from being "personal" in any commonly-understood sense. > Disagree. Someone has to give it input to get output, and that can be one person using the mainframe by themselves. So again, this kind of " description" still does not cut it. Which leaves minicomputers. > > A single-user desktop (or deskside) minicomputer isn't a personal > computer, because it's not a microcomputer. (And it costs as much as a > car.) Then what is it? What do you call a single-user minicomputer? > Where has it been established/agreed/decreed that "personal computer" =3D "microcomputer" + some other traits? The attempt to frame the term in economic respects just does not work. People in the 70s could and did buy refurbished minicomputers for their personal use, and in a timeframe in which they were still be considered contemporary and not "obsolete". The other, often overlooked category: it's a workstation. > > Workstations, for as long as they existed, were personal computer > _like_ devices but typically an order of magnitude more powerful and > an order of magnitude more expensive. They also generally ran what ben > mononym calls a proper OS. > > Workstations existed before microcomputers and before personal > computers, and continued happily existing for about 30 more years, but > by the time of 32-bit high-performance PCs with grown-up OSs, they > were teetering, and by the time of commodity _64-bit_ PCs, or > multiprocessor/multicore PCs with OSes that could use that, or of > course both (64-bit multi-core), they were dead. > ... > > -- > Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Why don't we just use the term "workstation" to describe all microcomputers used personally then, which is all of them? The difference in scale of performance, memory, disk storage, etc. isn't much of a distinction, since they're both used in a "personal" sense. But don't worry, I am here to finally solve this riddle: Consider: if you share a bathroom with the public where other people can walk in while you're doing your business and do theirs, it's not your *personal* bathroom. If you ride a bus, where multiple random people get on and off at various stops, it's not a "personal" conveyance. If you use a computer that simultaneously is or can be used by other people via multiple concurrent user sessions across whatever signal path, whatever the setting, it is *not* "personal". If you own and use a computer by yourself, and use it singularly (or others do so when you are not), then in fact, by definition, it is *personal*. Do you see? The opposite of personal is multi-user. There is your dichotomy. It is either personal, or multiuser, and never the twain shall meet, and neither anything betwixt. I submit that this is the actual historical context of the original meaning of the term "personal computer". I REST MY CASE. Sellam --===============8235671601921125803==-- From lproven@gmail.com Thu Jun 6 12:38:23 2024 From: Liam Proven To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 13:38:05 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6339735314894085663==" --===============6339735314894085663== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 at 05:10, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > If you ride a bus, where multiple random people get > on and off at various stops, it's not a "personal" conveyance. I refute your argument thus: If you buy a bus and start driving it yourself everywhere, for your own exclusive use, it doesn't somehow magically stop being a bus. It's still a bus, just a bus being used for personal transport. Stephen Fry, the actor and writer, is quite tall. 6'5". He drives a London black cab as his personal car. It's his car, but it's not _a_ car. It's still a taxi cab: a purpose-built 6-seat vehicle. (I am 6'2" but I get why. I can't see out of the windscreen of a Citroen 2CV: its top is lower than my chin. I have ridden NYC yellow cabs, huge saloon cars with a partition shoved in behind the front seats. I don't fit in the back. It's really painful. This is why purpose-built vehicles for lots of people and a driver in their own compartment exist, and it's very American to ignore them and try to crowbar some other, unsuitable tool into the role because the better device was Not Invented Here.) A personal computer is not any random computer used by a single person. It's a product category, like "car" as opposed to "train" or "bus". Some rich people can buy their own helicopter and use them to go where they want. (Flown by a professional because flying a helicopter is like rubbing your stomach and patting your head while walking a tightrope.) That does not make that helicopter into a car. A workstation was, essentially, a minicomputer built to be a single-user device, but cost as much as a room full of terminals or micros. It's not the same thing. -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 --===============6339735314894085663==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Thu Jun 6 13:11:26 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 06:11:07 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6606302103647742783==" --===============6606302103647742783== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I refute your refutations thusly: On Thu, Jun 6, 2024, 5:38=E2=80=AFAM Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 at 05:10, Sellam Abraham via cctalk > wrote: > > > If you ride a bus, where multiple random people get > > on and off at various stops, it's not a "personal" conveyance. > > I refute your argument thus: > > If you buy a bus and start driving it yourself everywhere, for your > own exclusive use, it doesn't somehow magically stop being a bus. It's > still a bus, just a bus being used for personal transport. > Ah! You said it: "personal". So, agreed. Stephen Fry, the actor and writer, is quite tall. 6'5". He drives a > London black cab as his personal car. > There it is again: "personal". It's his car, but it's not _a_ car. It's still a taxi cab: a purpose-built > 6-seat vehicle. Agreed, and still used...personally. (I am 6'2" but I get why. I can't see out of the windscreen of a > Citroen 2CV: its top is lower than my chin. I have ridden NYC yellow > cabs, huge saloon cars with a partition shoved in behind the front > seats. I don't fit in the back. It's really painful. This is why > purpose-built vehicles for lots of people and a driver in their own > compartment exist, and it's very American to ignore them and try to > crowbar some other, unsuitable tool into the role because the better > device was Not Invented Here.) > Your height advantage does not an argument make. A personal computer is not any random computer used by a single > person. It's a product category, like "car" as opposed to "train" or > "bus". > Now you're back in the marketing camp, where booze, coke, and sales are the controlling factors. Marketers make good slogans but bad engineers. Some rich people can buy their own helicopter and use them to go where > they want. (Flown by a professional because flying a helicopter is > like rubbing your stomach and patting your head while walking a > tightrope.) That does not make that helicopter into a car. > Who is trying to argue a helicopter is a car? You are. If I own a computer that I use personally and invite my friend over to play a game on it, does that cease to make it personal? If I buy it for my secretary to use on my behalf, does that cease to make it personal (since it is still just one person--her--using it)? If I let you drive or fly me around in my personal car or helicopter (respectively), I'm just letting you use it when I'm not. If I occasionally use my personal bus that I drive myself around in for roving parties involving a group of my friends (or even random strangers I invite on, why not) then it doesn't cease to become personal, same as Stephen Fry can occasionally take on a passenger in his taxi cab if he feels like it, just like I can occasionally use my personal computer to perform tasks for others. In all cases, the primary use is still personal: one person is driving/flying at one time. Two people trying to simultaneously drive a car or fly a helicopter would be awkward, to say the least, especially when one person wants to go left and the other wants to fly higher. A workstation was, essentially, a minicomputer built to be a > single-user device, but cost as much as a room full of terminals or > micros. It's not the same thing. > Ok, now you're back to cost. Your criteria keep changing. You cannot give something meaning when the "something" keeps changing. This is why you are refuted. I refute you, sir! Sellam --===============6606302103647742783==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Thu Jun 6 13:19:26 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 09:19:07 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3717818050730129631==" --===============3717818050730129631== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > > Ok, now you're back to cost. Your criteria keep changing. You cannot > give something meaning when the "something" keeps changing. This is why > you are refuted. > > I refute you, sir! > > > Sellam, There's "personal computing" as a verb and "personal computer" as an object classification. These are distinct terms. Using a UNIVAC 1 for personal computing purposes does not make the UNIVAC 1 a personal computer in so far as the UNIVAC 1 was not originally classified (such as with the patent office) as a device intended for the express purpose of personal computing, as defined as blah blah blah. One could argue that the manufacturer as the right to declare what is and is not the intended personal use of the thing they're manufacturing, as represented by the manuals, promotions and marketing, training, etc. So, I think really it's possible to declare anything a personal computer or not a personal computer if you have some sort of base definitions for these things. I think that's the problem we're having, the terms "personal computer" and personal computing are not really dictionary words. Bill --===============3717818050730129631==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Thu Jun 6 13:35:55 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 06:35:37 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6441990253459585697==" --===============6441990253459585697== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 6, 2024, 6:19=E2=80=AFAM Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: > > > Ok, now you're back to cost. Your criteria keep changing. You cannot > > give something meaning when the "something" keeps changing. This is why > > you are refuted. > > > > I refute you, sir! > > > > Sellam There's "personal computing" as a verb and "personal computer" as an object > classification. These are distinct terms. Using a UNIVAC 1 for personal > computing purposes does not make the UNIVAC 1 a personal computer in so far > as the UNIVAC 1 was not originally classified (such as with the patent > office) as a device intended for the express purpose of personal computing, > as defined as blah blah blah. > There were no classifications of computers when the UNIVAC was built. They were just "computers" (spoken in the old-timey news voice). Personal use did not and could not have even been considered until there was 30 more years of development to bring costs and size down to make them ubiquitous, for comparisons to begin to be made so categories could be invented by marketers, and computers categorized into various classifications. But none of that matters because it comes down to how they're used. One could argue that the manufacturer as the right to declare what is and > is not the intended personal use of the thing they're manufacturing, as > represented by the manuals, promotions and marketing, training, etc. > And it is the right of the buyer to use that product in any way they want, including personally. So, I think really it's possible to declare anything a personal computer or > not a personal computer if you have some sort of base definitions for these > things. I think that's the problem we're having, the terms "personal > computer" and personal computing are not really dictionary words. > > Bill > Go back to what I said about the context in which the term was used: at the time, "computers" were primarily a multi-user, time-sharing affair. To have a computer for one's own exclusive use is what made it personal, and that's what Ed Roberts had in mind when he implemented the term. So you are also refuted. I refute you! Anyone else, before I clear the board of all the pieces, declare myself winner, and go home? Sellam > --===============6441990253459585697==-- From cmhanson@eschatologist.net Fri Jun 7 02:04:43 2024 From: Chris Hanson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Heurikon HK68/M10 (Multibus) information? Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 16:42:18 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3113336094581243241==" --===============3113336094581243241== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Does anyone have any manuals or other information on the Heurikon HK68/M10? O= r the Hbug ROMs for it? The HK68/M10 is a Multibus 68010 board with serial, SCSI, parallel, timers, 1= MB onboard RAM, 2- or 4-channel DMA, and an optional 68451 MMU. It's similar = but not identical to the HK68/V10 (the VMEbus version) and so far I haven't b= een able to find much that would make one usable. I'm particularly interested in: An Hbug ROM. Pinouts for the top edge connectors, which provide the serial ports, the SCSI= port, and the parallel port. Jumpering/strapping and other configuration information. And of course it'd be incredible to find the UniPlus+ distribution for it, bu= t I'm not holding out much hope for that. I already know what's on Bitsavers=E2=80=94such as the brochure=E2=80=94and I= 've already looked at the MAME HK68/V10 emulation, so no need to point those = out. -- Chris --===============3113336094581243241==-- From cisin@xenosoft.com Fri Jun 7 14:18:21 2024 From: Fred Cisin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 07:18:16 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6116584606845160657==" --===============6116584606845160657== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Before we do any more automotive analogies of the "personal computer" definitions, . . . Could somebody explain to me What is a "muscle car"? What is a "sports car" I have heard the Ford Mustang, which seems like a Foulcon with cosmetically redesigned body panels, referred to as each of those. I think that the Mustang came stock with one of the wimpiest six cylinder engines that Ford had. If you special ordered the optional four cylinder engine, would it still be a "muscle car"? Handling seemed to be pretty much unchanged from the Foulcon. Did you need the dealer-option racing stripe to be a "sports car"? We can at least all agree that the Ford Mustang was not a "personal computer", nor "Personal Computer", although almost any Personal Computer could fit in the back seat or the trunk, but probably not in the glove compartment. A mini-computer, disunirregardless of whether it was "Personal", would require the convertible model, with the top down. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com --===============6116584606845160657==-- From ard.p850ug1@gmail.com Fri Jun 7 15:19:31 2024 From: Tony Duell To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 16:19:17 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6253584478493287427==" --===============6253584478493287427== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 1:38 PM Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > If you buy a bus and start driving it yourself everywhere, for your > own exclusive use, it doesn't somehow magically stop being a bus. It's > still a bus, just a bus being used for personal transport. I am not so sure... After all 'bus' is a contraction of 'omnibus' which, according to Flanders and Swann means 'To or for, by with or from everybody'. More seriosly, a bus is a vehicle that anyone may travel on. I know a couple of people who own old London buses. They tell me that you need a different driving licence (and probably insurance) if you carry fare-paying passengers. They can drive their vehcles to classic car shows etc. They can carry people for free (at said person's own risk). But they can't charge fares. Said vehicles remain Routemasters, Regents,etc but may well legally not be buses. Incidentally, a neighbour asked me for comments on a question which had appeared on the 'Reader's Questions' page of a UK national newspaper : 'Which was the first handheld computer?' My thoughts are : Balancing a PDP11/05 on one hand and operating the front panel with the other doesn't count :-) It has to be able to run a user program. So non-programmable calculators, Curtas, slide rules, etc don't count. If it has to run what is normally accepted as a computer programming language and handle text then something like the Sharp PC1210 or PC1211 would seem t be a reasonable answer. If machines that only handle numbers count, then a reasonable answer is the Sumlock 324, which pre-dates the HP65 by a couple of weeks. -tony --===============6253584478493287427==-- From ard.p850ug1@gmail.com Fri Jun 7 15:24:18 2024 From: Tony Duell To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 16:23:51 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4928107118732577707==" --===============4928107118732577707== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 5:10 AM Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > The opposite of > personal is multi-user. There is your dichotomy. It is either personal, > or multiuser, and never the twain shall meet, and neither anything betwixt. By that definition the TRS-80 Color Computer is not a personal computer (it could run OS-9) Neither is the IBM 5150 'Personal Computer' as it could run Minix -tony --===============4928107118732577707==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Fri Jun 7 15:29:47 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 11:29:30 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6418179840359246962==" --===============6418179840359246962== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Still valid? Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the question: "What was the first PC?" http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:24=E2=80=AFAM Tony Duell via cctalk wrote: > On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 5:10=E2=80=AFAM Sellam Abraham via cctalk > wrote: > > The opposite of > > personal is multi-user. There is your dichotomy. It is either personal, > > or multiuser, and never the twain shall meet, and neither anything > betwixt. > > By that definition the TRS-80 Color Computer is not a personal > computer (it could run OS-9) > > Neither is the IBM 5150 'Personal Computer' as it could run Minix > > -tony > --===============6418179840359246962==-- From c.murray.mccullough@gmail.com Fri Jun 7 15:56:36 2024 From: Murray McCullough To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 11:56:17 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2046158101497894287==" --===============2046158101497894287== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Wow! How truly interesting. Back then I guess one could call it a personal/micro-computer -Simon 1949. This was early digital age where mechanical devices ruled. Not my idea of a modern PC. Nonetheless, the quiz gives more information than what is found in books on the subject. Happy computing - modern fashion! Murray 😊 On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:29 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > Still valid? > Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the > question: "What was the first PC?" > http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:24 AM Tony Duell via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 5:10 AM Sellam Abraham via cctalk > > wrote: > > > The opposite of > > > personal is multi-user. There is your dichotomy. It is either > personal, > > > or multiuser, and never the twain shall meet, and neither anything > > betwixt. > > > > By that definition the TRS-80 Color Computer is not a personal > > computer (it could run OS-9) > > > > Neither is the IBM 5150 'Personal Computer' as it could run Minix > > > > -tony > > > --===============2046158101497894287==-- From chris@mainecoon.com Fri Jun 7 16:10:18 2024 From: Christian Kennedy To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Sports cars (was: Re: Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 09:10:08 -0700 Message-ID: <868276e6-7002-4efc-8783-5d9288145704@mainecoon.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7281607213617502002==" --===============7281607213617502002== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/7/24 07:18, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > Before we do any more automotive analogies of the "personal computer" > definitions, . . . > Could somebody explain to me > What is a "muscle car"? A semi-archaic term used in reference to cars defined primarily by power output relative to the average at the time the vehicle was marketed. > What is a "sports car" A semi-archaic term used to describe a car which is designed to handle well at the expense of ride comfort and size. A muscle car was typically relatively good at the quarter mile, but frequently miserable on the track. A sports car frequently was not particularly powerful.  The series one Lotus 7 shipped with a Ford Sidevalve engine rocking in at 36HP, the Series two upgraded to a Ford Kent, initially making...39HP. > > I have heard the Ford Mustang, which seems like a Foulcon with > cosmetically redesigned body panels, referred to as each of those. In the special case of the Mustang, it depends on when you ask the question. The Mustang was literally originally marketed, I kid you not, as a car for secretaries.  As you suggest, it started life as a generation-two Falcon with a body kit (this isn't strictly true, the original 1962 T-5 Mustang was a two seat, mid-engine thing of which I believe two were built).  As initially designed, it was never intended to be a high performance vehicle, although the Falcon chassis actually handled remarkably well for the time.   It was for all intents essentially a parts bin car, using interior, chassis, suspension, and drivetrain components from the Falcon and the Fairlane -- enough so that people trained to build or maintain either of those vehicles could find their way around a Mustang without any real additional training. > > I think that the Mustang came stock with one of the wimpiest six > cylinder engines that Ford had.  If you special ordered the optional > four cylinder engine, would it still be a "muscle car"? The original six rocked in at 2.8L making a whopping 101 HP, this was almost immediately replaced by a 3.3L pumping out 120HP; the other option was a 4.3L V8 making a miserable 164HP, followed in the same 1964 1/2 upgrade by a 4.7L grinding out 210HP.  Pretty awful numbers for today, but by the standards of the time, not terribly bad given the use of dizzies and one (for the six) and two barrel carbs; for comparison, the 3.7L I6 in the first generation Camaro made 140HP. Ford wasn't uniquely bad at extracting power from gasoline, but it wasn't until the Mustang-spawned horsepower wars of the later 1960's and very early 1970's that they started to make semi-respectable power. > > Handling seemed to be pretty much unchanged from the Foulcon.  Did you > need the dealer-option racing stripe to be a "sports car"? The Series I Mustang is very much a Falcon with a body kit, but despite being sedans, Falcons handled quite well, and with the lighter body of the Mustang was quite respectable.  By the commonly used terms, the series one Mustang was a reasonable sports car, but decidedly not a muscle car.  Move to 1969, the Mustang gets larger and heavier, but the 4.9L V8 is making a more respectable 290HP while the insane 7.0L is cranking out 375 while not materially affecting weight or weight distribution.  The Mustang in now both a muscle car and a sports car.  Of course it was all downhill after that, until emissions regulations required manufacturers to make things run properly and computing power evolved to make it possible. > > We can at least all agree that the Ford Mustang was not a "personal > computer", nor "Personal Computer", although almost any Personal > Computer could fit in the back seat or the trunk, but probably not in > the glove compartment.  A mini-computer, disunirregardless of whether > it was "Personal", would require the convertible model, with the top > down. Not sure about that.  We stuck a Nova 840, a couple of Diablo 30's, and assorted other bits and bobs in a 1960's Mustang, and I once dragged an Eclipse S/130, Diablo model 30, and a Hazeltine 2000 home in a early 1970's Toyota Corolla.  All sans racks, of course... -- Christian Kennedy, Ph.D. chris(a)mainecoon.com AF6AP | DB00000692 | PG00029419 http://www.mainecoon.com PGP KeyID 108DAB97 PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97 "Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration…" --===============7281607213617502002==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 7 16:34:22 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Sports cars (was: Re: Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 09:33:58 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <868276e6-7002-4efc-8783-5d9288145704@mainecoon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8712038743500293902==" --===============8712038743500293902== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 9:10 AM Christian Kennedy via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > Not sure about that. We stuck a Nova 840, a couple of Diablo 30's, and > assorted other bits and bobs in a 1960's Mustang, and I once dragged an > Eclipse S/130, Diablo model 30, and a Hazeltine 2000 home in a early > 1970's Toyota Corolla. All sans racks, of course... > > -- > Christian Kennedy, Ph.D. > I once hauled home about 20 Apple //e's and peripherals in a 2-door Honda Civic Coupe. Trust me, it was impressive. Sellam --===============8712038743500293902==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 7 16:39:48 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 09:39:25 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6613162774226620570==" --===============6613162774226620570== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:29=E2=80=AFAM Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: > Still valid? > Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the > question: "What was the first PC?" > http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml That's Doug Salot's old website circa 2000. He did an admirable job back then for what we all collectively knew (he didn't just pull this stuff out of his arse, he actually did some research). Sellam --===============6613162774226620570==-- From wrcooke@wrcooke.net Fri Jun 7 16:47:30 2024 From: wrcooke@wrcooke.net To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 11:47:24 -0500 Message-ID: <1195383562.3022883.1717778845001@email.ionos.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2095485247932937404==" --===============2095485247932937404== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On 06/07/2024 9:18 AM CDT Fred Cisin via cctalk w= rote: > > > We can at least all agree that the Ford Mustang was not a "personal > computer", nor "Personal Computer", although almost any Personal Computer > could fit in the back seat or the trunk, but probably not in the glove > compartment. A mini-computer, disunirregardless of whether it was > "Personal", would require the convertible model, with the top down. > > -- > Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com Hmmm, if you get into that shiny new 1965 'stang, start it (that's the hard p= art. It IS a Ford.), put it in D and press the accelerator, it will solve a = whole slew of differential equations concerning mass, engine power and RPM, g= ravity, friction, wind resistance, etc for the speed that solves them all sim= ultaneously and give an answer on a "solution gauge" (aka speedometer.) So, = a computer. And since automobiles are a very personal thing, most definitely= a "personal computer." :-) Will Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for child= ren to be always and forever explaining things to them, Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince --===============2095485247932937404==-- From emu@e-bbes.com Fri Jun 7 17:34:35 2024 From: emanuel stiebler To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Sports cars Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 13:34:25 -0400 Message-ID: <1a01a160-1b05-4e4b-9ca5-5e0cc52a0e69@e-bbes.com> In-Reply-To: <868276e6-7002-4efc-8783-5d9288145704@mainecoon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0079863229832540553==" --===============0079863229832540553== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2024-06-07 12:10, Christian Kennedy via cctalk wrote: > On 6/7/24 07:18, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: >> Before we do any more automotive analogies of the "personal computer" >> definitions, . . . >> Could somebody explain to me >> What is a "muscle car"? You guys just prove again, that any thread about vintage computer will lead eventually to ford carburetors ... :) --===============0079863229832540553==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Fri Jun 7 18:01:01 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:00:42 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8903512851646420241==" --===============8903512851646420241== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 12:39 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:29 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> > wrote: > > > Still valid? > > Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the > > question: "What was the first PC?" > > http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml > > > That's Doug Salot's old website circa 2000. He did an admirable job back > then for what we all collectively knew (he didn't just pull this stuff out > of his arse, he actually did some research). > > Sellam > Yes I mean, how well did this page / research age? For example I have elsewhere made the case that the NRI 832 pre-dates the Kenbak and I made the case as well that yes is a personal computer. The LGP-30 is totally missing. Olivetti 101, Etc. > --===============8903512851646420241==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 7 19:31:34 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 12:31:14 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5220526895272889349==" --===============5220526895272889349== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 11:01=E2=80=AFAM Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 12:39 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:29=E2=80=AFAM Bill Degnan via cctalk < > > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Still valid? > > > Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the > > > question: "What was the first PC?" > > > http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml > > > > > > That's Doug Salot's old website circa 2000. He did an admirable job back > > then for what we all collectively knew (he didn't just pull this stuff > out > > of his arse, he actually did some research). > > > > Sellam > > > > Yes I mean, how well did this page / research age? For example I have > elsewhere made the case that the NRI 832 pre-dates the Kenbak and I made > the case as well that yes is a personal computer. The LGP-30 is totally > missing. Olivetti 101, Etc. > I don't know that we (collectively) knew about the LGP-30 back then. The Olivetti, maybe. Remember, he made that website back when the Internet was about as searchable as it is today (i.e. not that great) to say nothing of the fact that not that many computer history/collector websites were out there back then. Sellam > --===============5220526895272889349==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Fri Jun 7 19:34:23 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 15:34:05 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1416507735788004086==" --===============1416507735788004086== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 3:31 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 11:01 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 12:39 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < > > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:29 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk < > > > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Still valid? > > > > Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the > > > > question: "What was the first PC?" > > > > http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml > > > > > > > > > That's Doug Salot's old website circa 2000. He did an admirable job > back > > > then for what we all collectively knew (he didn't just pull this stuff > > out > > > of his arse, he actually did some research). > > > > > > Sellam > > > > > > > Yes I mean, how well did this page / research age? For example I have > > elsewhere made the case that the NRI 832 pre-dates the Kenbak and I made > > the case as well that yes is a personal computer. The LGP-30 is totally > > missing. Olivetti 101, Etc. > > > > I don't know that we (collectively) knew about the LGP-30 back then. The > Olivetti, maybe. Remember, he made that website back when the Internet was > about as searchable as it is today (i.e. not that great) to say nothing of > the fact that not that many computer history/collector websites were out > there back then. > > Sellam > > > > So you're saying it has aged, new facts have crept in to make this site look dated. B > --===============1416507735788004086==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Sat Jun 8 01:19:45 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 20:19:37 -0500 Message-ID: <2da02aa6-3b77-2c99-88b7-86c1431f139b@pico-systems.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3608000831328503752==" --===============3608000831328503752== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/7/24 10:29, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: > Still valid? > Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the > question: "What was the first PC?" > http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml > OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix about 1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people involved with it later moved to Washington University in St. Louis.  The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some features such a a crude memory mapping unit and more memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not to scare people away.  Artronix began building these PC's and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy planning.  I have no idea how many were sold.  They were built into a desk, and used 7400-series logic chips.  They etched their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and soldered in the chips by hand.  I wrote a series of diagnostics for them. Jon --===============3608000831328503752==-- From vincent.slyngstad@gmail.com Sat Jun 8 01:42:17 2024 From: Vincent Slyngstad To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 18:42:12 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2da02aa6-3b77-2c99-88b7-86c1431f139b@pico-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1913972086130590720==" --===============1913972086130590720== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix about 1972. The LINC > computer was developed at MIT for use in biomedical research labs, and a > bunch of people involved with it later moved to Washington University in > St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some features > such a a crude memory mapping unit and more memory, and called this the > Programmed Console, so as not to scare people away.  Artronix began > building these PC's and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy > planning.  I have no idea how many were sold.  They were built into a > desk, and used 7400-series logic chips.  They etched their own PC > boards, drilled them by hand and soldered in the chips by hand.  I wrote > a series of diagnostics for them. Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one. Vince --===============1913972086130590720==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Sat Jun 8 14:43:34 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 09:43:28 -0500 Message-ID: <3743662f-e2a4-d81b-de39-20d854c00a99@pico-systems.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5891514122484416308==" --===============5891514122484416308== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote: > On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: >> OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix about >> 1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in >> biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people involved >> with it later moved to Washington University in St. >> Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some >> features such a a crude memory mapping unit and more >> memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not >> to scare people away.  Artronix began building these PC's >> and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy >> planning.  I have no idea how many were sold. They were >> built into a desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They >> etched their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and >> soldered in the chips by hand.  I wrote a series of >> diagnostics for them. > > Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one. An Artronix PC?  I seriously doubt it, but it is possible.  There is at least one LINC that was restored about a decade ago, and taken out to VCF 10.  If an Artronix PC did evade the scrapper, it would not be that hard to get it running again. Jon --===============5891514122484416308==-- From vincent.slyngstad@gmail.com Sat Jun 8 16:56:35 2024 From: Vincent Slyngstad To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 09:56:29 -0700 Message-ID: <356a4d7b-5dc1-439b-a585-4d2790f2f4fb@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3743662f-e2a4-d81b-de39-20d854c00a99@pico-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6741817360847088297==" --===============6741817360847088297== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/8/2024 7:43 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote: >> On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: >>> OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix about 1972. The >>> LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in biomedical research >>> labs, and a bunch of people involved with it later moved to >>> Washington University in St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there >>> later added some features such a a crude memory mapping unit and more >>> memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not to scare >>> people away.  Artronix began building these PC's and selling them to >>> hospitals for radiation therapy planning.  I have no idea how many >>> were sold. They were built into a desk, and used 7400-series logic >>> chips. They etched their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and >>> soldered in the chips by hand.  I wrote a series of diagnostics for >>> them. >> >> Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one. > > An Artronix PC?  I seriously doubt it, but it is possible. There is at > least one LINC that was restored about a decade ago, and taken out to > VCF 10.  If an Artronix PC did evade the scrapper, it would not be that > hard to get it running again. Even maintenance drawings would be great. Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool, but so would MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software would be useful, but it would still be of historic interest. Thanks, Vince --===============6741817360847088297==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Sat Jun 8 17:33:31 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:33:23 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <356a4d7b-5dc1-439b-a585-4d2790f2f4fb@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2485739684350596537==" --===============2485739684350596537== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/8/24 11:56, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote: > On 6/8/2024 7:43 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: >> On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote: >>> On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: >>>> OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix >>>> about 1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for >>>> use in biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people >>>> involved with it later moved to Washington University >>>> in St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later >>>> added some features such a a crude memory mapping unit >>>> and more memory, and called this the Programmed >>>> Console, so as not to scare people away.  Artronix >>>> began building these PC's and selling them to hospitals >>>> for radiation therapy planning.  I have no idea how >>>> many were sold. They were built into a desk, and used >>>> 7400-series logic chips. They etched their own PC >>>> boards, drilled them by hand and soldered in the chips >>>> by hand.  I wrote a series of diagnostics for them. >>> >>> Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one. >> >> An Artronix PC?  I seriously doubt it, but it is >> possible. There is at least one LINC that was restored >> about a decade ago, and taken out to VCF 10.  If an >> Artronix PC did evade the scrapper, it would not be that >> hard to get it running again. > > Even maintenance drawings would be great. > > Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool, but > so would MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software would be > useful, but it would still be of historic interest. Well, I believe that LINC LAP-6 will "boot" on an Artronix PC.  I am fairly sure I did try that a long time ago. And, the guys who resurrected the LINC for the VCF demo did have LAP-6 running.  One big feature of the Artronix PC was a TEK storage scope that allowed you to see a whole page of text at a time, instead of the tiny window that was available on the LINC. I think the LINC could only support about 8 or 12 short lines due to the slow refresh. Jon --===============2485739684350596537==-- From jwsmail@jwsss.com Sat Jun 8 20:17:20 2024 From: jim stephens To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 15:17:14 -0500 Message-ID: <5e9ff02d-91d6-413d-bf0d-3d28e4c5be0c@jwsss.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4193346279087931359==" --===============4193346279087931359== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/8/24 12:33, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > On 6/8/24 11:56, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote: >> On 6/8/2024 7:43 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: >>> On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote: >>>> On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: >>>>> OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix about 1972. >>>>> The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in biomedical >>>>> research labs, and a bunch of people involved with it later moved >>>>> to Washington University in St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab >>>>> there later added some features such a a crude memory mapping unit >>>>> and more memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not >>>>> to scare people away. Artronix began building these PC's and >>>>> selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy planning.  I have >>>>> no idea how many were sold. They were built into a desk, and used >>>>> 7400-series logic chips. They etched their own PC boards, drilled >>>>> them by hand and soldered in the chips by hand.  I wrote a series >>>>> of diagnostics for them. >>>> >>>> Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one. >>> >>> An Artronix PC?  I seriously doubt it, but it is possible. There is >>> at least one LINC that was restored about a decade ago, and taken >>> out to VCF 10.  If an Artronix PC did evade the scrapper, it would >>> not be that hard to get it running again. >> >> Even maintenance drawings would be great. >> >> Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool, but so would >> MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software would be useful, but it would >> still be of historic interest. > > Well, I believe that LINC LAP-6 will "boot" on an Artronix PC.  I am > fairly sure I did try that a long time ago. > > And, the guys who resurrected the LINC for the VCF demo did have LAP-6 > running.  One big feature of the Artronix PC was a TEK storage scope > that allowed you to see a whole page of text at a time, instead of the > tiny window that was available on the LINC. I think the LINC could > only support about 8 or 12 short lines due to the slow refresh. > > Jon > I'll ask Al Weber if he has anything.  I know unless it's PC sized he doesn't have it.  He has a lot of RS6000 stuff I need to pick up and Victor.  I think he did a give away of a lot of his documentation about 5 years ago, so he may have given it away if he had it. thanks Jim --===============4193346279087931359==-- From vincent.slyngstad@gmail.com Sat Jun 8 20:23:37 2024 From: Vincent Slyngstad To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Artonix PC (was Re: Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 13:23:31 -0700 Message-ID: <5e432004-00e9-4db6-9999-b6fdab203e0d@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5e9ff02d-91d6-413d-bf0d-3d28e4c5be0c@jwsss.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8603917626214245717==" --===============8603917626214245717== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/8/2024 1:17 PM, jim stephens via cctalk wrote: > On 6/8/24 12:33, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: >> On 6/8/24 11:56, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote: >>> Even maintenance drawings would be great. >>> >>> Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool, but so would >>> MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software would be useful, but it would >>> still be of historic interest. >> >> Well, I believe that LINC LAP-6 will "boot" on an Artronix PC.  I am >> fairly sure I did try that a long time ago. >> >> And, the guys who resurrected the LINC for the VCF demo did have LAP-6 >> running.  One big feature of the Artronix PC was a TEK storage scope >> that allowed you to see a whole page of text at a time, instead of the >> tiny window that was available on the LINC. I think the LINC could >> only support about 8 or 12 short lines due to the slow refresh. >> >> Jon >> > I'll ask Al Weber if he has anything.  I know unless it's PC sized he > doesn't have it.  He has a lot of RS6000 stuff I need to pick up and > Victor.  I think he did a give away of a lot of his documentation about > 5 years ago, so he may have given it away if he had it. > thanks > Jim Thanks! Vince --===============8603917626214245717==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Sun Jun 9 00:50:27 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 19:50:20 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5e9ff02d-91d6-413d-bf0d-3d28e4c5be0c@jwsss.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2736342356777997497==" --===============2736342356777997497== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/8/24 15:17, jim stephens via cctalk wrote: > > > On 6/8/24 12:33, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: >> On 6/8/24 11:56, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote: >>> On 6/8/2024 7:43 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: >>>> On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote: >>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: >>>>>> OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix >>>>>> about 1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT >>>>>> for use in biomedical research labs, and a bunch of >>>>>> people involved with it later moved to Washington >>>>>> University in St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab >>>>>> there later added some features such a a crude memory >>>>>> mapping unit and more memory, and called this the >>>>>> Programmed Console, so as not to scare people away. >>>>>> Artronix began building these PC's and selling them >>>>>> to hospitals for radiation therapy planning.  I have >>>>>> no idea how many were sold. They were built into a >>>>>> desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They etched >>>>>> their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and >>>>>> soldered in the chips by hand.  I wrote a series of >>>>>> diagnostics for them. >>>>> >>>>> Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one. >>>> >>>> An Artronix PC?  I seriously doubt it, but it is >>>> possible. There is at least one LINC that was restored >>>> about a decade ago, and taken out to VCF 10.  If an >>>> Artronix PC did evade the scrapper, it would not be >>>> that hard to get it running again. >>> >>> Even maintenance drawings would be great. >>> >>> Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool, >>> but so would MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software >>> would be useful, but it would still be of historic >>> interest. >> >> Well, I believe that LINC LAP-6 will "boot" on an >> Artronix PC. I am fairly sure I did try that a long time >> ago. >> >> And, the guys who resurrected the LINC for the VCF demo >> did have LAP-6 running.  One big feature of the Artronix >> PC was a TEK storage scope that allowed you to see a >> whole page of text at a time, instead of the tiny window >> that was available on the LINC. I think the LINC could >> only support about 8 or 12 short lines due to the slow >> refresh. >> >> Jon >> > I'll ask Al Weber if he has anything.  I know unless it's > PC sized he doesn't have it.  He has a lot of RS6000 stuff > I need to pick up and Victor.  I think he did a give away > of a lot of his documentation about 5 years ago, so he may > have given it away if he had it. > thanks > Jim > The Artronix PC CPU box was about an 18" cube, but then there was the console and LINCtape drives, which were each rack-mount boxes about 9" high. Jon --===============2736342356777997497==-- From cclist@sydex.com Sun Jun 9 01:32:23 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 18:32:11 -0700 Message-ID: <19fb3e93-fb2c-4421-a3f2-d3fe277c5737@sydex.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7248761606946835420==" --===============7248761606946835420== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Liebe Leser, after consigning most of this thread to the bit bucket over the last week or more, I find myself in the position of trying to figure out what the latest posts have to do with 'Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)'. Indeed, it seems that much of the thread has been filled with replies having nothing at all to do with the MITS 8800. Please, someone--either kill the thread or start a new one that has content relative to the thread title. Thanks, Chuck --===============7248761606946835420==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Sun Jun 9 01:53:23 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 18:52:59 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3743662f-e2a4-d81b-de39-20d854c00a99@pico-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8501246113867659858==" --===============8501246113867659858== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 7:43=E2=80=AFAM Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote: > > On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > >> OK, I have to chime in here. I worked for Artronix about > >> 1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in > >> biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people involved > >> with it later moved to Washington University in St. > >> Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some > >> features such a a crude memory mapping unit and more > >> memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not > >> to scare people away. Artronix began building these PC's > >> and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy > >> planning. I have no idea how many were sold. They were > >> built into a desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They > >> etched their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and > >> soldered in the chips by hand. I wrote a series of > >> diagnostics for them. > > > > Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one. > > An Artronix PC? I seriously doubt it, but it is possible. > There is at least one LINC that was restored about a decade > ago, and taken out to VCF 10. If an Artronix PC did evade > the scrapper, it would not be that hard to get it running again. > > Jon > Is it Artronix or Artronics, out of Plainfield, New Jersey (according to the label, formally TechArt Systems 2000)? Because if the latter, I have one right here, though I can't tell you the model number because it is not displaying one. The serial number seems to indicate it was made in 1984. Here's a link to an ad in PC World circa 1984 =3D=3D> https://books.google.com/books?id=3D-C_xVnQCcsEC&pg=3DPA48&dq=3Dartronics++pl= ainfield&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ved=3D2ahUKEwiv_-DQs82GAxWPmO4BHahVB_YQ6AF6BAgEEAI#v= =3Donepage&q=3Dartronics%20%20plainfield&f=3Dfalse The LINC exhibited at VCF 10.0 was one of two systems the fine folks of the Washington University team who originally designed and built the LINC scraped together and got working in time for the Festival, and their presentation therein. That system went with Bruce Damer to the DigiBarn (Bruce was instrumental in putting together the presentation for VCF X) and then a few years ago went off to the System Source Museum in Maryland. The second backup/parts system went with me. I eventually sold my system* to a private collector. Unfortunately, I never had a chance to do anything with it. Sellam * When my collection was effectively stolen, the console was taken by the scrappers but I retained the CPU cabinet. I eventually sold the CPU to the private collector, and I more recently learned he was subsequently able to recover the console from the said scrappers and reunite the parts to make the system whole again. In any event, it was due some parts and much effort to be made working. --===============8501246113867659858==-- From artgodwin@gmail.com Sun Jun 9 02:03:13 2024 From: Adrian Godwin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 03:02:56 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <19fb3e93-fb2c-4421-a3f2-d3fe277c5737@sydex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7698348434076534211==" --===============7698348434076534211== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please kill it. It's a marketing term, defined to suit the needs of the moment. Even if we ever define it to our satisfaction, nobody else will ever use that definition. On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 2:32=E2=80=AFAM Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > > Liebe Leser, after consigning most of this thread to the bit bucket over > the last week or more, I find myself in the position of trying to figure > out what the latest posts have to do with 'Experience using an Altair > 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)'. Indeed, it seems that much of the > thread has been filled with replies having nothing at all to do with the > MITS 8800. > > Please, someone--either kill the thread or start a new one that has > content relative to the thread title. > > Thanks, > Chuck > > --===============7698348434076534211==-- From kenton@nemersonhoover.org Sun Jun 9 02:31:12 2024 From: "Kenton A. Hoover" To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 19:21:38 -0700 Message-ID: <30a707db-853c-4d8e-8046-e1d2855bf7f0@Spark> In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CSA1PR17MB57375490A817471C93C4CA0BEDF92=40SA1PR17MB?= =?utf-8?q?5737=2Enamprd17=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0329630000505357896==" --===============0329630000505357896== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I believe the term was coined at PARC and was to distinguish between a time-s= haring system and a computer which was =E2=80=9Cyours=E2=80=9D when you put y= our disk pack on it and sat in the room where you were. Thus the Alto and Dor= ados were personal as they melded to their user, when being used by that user= , and then to the next user when the new pack was installed.=C2=A0=C2=A0Time-= sharing systems were pretty much not customizable and were certainly shared. .. -- Kenton A. Hoover kenton(a)nemersonhoover.org shibumi(a)mail.marchordie.org +1 415 830 5843 On Jun 5, 2024 at 06:50 -0700, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk , wrote: > > > On 6/5/2024 9:33 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03=E2=80=AFAM Will Cooke via cctalk > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 06/05/2024 7:17 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means > > > > ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only > > > > personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe. > > > > > > > > > > To my mind, there are two things that define a computer as a personal > > > computer. The first is what you say above, affordable by the masses. The > > > second is "intended for" the masses. > > > > > > > > > > > So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general > > purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the > > masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine > > was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing, > > it's not a "personal computer"? > > I think the term "personal computer" is impossible to define. Its > meaning will mean something different to just about anybody. Kinda > like "intelligence". Some accept IQ as a measurement. Some accept > membership in Mensa as a measure of very high IQ. I, on the other > hand, I see membership in Mensa a a factor requiring the subtraction > of at least 50 points from IQ because they were stupid enough to pay > someone for it. :-) > > bill --===============0329630000505357896==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Sun Jun 9 15:06:27 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 10:06:20 -0500 Message-ID: <026295d3-a39a-5e66-e5d7-33439920400d@pico-systems.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4122625403161985893==" --===============4122625403161985893== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/8/24 20:52, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > > Is it Artronix or Artronics, out of Plainfield, New Jersey (according to > the label, formally TechArt Systems 2000)? Because if the latter, I have > one right here, though I can't tell you the model number because it is not > displaying one. The serial number seems to indicate it was made in 1984. Artronix.=C2=A0 They were manufacturing the computers in a=20 business park in St. Louis county, MO. See : https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Artronix-PC-12-treatment-planning-com= puter-rho-theta-transducer-A-tapedeck-B_fig1_12217056 That has a pretty good picture of the console, tape drives=20 and desk, as well as the Tek 611 storage tube and hardcopy unit. > * When my collection was effectively stolen, the console was taken by the > scrappers but I retained the CPU cabinet. I eventually sold the CPU to the > private collector, and I more recently learned he was subsequently able to > recover the console from the said scrappers and reunite the parts to make > the system whole again. In any event, it was due some parts and much > effort to be made working. Wow, that's quite a story! Jon --===============4122625403161985893==-- From c.murray.mccullough@gmail.com Sun Jun 9 15:41:10 2024 From: Murray McCullough To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:40:50 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3626929861495888379==" --===============3626929861495888379== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Intel introduced to the world the x86 processor: the CISC technology still with us. So what has changed other than speed and upward development? Happy computing, Murray 🙂 --===============3626929861495888379==-- From milovelimirovic@gmail.com Sun Jun 9 17:00:36 2024 From: Milo =?utf-8?q?Velimirovi=C4=87?= To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:59:54 -0500 Message-ID: <14698DEA-8B77-451A-8FA8-7C83C0ACC62D@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3862686067478173835==" --===============3862686067478173835== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Word length. :) > On Jun 9, 2024, at 10:40=E2=80=AFAM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: >=20 > Intel introduced to the world the x86 processor: the CISC technology still > with us. So what has changed other than speed and upward development? >=20 > Happy computing, >=20 > Murray =F0=9F=99=82 --===============3862686067478173835==-- From cclist@sydex.com Sun Jun 9 17:01:31 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 10:01:22 -0700 Message-ID: <51ad899e-bafa-4948-8fbc-aa309e4fae3e@sydex.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7781508861291678600==" --===============7781508861291678600== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/9/24 08:40, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: > Intel introduced to the world the x86 processor: the CISC technology still > with us. So what has changed other than speed and upward development? The Internet? Really, it's always been my view that computational technical progress has long been driven by communication. Without communication, the microprocessor would largely be limited to commercial (e.g. CAD, finance, accounting) and a few niche applications. Many of those segments would be just fine with older technology. To put it in another context, what use would most people find with a PC that was limited to 300 bps modem communication? --Chuck --===============7781508861291678600==-- From cclist@sydex.com Sun Jun 9 17:16:49 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 10:16:40 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <14698DEA-8B77-451A-8FA8-7C83C0ACC62D@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4348819166496402325==" --===============4348819166496402325== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/9/24 09:59, Milo Velimirović via cctalk wrote: > Word length. :) Scarcely innovative. 64 bit architectures predated the 64-bit x86 by decades. Call it a natural evolution. Don't forget cheap memory. --Chuck --===============4348819166496402325==-- From bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca Sun Jun 9 23:28:14 2024 From: ben To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 17:28:02 -0600 Message-ID: <02bdb354-092e-45e2-ab13-3a5069fc6257@jetnet.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: <14698DEA-8B77-451A-8FA8-7C83C0ACC62D@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4300703693949381346==" --===============4300703693949381346== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2024-06-09 10:59 a.m., Milo Velimirovi=C4=87 via cctalk wrote: > Word length. :) >=20 >> On Jun 9, 2024, at 10:40=E2=80=AFAM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: >> >> Intel introduced to the world the x86 processor: the CISC technology still >> with us. So what has changed other than speed and upward development? >> >> Happy computing, >> >> Murray =F0=9F=99=82 >=20 The CPU Price it keeps going UP ... :( 8008 $25 1975 8080 $75 MITS kit 1975 8088 $125 386 $130 (286 $20) --===============4300703693949381346==-- From bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca Sun Jun 9 23:31:17 2024 From: ben To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 17:30:56 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <51ad899e-bafa-4948-8fbc-aa309e4fae3e@sydex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4972817681795749430==" --===============4972817681795749430== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2024-06-09 11:01 a.m., Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 6/9/24 08:40, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: >> Intel introduced to the world the x86 processor: the CISC technology still >> with us. So what has changed other than speed and upward development? > > The Internet? > > Really, it's always been my view that computational technical progress > has long been driven by communication. Without communication, the > microprocessor would largely be limited to commercial (e.g. CAD, > finance, accounting) and a few niche applications. Many of those > segments would be just fine with older technology. > > To put it in another context, what use would most people find with a PC > that was limited to 300 bps modem communication? > > --Chuck More reliable. Can you trust a CLOUD? How soon will your data be corrupted, or behind a paywall? --===============4972817681795749430==-- From smbaker@gmail.com Mon Jun 10 00:48:15 2024 From: Scott Baker To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 17:47:56 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9157632559877530687==" --===============9157632559877530687== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think the biggest change is our compute resources stopped going faster in terms of raw cycles per second, and started going wider in terms of parallelism. It's now commonplace for me to run workloads that can actually use many CPU cores, and I'm starting to occasionally run workloads that are so parallel, that a GPU is a more suitable resource. At the same time as the surge in parallelism, there's also a focus on going greener. I think the last couple years have been particularly transformative. Scott On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 4:31=E2=80=AFPM ben via cctalk wrote: > On 2024-06-09 11:01 a.m., Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > > On 6/9/24 08:40, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: > >> Intel introduced to the world the x86 processor: the CISC technology > still > >> with us. So what has changed other than speed and upward development? > > > > The Internet? > > > > Really, it's always been my view that computational technical progress > > has long been driven by communication. Without communication, the > > microprocessor would largely be limited to commercial (e.g. CAD, > > finance, accounting) and a few niche applications. Many of those > > segments would be just fine with older technology. > > > > To put it in another context, what use would most people find with a PC > > that was limited to 300 bps modem communication? > > > > --Chuck > More reliable. Can you trust a CLOUD? > How soon will your data be corrupted, or behind a paywall? > > > --===============9157632559877530687==-- From ccth6600@gmail.com Mon Jun 10 01:00:31 2024 From: Tom Hunter To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:00:15 +0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6581399015297214565==" --===============6581399015297214565== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Highly parallel workloads are an important niche in computing. On Mon, 10 June 2024, 8:48=E2=80=AFam Scott Baker via cctalk, wrote: > I think the biggest change is our compute resources stopped going faster > in terms of raw cycles per second, and started going wider in terms of > parallelism. It's now commonplace for me to run workloads that can actually > use many CPU cores, and I'm starting to occasionally run workloads that are > so parallel, that a GPU is a more suitable resource. At the same time as > the surge in parallelism, there's also a focus on going greener. I think > the last couple years have been particularly transformative. > > Scott > > > --===============6581399015297214565==-- From c.murray.mccullough@gmail.com Mon Jun 10 02:45:10 2024 From: Murray McCullough To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 22:45:07 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6723558604841374026==" --===============6723558604841374026== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree that parallelism, or more accurately multiprocessing, has contributed a great deal to the advancement of 8086 technology. So to has speed: The first 8086 was clocked at 5Mhz.; now the speed is 6Ghz. The shrinkage of computer components in ULSIC technology has made this possible. But today I believe we're nearing an end to 8086 CISC technology because its science and technology will only take it so far. Murray. =F0=9F=99=82 On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 9:00=E2=80=AFPM Tom Hunter via cctalk wrote: > Highly parallel workloads are an important niche in computing. > > On Mon, 10 June 2024, 8:48=E2=80=AFam Scott Baker via cctalk, < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> > wrote: > > > I think the biggest change is our compute resources stopped going faster > > in terms of raw cycles per second, and started going wider in terms of > > parallelism. It's now commonplace for me to run workloads that can > actually > > use many CPU cores, and I'm starting to occasionally run workloads that > are > > so parallel, that a GPU is a more suitable resource. At the same time as > > the surge in parallelism, there's also a focus on going greener. I think > > the last couple years have been particularly transformative. > > > > Scott > > > > > > > --===============6723558604841374026==-- From cisin@xenosoft.com Mon Jun 10 03:04:31 2024 From: Fred Cisin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 20:04:25 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3366014308015596944==" --===============3366014308015596944== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 9 Jun 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: > I agree that parallelism, or more accurately multiprocessing, has > contributed a great deal to the advancement of 8086 technology. So to has > speed: The first 8086 was clocked at 5Mhz.; now the speed is 6Ghz. The > shrinkage of computer components in ULSIC technology has made this > possible. But today I believe we're nearing an end to 8086 CISC technology > because its science and technology will only take it so far. There are theoretical limits. But, like the limits imposed by frequency modulation on modem speeds, each time there's a limit, clever ideas attempt to circumvent that limit. Parallelism/multiprocessing can go a ways past the "theoretical limit" of processor speed, simply because total throughput is the actual goal, not processor speed. Under Moore's Law, it kept doubling. But, it was obvious that it could not keep doing so infinitely. Moore is gone, so there is no enforcement, and the doubling is approaching its end. :-) -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com --===============3366014308015596944==-- From dkelvey@hotmail.com Mon Jun 10 04:54:17 2024 From: dwight To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 04:54:10 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0017444220686530237==" --===============0017444220686530237== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable No one is mentioning multiple processors on a single die and cache that is bi= gger than most systems of that times complete RAM. Clock speed was dealt with clever register reassignment, pipelining and predi= ction. Dwight --===============0017444220686530237==-- From rice43@btinternet.com Mon Jun 10 16:06:06 2024 From: Joshua Rice To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:05:58 +0100 Message-ID: <974a2f36-48d2-42b1-8d24-bc8942f0310d@btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <02bdb354-092e-45e2-ab13-3a5069fc6257@jetnet.ab.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6508776945355163747==" --===============6508776945355163747== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 10/06/2024 00:28, ben via cctalk wrote: > The CPU Price it keeps going UP ... :( > 8008 $25 1975 > 8080 $75 MITS kit 1975 > 8088 $125 > 386  $130 (286 $20) > Hardly, you can pick up a new CPU today for less than $50. It's not going to be particularly fast, but it'll run circles round most decade old CPUs. I think the biggest change (other than speed, word length etc), is number of SKUs. For desktop systems, there are dozens of different SKUs per microarchitecture, each with varying cache size, core count, clockspeed, and present/absent integrated graphics. In the server space, the varying SKUs are amplified, with number of PCIe lanes, socket support etc almost multiplying the number of SKUs by an order of magnitude. Josh Rice --===============6508776945355163747==-- From rice43@btinternet.com Mon Jun 10 16:19:02 2024 From: Joshua Rice To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:18:56 +0100 Message-ID: <45c06d21-1a7b-481f-afca-cbea1f38822b@btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CSA1PR11MB6941ED84B57D39773AAF643CA3C62=40SA1PR11MB?= =?utf-8?q?6941=2Enamprd11=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4758011417828178967==" --===============4758011417828178967== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 10/06/2024 05:54, dwight via cctalk wrote: > No one is mentioning multiple processors on a single die and cache that is = bigger than most systems of that times complete RAM. > Clock speed was dealt with clever register reassignment, pipelining and pre= diction. > Dwight Pipelining has always been a double edged sword. Splitting the=20 instruction cycle into smaller, faster chunks that can run=20 simultaneously is a great idea, but if the actual instruction execution=20 speed gets longer, failed branch predictions and subsequent pipeline=20 flushes can truly bog down the real-life IPS. This is ultimately what=20 led the NetBurst architecture to be the dead-end it became. DEC came across another issue with the PDP-11 vs the VAX. Although the=20 pipelined architecture of the VAX was much faster than the PDP-11, the=20 actual time for a single instruction cycle was much increased, which led=20 to customers requiring real-time operation to stick with the PDP-11, as=20 it was much quicker in those operations. This, along with it's large=20 software back-catalog and established platform led to the PDP-11=20 outliving it's successor. Josh Rice --===============4758011417828178967==-- From cclist@sydex.com Mon Jun 10 16:25:55 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:25:45 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <974a2f36-48d2-42b1-8d24-bc8942f0310d@btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6476148355454207906==" --===============6476148355454207906== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's interesting and probably indicative of some mindset where a discussion of the evolution of a given architecture is being discussed that specific technical aspects are most often mentioned, even though most of those are holdovers from the 1960s, just made smaller. My take is "why were these advancements necessary"? In other words, what parallel non-CPU/societal developments caused the shift in thinking? I recall that when the 8086 was announced by Intel, it wasn't the first 16-bit CPU by a long shot, nor was Intel doing a hard-sell on it. 8-bit in the personal computer still reigned supreme and the prospect of a 64KB 16-bit system costing considerably more than a similarly-performing 8 bit system wasn't particularly attractive. What was the catalyst? My .02 on the matter, FWIW. --Chuck --===============6476148355454207906==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Mon Jun 10 16:41:48 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:41:40 -0400 Message-ID: <60C6DE9D-A7CB-4E10-923C-03DFE2006BA6@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <45c06d21-1a7b-481f-afca-cbea1f38822b@btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4687657258924995332==" --===============4687657258924995332== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 10, 2024, at 12:18 PM, Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote: >=20 > On 10/06/2024 05:54, dwight via cctalk wrote: >> No one is mentioning multiple processors on a single die and cache that is= bigger than most systems of that times complete RAM. >> Clock speed was dealt with clever register reassignment, pipelining and pr= ediction. >> Dwight >=20 > Pipelining has always been a double edged sword. Splitting the instruction = cycle into smaller, faster chunks that can run simultaneously is a great idea= , but if the actual instruction execution speed gets longer, failed branch pr= edictions and subsequent pipeline flushes can truly bog down the real-life IP= S. This is ultimately what led the NetBurst architecture to be the dead-end i= t became. RISC can do pipelining much more easily (as Cray first demonstrated around 19= 64, with the CDC 7600). For one thing, "bypass" is doable, and widely used, = in machines that use both pipelining and multiple functional units. I rememb= er the SiByte 1250 and/or the Raza XLR (both MIPS64, early 2000s) but I assum= e it was done well before then. > DEC came across another issue with the PDP-11 vs the VAX. Although the pipe= lined architecture of the VAX was much faster than the PDP-11, the actual tim= e for a single instruction cycle was much increased, which led to customers r= equiring real-time operation to stick with the PDP-11, as it was much quicker= in those operations. This, along with it's large software back-catalog and e= stablished platform led to the PDP-11 outliving it's successor. Josh Rice That reminds me of the Motorola 68040. I did the fastpath for an FDDI switch= (doing packet switching in software) on one of those. I discovered that the= VAX-like addressing modes that look so nice on the 68040 takes a bunch of cy= cles, but there was a "RISC subset" using just the simplest addressing modes = that would produce single cycle execution. So I limited my code to just thos= e. The other weirdness was branch prediction. The 68040 had no branch predictio= n cache, instead it would statically predict all branches to be taken. Note = the difference from the usual practice, which is to predict backward branches= as taken and forward ones as not taken. No problem either way, but it just = meant that the assembly code looked a bit odd because an if/then/else block w= ould have the unlikely case immediately after the branch (fall through, not t= he predicted case) and after that the likely case (branch taken, as predicted= ). It was fun to do 60k packets per second on a 25 MHz processor... paul --===============4687657258924995332==-- From thedestructionchannel2000@gmail.com Mon Jun 10 18:37:51 2024 From: CJ Reha To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 14:37:33 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5305847297250913213==" --===============5305847297250913213== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > The LINC exhibited at VCF 10.0 was one of two systems the fine folks of the > Washington University team who originally designed and built the LINC > scraped together and got working in time for the Festival, and their > presentation therein. That system went with Bruce Damer to the DigiBarn > (Bruce was instrumental in putting together the presentation for VCF X) and > then a few years ago went off to the System Source Museum in Maryland. I can confirm that it is still on active display at System Source. Although a bit off topic, I think the readers of the list would be happy to hear it is more or less still functional. The power supply required some work (caps and some failed parts on a regulator card as figured out by Dave Gesswein) as did the LINCtape drives (new bearings, tension adjustments on the belts), and probably some other things I'm forgetting. Early this year it was successfully brought into LAP6 and played a game of Pong for the first time in years :) Unfortunately the LINCtapes themselves have degraded and started not reliably reading, so it was decided to not mess with them any further until they could be imaged. I'm not sure if they've made any progress since - most of this was from my visit back in January. Regards, CJ On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 9:53=E2=80=AFPM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 7:43=E2=80=AFAM Jon Elson via cctalk > > wrote: > > > On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote: > > > On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > > >> OK, I have to chime in here. I worked for Artronix about > > >> 1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in > > >> biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people involved > > >> with it later moved to Washington University in St. > > >> Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some > > >> features such a a crude memory mapping unit and more > > >> memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not > > >> to scare people away. Artronix began building these PC's > > >> and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy > > >> planning. I have no idea how many were sold. They were > > >> built into a desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They > > >> etched their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and > > >> soldered in the chips by hand. I wrote a series of > > >> diagnostics for them. > > > > > > Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one. > > > > An Artronix PC? I seriously doubt it, but it is possible. > > There is at least one LINC that was restored about a decade > > ago, and taken out to VCF 10. If an Artronix PC did evade > > the scrapper, it would not be that hard to get it running again. > > > > Jon > > > > Is it Artronix or Artronics, out of Plainfield, New Jersey (according to > the label, formally TechArt Systems 2000)? Because if the latter, I have > one right here, though I can't tell you the model number because it is not > displaying one. The serial number seems to indicate it was made in 1984. > > Here's a link to an ad in PC World circa 1984 =3D=3D> > > https://books.google.com/books?id=3D-C_xVnQCcsEC&pg=3DPA48&dq=3Dartronics++= plainfield&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ved=3D2ahUKEwiv_-DQs82GAxWPmO4BHahVB_YQ6AF6BAgEEAI#= v=3Donepage&q=3Dartronics%20%20plainfield&f=3Dfalse > > The LINC exhibited at VCF 10.0 was one of two systems the fine folks of the > Washington University team who originally designed and built the LINC > scraped together and got working in time for the Festival, and their > presentation therein. That system went with Bruce Damer to the DigiBarn > (Bruce was instrumental in putting together the presentation for VCF X) and > then a few years ago went off to the System Source Museum in Maryland. The > second backup/parts system went with me. I eventually sold my system* to a > private collector. Unfortunately, I never had a chance to do anything with > it. > > Sellam > > * When my collection was effectively stolen, the console was taken by the > scrappers but I retained the CPU cabinet. I eventually sold the CPU to the > private collector, and I more recently learned he was subsequently able to > recover the console from the said scrappers and reunite the parts to make > the system whole again. In any event, it was due some parts and much > effort to be made working. > --===============5305847297250913213==-- From marvin@west.net Tue Jun 11 03:57:45 2024 From: Marvin Johnston To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Illiac II Library Routine Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:57:46 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6234854417605269270==" --===============6234854417605269270== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A friend of mine passed away about a year ago, and his wife is just getting around to sorting through his many books, papers, etc. The title of the heading title is what caught my attention. My current plan is to scan the 9 page paper and make it available to interested parties. Since me my plan is to bring many of his books/manuals to VCFMW in September. The identification is "A complete NICAP program which does matrix arithmetic." The heading is: University of Illinois Graduate College Department of Computer Science Illiac II Library Routine F1-UOI-MTRZAL-82-NI After I get it scanned, I will submit it Bitsavers and give the original to the Computer History Museum. There may end up being more such papers as his stuff continues to be sorted through. Marvin --===============6234854417605269270==-- From useddec@gmail.com Tue Jun 11 08:38:20 2024 From: Paul Anderson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Illiac II Library Routine Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:38:05 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6618514058832972118==" --===============6618514058832972118== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I'm about 10 minutes from the U of I if it is located near here and you need local help. On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 10:57 PM Marvin Johnston via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > A friend of mine passed away about a year ago, and his wife is just > getting around to sorting through his many books, papers, etc. The title > of the heading title is what caught my attention. My current plan is to > scan the 9 page paper and make it available to interested parties. Since > me my plan is to bring many of his books/manuals to VCFMW in September. > > The identification is "A complete NICAP program which does matrix > arithmetic." The heading is: > > University of Illinois > > Graduate College > > Department of Computer Science > > Illiac II Library Routine > > F1-UOI-MTRZAL-82-NI > > After I get it scanned, I will submit it Bitsavers and give the original > to the Computer History Museum. > > There may end up being more such papers as his stuff continues to be > sorted through. > > Marvin > > --===============6618514058832972118==-- From dave.dunfield@gmail.com Tue Jun 11 09:02:40 2024 From: Dave Dunfield To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:02:37 +0000 Message-ID: <171809655703.4006402.6226168744149026335@classiccmp.org> In-Reply-To: <19fb3e93-fb2c-4421-a3f2-d3fe277c5737@sydex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0160301973262054805==" --===============0160301973262054805== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chuck Guzis wrote: > I find myself in the position of trying to figure > out what the latest posts have to do with 'Experience using an Altair > 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)'.=20 Thanks! It's gotten so off-topic, I've all but stopped following this thread. I recently found a new home for my Altair, and in doing so, I set it up and run it to show it working. This reminded me of my Altair emulation I wrote back around 2003 when I decided not to maintain the Altair in a "ready to go" state and packed it away. This is more than a "pretty picture" Altair Front Panel emulator, it gives a pretty accurate emulation of my complete system which includes: Hardware: Mits: Front panel, 8080 CPU, 88-SIO serial CDC: 64k Dynamic RAM NorthStar: MDS-A1 floppy controlle Compu/Time: CT-102 Real Time clock Homebuilt: Dual serial Lear Seigler: ADM3A terminal Sugart: two SA-400 drives It also contains .NSI (NorthStarImage)s with a fair bit of usable software including (but not limited to - there's more - this was my working system at the time)" Bootable: NorthStar DOS 5.1 My own DMF (one of the first OS's I wrote) Fig-Forth system Application software: North Star BASIC Byte Shop of Westminster XEK Editor/Assembler/Disassembler MicroStuf RCONS/CBBS Altair Memory test My own BASIC My own ALPS (Assembly Language Programming System) Games: Dynacomp Chess Master Dynacomp Valdez Supertanker simulation Cranston Manor Adventure Hunt The Wumpus & many other simple games of the time No longer having mu own Altair, I've made some minor enhancements to the "Virtual Altair" and posted about it - just in case anyone would like to experience actually RUNNING/USING a 70's Altair system! This was mostly a cut/paste of a posting I had made in a different forum, and included a bit of information (not needed here:-) about "What is an Altair" which happened to include a quote from correspondance to me by "Ed Roberts" which said "We coined the phrase Personal Computer and it was first applied to the Altair, i.e., by definition the first personal computer." ... "The beginning of the personal computer industry started without question at MITS with the Altair." and a couple reasons I do think that this is a fairly reasonable statement! This (or course) sparked the never-ending controversy of "what is a personal computer" and "which was the earliest"... My own interest in classic computing has always been about "Historical, Technology" - it always seems odd (to me) how many others seems to be more concerned with "Terminology" To me a "personal computer" is one "anyone could have and you might find in someone's home" - There are of course plenty of pre-Altair systems that could fit in someones home, and "someone could have had" - but not at all common in such and environment. I do think the Jan 75 issue of Popular Electronics help a lot to get the Altair into such a environment. And it was made less-clear by IBM's choice to name the 5150 the "Personal Computer" (which made sense for them - prior to that most of their offerings were large time-sharing mainframes!) FWIW, my own "first personal computer" was NOT the Altair - my first ever was a "COSMAC ELF" - it's been so long a don't remember much about it (and I got rid of it before I started "Daves Old Computers") - IIRC is was an 1802 CPU, with a key-keypad - it DID have a "video display" but not character based (just dots) - it has 256 bytes of memory which was ALL the memory in the system (so you had to "see your program code on the screen"), and NO storage (you always had to key in your program code). This was very limited, and I soon replaced it with various homebuilt (mostly 8080 based) systems - at one point I managed to obtain some solenoid controll= er reel-to-reel tape drives from a decomissioned lab - and built my own automatic storage system (using some direct digital-to-tape methods I managed to get working). But the Altair was the first system I had with floppy disks and substantial memory - and the first I could use for the kinds of things I had been doing on the universities IBM 360 and PDP-11s - in other words a usable personal computer! Dave --===============0160301973262054805==-- From marvin@west.net Tue Jun 11 15:26:18 2024 From: Marvin Johnston To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Illiac II Library Routine Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:26:19 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4058072013158229047==" --===============4058072013158229047== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =C2=A0Thanks for the offer,but I'm located in Santa Barbara, CA. My plans=20 include VCFMW in September where I can bring a slew of his books, etc.=C2=A0 = I might add there are some IBM manuals including the 360 and 1401=20 Fortran II I've seen so far. Marvin > Paul Anderson=20 > =20 > > 11 Jun > 4:38 a.m. > I'm about 10 minutes from the U of I if it is located near here and=20 > you need local help. --===============4058072013158229047==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Tue Jun 11 18:25:19 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Illiac II Library Routine Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 14:25:01 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4607834774685412335==" --===============4607834774685412335== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Marvin Are these for sale or are you bringing to exhibit? What year was the Iliac II library routine published? I will be at VCFMW this year. Bill On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, 11:26 AM Marvin Johnston via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > Thanks for the offer,but I'm located in Santa Barbara, CA. My plans > include VCFMW in September where I can bring a slew of his books, etc. > I might add there are some IBM manuals including the 360 and 1401 > Fortran II I've seen so far. > > Marvin > > > Paul Anderson > > < > https://classiccmp.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/users/bae3ae4394af488ea09ffe7b00= 36fe80/> > > > > > 11 Jun > > 4:38 a.m. > > I'm about 10 minutes from the U of I if it is located near here and > > you need local help. > --===============4607834774685412335==-- From van.snyder@sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 11 18:25:57 2024 From: Van Snyder To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Illiac II Library Routine Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:25:47 -0700 Message-ID: <708cf8b5cb1ae6b38adafa721c73fd57739253da.camel@sbcglobal.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3079241751850272801==" --===============3079241751850272801== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2024-06-11 at 03:38 -0500, Paul Anderson via cctalk wrote: > University of Illinois > > > > Graduate College > > > > Department of Computer Science > > > > Illiac II Library Routine My late colleague Robert Holzman had worked on an Illiac as a student (not sure which one). He told me that to enter hexadecimal numbers you had to put the TTY in the correct mode (numbers instead of figs?) and then use KSNJFL for the digits beyond nine because those had the right binary representation in Baudot code in that mode. IBM used ABCDEF. How did he remember KSNJFL? He had two mnemonics: King Size Numbers Just For Laughs Kind Souls Never Jostle Fat Ladies --===============3079241751850272801==-- From bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca Wed Jun 12 03:52:54 2024 From: ben To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:52:40 -0600 Message-ID: <670e0604-5685-4fcd-9ac1-1e6c732480c8@jetnet.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: <45c06d21-1a7b-481f-afca-cbea1f38822b@btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8424576861983585712==" --===============8424576861983585712== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2024-06-10 10:18 a.m., Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote: > On 10/06/2024 05:54, dwight via cctalk wrote: >> No one is mentioning multiple processors on a single die and cache >> that is bigger than most systems of that times complete RAM. >> Clock speed was dealt with clever register reassignment, pipelining >> and prediction. >> Dwight > > Pipelining has always been a double edged sword. Splitting the > instruction cycle into smaller, faster chunks that can run > simultaneously is a great idea, but if the actual instruction execution > speed gets longer, failed branch predictions and subsequent pipeline > flushes can truly bog down the real-life IPS. This is ultimately what > led the NetBurst architecture to be the dead-end it became. > The other gotya with pipelining, is you have to have equal size chunks. A 16 word register file seems to be right size for a 16 bit alu. 64 words for words for 32 bit alu. 256 words for 64 bit alu, as a guess. You never see a gate level delays on a spec sheet. Our pipeline is X delays + N delays for a latch. How Fast Can Computers Add? Scientific American Vol. 219, No. 4 (October 1968), pp. 93-101 (9 pages) I do not think that will change vs MORE's law, LESS's law, BIG MONEY's law. > DEC came across another issue with the PDP-11 vs the VAX. Although the > pipelined architecture of the VAX was much faster than the PDP-11, the > actual time for a single instruction cycle was much increased, which led > to customers requiring real-time operation to stick with the PDP-11, as Forget that, noise. PDP 11's dirt cheap compared to VAX. > it was much quicker in those operations. This, along with it's large > software back-catalog and established platform led to the PDP-11 > outliving it's successor. Josh Rice Now that makes more sense. --===============8424576861983585712==-- From bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca Wed Jun 12 04:17:29 2024 From: ben To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:17:19 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <974a2f36-48d2-42b1-8d24-bc8942f0310d@btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5287363257782427443==" --===============5287363257782427443== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2024-06-10 10:05 a.m., Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote: > On 10/06/2024 00:28, ben via cctalk wrote: >> The CPU Price it keeps going UP ... :( >> 8008 $25 1975 >> 8080 $75 MITS kit 1975 >> 8088 $125 >> 386  $130 (286 $20) >> > Hardly, you can pick up a new CPU today for less than $50. It's not > going to be particularly fast, but it'll run circles round most decade > old CPUs. I thought a PI was $10. > I think the biggest change (other than speed, word length etc), is > number of SKUs. For desktop systems, there are dozens of different SKUs > per microarchitecture, each with varying cache size, core count, > clockspeed, and present/absent integrated graphics. In the server space, > the varying SKUs are amplified, with number of PCIe lanes, socket > support etc almost multiplying the number of SKUs by an order of magnitude. > > Josh Rice I got a headache from reading that. Really a minor point, architecture has not gotten better since the RISC/CISC debate, just faster clock speeds, newer graphic processors and the like, in my view. Ben. Gates's law "The speed of software halves every 18 months" --===============5287363257782427443==-- From cisin@xenosoft.com Wed Jun 12 04:23:28 2024 From: Fred Cisin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:23:21 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2881250321476109020==" --===============2881250321476109020== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 11 Jun 2024, ben via cctalk wrote: > Gates's law "The speed of software halves every 18 months" Isn't it more similar to Boyle's law? Software expands to require slightly more than the available memory. --===============2881250321476109020==-- From cclist@sydex.com Wed Jun 12 04:54:56 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:54:46 -0700 Message-ID: <2cc978c0-66ae-4902-997e-4842b06a7c0b@sydex.com> In-Reply-To: <171809655703.4006402.6226168744149026335@classiccmp.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2785409102432073646==" --===============2785409102432073646== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/11/24 02:02, Dave Dunfield via cctalk wrote: > Chuck Guzis wrote: >> I find myself in the position of trying to figure >> out what the latest posts have to do with 'Experience using an Altair >> 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)'.=20 >=20 > Thanks! It's gotten so off-topic, I've all but stopped following this threa= d. >=20 > I recently found a new home for my Altair, and in doing so, I set it up and > run it to show it working. This reminded me of my Altair emulation I wrote > back around 2003 when I decided not to maintain the Altair in a "ready to g= o" > state and packed it away. I never expanded my 8800 beyond the original 4-slot kit with limp-wristed power supply. The construction (I built from the kit) I found to be appalling. More than once I zinged myself brushing against the line voltage traces on the front panel board. And that awful white wire. A couple of years later, I used an Imsai 8080 and was more favorably impressed. My first disk system was an Integrand S100 box with a power supply suitable for arc-welding that even came with the blueline prints for the construction (now hopelessly faded). I used Don Tarbell's controller and some Calcomp drives. After one of the drives failed, I got a couple of Siemens FDD-100 drives that probably still operate. At any rate, the Altair and the Integrand with its disk box sit on a shelf in a dusty corner of my workshop. I suspect that the capacitors in the Altair have long dried out. Still have no idea what to do with all that heavy iron--I haven't touched it in perhaps 40 years. I congratulate you in finding homes for yours--I doubt that will happen with mine. --Chuck --===============2785409102432073646==-- From abuse@cabal.org.uk Wed Jun 12 08:02:47 2024 From: Peter Corlett To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:02:38 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <45c06d21-1a7b-481f-afca-cbea1f38822b@btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3024287330390876704==" --===============3024287330390876704== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 05:18:56PM +0100, Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote: [...] > DEC came across another issue with the PDP-11 vs the VAX. Although the > pipelined architecture of the VAX was much faster than the PDP-11, the > actual time for a single instruction cycle was much increased, which led > to customers requiring real-time operation to stick with the PDP-11, as it > was much quicker in those operations. This, along with it's large software > back-catalog and established platform led to the PDP-11 outliving it's > successor. Fun factoid: despite modern x86 being clocked ~1000x faster than ye olde 6502, there's not much in it between them when it comes to interrupt response time. If all goes well, x86 takes "only" a hundred-ish cycles to do its book-keeping and jump to the ISR, but if SMM is active (spoiler: it always is and you can't turn it off) then it introduces a massive amount of extra jitter and all bets are off. --===============3024287330390876704==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 12 12:41:25 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 05:41:07 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2cc978c0-66ae-4902-997e-4842b06a7c0b@sydex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0757782026668654581==" --===============0757782026668654581== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, 9:54=E2=80=AFPM Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > Still have no idea what to do with > all that heavy iron--I haven't touched it in perhaps 40 years. I > congratulate you in finding homes for yours--I doubt that will happen > with mine. > > --Chuck eBay. Make some retirement cash. Sellam --===============0757782026668654581==-- From cclist@sydex.com Wed Jun 12 13:58:15 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 06:58:05 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0721740526886524705==" --===============0721740526886524705== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/12/24 01:02, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote: > Fun factoid: despite modern x86 being clocked ~1000x faster than ye olde > 6502, there's not much in it between them when it comes to interrupt > response time. If all goes well, x86 takes "only" a hundred-ish cycles to do > its book-keeping and jump to the ISR, but if SMM is active (spoiler: it > always is and you can't turn it off) then it introduces a massive amount of > extra jitter and all bets are off. Which accounts for some members of the NEC V-series having up to 8 alternate sets of registers for fast context switching. I have no idea why Intel didn't follow suit with its 80186 variants. --Chuck --===============0721740526886524705==-- From dave.dunfield@gmail.com Wed Jun 12 14:07:39 2024 From: Dave Dunfield To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:07:35 +0000 Message-ID: <171820125544.4006402.10835373178986731894@classiccmp.org> In-Reply-To: <171809655703.4006402.6226168744149026335@classiccmp.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2207450686122545403==" --===============2207450686122545403== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Having some fun reliving the memories ... I'll also mention that I do have ot= her emulators for some of the classic systems I had on "Daves Old Computers" (look under "DOS Widget= s") again - in case anyone wants to experience actually using one of these system= s: NorthStar Horizon (Z80) - also does: Vector 1+ NorthStar DOS, CP/M Heathkit H8 (8080) Hdos, CP/M Mil MOD8 (8008) - Canadian Scelbi BASIC Dunfield 6809 (6809) [my original portable] My own CUBIX OS There's more software - these are the main OS's and significant -Dave --===============2207450686122545403==-- From dave.dunfield@gmail.com Wed Jun 12 14:14:04 2024 From: Dave Dunfield To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:14:00 +0000 Message-ID: <171820164018.4006402.5294256669099307871@classiccmp.org> In-Reply-To: <2cc978c0-66ae-4902-997e-4842b06a7c0b@sydex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9123016119393054849==" --===============9123016119393054849== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chuck Guzis wrote: > I never expanded my 8800 beyond the original 4-slot kit with > limp-wristed power supply. The construction (I built from the kit) I > found to be appalling. More than once I zinged myself brushing against > the line voltage traces on the front panel board. And that awful white > wire. Mine was "used" and already assembled when I got it. It had most of the final expansions - I added a few homebrew ones. Did improve the power supply , and agree completely on the "white wire" - I used mine LOTS - did much of my earliest software development on it! -Dave --===============9123016119393054849==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Wed Jun 12 14:14:26 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:14:09 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <171820125544.4006402.10835373178986731894@classiccmp.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4704332489221949303==" --===============4704332489221949303== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 10:07 AM Dave Dunfield via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > Having some fun reliving the memories ... I'll also mention that I do have > other emulators for some > of the classic systems I had on "Daves Old Computers" (look under "DOS > Widgets") > again - in case anyone wants to experience actually using one of these > systems: > > NorthStar Horizon (Z80) - also does: Vector 1+ > NorthStar DOS, CP/M > > > Without looking through everything you have first (sorry)....is the NorthStar DOS genned for a 2SIO card? Bill --===============4704332489221949303==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Wed Jun 12 14:52:57 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:52:52 -0500 Message-ID: <4037a59e-4df3-dafd-0709-911a4fcef8fa@pico-systems.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1322666159878020253==" --===============1322666159878020253== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/12/24 03:02, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote: > > Fun factoid: despite modern x86 being clocked ~1000x faster than ye olde > 6502, there's not much in it between them when it comes to interrupt > response time. If all goes well, x86 takes "only" a hundred-ish cycles to do > its book-keeping and jump to the ISR, but if SMM is active (spoiler: it > always is and you can't turn it off) then it introduces a massive amount of > extra jitter and all bets are off. > Well, actually the Pentium classic was supposedly designed as the flight computer for the F-15, and had VERY good interrupt response time of around 5 us.  We know all about this as we used it with real time Linux in CNC motion control systems.  A big concern was what was the delay and jitter from the RTC triggering an interrupt to when the servo position counters were read.  It has been a struggle to maintain this level of low jitter with newer processors, but we have found quite a few that can do it. Jon --===============1322666159878020253==-- From lproven@gmail.com Wed Jun 12 18:44:56 2024 From: Liam Proven To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:44:39 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8906979458402991730==" --===============8906979458402991730== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 at 06:10, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > If you use > a computer that simultaneously is or can be used by other people via > multiple concurrent user sessions across whatever signal path, whatever the > setting, it is *not* "personal". I disagree. You are trying to make a binary yes/no split when it just ain't s= o. Take, say, a Compaq Deskpro 386, a late-'80s desktop. It's indubitably a PC. Now boot CDOS-386 on it. Plug a couple of terminals into its serial ports. Now it's a multiuser host. No hardware change. Stick a DOS floppy in, reboot. It's a single user PC again. There is no hardware change. Ben Idontneedasurname says if it doesn't have a multitasking OS it's not a PC. Who is right? Neither of you. You are trying to make out this is an absolute split. It's no= t. I used DESQview to multitask DOS apps. Resolutely single user. I know people who used DESQview to run BBSes. Definitely multiuser. But the _same software_. But could one ordinary person afford it? At least in some countries, e.g. where it's made or at least designed? That is a clearer, easier split, I think. --=20 Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 --===============8906979458402991730==-- From dave.dunfield@gmail.com Wed Jun 12 19:09:48 2024 From: Dave Dunfield To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 19:09:43 +0000 Message-ID: <171821938338.4006402.3847943602728430029@classiccmp.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0530759026008772937==" --===============0530759026008772937== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill Degnan wrote: > > Without looking through everything you have first (sorry)....is the > NorthStar DOS genned for a 2SIO card? > Bill Most of the disk images I have in the Altair emulation are set up to communic= ate via my own homebuilt dual-serial card - There might be one set up for the original Mits serial car= d... The ones with the Horizon emulation are set up for the serial ports build int= o the Horizon, and the Vector 1+ images are set up for whatever I had in that machine. There is a an image of the NorthStar master system distribution disk - which = has "unpersonalised I/O" this is what was first used to get it running on the Altair - it boots a= nd hangs in an infinite loop at I/O initialization - you halt the system and then toggle in minimal I/O fu= nctions functions through the front panel - then you can restart DOS and get a console prompt, at which= point you can load "fresh" DOS elsewhere in memory, then using the NorthStar monitor, poke in yo= ur I/O routines, then IN(itialize) a fresh disk and save that DOS to it - thereby creating a b= ootable disk that "talks to the console". This is one of things you can do on the "Virtual Altair", do/experience what = it was was involved in getting an OS up on a front-panel system when you didn't already have this= OS running! Something you had to do in the first days, but few people today have done! (o= ther then list members or course) I do have information about how to do this included with the emulater! -Dave --===============0530759026008772937==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Wed Jun 12 19:15:44 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:15:26 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <171821938338.4006402.3847943602728430029@classiccmp.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4793494056986984317==" --===============4793494056986984317== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 3:09 PM Dave Dunfield via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > Bill Degnan wrote: > > > Without looking through everything you have first (sorry)....is the > > NorthStar DOS genned for a 2SIO card? > > Bill > > Most of the disk images I have in the Altair emulation are set up to > communicate via my own homebuilt > dual-serial card - There might be one set up for the original Mits serial > card... > > The ones with the Horizon emulation are set up for the serial ports build > into the Horizon, > and the Vector 1+ images are set up for whatever I had in that machine. > > There is a an image of the NorthStar master system distribution disk - > which has "unpersonalised > I/O" this is what was first used to get it running on the Altair - it > boots and hangs in an infinite loop > at I/O initialization - you halt the system and then toggle in minimal I/O > functions functions through > the front panel - then you can restart DOS and get a console prompt, at > which point you can load > "fresh" DOS elsewhere in memory, then using the NorthStar monitor, poke in > your I/O routines, > then IN(itialize) a fresh disk and save that DOS to it - thereby creating > a bootable disk that "talks to > the console". > > This is one of things you can do on the "Virtual Altair", do/experience > what it was was involved > in getting an OS up on a front-panel system when you didn't already have > this OS running! > Something you had to do in the first days, but few people today have done! > (other then list members or course) > I do have information about how to do this included with the emulater! > > -Dave > Thanks Dave - It has been many years since I genned a N* disk. I don't always have success with the port assigning but eventually I get it to work. Bill --===============4793494056986984317==-- From dj.taylor4@comcast.net Wed Jun 12 21:30:13 2024 From: Douglas Taylor To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Dilog Multifunction MQ-100 board Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 17:21:50 -0400 Message-ID: <8e0a08de-729e-4310-adf2-c097334c414e@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3310102334064201975==" --===============3310102334064201975== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hopefully I can find someone who has a manual for this qbus board, if not, does anyone have experience with this board? Summary: It's a dual width qbus board with 1 DLV11-J port, 32KW Boot room, on board LTC circuit and has a 16 pin connector to attach to a front panel.  I dumped the prom's and you can see them over on the VCF Forum/DEC page.  I used PDP11GUI to probe the I/O space and it looks similar to a MXV11-B boot board, with the addition of a serial port, LTC and front panel control.   The board has copyright 1986 so it's not that old. I guess a front panel would have; LED for RUN, LED for DC OK, a switch for HALT, switch for RESTART and possibly a switch to disable LTC.  The board has a couple of 4N25 optocouplers and what signals would need isolation? Yes, I would like to use this put together a working qbus PDP11 using either 11/23 or 11/73 CPU, just for fun. Doug --===============3310102334064201975==-- From marvin@west.net Wed Jun 12 22:16:31 2024 From: Marvin Johnston To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Illiac II Library Routine Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:16:29 -0700 Message-ID: <4b151b01-8cb1-400e-a807-1766cda9354b@west.net> In-Reply-To: <171821160793.2847341.9141168402321516007@classiccmp.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1544750816899072652==" --===============1544750816899072652== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit First, the date of the report is January 13, 1967. I don't plan of offering the report for sale. Once I find a good way of duplicating the report, I most likely will put the copies on a thumb driver and offer them for sale most likely for the price of the thumb drive (1 or 2 dollars.) If bitsavers wants copies, that would be great since it (they) will be available at no charge. Thanks for asking! Marvin > From: Bill Degnan > Subject: [cctalk] Re: Illiac II Library Routine > > > Marvin > Are these for sale or are you bringing to exhibit? What year was the Iliac > II library routine published? I will be at VCFMW this year. > Bill > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, 11:26 AM Marvin Johnston via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> Thanks for the offer,but I'm located in Santa Barbara, CA. My plans >> include VCFMW in September where I can bring a slew of his books, etc. >> I might add there are some IBM manuals including the 360 and 1401 >> Fortran II I've seen so far. >> >> Marvin >> >> --===============1544750816899072652==-- From fritzm@fritzm.org Wed Jun 12 22:55:58 2024 From: Fritz Mueller To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] teletype roll as an RF termination load Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:55:41 -0700 Message-ID: <400AD04F-5739-485D-A833-49C1492B0366@fritzm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8425913446833682280==" --===============8425913446833682280== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So, I recently salvaged a pair of ASR 33s and a PDP-8/I from a research lab w= here I work. A few folks chimed in on the "anybody want this" thread, but I = happened to be the lucky winner (not lucky for my back or my basement, but th= ey will be fun restoration projects.) One of the engineers here asked if there were any teletype rolls along with t= hese and if so that they be salvaged because "...it is broadly lossy to rf an= d can be used as an rf termination load." When asked a little further if this was teletype rolls in particular, she rep= lied yes, and that this was something she had picked up in former work as an = RF engineer at Varian, from a previous generation of crafty engineers. I thought this was pretty interesting, and that the list here might have a cr= oss-section of folks who might comment. Anybody heard of this before? Hmmm, teletypes *and* RF -- sounds like something Marc might want to check ou= t... :-) cheers, --FritzM. --===============8425913446833682280==-- From w2hx@w2hx.com Thu Jun 13 00:18:14 2024 From: W2HX To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: teletype roll as an RF termination load Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:18:03 +0000 Message-ID: <46756eb8-beee-429b-9993-8de777097d91@w2hx.com> In-Reply-To: <400AD04F-5739-485D-A833-49C1492B0366@fritzm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4023629972678903251==" --===============4023629972678903251== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "teletype rolls" what, like rolls of paper? They are not effective as dummy l= oads. Sent from Nine ________________________________ From: Fritz Mueller via cctalk Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 6:56 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Cc: Fritz Mueller Subject: [cctalk] teletype roll as an RF termination load So, I recently salvaged a pair of ASR 33s and a PDP-8/I from a research lab w= here I work. A few folks chimed in on the "anybody want this" thread, but I = happened to be the lucky winner (not lucky for my back or my basement, but th= ey will be fun restoration projects.) One of the engineers here asked if there were any teletype rolls along with t= hese and if so that they be salvaged because "...it is broadly lossy to rf an= d can be used as an rf termination load." When asked a little further if this was teletype rolls in particular, she rep= lied yes, and that this was something she had picked up in former work as an = RF engineer at Varian, from a previous generation of crafty engineers. I thought this was pretty interesting, and that the list here might have a cr= oss-section of folks who might comment. Anybody heard of this before? Hmmm, teletypes *and* RF -- sounds like something Marc might want to check ou= t... :-) cheers, --FritzM. --===============4023629972678903251==-- From mark.romberg@gmail.com Thu Jun 13 01:28:19 2024 From: mark audacity romberg To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: teletype roll as an RF termination load Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:28:02 -0500 Message-ID: <46D09513-982A-44E7-87C3-D530F3C784CB@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <46756eb8-beee-429b-9993-8de777097d91@w2hx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4778074645622410719==" --===============4778074645622410719== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yeah, something=E2=80=99s missing here, teletype paper is for sure not good a= s a dummy load.=20 --===============4778074645622410719==-- From bitwiz@12bitsbest.com Thu Jun 13 01:39:29 2024 From: Mike Katz To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: teletype roll as an RF termination load Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:39:21 -0500 Message-ID: <26a5c244-ef98-4b97-9f48-7ee532c665a8@12bitsbest.com> In-Reply-To: <46D09513-982A-44E7-87C3-D530F3C784CB@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1028742883331778155==" --===============1028742883331778155== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Maybe they are thinking that because it is oil it will work like an oil=20 can load. Sound to me like the originator of this is a big load of dummy=F0=9F=99=82 On 6/12/2024 8:28 PM, mark audacity romberg via cctalk wrote: > Yeah, something=E2=80=99s missing here, teletype paper is for sure not good= as a dummy load. --===============1028742883331778155==-- From wrcooke@wrcooke.net Thu Jun 13 02:12:23 2024 From: wrcooke@wrcooke.net To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: teletype roll as an RF termination load Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:12:18 -0500 Message-ID: <1781120471.3564519.1718244738999@email.ionos.com> In-Reply-To: <400AD04F-5739-485D-A833-49C1492B0366@fritzm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8821473822788649167==" --===============8821473822788649167== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On 06/12/2024 5:55 PM CDT Fritz Mueller via cctalk wrote: > > > > One of the engineers here asked if there were any teletype rolls along with= these and if so that they be salvaged because "...it is broadly lossy to rf = and can be used as an rf termination load." > > cheers, > --FritzM. It's been almost 40 years since I saw a roll of teletype paper, but I think t= hey were rolled on cardboard? I can't imagine it would work very well in its= native state, but maybe soaked in water or salt water it would be conductive= enough and could dissipate a fair amount of power. I wouldn't think it woul= d work much better than a light bulb, though. I know in the army they taught us to make a terminating resistor out of an ea= r plug case filled with salt water, but that wasn't intended to be very accur= ate or dissipate much power. Will Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for child= ren to be always and forever explaining things to them, Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince --===============8821473822788649167==-- From drb@msu.edu Thu Jun 13 02:17:15 2024 From: Dennis Boone To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: teletype roll as an RF termination load Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 22:17:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20240613021710.39BBA4FB8FC@yagi.h-net.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <1781120471.3564519.1718244738999@email.ionos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3770602836417809588==" --===============3770602836417809588== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I wouldn't think it would work much better than a light bulb, though. Load it up with a wide range tuner, and you could probably make contacts across three states, though, just like the light bulb. :) De --===============3770602836417809588==-- From bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca Thu Jun 13 03:08:13 2024 From: ben To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: teletype roll as an RF termination load Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:08:00 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20240613021710.39BBA4FB8FC@yagi.h-net.msu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6677309328404675779==" --===============6677309328404675779== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2024-06-12 8:17 p.m., Dennis Boone via cctalk wrote: > > I wouldn't think it would work much better than a light bulb, though. > > Load it up with a wide range tuner, and you could probably make contacts > across three states, though, just like the light bulb. :) > > De Wow the worlds cheapest RTTY setup, or is it fewest parts. Does any one do RTTY or slow scan TV now days? Ben. --===============6677309328404675779==-- From w2hx@w2hx.com Thu Jun 13 03:24:11 2024 From: W2HX To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: teletype roll as an RF termination load Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 03:24:02 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2009372834044160166==" --===============2009372834044160166== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes I do rtty and I use mechanical equipment. Several of us use military sta= ndards and military equipment. I show some of this on my Youtube Channel whi= ch can be found at @w2hx Sent from Nine ________________________________ From: ben via cctalk Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 11:08 PM To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org Cc: ben Subject: [cctalk] Re: teletype roll as an RF termination load On 2024-06-12 8:17 p.m., Dennis Boone via cctalk wrote: > > I wouldn't think it would work much better than a light bulb, though. > > Load it up with a wide range tuner, and you could probably make contacts > across three states, though, just like the light bulb. :) > > De Wow the worlds cheapest RTTY setup, or is it fewest parts. Does any one do RTTY or slow scan TV now days? Ben. --===============2009372834044160166==-- From gavin@learn.bio Thu Jun 13 03:32:23 2024 From: Gavin Scott To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: teletype roll as an RF termination load Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 22:32:06 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <400AD04F-5739-485D-A833-49C1492B0366@fritzm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5260693231301567618==" --===============5260693231301567618== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is it possible they were thinking about really old FAX paper which might have been wet to support marking via an electric discharge through it (and to (slightly) reduce the frequency with which the receiving machine caught fire)? On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 5:56=E2=80=AFPM Fritz Mueller via cctalk wrote: > > So, I recently salvaged a pair of ASR 33s and a PDP-8/I from a research lab= where I work. A few folks chimed in on the "anybody want this" thread, but = I happened to be the lucky winner (not lucky for my back or my basement, but = they will be fun restoration projects.) > > One of the engineers here asked if there were any teletype rolls along with= these and if so that they be salvaged because "...it is broadly lossy to rf = and can be used as an rf termination load." > > When asked a little further if this was teletype rolls in particular, she r= eplied yes, and that this was something she had picked up in former work as a= n RF engineer at Varian, from a previous generation of crafty engineers. > > I thought this was pretty interesting, and that the list here might have a = cross-section of folks who might comment. Anybody heard of this before? > > Hmmm, teletypes *and* RF -- sounds like something Marc might want to check = out... :-) > > cheers, > --FritzM. > > --===============5260693231301567618==-- From fritzm@fritzm.org Thu Jun 13 05:45:45 2024 From: Fritz Mueller To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: teletype roll as an RF termination load Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 22:45:28 -0700 Message-ID: <59C952BD-5BC0-4609-A224-C42679B8EAF9@fritzm.org> In-Reply-To: <26a5c244-ef98-4b97-9f48-7ee532c665a8@12bitsbest.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2014485764164958097==" --===============2014485764164958097== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On 6/12/2024 8:28 PM, mark audacity romberg via cctalk wrote: > Yeah, something=E2=80=99s missing here, teletype paper is for sure not good= as a dummy load. Sounded pretty strange to me, but the commenter is a fairly accomplished pers= on in the accelerator electronics and detector division, and the audience (on= a general channel) was the entire staff of the lab. So I assume there was *= something* to the tale... I wonder what might be missing or lost in translation down the years? I figu= re if anybody had heard of such a thing, it might be some of this lot :-) --FritzM. --===============2014485764164958097==-- From sqrfolkdnc@comcast.net Thu Jun 13 06:12:06 2024 From: CAREY SCHUG To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: teletype roll as an RF termination load Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 01:11:58 -0500 Message-ID: <2030388724.1625808.1718259118166@connect.xfinity.com> In-Reply-To: <59C952BD-5BC0-4609-A224-C42679B8EAF9@fritzm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6657699696130510711==" --===============6657699696130510711== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable could early rolls have been on graphite or metal instead of cardboard? Or a = metal reusable core with a hollow cardboard tube holding the paper, like pape= r towels? 
--Carey
> On 06/13/2024 12:45 AM CDT Fritz Mueller via cctalk wrote: >=20 > =20 > > On 6/12/2024 8:28 PM, mark audacity romberg via cctalk wrote: > > Yeah, something=E2=80=99s missing here, teletype paper is for sure not go= od as a dummy load. >=20 > >=20 > Sounded pretty strange to me, but the commenter is a fairly accomplished pe= rson in the accelerator electronics and detector division, and the audience (= on a general channel) was the entire staff of the lab. So I assume there was= *something* to the tale... >=20 > I wonder what might be missing or lost in translation down the years? I fi= gure if anybody had heard of such a thing, it might be some of this lot :-) >=20 > --FritzM. --===============6657699696130510711==-- From dave.g4ugm@gmail.com Thu Jun 13 08:04:23 2024 From: dave.g4ugm@gmail.com To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Dilog Multifunction MQ-100 board Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 09:04:13 +0100 Message-ID: <009a01dabd68$49051810$db0f4830$@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8e0a08de-729e-4310-adf2-c097334c414e@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2627225914652159339==" --===============2627225914652159339== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > -----Original Message----- > From: Douglas Taylor via cctalk > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 10:22 PM > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Cc: Douglas Taylor > Subject: [cctalk] Dilog Multifunction MQ-100 board >=20 > Hopefully I can find someone who has a manual for this qbus board, if not, = does > anyone have experience with this board? >=20 > Summary: >=20 > It's a dual width qbus board with 1 DLV11-J port, 32KW Boot room, on board > LTC circuit and has a 16 pin connector to attach to a front panel. I dumpe= d the > prom's and you can see them over on the VCF Forum/DEC page. I used > PDP11GUI to probe the I/O space and it looks similar to a MXV11-B boot boar= d, > with the addition of a serial port, LTC and front panel control. The boar= d has > copyright 1986 so it's not that old. >=20 > I guess a front panel would have; LED for RUN, LED for DC OK, a switch for > HALT, switch for RESTART and possibly a switch to disable LTC. The board h= as a > couple of 4N25 optocouplers and what signals would need isolation? Its common to use OPTO couplers on current loop interfaces, so perhaps the DL= V11-J type port but with current loop. >=20 > Yes, I would like to use this put together a working qbus PDP11 using either > 11/23 or 11/73 CPU, just for fun. >=20 > Doug Dave --===============2627225914652159339==-- From dave.dunfield@gmail.com Thu Jun 13 10:51:22 2024 From: Dave Dunfield To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:51:18 +0000 Message-ID: <171827587887.4006402.17539891816890219733@classiccmp.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6558043105083214372==" --===============6558043105083214372== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Degnan wrote: > Thanks Dave - It has been many years since I genned a N* disk. I don't > always have success with the port assigning but eventually I get it to work. Although my Altair was "fully expanded" when I first owned it, I was involved with it quite some time before that: At University of New Brunswick I made friend: Gary -staff at computer center Gary found: Dan -former student -built the Altair -Decided to sell to Gary -- Dan had assembled a minimal system: Chassis, all Mits: CPU, 1K RAM, Serial -- Fortunately he had put in 3 of the 4-slot S100 boards (12 slots) Together Gary and I expanded it to a much more usable system --- 64K RAM, NorthStar Disks, ADM3A terminal and more I wrote an 8080 assembler on UNBs IBM 360 mainframe, which gave a good listing (code values) of our I/O routines. Using front panel: Run at E900 (Boot ROM - unpersonalized N*DOS), HALT, toggle-in I/O code, restart DOS in memory. This gave DOS talking to the ADM3A (yes - it took a few trys before we had it working) - then we loaded clean DOS into memory (DOS self-modifies in memory as it boots), use N*Monitor to copy our I/O to this copy, initialize a second disk and save DOS to it - this gave us a working DOS that booted! If you want to experience doing this, it can all be done on my Virtual Altair! For the true experience, you should stick to the front panel switches, but if you want to "cheat" - Virtual Altair has additional capabilities that original didn't: Full debugger with execution (disassembly) display, memory/register editors, 'L'oad Intel/Motorola hex images to memory while stopped! Sometime later, while testing bare code on a second Altair without disks, I created: MinimalCodeEntrySerialBoot This let me load/run large programs, having to toggle in only 18 bytes via the front panel! Ah, fond memories! -Dave --===============6558043105083214372==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Thu Jun 13 12:14:24 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Illiac II Library Routine Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:14:06 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4b151b01-8cb1-400e-a807-1766cda9354b@west.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0490730677548273627==" --===============0490730677548273627== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks. The Iliac IV was highlighted in the Sept (?) 1971 Scientific American, the Iliac I was in service from around 1956ish so I was curious about where the Iliac II fit it, it's less well-known of a machine. Bill On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 6:16 PM Marvin Johnston via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > First, the date of the report is January 13, 1967. > > I don't plan of offering the report for sale. Once I find a good way of > duplicating the report, I most likely will put the copies on a thumb > driver and offer them for sale most likely for the price of the thumb > drive (1 or 2 dollars.) If bitsavers wants copies, that would be great > since it (they) will be available at no charge. > > Thanks for asking! > > Marvin > > From: Bill Degnan > > Subject: [cctalk] Re: Illiac II Library Routine > > > > > > Marvin > > Are these for sale or are you bringing to exhibit? What year was the > Iliac > > II library routine published? I will be at VCFMW this year. > > Bill > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, 11:26 AM Marvin Johnston via cctalk < > > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > >> Thanks for the offer,but I'm located in Santa Barbara, CA. My plans > >> include VCFMW in September where I can bring a slew of his books, etc. > >> I might add there are some IBM manuals including the 360 and 1401 > >> Fortran II I've seen so far. > >> > >> Marvin > >> > >> --===============0490730677548273627==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Thu Jun 13 15:40:54 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:40:47 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4037a59e-4df3-dafd-0709-911a4fcef8fa@pico-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4847014672200861116==" --===============4847014672200861116== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/12/24 09:52, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > On 6/12/24 03:02, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote: >> >> Fun factoid: despite modern x86 being clocked ~1000x >> faster than ye olde >> 6502, there's not much in it between them when it comes >> to interrupt >> response time. If all goes well, x86 takes "only" a >> hundred-ish cycles to do >> its book-keeping and jump to the ISR, but if SMM is >> active (spoiler: it >> always is and you can't turn it off) then it introduces a >> massive amount of >> extra jitter and all bets are off. >> > Well, actually the Pentium classic was supposedly designed > as the flight computer for the F-15, and had VERY good > interrupt response time of around 5 us.  We know all about > this as we used it with real time Linux in CNC motion > control systems.  A big concern was what was the delay and > jitter from the RTC triggering an interrupt to when the > servo position counters were read.  It has been a struggle > to maintain this level of low jitter with newer > processors, but we have found quite a few that can do it. AACK!  Sorry, that was supposed to be F-16! Jon --===============4847014672200861116==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Thu Jun 13 15:46:15 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: teletype roll as an RF termination load Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:46:07 -0500 Message-ID: <002208f6-baf1-6dbd-a7a2-fee90f269307@pico-systems.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8470931287805177330==" --===============8470931287805177330== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/12/24 22:32, Gavin Scott via cctalk wrote: > Is it possible they were thinking about really old FAX paper which > might have been wet to support marking via an electric discharge > through it (and to (slightly) reduce the frequency with which the > receiving machine caught fire)? Yes, there was teledeltos paper, that had a silver top layer and a carbon layer below that. A high voltage spark burned away the silver layer and left a black image. Jon --===============8470931287805177330==-- From artgodwin@gmail.com Thu Jun 13 15:56:18 2024 From: Adrian Godwin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 16:56:02 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1686013580375213271==" --===============1686013580375213271== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even without things like system management mode, there are lots of speed-up features on modern processors that result in variable execution times - things like caching and pipelining. With sufficient care these can sometimes be made predictable but there are certain common needs that have always found it better to have a dedicated peripheral to do these jobs. The first common one was possibly the Motorola TPU (time processing unit) on the 68332 and others. The target application was injection timing for automotive ECUs and although external dedicated logic such as FPGAs have also been used, the microprogrammable peripheral has continued to be a feature of some relatively common processors. The TI processor in the beaglebone has PRIs, the raspberry pi Pico RP2040 has PIOs, and there's also the parallax propellor which has 8 high speed parallel processors running at 80MHz and able to interleave operations on common ports : a newer version has iirc a 1Ghz clock. Another technique has 'abused' dma and serial data peripherals on esp8266, esp32 and Teensy processors to produce pulse trains for WS2812 LED control at IIS clock rates. They construct the desired output waveform in memory and DMA them out, though this may be unsuitable for servo control as the buffers are large, giving good precision but poor latency. On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 4:40=E2=80=AFPM Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > On 6/12/24 09:52, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > > On 6/12/24 03:02, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote: > >> > >> Fun factoid: despite modern x86 being clocked ~1000x > >> faster than ye olde > >> 6502, there's not much in it between them when it comes > >> to interrupt > >> response time. If all goes well, x86 takes "only" a > >> hundred-ish cycles to do > >> its book-keeping and jump to the ISR, but if SMM is > >> active (spoiler: it > >> always is and you can't turn it off) then it introduces a > >> massive amount of > >> extra jitter and all bets are off. > >> > > Well, actually the Pentium classic was supposedly designed > > as the flight computer for the F-15, and had VERY good > > interrupt response time of around 5 us. We know all about > > this as we used it with real time Linux in CNC motion > > control systems. A big concern was what was the delay and > > jitter from the RTC triggering an interrupt to when the > > servo position counters were read. It has been a struggle > > to maintain this level of low jitter with newer > > processors, but we have found quite a few that can do it. > > AACK! Sorry, that was supposed to be F-16! > > Jon > > --===============1686013580375213271==-- From chrise@pobox.com Thu Jun 13 16:13:13 2024 From: Chris Elmquist To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: teletype roll as an RF termination load Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:05:41 -0500 Message-ID: <20240613160541.GH2350@n0jcf.net> In-Reply-To: <002208f6-baf1-6dbd-a7a2-fee90f269307@pico-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2891578806774102719==" --===============2891578806774102719== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday (06/13/2024 at 10:46AM -0500), Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > On 6/12/24 22:32, Gavin Scott via cctalk wrote: > > Is it possible they were thinking about really old FAX paper which > > might have been wet to support marking via an electric discharge > > through it (and to (slightly) reduce the frequency with which the > > receiving machine caught fire)? > > Yes, there was teledeltos paper, that had a silver top layer and a carbon > layer below that. > > A high voltage spark burned away the silver layer and left a black image. The OP mentioned that the story may have originated at Varian, where they historically did a lot of work on high power _microwave_ stuff. I could imagine that a roll of paper might make an OK attentuator at the end of a piece of waveguide, into which you can dump a bunch of power. But it probably isn't going to be a very good impedance match. I don't see it working well at all at HF, VHF or UHF frequencies if the RF source (transmitter) is expecting any sort of normal impedance like a 50 ohm termination-- because how are you connecting the feedline to this roll of paper? What is the mechanical and electrical interface between the unbalanced (or balanced) feeder and the roll of paper? Maybe they put an actual dummy load resistor inside the roll of paper and were using it as a heatsink-- you know, before it lit on fire ;-) Seems like some important details of this story are missing... Chris N0JCF -- Chris Elmquist --===============2891578806774102719==-- From sqrfolkdnc@comcast.net Thu Jun 13 16:15:47 2024 From: CAREY SCHUG To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:15:41 -0500 Message-ID: <1143264598.1638666.1718295341266@connect.xfinity.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0867961949859237719==" --===============0867961949859237719== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think I recall an early processor that did out of order execution, without = checking, meaning you could have add xxx to accumulator store accumulator in zzz and the store could happen before the add if there weren't sufficient instruc= tions between the two. I *DON'T* recall if it was designed this way or a defect in the chip design. = =20 I think it was intended to be a real-time process control cpu and speed was m= ore important than ease of programming. There was a assembler/compiler that = warned of this case, afaik --===============0867961949859237719==-- From bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca Thu Jun 13 16:17:19 2024 From: ben To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:17:07 -0600 Message-ID: <8f612f43-09b6-4496-9696-6f1406af3993@jetnet.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1792756383709624721==" --===============1792756383709624721== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2024-06-13 9:40 a.m., Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > AACK!  Sorry, that was supposed to be F-16! The divide bug strikes again. > Jon What would one use today instead of the 586? Ben. --===============1792756383709624721==-- From dj.taylor4@comcast.net Thu Jun 13 16:33:24 2024 From: Douglas Taylor To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Dilog Multifunction MQ-100 board Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 12:25:04 -0400 Message-ID: <69eb5332-24db-41c0-bfc3-06ab54a0c57c@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <009a01dabd68$49051810$db0f4830$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8184228330984539620==" --===============8184228330984539620== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/13/2024 4:04 AM, Dave Wade G4UGM via cctalk wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Douglas Taylor via cctalk >> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 10:22 PM >> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts >> Cc: Douglas Taylor >> Subject: [cctalk] Dilog Multifunction MQ-100 board >> >> Hopefully I can find someone who has a manual for this qbus board, if not,= does >> anyone have experience with this board? >> >> Summary: >> >> It's a dual width qbus board with 1 DLV11-J port, 32KW Boot room, on board >> LTC circuit and has a 16 pin connector to attach to a front panel. I dump= ed the >> prom's and you can see them over on the VCF Forum/DEC page. I used >> PDP11GUI to probe the I/O space and it looks similar to a MXV11-B boot boa= rd, >> with the addition of a serial port, LTC and front panel control. The boa= rd has >> copyright 1986 so it's not that old. >> >> I guess a front panel would have; LED for RUN, LED for DC OK, a switch for >> HALT, switch for RESTART and possibly a switch to disable LTC. The board = has a >> couple of 4N25 optocouplers and what signals would need isolation? > Its common to use OPTO couplers on current loop interfaces, so perhaps the = DLV11-J type port but with current loop. > >> Yes, I would like to use this put together a working qbus PDP11 using eith= er >> 11/23 or 11/73 CPU, just for fun. >> >> Doug > Dave > I was able to trace the optocoupler LED pins (1 and 2) to the gnd (pin=20 2) and pin 1 and 2 of the front panel connector (pins 1), both going=20 thru a 4.7K ohm resistor.=C2=A0 I am beginning to suspect that these connect = to a lighted switch for HALT and RESTART.=C2=A0 I have to see where the=20 collector of the optocouplers connect to before being certain. Doug --===============8184228330984539620==-- From artgodwin@gmail.com Thu Jun 13 16:34:14 2024 From: Adrian Godwin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:33:58 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1143264598.1638666.1718295341266@connect.xfinity.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8594565542212824957==" --===============8594565542212824957== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I may be wrong, but wasn't that a feature of early RISC, possibly the Sparc ? You were compiling to microcode rather than CISC assembler, so you got to think about pipelining in the instruction stream. Just about feasible in assembler but perfectly sensible if the compiler was doing the work. To the limit of my knowledge, modern RISCs like ARM are much more like CISC in that the pipelining is hidden, the name is used only to imply there's a small and regular set of instruction codes. On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 5:15 PM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > I think I recall an early processor that did out of order execution, > without checking, meaning you could have > > add xxx to accumulator > store accumulator in zzz > > and the store could happen before the add if there weren't sufficient > instructions between the two. > > I *DON'T* recall if it was designed this way or a defect in the chip > design. > > I think it was intended to be a real-time process control cpu and speed > was more important than ease of programming. There was a > assembler/compiler that warned of this case, afaik > --===============8594565542212824957==-- From bitwiz@12bitsbest.com Thu Jun 13 17:05:37 2024 From: Mike Katz To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:07:56 -0500 Message-ID: <2b07e68f-4a9d-4ba8-903a-9bcd636c5707@12bitsbest.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8653504251825523152==" --===============8653504251825523152== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even earlier than the TPU on the 68332 is the communications=20 co-processor built into the 68302.=C2=A0 This predate the entire CPU-32 famil= y. On 6/13/2024 10:56 AM, Adrian Godwin via cctalk wrote: > Even without things like system management mode, there are lots of speed-up > features on modern processors that result in variable execution times - > things like caching and pipelining. With sufficient care these can > sometimes be made predictable but there are certain common needs that > have always found it better to have a dedicated peripheral to do these > jobs. > > The first common one was possibly the Motorola TPU (time processing unit) > on the 68332 and others. The target application was injection timing for > automotive ECUs and although external dedicated logic such as FPGAs have > also been used, the microprogrammable peripheral has continued to be a > feature of some relatively common processors. The TI processor in the > beaglebone has PRIs, the raspberry pi Pico RP2040 has PIOs, and there's > also the parallax propellor which has 8 high speed parallel processors > running at 80MHz and able to interleave operations on common ports : a > newer version has iirc a 1Ghz clock. > > Another technique has 'abused' dma and serial data peripherals on esp8266, > esp32 and Teensy processors to produce pulse trains for WS2812 LED control > at IIS clock rates. They construct the desired output waveform in memory > and DMA them out, though this may be unsuitable for servo control as the > buffers are large, giving good precision but poor latency. > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 4:40=E2=80=AFPM Jon Elson via cctalk > wrote: > >> On 6/12/24 09:52, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 03:02, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote: >>>> Fun factoid: despite modern x86 being clocked ~1000x >>>> faster than ye olde >>>> 6502, there's not much in it between them when it comes >>>> to interrupt >>>> response time. If all goes well, x86 takes "only" a >>>> hundred-ish cycles to do >>>> its book-keeping and jump to the ISR, but if SMM is >>>> active (spoiler: it >>>> always is and you can't turn it off) then it introduces a >>>> massive amount of >>>> extra jitter and all bets are off. >>>> >>> Well, actually the Pentium classic was supposedly designed >>> as the flight computer for the F-15, and had VERY good >>> interrupt response time of around 5 us. We know all about >>> this as we used it with real time Linux in CNC motion >>> control systems. A big concern was what was the delay and >>> jitter from the RTC triggering an interrupt to when the >>> servo position counters were read. It has been a struggle >>> to maintain this level of low jitter with newer >>> processors, but we have found quite a few that can do it. >> AACK! Sorry, that was supposed to be F-16! >> >> Jon >> >> --===============8653504251825523152==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Thu Jun 13 17:32:18 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 13:32:10 -0400 Message-ID: <4C192566-9DDE-4AF3-AE5E-1832291C1AE9@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <670e0604-5685-4fcd-9ac1-1e6c732480c8@jetnet.ab.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8630003893864749447==" --===============8630003893864749447== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 11, 2024, at 11:52 PM, ben via cctalk wrot= e: >=20 > On 2024-06-10 10:18 a.m., Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote: >> On 10/06/2024 05:54, dwight via cctalk wrote: >>> No one is mentioning multiple processors on a single die and cache that i= s bigger than most systems of that times complete RAM. >>> Clock speed was dealt with clever register reassignment, pipelining and p= rediction. >>> Dwight >> Pipelining has always been a double edged sword. Splitting the instruction= cycle into smaller, faster chunks that can run simultaneously is a great ide= a, but if the actual instruction execution speed gets longer, failed branch p= redictions and subsequent pipeline flushes can truly bog down the real-life I= PS. This is ultimately what led the NetBurst architecture to be the dead-end = it became. >=20 > The other gotya with pipelining, is you have to have equal size chunks. > A 16 word register file seems to be right size for a 16 bit alu. > 64 words for words for 32 bit alu. 256 words for 64 bit alu, > as a guess. Huh? There is no direct connection between word length, register count, and = pipeline length. =20 The natural pipeline length (for a given functional unit) is the number of st= eps needed to do the work, given a step that can be completed in a single clo= ck cycle. That assumes a pipe that long is affordable; if not it gets shorte= r. Not all functional units will have the same pipeline length. The register count is a function of cost -- for the registers themselves and = for the scoreboard logic to sort out register conflicts. In modern designs t= hat would be die area; in older machines it would be cost in modules or trans= istors. For example, in the CDC 6600, the registers (8 x 60 bits, 8 x 18 bit= address, 8 * 18 bit index/count) and their associated data path controls to/= from all the functional units take up an entire chassis, 750-ish logic module= s. =20 > You never see a gate level delays on a spec sheet. > Our pipeline is X delays + N delays for a latch. Gate level delays are not interesting for the machine user to know. What is = interesting is the detailed properties of the pipelines, including whether th= ey can accept a new operation every cycle or just every N cycles (say, a mult= iplier that accepts operands every 2 cycles); how many cycles is the delay fr= om input to output; and whether there are "bypass" data paths to reduce the d= elays from input or output conflicts. Often these details are hard to pry ou= t of the manufacturer; often they are not documented in the standard data she= ets or processor user manuals. But they are critical if you want to do work = such as pipeline models to drive compiler optimizers. paul --===============8630003893864749447==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Thu Jun 13 17:52:13 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Illiac II Library Routine Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 13:52:07 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6305958240877826378==" --===============6305958240877826378== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 13, 2024, at 8:14 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: >=20 > Thanks. The Iliac IV was highlighted in the Sept (?) 1971 Scientific > American, the Iliac I was in service from around 1956ish so I was curious > about where the Iliac II fit it, it's less well-known of a machine. > Bill Wikipedia has a brief article. Note that the four ILLIACs are quite unrelate= d; the name simply means they were designed at the University of Illinois and= meant to be installed there. ILLIAC IV ended up at a Navy base because of s= tudent protests; the Navy (which paid for the machine) decided they didn't th= ink it would be safe enough at its originally intended home, the CAC (Center = for Advanced Communication) building in Urbana, IL. ILLIAC I was the original home of the PLATO system -- PLATO I (single user) a= nd I think PLATO II (two users) as well. With PLATO III things moved to CDC = machines: III on the 1604, IV on the 6000 series. paul --===============6305958240877826378==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Thu Jun 13 17:54:54 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: teletype roll as an RF termination load Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 13:54:48 -0400 Message-ID: <42B8CF39-086F-46D2-AADA-E416FE142E5F@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <26a5c244-ef98-4b97-9f48-7ee532c665a8@12bitsbest.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7608167490064458220==" --===============7608167490064458220== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 12, 2024, at 9:39 PM, Mike Katz via cctalk = wrote: >=20 > Maybe they are thinking that because it is oil it will work like an oil can= load. But oil can loads use the oil for cooling; a resistor (typically made of carb= orundum) is the actual load. paul --===============7608167490064458220==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Thu Jun 13 17:57:45 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 13:57:36 -0400 Message-ID: <2D7EFD2C-A417-48A9-AC37-B3366E6A0A71@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <1143264598.1638666.1718295341266@connect.xfinity.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3751555158111605204==" --===============3751555158111605204== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 13, 2024, at 12:15 PM, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote: >=20 > I think I recall an early processor that did out of order execution, withou= t checking, meaning you could have >=20 > add xxx to accumulator > store accumulator in zzz >=20 > and the store could happen before the add if there weren't sufficient instr= uctions between the two. >=20 > I *DON'T* recall if it was designed this way or a defect in the chip design= . =20 >=20 > I think it was intended to be a real-time process control cpu and speed was= more important than ease of programming. There was a assembler/compiler tha= t warned of this case, afaik MIPS, perhaps? It has "delay slots". The one that remains is the branch del= ay slots, which in modern designs is presumably merely an annoying crock that= requires extra pain to implement but is actually required because it changes= the meaning of the code. There also used to be load (?) delay slots, which = sounds like what you're describing. That was ancient history by the time I s= tarted working on MIPS machines, fortunately. paul --===============3751555158111605204==-- From cclist@sydex.com Thu Jun 13 18:00:40 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:00:28 -0700 Message-ID: <0fbd499c-0759-43fe-89b1-7ba1afa76acc@sydex.com> In-Reply-To: <4C192566-9DDE-4AF3-AE5E-1832291C1AE9@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3602649836665170305==" --===============3602649836665170305== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/13/24 10:32, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > Huh? There is no direct connection between word length, register count, an= d pipeline length. =20 Indeed. There are architectures with NO user-addressable registers. Some have memory-mapped registers, where a "register number" is merely shorthand for a memory address (i.e. implicit multiplier and base) --Chuck --===============3602649836665170305==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Thu Jun 13 18:06:17 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 14:06:08 -0400 Message-ID: <640E282A-8AD7-44CB-9924-298AB3C43BC0@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <0fbd499c-0759-43fe-89b1-7ba1afa76acc@sydex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2517341041207616149==" --===============2517341041207616149== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 13, 2024, at 2:00 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >=20 > On 6/13/24 10:32, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: >> Huh? There is no direct connection between word length, register count, a= nd pipeline length. =20 > Indeed. There are architectures with NO user-addressable registers. > Some have memory-mapped registers, where a "register number" is merely > shorthand for a memory address (i.e. implicit multiplier and base) >=20 > --Chuck There are of course also machines that appear to have registers (in the sense= that the instruction set refers to them) but the implementation is a chunk o= f memory. The PDP-6 is one (and early PDP-10s without the "fast registers" o= ption). The Philips PR-8000 may be one as well; the ISA has 8 registers, tim= es 8 because it has a separate set per interrupt priority level, but there is= a variant of the store instruction that stores to any of these as if it were= memory. I'm not actually sure if it was implemented that way; 64 registers = 24 bits wide would be a substantial cost and bulk in a mid-1960s machine. paul --===============2517341041207616149==-- From anders@abc80.net Thu Jun 13 19:15:56 2024 From: anders@abc80.net To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Vintage computing in the San Francisco bay area Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 21:08:46 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <171829800854.2847341.10216754292690424398@classiccmp.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1377533252965586576==" --===============1377533252965586576== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Soon I will travel to US and San Francisco/San José Area. Any tips for vintage computing and surpuls electronics? CHM is manatory, I'll go there. It would have been nice to see the PDP-1 in action, but I suscpect that we will not make it when it's demonstrated. /Anders --===============1377533252965586576==-- From chris@mainecoon.com Thu Jun 13 19:56:06 2024 From: Christian Kennedy To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Delay slots, was: Re: Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 12:55:57 -0700 Message-ID: <19c3f76f-f4f6-4dee-b18e-aeb247cbd2b3@mainecoon.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7035819595925335575==" --===============7035819595925335575== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/13/24 09:33, Adrian Godwin via cctalk wrote: > I may be wrong, but wasn't that a feature of early RISC, possibly the Sparc > ? You were compiling to microcode rather than CISC assembler, so you got to > think about pipelining in the instruction stream. Just about feasible in > assembler but perfectly sensible if the compiler was doing the work. That sounds a lot like early MIPS processors, where you (or the compiler) had to schedule load and store delay slots as necessary.  It made sense, given that the whole premise was to make the silicon simple by having the compiler do all of the bookkeeping. -- Christian Kennedy, Ph.D. chris(a)mainecoon.com AF6AP | DB00000692 | PG00029419 http://www.mainecoon.com PGP KeyID 108DAB97 PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97 "Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration…" --===============7035819595925335575==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Thu Jun 13 20:08:24 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Vintage computing in the San Francisco bay area Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 16:08:06 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2462159480541845565==" --===============2462159480541845565== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There are a few historic locations. I think I remember driving past the original house / garage where Apple started, but I am not sure it's public knowledge. On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 3:15=E2=80=AFPM anders--- via cctalk wrote: > Hi, > > Soon I will travel to US and San Francisco/San Jos=C3=A9 Area. Any tips for > vintage computing and surpuls electronics? > > CHM is manatory, I'll go there. It would have been nice to see the PDP-1 > in action, but I suscpect that we will not make it when it's > demonstrated. > > /Anders > --===============2462159480541845565==-- From cisin@xenosoft.com Thu Jun 13 20:44:42 2024 From: Fred Cisin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] "Pentium" (by any other name?) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 13:44:37 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <26a5c244-ef98-4b97-9f48-7ee532c665a8@12bitsbest.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2493682179649995446==" --===============2493682179649995446== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "What to use in place of 586?" Unreliable sources told me that the name "Pentium" was chosen in a contest; what was second place?? It was said that Intel chose to not use "586", because competitors were competing and/or cheating on the numbers a 386 level chip being called "486xx", 486 level chips being called "586", and 586 level chips being called "686" . . . and "you can not "trademark" a number." (sorry for an automotive analogy, but what about the Oldsmobile "442"?) "Pentium" seemed to be safe from "look-alike"names/numbers. BUT, they may not have noticed a serious risk on that. Honeywell had purchased "Pentax" from Asahi. If Honeywell wanted to jump into the fray, they could probably legally put out a chip named "Pentaxium". Fortunately for Intel, Honeywell did not. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com --===============2493682179649995446==-- From cclist@sydex.com Thu Jun 13 21:06:59 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Vintage computing in the San Francisco bay area Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 14:06:50 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6787136027260709445==" --===============6787136027260709445== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/13/24 13:08, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: > There are a few historic locations. I think I remember driving past the > original house / garage where Apple started, but I am not sure it's public > knowledge. The HP garage in Palo Alto is a state historic landmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Garage Yeah, I know--the Apple fanbois will say "What's a Hewlett Packard?" --Chuck --===============6787136027260709445==-- From kiwi_jonathan@yahoo.com Thu Jun 13 21:30:32 2024 From: Jonathan Stone To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Delay slots, was: Re: Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 21:30:25 +0000 Message-ID: <2145015019.5688802.1718314225769@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <19c3f76f-f4f6-4dee-b18e-aeb247cbd2b3@mainecoon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4740537089910409967==" --===============4740537089910409967== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 On Thursday, June 13, 2024 at 12:56:09 PM PDT, Christian Kennedy via cctalk <= cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: [[ ...compiler, or human writing assembler, responsible for avoiding hazards = in MIPS delay slots.... ]] MIPS is of course (allegedly) an acronym for "Microprocessor without Interloc= ked Pipeline Stages". No interlocking between pipeline stages mean no hardware avoidance (delays, p= ipeline bubbles) of hazards. So hardly surprising that authors of MIPS assemb= ly-level code are/were responsible for scheduling that code to avoid what wou= ld otherwise be pipeline hazards. =20 --===============4740537089910409967==-- From macro@orcam.me.uk Thu Jun 13 22:00:20 2024 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Delay slots, was: Re: Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 23:00:13 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2145015019.5688802.1718314225769@mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3527196711776843742==" --===============3527196711776843742== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 13 Jun 2024, Jonathan Stone via cctalk wrote: > MIPS is of course (allegedly) an acronym for "Microprocessor without > Interlocked Pipeline Stages". > > No interlocking between pipeline stages mean no hardware avoidance > (delays, pipeline bubbles) of hazards. So hardly surprising that authors > of MIPS assembly-level code are/were responsible for scheduling that > code to avoid what would otherwise be pipeline hazards. The architecture designers cheated however even in the original ISA in that moves from the MD accumulator did interlock. I guess they figured people (either doing it by hand or by writing a compiler) wouldn't get that right anyway. ;) Maciej --===============3527196711776843742==-- From kiwi_jonathan@yahoo.com Thu Jun 13 22:22:26 2024 From: Jonathan Stone To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Delay slots, was: Re: Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 22:22:17 +0000 Message-ID: <402890327.5726874.1718317337796@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6489031485545322486==" --===============6489031485545322486== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 On Thursday, June 13, 2024 at 03:00:22 PM PDT, Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk <= cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > The architecture designers cheated however even in the original ISA in > that moves from the MD accumulator did interlock.=C2=A0 I guess they figured > people (either doing it by hand or by writing a compiler) wouldn't get >that right anyway. ;) I always assumed that was because the latency of multiply, let alone divide, = was far too many cycles for anyone to plausibly schedule "useful" instruction= s into. Wasn't r4000 divide latency over 60 cycles? Wasn't r4000 divide laten= cy more than 60 cycles? =20 --===============6489031485545322486==-- From macro@orcam.me.uk Thu Jun 13 22:28:34 2024 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 23:28:28 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2D7EFD2C-A417-48A9-AC37-B3366E6A0A71@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2212482084044401426==" --===============2212482084044401426== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 13 Jun 2024, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > MIPS, perhaps? It has "delay slots". The one that remains is the > branch delay slots, which in modern designs is presumably merely an > annoying crock that requires extra pain to implement but is actually > required because it changes the meaning of the code. There also used to > be load (?) delay slots, which sounds like what you're describing. Yes, MIPS I load delay slots. Gone by the MIPS II/III ISAs, though coprocessor move delay slots remained (e.g. for moving data between the GPRs and the FPRs), having only been removed with the MIPS IV ISA. For the remaining missing interlocks there are now instructions in the ISA to clear the hazards resulting (i.e. possibly stall the pipeline) explicitly, so there is no need to count instructions anymore. Also various extensions and revisions of the ISA have added the so called compact branches that have no delay slot, starting with the MIPS16e ASE. And then the microMIPSr6 ISA encoding only has compact branches available. > That was ancient history by the time I started working on MIPS machines, > fortunately. MIPS I cores and variations were still around by late 1990s in embedded use, and of course the GNU toolchain continues to support all the arcana to this day, as do community-maintained OSes. Maciej --===============2212482084044401426==-- From dave.dunfield@gmail.com Thu Jun 13 22:30:33 2024 From: Dave Dunfield To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 22:30:29 +0000 Message-ID: <171831782905.4006402.12461445743690047456@classiccmp.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8919706686419173849==" --===============8919706686419173849== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chuck Guzis wrote: > Scarcely innovative. 64 bit architectures predated the 64-bit x86 by > decades. Call it a natural evolution. I'm kinda surprised that nobody has mentioned this ... But.. even less innovative than that! - the subject mentions "8086" and 46 ye= ars - the 8086 was only a 16 bit CPU and came out close to the time suggested. The x86 architecture didn't get= 32 bits till the 386 which was IIRC around 1986 or 7 - so word length was not AT ALL architecturally sig= nificant - and Chuck is quite right that there were MANY bigger/better machines when the 8086 made it's deb= ut. I think the 86 came at a good time/place because the 8080 series had become q= uite popular in microcomputers and designers were feeling the limits of a 8-bit architecture - the 86 provid= ed a fairly powerful (for the time) and easy upgrade which was enough like the 8080 that most developers didn't have = a tough time "figuring it out". (and it didn't hurt that minicomputer pricing wasn't involved) Dave My own entry into the "microprocessor" design fray was something I called the= : C-FLEA A very tiny/simple 16 bit CPU that was very optimal as a target for my C comp= iler. Never did see it to silicon, but did quite a few "virtual machines" - this le= t me efficiently put C code into little cpus that were not reasonable candidates for higher le= vel languages. --===============8919706686419173849==-- From henry.r.bent@gmail.com Thu Jun 13 22:37:58 2024 From: Henry Bent To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Delay slots, was: Re: Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 18:37:41 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <402890327.5726874.1718317337796@mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5833482266125357582==" --===============5833482266125357582== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 18:22, Jonathan Stone via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > On Thursday, June 13, 2024 at 03:00:22 PM PDT, Maciej W. Rozycki via > cctalk wrote: > > > The architecture designers cheated however even in the original ISA in > > that moves from the MD accumulator did interlock. I guess they figured > > people (either doing it by hand or by writing a compiler) wouldn't get > >that right anyway. ;) > > I always assumed that was because the latency of multiply, let alone > divide, was far too many cycles for anyone to plausibly schedule "useful" > instructions into. Wasn't r4000 divide latency over 60 cycles? Wasn't r4000 > divide latency more than 60 cycles? > The MIPS R4000 manual https://groups.csail.mit.edu/cag/raw/documents/R4400_Uman_book_Ed2.pdf says that double precision divide is 36 cycles, and double precision square root is 112 (!). What's interesting about that is that GCC's model of the R4000 says that divide is 69 cycles; I'm not sure of the reason for the discrepancy. https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=3Dgcc.git;a=3Dblob_plain;f=3Dgcc/config/mips/4000.= md;hb=3DHEAD -Henry --===============5833482266125357582==-- From macro@orcam.me.uk Thu Jun 13 22:49:37 2024 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Delay slots, was: Re: Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 23:49:31 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <402890327.5726874.1718317337796@mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5226563329030529054==" --===============5226563329030529054== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, 13 Jun 2024, Jonathan Stone wrote: > > The architecture designers cheated however even in the original ISA in > > that moves from the MD accumulator did interlock.  I guess they figured > > people (either doing it by hand or by writing a compiler) wouldn't get > >that right anyway. ;) > > I always assumed that was because the latency of multiply, let alone > divide, was far too many cycles for anyone to plausibly schedule > "useful" instructions into. Wasn't r4000 divide latency over 60 cycles? Well, overflow and divide by zero checks will often take many cycles in parallel with MDU executing the operation, but you're of course correct in that the designers have made a reasonable decision there. I just put it differently. The net result however is the architecture has never been fully without pipeline interlocks, although indeed it used to be close. Performance figures for the R3000 would be more appropriate for the MIPS I initial ISA revision and reportedly said CPU executed a 32-bit division in 35 cycles. I can imagine the R4000 could need over 60 cycles to run a 64-bit division. Figures vary among more modern implementations, but MDU operations continue having significant latencies. Maciej --===============5226563329030529054==-- From bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca Thu Jun 13 23:31:48 2024 From: ben To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:31:26 -0600 Message-ID: <675b7925-baaf-493b-8843-74b7b256825a@jetnet.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: <4C192566-9DDE-4AF3-AE5E-1832291C1AE9@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7191488483192958632==" --===============7191488483192958632== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2024-06-13 11:32 a.m., Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: e up an entire chassis, 750-ish logic modules. > =20 >> You never see a gate level delays on a spec sheet. >> Our pipeline is X delays + N delays for a latch. >=20 > Gate level delays are not interesting for the machine user to know. What i= s interesting is the detailed properties of the pipelines, including whether = they can accept a new operation every cycle or just every N cycles (say, a mu= ltiplier that accepts operands every 2 cycles); how many cycles is the delay = from input to output; and whether there are "bypass" data paths to reduce the= delays from input or output conflicts. Often these details are hard to pry = out of the manufacturer; often they are not documented in the standard data s= heets or processor user manuals. But they are critical if you want to do wor= k such as pipeline models to drive compiler optimizers. But I want to know, how to compare machines if you can't compare the logic. > paul >=20 I never did see much in optimization at the RTL level. You have to wait for data, regardless of fancy tricks. --===============7191488483192958632==-- From bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca Thu Jun 13 23:38:09 2024 From: ben To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:37:57 -0600 Message-ID: <62b84b6d-bce5-4d59-8ad5-c0f8650ebadc@jetnet.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: <640E282A-8AD7-44CB-9924-298AB3C43BC0@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1883682922071877545==" --===============1883682922071877545== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2024-06-13 12:06 p.m., Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: >=20 >=20 >> On Jun 13, 2024, at 2:00 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >> >> On 6/13/24 10:32, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: >>> Huh? There is no direct connection between word length, register count, = and pipeline length. >> Indeed. There are architectures with NO user-addressable registers. >> Some have memory-mapped registers, where a "register number" is merely >> shorthand for a memory address (i.e. implicit multiplier and base) >> >> --Chuck >=20 > There are of course also machines that appear to have registers (in the sen= se that the instruction set refers to them) but the implementation is a chunk= of memory. The PDP-6 is one (and early PDP-10s without the "fast registers"= option). The Philips PR-8000 may be one as well; the ISA has 8 registers, t= imes 8 because it has a separate set per interrupt priority level, but there = is a variant of the store instruction that stores to any of these as if it we= re memory. I'm not actually sure if it was implemented that way; 64 register= s 24 bits wide would be a substantial cost and bulk in a mid-1960s machine. >=20 > paul >=20 Index registers like on, the IBM 1130 worked that way. The PDP-5 I think had the fewest internal registers. (Never heard of Nuclear plan fail with PDP-5). B. --===============1883682922071877545==-- From bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca Thu Jun 13 23:50:30 2024 From: ben To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:50:21 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <171831782905.4006402.12461445743690047456@classiccmp.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1996113056462604798==" --===============1996113056462604798== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2024-06-13 4:30 p.m., Dave Dunfield via cctalk wrote: > I think the 86 came at a good time/place because the 8080 series had become= quite popular in microcomputers > and designers were feeling the limits of a 8-bit architecture - the 86 prov= ided a fairly powerful (for the time) and > easy upgrade which was enough like the 8080 that most developers didn't hav= e a tough time "figuring it out". > (and it didn't hurt that minicomputer pricing wasn't involved) The Z8000 may be better. The 8088 was to be a better 8 bit cpu. > Dave > My own entry into the "microprocessor" design fray was something I called t= he: C-FLEA > A very tiny/simple 16 bit CPU that was very optimal as a target for my C co= mpiler. > Never did see it to silicon, but did quite a few "virtual machines" - this = let me efficiently > put C code into little cpus that were not reasonable candidates for higher = level languages. Where? I just finished a 20 bit cpu, that seems to have all the features a 16=20 bit cpu's had, but not all in one machine. Moving from word to byte/word addressing add one opcode bit. Index registers 7? as general purpose reg. Add 3 opcode bits. Removing skips, add one opcode bit. Hmm 21 bits already.. Looking for a C-compiler that is easy to re-target, and a OS to go with it. Ben. --===============1996113056462604798==-- From jeffrey@vcfed.org Fri Jun 14 12:57:33 2024 From: Jeffrey Brace To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] VCF West Aug 2 & 3, 2024 - Mountain View, CA Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:57:17 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0795375021672005796==" --===============0795375021672005796== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello folks, We're less than a month away from shutting down exhibit and speaker registrations for VCF West. The July 4th weekend represents the end of both so I can use the rest of July to get the program built, get the floorplan finalized, create schedules, etc. So if you've been waiting to get your exhibit or talk registered, wait no more! We still have room for both, but I can't promise that will last all the way until July! This year's show is already shaping up to be a great one so you don't want to miss it! As always, details are at https://vcfed.org/events/vintage-computer-festival-west/ Attendee ticketing information and pre-orders will be posted soon. If you have any questions, comments, concerns or -especially- if you would like to volunteer to help with the show, please let me know at this email address. Thank you! Erik Klein VCF West Showrunner --===============0795375021672005796==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 14 14:06:19 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Vintage computing in the San Francisco bay area Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 07:06:02 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6225121882479883132==" --===============6225121882479883132== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 13, 2024, 12:16=E2=80=AFPM anders--- via cctalk wrote: > Hi, > > Soon I will travel to US and San Francisco/San Jos=C3=A9 Area. Any tips for > vintage computing and surpuls electronics? > > CHM is manatory, I'll go there. It would have been nice to see the PDP-1 > in action, but I suscpect that we will not make it when it's > demonstrated. > > /Anders > You missed all the good stuff by about 20 years. Silicon Valley is basically played out at this point, ruined by obscene amounts of money and obscenely-minded people. If you come up to the Sacramento area you can visit me and my collection. I dare say you'll have a better time. Sellam > --===============6225121882479883132==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Fri Jun 14 15:10:07 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Delay slots, was: Re: Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 11:09:59 -0400 Message-ID: <03DC9F9A-3D87-4BB7-8889-9867C166D1AC@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <402890327.5726874.1718317337796@mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7671491746329540906==" --===============7671491746329540906== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 13, 2024, at 6:22 PM, Jonathan Stone via cctalk wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Thursday, June 13, 2024 at 03:00:22 PM PDT, Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk= wrote: >=20 >> The architecture designers cheated however even in the original ISA in >> that moves from the MD accumulator did interlock. I guess they figured >> people (either doing it by hand or by writing a compiler) wouldn't get >> that right anyway. ;) >=20 > I always assumed that was because the latency of multiply, let alone divide= , was far too many cycles for anyone to plausibly schedule "useful" instructi= ons into. Wasn't r4000 divide latency over 60 cycles? Wasn't r4000 divide lat= ency more than 60 cycles? Probably, because divide is inherently an interative operation, and usually i= s implemented to produce one bit of result per cycle. A notable exception is= the CDC 6600, which throws a whole lot of logic at the problem to produce tw= o bits of result per cycle. The usual divide amounts to a trial subtraction = and shift; the 6600 implementation does THREE trial subtractions concurrently= . Not cheap when you're using discrete transistor logic. Multiply is an entirely different matter, that can be done in few cycles if y= ou throw enough logic at the problem. Signal processors are an extreme examp= le of this because multiply/add sequences are the essence of what they need t= o do. This is also why Alpha omitted divide entirely and made programs do mu= ltiply by the reciprocal instead. The best argument for doing interlocking in the hardware isn't that it's hard= for software to get right. Code generators can do it and that's a one time = effort. But the required are often dependent on variables that are not known= at compile time, for example load/store delays, or branches taken/not taken.= Run time interlocks deal with the actual conflicts as they occur, while com= piler or programmer conflict avoidance has to use the worst case scenarios. paul --===============7671491746329540906==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Fri Jun 14 15:14:02 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 11:13:52 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <675b7925-baaf-493b-8843-74b7b256825a@jetnet.ab.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8557745928655024402==" --===============8557745928655024402== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 13, 2024, at 7:31 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: >=20 > On 2024-06-13 11:32 a.m., Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > e up an entire chassis, 750-ish logic modules. >> =20 >>> You never see a gate level delays on a spec sheet. >>> Our pipeline is X delays + N delays for a latch. >> Gate level delays are not interesting for the machine user to know. What = is interesting is the detailed properties of the pipelines, including whether= they can accept a new operation every cycle or just every N cycles (say, a m= ultiplier that accepts operands every 2 cycles); how many cycles is the delay= from input to output; and whether there are "bypass" data paths to reduce th= e delays from input or output conflicts. Often these details are hard to pry= out of the manufacturer; often they are not documented in the standard data = sheets or processor user manuals. But they are critical if you want to do wo= rk such as pipeline models to drive compiler optimizers. >=20 > But I want to know, how to compare machines if you can't compare the logic. You compare machines by what they deliver. The purpose of computers is not t= o deliver logic circuits but to deliver computation, so comparing computation= al ability (speed and size) is meaningful, along with cost. How it's impleme= nted under the covers is not. Yes, the implementation details affect the use= r's figures of merit, but those figures and not the logic choices made by the= designers matter. paul --===============8557745928655024402==-- From cclist@sydex.com Fri Jun 14 15:23:27 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:23:15 -0700 Message-ID: <31d261de-e11a-49dd-90d0-4c7edb13f148@sydex.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1128924429585657170==" --===============1128924429585657170== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/14/24 08:13, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > You compare machines by what they deliver. The purpose of computers is not= to deliver logic circuits but to deliver computation, so comparing computati= onal ability (speed and size) is meaningful, along with cost. How it's imple= mented under the covers is not. Yes, the implementation details affect the u= ser's figures of merit, but those figures and not the logic choices made by t= he designers matter. Well said. --===============1128924429585657170==-- From blstuart@bellsouth.net Fri Jun 14 17:20:53 2024 From: "Brian L. Stuart" To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Delay slots, was: Re: Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 17:17:40 +0000 Message-ID: <1526922145.6018196.1718385460238@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <03DC9F9A-3D87-4BB7-8889-9867C166D1AC@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0569963049952109776==" --===============0569963049952109776== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > But the required are often dependent on variables that are not> known at co= mpile time, for example load/store delays, or branches> taken/not taken.=C2= =A0 Run time interlocks deal with the actual conflicts> as they occur, while = compiler or programmer conflict avoidance> has to use the worst case scenario= s. The observation that interlocks are not needed when the delay isknown and pre= dictable, but are needed when the delay is varialbehas been around since the = beginning.=C2=A0 The ENIAC didn't haveinterlocks for the multiplier or functi= on tables, but did for the divider/square rooter and the card reader.=C2=A0 (= The card punch had whatamounted to a completion signal that enforced the timi= ng.) BLS --===============0569963049952109776==-- From dave.dunfield@gmail.com Fri Jun 14 17:29:56 2024 From: Dave Dunfield To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 17:29:52 +0000 Message-ID: <171838619279.4006402.12740587373797776531@classiccmp.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0508344648267353769==" --===============0508344648267353769== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ben wrote: >> My own entry into the "microprocessor" >> design fray was something I called the: C-FLEA >> A very tiny/simple 16 bit CPU that was very optimal as a target for >> my C compiler. >> Never did see it to silicon, but did quite a few "virtual machines" >> - this let me efficiently put C code into little cpus that were not >> reasonable candidates for higher level,languages. > Where? I've recently posted much of the source code I've written over the years in a "Retirement project" section of my site. Various related documents and executables can be had from the packages in my main downloads, and at "Daves Old Computers". If you are interested in the C-FLEA CPU - the best place to see/try it is DVM (Dunfield Virtual Machine) this is a little VM I put together - available at the above locations. Here is a bit on information I put together about my compiler (Micro-C) with C-FLEA/DVM: (Sorry if spaces get munged - can't seem to post a simple "spaced" text document on must sites these days) My compiler is known for making small executables. One of the most common comments I received about it was "how can it make such small programs?". Here are the DVM application file sizes at the time of this writing: 3,281 CC.DVM - Compile command 6,320 MCP.DVM - Micro-C preprocessor 17,440 MCCDVM.DVM - Micro-C compiler 4,064 MCODVM.DVM - Micro-C optimizer 1,210 MCCILIB.DVM - Replaces calls to internal library 4,675 SLINK.DVM - Source linker 8,335 ASMDVM.DVM - DVM assembler 1,488 MCCVT.DVM - Convert .HEX from ASM into .DVM 8,656 EDT.DVM - My EDT editor 5,415 VLT.DVM - My large text file viewer 6,560 BASIC.DVM - My "BASIC" sample program Subtract 128 bytes from each of the above sizes because the free demo .DVMs have an integrated protection message. And here are the same program compiled with my PC/DOS compiler: 4,651 CC.COM 13,900 MCP.EXE \ 24,258 MCCDVM.EXE > As Micro-C was designed to be easily 12,792 MCODVM.COM > portable, these tools make very little 3,479 MCCILIB.COM > use of library functions. 12,274 SLINK.EXE / 17,650 ASMDVM.EXE 4,361 MCCVT.COM 17,154 EDT.EXE 7,444 VLT.COM 12,115 BASIC.EXE Dave Dunfield - https://dunfield.themindfactory.com --===============0508344648267353769==-- From macro@orcam.me.uk Fri Jun 14 19:49:36 2024 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Delay slots, was: Re: Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 20:49:29 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0975656224794011287==" --===============0975656224794011287== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 13 Jun 2024, Henry Bent via cctalk wrote: > > I always assumed that was because the latency of multiply, let alone > > divide, was far too many cycles for anyone to plausibly schedule "useful" > > instructions into. Wasn't r4000 divide latency over 60 cycles? Wasn't r40= 00 > > divide latency more than 60 cycles? > > >=20 > The MIPS R4000 manual > https://groups.csail.mit.edu/cag/raw/documents/R4400_Uman_book_Ed2.pdf > says that double precision divide is 36 cycles, and double precision square > root is 112 (!). Note that these figures are for floating-point arithmetic. > What's interesting about that is that GCC's model of the R4000 says that > divide is 69 cycles; I'm not sure of the reason for the discrepancy. > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=3Dgcc.git;a=3Dblob_plain;f=3Dgcc/config/mips/400= 0.md;hb=3DHEAD And this is for integer arithmetic, that's the reason. Maciej --===============0975656224794011287==-- From jacob.ritorto@gmail.com Fri Jun 14 20:51:45 2024 From: Jacob Ritorto To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] tape duplicator program for pdp11 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 16:51:03 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3326726030113715287==" --===============3326726030113715287== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Just got a real (Cipher M990 on TS05-emulating controller) tape drive running and would like to make exact copies of some [9-track] tapes "to guard against disaster." Probably will also do some imaging, so bonus if the candidate program can handle that too. This is on an 11/34; I don't have a good q-bus tape controller yet or I'd try it on uVAX with NetBSD or something less "exciting" :) Anyone know of good programs to do this with only one tape drive? Don't care which operating system. Been looking through DECUS archives but have found nothing yet (manually reading thru - 1/3 of the way done, maybe there's a better way to scan these?). thx jake --===============3326726030113715287==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Fri Jun 14 21:08:00 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: tape duplicator program for pdp11 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 17:07:54 -0400 Message-ID: <43F4EFD3-DB67-46E8-BF35-E11CEFB8251E@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6635001289411440201==" --===============6635001289411440201== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Haven't seen such a thing, but given a decent size disk, reading a tape and p= roducing the corresponding SIMH style *.tap file would be easy enough. On RS= TS you could write it in BASIC/PLUS (or FORTH :-) ) paul > On Jun 14, 2024, at 4:51 PM, Jacob Ritorto via cctalk wrote: >=20 > Hi, > Just got a real (Cipher M990 on TS05-emulating controller) tape drive > running and would like to make exact copies of some [9-track] tapes "to > guard against disaster." Probably will also do some imaging, so bonus if > the candidate program can handle that too. >=20 > This is on an 11/34; I don't have a good q-bus tape controller yet or I'd > try it on uVAX with NetBSD or something less "exciting" :) >=20 > Anyone know of good programs to do this with only one tape drive? Don't > care which operating system. >=20 > Been looking through DECUS archives but have found nothing yet (manually > reading thru - 1/3 of the way done, maybe there's a better way to scan > these?). >=20 > thx > jake --===============6635001289411440201==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Fri Jun 14 23:10:40 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: tape duplicator program for pdp11 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 18:10:32 -0500 Message-ID: <3a040a64-6895-05d9-6a57-1313f61bb1e9@pico-systems.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8448575301821995451==" --===============8448575301821995451== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/14/24 15:51, Jacob Ritorto via cctalk wrote: > Hi, > Just got a real (Cipher M990 on TS05-emulating controller) tape drive > running and would like to make exact copies of some [9-track] tapes "to > guard against disaster." Probably will also do some imaging, so bonus if > the candidate program can handle that too. > > This is on an 11/34; I don't have a good q-bus tape controller yet or I'd > try it on uVAX with NetBSD or something less "exciting" :) > > Anyone know of good programs to do this with only one tape drive? Don't > care which operating system. I used to do a lot of this sort of thing, I was the DECUS librarian of our LUG for a while.  I had some FORTRAN programs that duped tapes if you had two drives, and I also had programs that would dump a tape to a disk file, and then write it back out.  Fairly handy for making multiple copies of the same tape. It looks like this program came off a VMS system, but I suspect it will likely compile on an RSX-11 system as that is what it was derived from. Let me know if you have issues with it. Jon --===============8448575301821995451==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Fri Jun 14 23:40:11 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: tape duplicator program for pdp11 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 18:40:02 -0500 Message-ID: <1ee26be7-c3ba-cc12-9e6c-680dc21ae394@pico-systems.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6888679672331217610==" --===============6888679672331217610== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/14/24 15:51, Jacob Ritorto via cctalk wrote: > Hi, > Just got a real (Cipher M990 on TS05-emulating controller) tape drive > running and would like to make exact copies of some [9-track] tapes "to > guard against disaster." Probably will also do some imaging, so bonus if > the candidate program can handle that too. > Here is a faster tape copy program that takes advantage of drives that can stream.  This is definitely a VAX/VMS program. Jon --===============6888679672331217610==-- From d44617665@hotmail.com Sat Jun 15 06:33:30 2024 From: David Wise To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Seeking Remex RRS3300 Paper Tape Reader info Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 00:39:35 +0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8017100797963719547==" --===============8017100797963719547== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was given a Remex RRS3300RB5/550/DRA/S358 back around 1999. This 300cps ma= chine uses a capstan and brake instead of a sprocket. The 180ips spooler is = AC motors, triacs, brakes, tension arms loaded with microswitches (including = a discrete differentiator), six relays, and a soft-start ramp. In spite of t= he ramp, the spooler was murderous, snapping tape after tape. After some mod= ifications and adjustments I got it working pretty well, but I don't like tha= t I had to change it. I never found a manual, and it has always bugged me. Does anyone here have a= nything? I have a manual for the RRS3301 which has a similar reader section but the sp= ooler (my sore spot) is completely different. I have a manual for the RTS3300 S239 which is a custom-mod to fit in GE CNC s= ystems of the time. It has no reader electronics, and a spooler that shows c= ommon ancestry but again it's not like mine. Thanks, Dave Wise in Hillsboro Oregon To be specific, I made two changes and found a set of resistor settings that = treats the tape gently. The changes are (a) eliminate continuous takeup during the startup ramp, (b) = block the transition to full speed. The soft start board simply ramps up to = maximum and stays there. I made it easy to back these changes out if I ever find out how to make the i= nstrument behave in stock trim. What is my 358 custom mod? --===============8017100797963719547==-- From jacob.ritorto@gmail.com Sat Jun 15 14:22:34 2024 From: Jacob Ritorto To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: tape duplicator program for pdp11 Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:21:53 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1ee26be7-c3ba-cc12-9e6c-680dc21ae394@pico-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4682978007814132984==" --===============4682978007814132984== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon, thanks so much for the gift of code! Unfortunately the list seems to have scrubbed away the attachments. If they're short, could you pls paste them directly in a reply as text so the programs are preserved in this thread for future? (Presuming they're not too big and that's not a rules-bender here) Alternatively you could email to me direct using my firstname.lastname at gmail. Fun side effect of this is that I now have to try and resurrect my eighties 11/34 RSX11-M install from my college days :) And maybe this will morph into a VMX -> RSX ForTran porting convo! On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 at 19:40, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > On 6/14/24 15:51, Jacob Ritorto via cctalk wrote: > > Hi, > > Just got a real (Cipher M990 on TS05-emulating controller) tape drive > > running and would like to make exact copies of some [9-track] tapes "to > > guard against disaster." Probably will also do some imaging, so bonus if > > the candidate program can handle that too. > > > Here is a faster tape copy program that takes advantage of > drives that can stream. This is definitely a VAX/VMS program. > > Jon > > --===============4682978007814132984==-- From gavin@learn.bio Sat Jun 15 16:14:17 2024 From: Gavin Scott To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Delay slots, was: Re: Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:14:01 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <19c3f76f-f4f6-4dee-b18e-aeb247cbd2b3@mainecoon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8793266338188455252==" --===============8793266338188455252== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/13/24 09:33, Adrian Godwin via cctalk wrote: > I may be wrong, but wasn't that a feature of early RISC, possibly the Sparc > ? You were compiling to microcode rather than CISC assembler, so you got to > think about pipelining in the instruction stream. Just about feasible in > assembler but perfectly sensible if the compiler was doing the work. PS-RISC has a "delay slot" after a branch and the instruction there will be executed before the branch target is reached for a taken branch. You can do fun things like put a branch in the delay slot of another branch and when both are taken, you end up executing a single instruction at the target of the delay slot branch before resuming at the target of the original branch. PA-RISC implements PC as PCQ, a two entry queue containing the current instruction address and the "following instruction address" which get manipulated by the branches to create this behavior. --===============8793266338188455252==-- From jeffrey@vcfed.org Sat Jun 15 17:31:15 2024 From: Jeffrey Brace To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] VCF Southwest June 14-16, 2024 - Dallas, Texas Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 12:30:55 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1313607079036507895==" --===============1313607079036507895== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit If you’re in the area, come see the show. Great attendance so far this year! More info: vcfsw.org Vintage Computer Federation has a table there too! --===============1313607079036507895==-- From cclist@sydex.com Sat Jun 15 17:41:28 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Delay slots, was: Re: Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:41:19 -0700 Message-ID: <3d521632-3240-4211-a94c-5ed7f85ab8e9@sydex.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2014871518281705834==" --===============2014871518281705834== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm certain that Paul has done his share of this, but an art on the CDC 6600 was hand-scheduling instruction execution. There was at least one class for this--and probably more. The CPU could issue one instruction every cycle, assuming that there were no conflicts. The 6600 had several functional units whose operation could overlap. But we've discussed this before... On the large vector STAR-100, operands were fetched via a 512-bit wide (not counting error checking bits) memory bus and pipelined vector units. The trick there was not so much scheduling of scalar instructions, but avoiding "bubbles" in the vector pipes. --Chuck --===============2014871518281705834==-- From mooreericnyc@gmail.com Sat Jun 15 19:01:00 2024 From: Eric Moore To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Fwd: [GreenKeys] FW: [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 14:00:43 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CBL1PR12MB5269B392A188E33BDEAE7313B5C32=40BL1PR12MB?= =?utf-8?q?5269=2Enamprd12=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2504073568160586028==" --===============2504073568160586028== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FYI, RIP Ed ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: W2HX Date: Sat, Jun 15, 2024, 1:22=E2=80=AFPM Subject: [GreenKeys] FW: [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK To: Greenkeys FYI 73 Eugene W2HX *From:* cca(a)groups.io *On Behalf Of *Scott Johnson via groups.io *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2024 6:52 PM *To:* cca(a)groups.io *Subject:* [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK All- With sadness, I must report that Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, passed away 1 June 2024. He was 72. Ed was a consummate archivist, and had a large Collins collection, which he housed in a Historic house in Glendale , AZ, known as the Coury House. This was the home of SMECC, the Southwest Museum of Engineering, Communications, and Computing. Ed was a USAF veteran, a ground radio repairman stationed at Luke AFB in the early seventies. Ed haunted many of the vintage and military radio sites and garnered much of his collection through these channels. His rampant enthusiasm for technology of any kind will be missed! www.smecc.org https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/glendale-az/edward-sharpe-11846518 Scott Johnson W7SVJ _._,_._,_ ------------------------------ Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#11560) | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute This Topic | New Topic Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [ w2hx(a)w2hx.com] _._,_._,_ ______________________________________________________________ GreenKeys mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/greenkeys Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:GreenKeys(a)mailman.qth.net >>> Jordan Spencer Cunningham's GreenKeys Search Tool: https://teletype.net/gksearch >>> 2002-to-present greenkeys archive: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/greenkeys/ >>> 1998-to-2001 greenkeys archive: http://mailman.qth.net/archive/greenkeys/greenkeys.html >>> Randy Guttery's 2001-to-2009 GreenKeys Search Tool: http://comcents.com/tty/greenkeyssearch.html This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to mooreericnyc(a)gmail.com --===============2504073568160586028==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Sat Jun 15 19:26:05 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Fwd: [GreenKeys] FW: [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 12:25:33 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1457373135416745989==" --===============1457373135416745989== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Though we interacted quite a bit over the years, I'm sorry that I never got a chance to meet him in person. God rest his soul. Sellam On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 12:01=E2=80=AFPM Eric Moore via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > FYI, RIP Ed > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: W2HX > Date: Sat, Jun 15, 2024, 1:22=E2=80=AFPM > Subject: [GreenKeys] FW: [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK > To: Greenkeys > > > FYI > > > > > > 73 Eugene W2HX > > > > *From:* cca(a)groups.io *On Behalf Of *Scott Johnson via > groups.io > *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2024 6:52 PM > *To:* cca(a)groups.io > *Subject:* [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK > > > > All- > > With sadness, I must report that Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, passed away 1 June > 2024. He was 72. > > Ed was a consummate archivist, and had a large Collins collection, which he > housed in a Historic house in Glendale , AZ, known as the Coury House. > > This was the home of SMECC, the Southwest Museum of Engineering, > Communications, and Computing. > > Ed was a USAF veteran, a ground radio repairman stationed at Luke AFB in > the early seventies. > > Ed haunted many of the vintage and military radio sites and garnered much > of his collection through these channels. > > His rampant enthusiasm for technology of any kind will be missed! > > www.smecc.org > > > https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/glendale-az/edward-sharpe-118465= 18 > > > > Scott Johnson W7SVJ > > _._,_._,_ > ------------------------------ > > Groups.io Links: > > You receive all messages sent to this group. > > View/Reply Online (#11560) | Reply > To Sender > < > scottjohnson1(a)cox.net?subject=3DPrivate:%20Re:%20%5Bcca%5D%20Ed%20Sharpe%= 2C%20KF7RWW%2C%20SK > > > | Reply To Group > > | Mute > This Topic | New Topic > > Your Subscription | Contact Group > Owner | Unsubscribe > [ > w2hx(a)w2hx.com] > > _._,_._,_ > ______________________________________________________________ > GreenKeys mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/greenkeys > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:GreenKeys(a)mailman.qth.net > > >>> Jordan Spencer Cunningham's GreenKeys Search Tool: > https://teletype.net/gksearch > >>> 2002-to-present greenkeys archive: > http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/greenkeys/ > >>> 1998-to-2001 greenkeys archive: > http://mailman.qth.net/archive/greenkeys/greenkeys.html > >>> Randy Guttery's 2001-to-2009 GreenKeys Search Tool: > http://comcents.com/tty/greenkeyssearch.html > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to mooreericnyc(a)gmail.com > --===============1457373135416745989==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Sat Jun 15 19:39:11 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Delay slots, was: Re: Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 15:39:03 -0400 Message-ID: <3433668A-2C45-4359-9AB7-DE5E2FD40DF3@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <3d521632-3240-4211-a94c-5ed7f85ab8e9@sydex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0142586979442279341==" --===============0142586979442279341== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 15, 2024, at 1:41 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >=20 > I'm certain that Paul has done his share of this, but an art on the CDC > 6600 was hand-scheduling instruction execution. There was at least one > class for this--and probably more. The CPU could issue one instruction > every cycle, assuming that there were no conflicts. The 6600 had > several functional units whose operation could overlap. I learned it from OS code reading and adopted some of it for my own work, but= not much because I actually only worked on the 6500 -- which doesn't have mu= ltiple functional units. Writing good code for those machines was further complicated by the fact that= instructions were either 1/4 or 1/2 word long, could not split across word b= oundaries, and branches would only go to the start of the word. So there ten= ded to be NOPs to pad out the word, which the assembler would supply. Avoidi= ng them would make the code go faster and of course make it smaller. The other complication was a fairly limited set of registers, and the fact th= at loads would go only to X1..X5 while stores could only come from X6 or X7. = So a memcpy would involve a register to register transfer. That takes 3 cyc= les on a 6600, so a skillful memcpy implementation would use two load registe= rs, both store registers, and two separate functional units for the R-R move = (one via the "boolean" unit and one via the "shift" unit). I remember my baf= flement the first time I saw a shift (by zero) used to do just a register to = register move; on a 6500 you wouldn't have any reason to write that. I once crashed the PLATO system in mid-day, when the load hit peak (600 users= logged on) because I had slowed down a critical terminal output processing s= tep and the machinery didn't have flow control there. My bosses were NOT hap= py. I solved the issue by cleaning up that block of code to avoid all NOPs; = the result was that it was both shorter and faster than the previous version = while still delivering the new feature. :-) paul --===============0142586979442279341==-- From cisin@xenosoft.com Sat Jun 15 19:56:46 2024 From: Fred Cisin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Fwd: [GreenKeys] FW: [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 12:56:41 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2200216041824988653==" --===============2200216041824988653== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That is too bad, He will be missed; R I P, Ed -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com On Sat, 15 Jun 2024, Eric Moore via cctalk wrote: > FYI, RIP Ed > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: W2HX > Date: Sat, Jun 15, 2024, 1:22=E2=80=AFPM > Subject: [GreenKeys] FW: [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK > To: Greenkeys > > > FYI > > > > > > 73 Eugene W2HX > > > > *From:* cca(a)groups.io *On Behalf Of *Scott Johnson via > groups.io > *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2024 6:52 PM > *To:* cca(a)groups.io > *Subject:* [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK > > > > All- > > With sadness, I must report that Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, passed away 1 June > 2024. He was 72. > > Ed was a consummate archivist, and had a large Collins collection, which he > housed in a Historic house in Glendale , AZ, known as the Coury House. > > This was the home of SMECC, the Southwest Museum of Engineering, > Communications, and Computing. > > Ed was a USAF veteran, a ground radio repairman stationed at Luke AFB in > the early seventies. > > Ed haunted many of the vintage and military radio sites and garnered much > of his collection through these channels. > > His rampant enthusiasm for technology of any kind will be missed! > > www.smecc.org > > https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/glendale-az/edward-sharpe-118465= 18 > > > > Scott Johnson W7SVJ > > _._,_._,_ > ------------------------------ > > Groups.io Links: > > You receive all messages sent to this group. > > View/Reply Online (#11560) | Reply > To Sender > > | Reply To Group > > | Mute > This Topic | New Topic > > Your Subscription | Contact Group > Owner | Unsubscribe = [ > w2hx(a)w2hx.com] > > _._,_._,_ > ______________________________________________________________ > GreenKeys mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/greenkeys > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:GreenKeys(a)mailman.qth.net > >>>> Jordan Spencer Cunningham's GreenKeys Search Tool: > https://teletype.net/gksearch >>>> 2002-to-present greenkeys archive: > http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/greenkeys/ >>>> 1998-to-2001 greenkeys archive: > http://mailman.qth.net/archive/greenkeys/greenkeys.html >>>> Randy Guttery's 2001-to-2009 GreenKeys Search Tool: > http://comcents.com/tty/greenkeyssearch.html > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to mooreericnyc(a)gmail.com --===============2200216041824988653==-- From cclist@sydex.com Sat Jun 15 21:22:22 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Delay slots, was: Re: Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 14:22:13 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3433668A-2C45-4359-9AB7-DE5E2FD40DF3@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6005843152628195837==" --===============6005843152628195837== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/15/24 12:39, Paul Koning wrote: >=20 >=20 > I learned it from OS code reading and adopted some of it for my own work, b= ut not much because I actually only worked on the 6500 -- which doesn't have = multiple functional units. >=20 > Writing good code for those machines was further complicated by the fact th= at instructions were either 1/4 or 1/2 word long, could not split across word= boundaries, and branches would only go to the start of the word. So there t= ended to be NOPs to pad out the word, which the assembler would supply. Avoi= ding them would make the code go faster and of course make it smaller. >=20 > The other complication was a fairly limited set of registers, and the fact = that loads would go only to X1..X5 while stores could only come from X6 or X7= . So a memcpy would involve a register to register transfer. That takes 3 c= ycles on a 6600, so a skillful memcpy implementation would use two load regis= ters, both store registers, and two separate functional units for the R-R mov= e (one via the "boolean" unit and one via the "shift" unit). I remember my b= afflement the first time I saw a shift (by zero) used to do just a register t= o register move; on a 6500 you wouldn't have any reason to write that. >=20 > I once crashed the PLATO system in mid-day, when the load hit peak (600 use= rs logged on) because I had slowed down a critical terminal output processing= step and the machinery didn't have flow control there. My bosses were NOT h= appy. I solved the issue by cleaning up that block of code to avoid all NOPs= ; the result was that it was both shorter and faster than the previous versio= n while still delivering the new feature. :-) At CDC SSD SVLOPS, it was all big gummint stuff stuff, so we had clusters of Cyber 74s and 73s (6600/6400) linked with a few million words of ECS (we had a QSE that expanded it to 4M words). 6600/Cyber 74 programming was the rule. A short loop was considered to be optimal, if it kept the instruction issue to 1/cycle and kept the whole thing "in stack" (basically an 8-word buffer, not really a cache) to avoid accessing CM for instructions. Lots of bit-twiddling fun! The 6600 had an interesting feature we called "shortstop" where the result of an operation was available for use by a subsequent instruction 1 cycle before it materialized in a register On early 6600s, there was a so-called "store out of order" problem where two closely-timed stores to the same location would result in the earlier result overwriting the later ones. An ECO fixed that--it was pretty fundamental. STAR initially mapped the user's low-memory to the 256-word register file, such that one could have vectors occupying several registers addressed by memory location, while referring to the registers by register number. That apparently resulted in some serious issues, solved eventually by simply locking out access to the first 16Kbits (recall that the STAR is bit-addressed) of memory. The so-called "Rev R" ECO, if my mind isn't playing tricks on me. CDC had a pretty close relationship with Fairchild during this time; initially for the silicon transistors in the 6600 and later the register file for the STAR. Fun times! --Chuck --===============6005843152628195837==-- From organlists1@sonic.net Sun Jun 16 04:52:52 2024 From: "D. Resor" To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] The magic smoke.... Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 21:51:20 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1021522268771965872==" --===============1021522268771965872== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Seems this eBay seller let the magic smoke get out, then proceeded to power it on again one hour later. Litton Monroe OC 8820 https://www.ebay.com/itm/355793400092 See the description.. Don Resor --===============1021522268771965872==-- From cclist@sydex.com Sun Jun 16 04:58:27 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: The magic smoke.... Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 21:58:15 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3C!=26!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAABO5wTM7/NRDgk/3nPo+uv7Cg?= =?utf-8?q?AAAEAAAAOLysfurVftEuV3w8QmC0L0BAAAAAA=3D=3D=40sonic=2Enet=3E?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7468794194521364514==" --===============7468794194521364514== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/15/24 21:51, D. Resor via cctalk wrote: > Seems this eBay seller let the magic smoke get out, then proceeded to power > it on again one hour later. > > Litton Monroe OC 8820 > > https://www.ebay.com/itm/355793400092 > > See the description.. Probably due to the failed film-in-oil (sometimes known as Rifa) line filter capacitors--a very common failure and nonfatal. My recollection of these machines is that they are a basic Z80 CP/M box--I do have samples of these floppies in my archives. So nothing special, AFAIK. --Chuck --===============7468794194521364514==-- From anders@abc80.net Sun Jun 16 06:49:39 2024 From: Anders Sandahl To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Vintage computing in the San Francisco bay area Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 03:36:34 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6A19EC72-0465-4C4E-94AF-BB268773D251@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7099954497885736209==" --===============7099954497885736209== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi! It's many interesting things here. I hope I can pass by Anchor Electronics. When I was looking on the map where to find it I noticed that Intel (and it's museum) is just a few blocks away. I think I'll miss Electronics flea market, I have read abut this in another context as well. It would have been great fun! We will miss the observatory's free views. Well, I have to stay longer the next time. /Anders On 2024-06-14 19:32, Curious Marc wrote: > If you happen to be there on the right Sunday, don’t miss the > electronics flea market! > Electronics Flea Market > electronicsfleamarket.com > favicon.ico > > > Also if you need old ICs and transistors at 1960’s prices, that odd > connector or the big old Sprague capacitor there is Anchor Electronics: > Anchor Electronics > anchor-electronics.com > favicon.ico > > > > You could view a lot, bid on it and pick it up at Auction BDI > Hibid > auctionbdi.hibid.com > > > > > Also take advantage of the clear California skies with telescope > viewing nights at the Foothill Observatory or at the Chabot Museum, > or, even better, at the Lick observatory > Foothill College Observatory - Foothill College > > foothill.edu > favicon.ico > > > https://chabotspace.org/events/free-telescope-viewings/ > lh_domes_wide.jpg > Public Evening Tours > > lickobservatory.org > > > > > Marc > >> On Jun 13, 2024, at 12:15 PM, anders--- via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Soon I will travel to US and San Francisco/San José Area. Any tips >> for vintage computing and surpuls electronics? >> >> CHM is manatory, I'll go there. It would have been nice to see the >> PDP-1 in action, but I suscpect that we will not make it when it's >> demonstrated. >> >> /Anders --===============7099954497885736209==-- From organlists1@sonic.net Sun Jun 16 10:55:20 2024 From: "D. Resor" To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: The magic smoke.... Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 03:53:48 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3554522142050143775==" --===============3554522142050143775== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I reached out to the seller and explained that it may have been AC line capac= itors which went up in smoke etc, and why it's always a bad idea to "just plu= g it in" and power it on without some knowledge to remove the cover and make = a visual inspect first. Yes, I found the same info searching online. It's a Z80 box which can run the= proprietary O/S which Litton-Monroe furnished or C/PM. A nice looking piece of equipment but nothing special. =20 The cursor key layout could have been laid out in a more user friendly way. Don Resor=20 -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Guzis via cctalk =20 Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2024 9:58 PM To: D. Resor via cctalk Cc: Chuck Guzis Subject: [cctalk] Re: The magic smoke.... On 6/15/24 21:51, D. Resor via cctalk wrote: > Seems this eBay seller let the magic smoke get out, then proceeded to=20 > power it on again one hour later. >=20 > Litton Monroe OC 8820 >=20 > https://www.ebay.com/itm/355793400092 >=20 > See the description.. Probably due to the failed film-in-oil (sometimes known as Rifa) line filter = capacitors--a very common failure and nonfatal. My recollection of these machines is that they are a basic Z80 CP/M box--I do= have samples of these floppies in my archives. So nothing special, AFAIK. --Chuck --===============3554522142050143775==-- From rice43@btinternet.com Sun Jun 16 11:09:51 2024 From: Joshua Rice To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Cursor keys and the Inverted T layout, Was: The magic smoke.... Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 12:09:44 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3C!=26!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAABO5wTM7/NRDgk/3nPo+uv7Cg?= =?utf-8?q?AAAEAAAADCSStblpJhEniJXi8p0H50BAAAAAA=3D=3D=40sonic=2Enet=3E?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7813170593802803266==" --===============7813170593802803266== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 16/06/2024 11:53, D. Resor via cctalk wrote: > *snip* > > The cursor key layout could have been laid out in a more user friendly way. > > Don Resor Not a huge amount different to most contemporary machines. Cursor keys were notoriously unergonomic before the introduction of the inverted T layout present on the DEC LK-201, which became the industry standard keyboard layout after IBM copied it for the Model M. Basically every home microcomputer that had cursor keys, had them inline with each other in a very unintuitive layout. I imagine that DEC likely weren't the first to come up with the inverted T, even if they were the first to place it on it's own between the main QWERTY section and the number pad (which is also unlikely). Is anyone aware of earlier examples of the inverted T, or at least similar layouts to the LK201? Josh Rice --===============7813170593802803266==-- From artgodwin@gmail.com Sun Jun 16 11:10:45 2024 From: Adrian Godwin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: The magic smoke.... Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 12:10:30 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3C!=26!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAABO5wTM7/NRDgk/3nPo+uv7Cg?= =?utf-8?q?AAAEAAAADCSStblpJhEniJXi8p0H50BAAAAAA=3D=3D=40sonic=2Enet=3E?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1097632369453266662==" --===============1097632369453266662== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It's a design feature. They burn out self-destructively, clearing the fault and signalling the loss of cable-borne RFI suppression. On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 11:55=E2=80=AFAM D. Resor via cctalk wrote: > I reached out to the seller and explained that it may have been AC line > capacitors which went up in smoke etc, and why it's always a bad idea to > "just plug it in" and power it on without some knowledge to remove the > cover and make a visual inspect first. > > Yes, I found the same info searching online. It's a Z80 box which can run > the proprietary O/S which Litton-Monroe furnished or C/PM. > > A nice looking piece of equipment but nothing special. > > The cursor key layout could have been laid out in a more user friendly way. > > Don Resor > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Guzis via cctalk > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2024 9:58 PM > To: D. Resor via cctalk > Cc: Chuck Guzis > Subject: [cctalk] Re: The magic smoke.... > > On 6/15/24 21:51, D. Resor via cctalk wrote: > > Seems this eBay seller let the magic smoke get out, then proceeded to > > power it on again one hour later. > > > > Litton Monroe OC 8820 > > > > https://www.ebay.com/itm/355793400092 > > > > See the description.. > > Probably due to the failed film-in-oil (sometimes known as Rifa) line > filter capacitors--a very common failure and nonfatal. > > My recollection of these machines is that they are a basic Z80 CP/M box--I > do have samples of these floppies in my archives. > > So nothing special, AFAIK. > > --Chuck > > > --===============1097632369453266662==-- From organlists1@sonic.net Sun Jun 16 11:31:12 2024 From: "D. Resor" To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: The magic smoke.... Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 04:29:40 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9035022823855632344==" --===============9035022823855632344== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I remember in the Xerox DSBU lab the phrase was often used, "That's not a bug= , it's a feature!" Don Resor -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Godwin via cctalk =20 Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2024 4:11 AM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Cc: Adrian Godwin Subject: [cctalk] Re: The magic smoke.... It's a design feature. They burn out self-destructively, clearing the fault and signalling the loss = of cable-borne RFI suppression. On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 11:55=E2=80=AFAM D. Resor via cctalk wrote: > I reached out to the seller and explained that it may have been AC=20 > line capacitors which went up in smoke etc, and why it's always a bad=20 > idea to "just plug it in" and power it on without some knowledge to=20 > remove the cover and make a visual inspect first. > > Yes, I found the same info searching online. It's a Z80 box which can=20 > run the proprietary O/S which Litton-Monroe furnished or C/PM. > > A nice looking piece of equipment but nothing special. > > The cursor key layout could have been laid out in a more user friendly way. > > Don Resor > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Guzis via cctalk > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2024 9:58 PM > To: D. Resor via cctalk > Cc: Chuck Guzis > Subject: [cctalk] Re: The magic smoke.... > > On 6/15/24 21:51, D. Resor via cctalk wrote: > > Seems this eBay seller let the magic smoke get out, then proceeded=20 > > to power it on again one hour later. > > > > Litton Monroe OC 8820 > > > > https://www.ebay.com/itm/355793400092 > > > > See the description.. > > Probably due to the failed film-in-oil (sometimes known as Rifa) line=20 > filter capacitors--a very common failure and nonfatal. > > My recollection of these machines is that they are a basic Z80 CP/M=20 > box--I do have samples of these floppies in my archives. > > So nothing special, AFAIK. > > --Chuck > > > --===============9035022823855632344==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Sun Jun 16 17:13:47 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Cursor keys and the Inverted T layout, Was: The magic smoke.... Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:13:38 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6845582572512264184==" --===============6845582572512264184== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 16, 2024, at 7:09 AM, Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote: >=20 > On 16/06/2024 11:53, D. Resor via cctalk wrote: >=20 >> *snip* >>=20 >> The cursor key layout could have been laid out in a more user friendly way. >>=20 >> Don Resor >=20 > Not a huge amount different to most contemporary machines. Cursor keys were= notoriously unergonomic before the introduction of the inverted T layout pre= sent on the DEC LK-201, which became the industry standard keyboard layout af= ter IBM copied it for the Model M. Basically every home microcomputer that ha= d cursor keys, had them inline with each other in a very unintuitive layout. >=20 > I imagine that DEC likely weren't the first to come up with the inverted T,= even if they were the first to place it on it's own between the main QWERTY = section and the number pad (which is also unlikely). Is anyone aware of earli= er examples of the inverted T, or at least similar layouts to the LK201? Josh= Rice Great question. Not a direct answer but an example of user friendly cursor k= eys: PLATO IV terminals have a main keyboard with some function keys mostly t= o the right -- keys with labels like HELP and STOP. There are also operator = keys to the left: plus, minus, multiply, and divide signs. The shifted codes= are roughly like on an ASR-33, for example shift period is exclamation point= . No numeric keypad nor dedicated cursor keys. Instead, when cursor key functionality was needed, programs would by conventi= on use the keys surrounding "s" for that, and the keycaps are marked with 8 d= ifferent arrows. So not just up down left right, but also the diagonals in b= etween. It makes keyboard-operated graphics editing a lot easier. (These te= rminals didn't have a mouse, though they often had an early touch screen.) S= o for user friendliness these are hard to beat; the direction away from "s" i= s the direction of the movement you get -- even more obvious than "inverted T= ". paul --===============6845582572512264184==-- From dave.dunfield@gmail.com Mon Jun 17 02:42:45 2024 From: Dave Dunfield To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: The magic smoke.... Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:42:41 +0000 Message-ID: <171859216127.4006402.3916298290799690624@classiccmp.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5091986770652022535==" --===============5091986770652022535== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chuck Guzis wrote: > Probably due to the failed film-in-oil (sometimes known as Rifa) line > filter capacitors--a very common failure and nonfatal. I never "just turn on" equipment that's been out of service for an extended period of time ... until I ... Over the years, I've had good luck "reforming" electrolytic capacitors. Very simple and easy to do, basically: - Disconnect at least one side of the cap. - Connect a variable voltage supply to the cap, through a few hundred ohm serial resistor (this both limits current in case the cap has actually faile= d, and makes it quite reasonable to do this to several caps in parallel (in this case, ei= ther make sure if you left one side connected that it's common (and not the lead from the supply that has the resistor) - or just disconnect both sides. - Start low (a volt or so) - let the cap sit at that voltage for some time (I usually do a few hours - more if the cap is really old/disused) - Make sure cap charges to set voltage and is not drawing current - repeat, raising voltage by a volt of two each "cycle" till you get to just above the normal operating voltage of the cap. When I was more active in collecting/acquiring old system of indeterminate state. I built a little gadget to do this automatically - so I could leave it= to do it's thing overnight. Dave ::: https://dunfield.themindfactory.com ::: "Daves Old Computers"->Perso= nal --===============5091986770652022535==-- From cclist@sydex.com Mon Jun 17 02:59:09 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: The magic smoke.... Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 19:58:58 -0700 Message-ID: <4b4796cb-db24-4a23-a958-9b62183d2b3b@sydex.com> In-Reply-To: <171859216127.4006402.3916298290799690624@classiccmp.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8639754630769717920==" --===============8639754630769717920== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/16/24 19:42, Dave Dunfield via cctalk wrote: > Chuck Guzis wrote: >> Probably due to the failed film-in-oil (sometimes known as Rifa) line >> filter capacitors--a very common failure and nonfatal. > > I never "just turn on" equipment that's been out of service for an extended > period of time ... until I ... Point taken, but in this case no amount of "reforming" will fix those old 'Rifa" filter caps. --Chuck --===============8639754630769717920==-- From d44617665@hotmail.com Mon Jun 17 03:34:23 2024 From: David Wise To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: The magic smoke.... Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 03:34:14 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4b4796cb-db24-4a23-a958-9b62183d2b3b@sydex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2023084383968467972==" --===============2023084383968467972== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, those Rifa, Wima, and so on, mains-bypass paper caps in clear epoxy alwa= ys fail, they're notorious. Over time the epoxy cracks letting in moisture w= hich degrades the paper. They may be rated to fail without bursting into fla= mes, but they sure make some smoke. Replace on sight, with an appropriate X/Y-rated part. -Dave Wise ________________________________ From: Chuck Guzis via cctalk Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2024 7:58 PM To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org Cc: Chuck Guzis Subject: [cctalk] Re: The magic smoke.... On 6/16/24 19:42, Dave Dunfield via cctalk wrote: > Chuck Guzis wrote: >> Probably due to the failed film-in-oil (sometimes known as Rifa) line >> filter capacitors--a very common failure and nonfatal. > > I never "just turn on" equipment that's been out of service for an extended > period of time ... until I ... Point taken, but in this case no amount of "reforming" will fix those old 'Rifa" filter caps. --Chuck --===============2023084383968467972==-- From lewissa78@gmail.com Mon Jun 17 07:32:07 2024 From: Steve Lewis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:31:46 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2535309528113914745==" --===============2535309528113914745== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I got so busy the past couple weeks, I didn't get to chime in sooner :D I did speak at VCF SW over this past weekend, on this topic related to the first personal computer. I'm not the best of speakers, and it was limited to an hour discussion. Jay will hopefully have the video recording up before the end of this month, but he does have a lot of VCF talks to process. I'm sure I made some mistakes or misspoke on a few aspects, but hopefully I didn't overly misrepresent anything. The approach I tried to take wasn't really to answer what was "first" but to give a broader context on how computers became "domesticated" in the form of "another home appliance." To me, "personal" was never really about the number of users - but more about who bought the thing. So regardless of whatever it can do, if you bought it, it's yours - and you can control and make decisions about its usage. It's not limited to certain hours of the day for you to use, no department chief dictates what types of processing is going on, etc. Also when we say "personal computer", most are generally implicitly meaning "home personal computer" -- since any business computer is generally owned by the business, with (usually) restrictions on what you can do with it. So by that criteria, to me, a computer costing more than a car doesn't count as personal (relative to their initial retail advertised cost at the year of release). I'd also add that a "personal computer" also needs to be relocated by yourself (as its owner). The weight or bulk criteria on that will be subjective (since some people are super strong, or some people have handicap where they hardly lift anything), But you should basically be able to set up that computer on your own, and relocate it to a different room on your own (maybe with a cart). i.e. this eliminates most "desk sized" computers as a criteria. None of my talk covers aspects like this - since, again, my focus was highlighting that journey throughout the 1970s. I had really nearly 100 more slides to go through in the presentation, but it was time limited and so I had to try to speed through some aspects. I'll have the full slide deck in a VCF video description once they've proceed through it. -Steve L (v*) On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:42 PM Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > > OK, I have to chime in here. I worked for Artronix about 1972. The LINC > > computer was developed at MIT for use in biomedical research labs, and a > > bunch of people involved with it later moved to Washington University in > > St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some features > > such a a crude memory mapping unit and more memory, and called this the > > Programmed Console, so as not to scare people away. Artronix began > > building these PC's and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy > > planning. I have no idea how many were sold. They were built into a > > desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They etched their own PC > > boards, drilled them by hand and soldered in the chips by hand. I wrote > > a series of diagnostics for them. > > Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one. > > Vince > > --===============2535309528113914745==-- From emu@e-bbes.com Mon Jun 17 08:38:26 2024 From: emanuel stiebler To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Lunar Lander, bug Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 04:38:18 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2503958838922061016==" --===============2503958838922061016== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Interesting reading, as I believe, we all played it at least once :) https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/06/retired-engineer-discovers-55-year-old= -bug-in-lunar-lander-computer-game-code/ --===============2503958838922061016==-- From cz@alembic.crystel.com Mon Jun 17 09:40:31 2024 From: cz To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Lunar Lander, bug Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 05:40:18 -0400 Message-ID: <76b1ee7b-376b-47e5-a9b4-652ff17ee9b3@alembic.crystel.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7466001795245949934==" --===============7466001795245949934== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Didn't know the source code had been released in FOCAL. I wonder if it=20 will run on a 4k pdp8/L. One way to find out..... On 6/17/2024 4:38 AM, emanuel stiebler via cctalk wrote: > Interesting reading, as I believe, we all played it at least once :) >=20 > https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/06/retired-engineer-discovers-55-year-o= ld-bug-in-lunar-lander-computer-game-code/ >=20 --===============7466001795245949934==-- From jeffrey@vcfed.org Mon Jun 17 12:01:56 2024 From: Jeffrey Brace To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] VCF West tickets available now! Aug 2 & 3 @ CHM Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:00:00 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8613778631907480715==" --===============8613778631907480715== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tickets for VCF West 2024 Aug 2 & 3, Mountain View, CA The show is looking to be bigger than ever! We will again be at The Computer History Museum. Tickets available through this link: https://buy.acmeticketing.com/events/499/list Existing VCF Members were emailed the coupon code for their 20% discount. New members can email us after creating their membership to get the code. --===============8613778631907480715==-- From bitwiz@12bitsbest.com Mon Jun 17 17:53:01 2024 From: Mike Katz To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Lunar Lander, bug Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:05:02 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <76b1ee7b-376b-47e5-a9b4-652ff17ee9b3@alembic.crystel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4585759046026163143==" --===============4585759046026163143== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I remember running this program at school in the mid 1970's. This runs on 4K Focal '69 without the extended functions enabled. So it=20 should run on a 4K PDP-8/L. I think I might have actually run it on a 4K PDP-8/L with an ASR-33=20 Teletype sometime between 1972 and 1975.=C2=A0 I know I ran it on a PDP-8/E=20 with 12K and a TD8E DecTape system based Edusystem 20 in 1975. It was available as FOCAL8-81 from DECUS (Submitted 20-Jan-1970): Abstract: This program realistically simulates an Apollo moon landing using NASA=20 figures. It begins with module at fJ seconds, 120 miles above the moon, carrying 16000 pounds of=20 fuel, with a velocity of 2600 miles per hour. Upon radar checks of velocity, altitude,=20 remaining fuel, and time each 10 seconds, you /nay decide upon fuel rate for next time interval. The=20 object is to land safely on the moon. RESTRICTIONS You cannot retain FOCAL's extended functions (LOG, EXP, etc). I have attached a scan of the DECUS Program Library documentation on=20 it.=C2=A0 This has the source on page 4 of the PDF On 6/17/2024 4:40 AM, cz via cctalk wrote: > Didn't know the source code had been released in FOCAL. I wonder if it=20 > will run on a 4k pdp8/L. > > One way to find out..... > > On 6/17/2024 4:38 AM, emanuel stiebler via cctalk wrote: >> Interesting reading, as I believe, we all played it at least once :) >> >> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/06/retired-engineer-discovers-55-year-= old-bug-in-lunar-lander-computer-game-code/=20 >> >> --===============4585759046026163143==-- From ethan.dicks@gmail.com Mon Jun 17 19:27:06 2024 From: Ethan Dicks To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Lunar Lander, bug Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:26:47 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6741101012156217477==" --===============6741101012156217477== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 1:53 PM Mike Katz via cctalk wrote: > I remember running this program at school in the mid 1970's. > > This runs on 4K Focal '69 without the extended functions enabled. So it > should run on a 4K PDP-8/L. > > ... > > It was available as FOCAL8-81 from DECUS (Submitted 20-Jan-1970): https://svn.so-much-stuff.com/svn/trunk/pdp8/src/decus/focal8-81/ I have run this at VCF on a 4K PDP-8. -ethan --===============6741101012156217477==-- From jrr@flippers.com Mon Jun 17 20:07:41 2024 From: John Robertson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Lunar Lander, bug Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 13:00:07 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5658266972909833113==" --===============5658266972909833113== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2024/06/17 12:26 p.m., Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 1:53 PM Mike Katz via cctalk > wrote: >> I remember running this program at school in the mid 1970's. >> >> This runs on 4K Focal '69 without the extended functions enabled. So it >> should run on a 4K PDP-8/L. >> >> ... >> >> It was available as FOCAL8-81 from DECUS (Submitted 20-Jan-1970): > https://svn.so-much-stuff.com/svn/trunk/pdp8/src/decus/focal8-81/ > > I have run this at VCF on a 4K PDP-8. > > -ethan Fascinating - and there was a video game made by Atari called Lunar Lander which also tried to put a LEM safely on the surface. Some more of the history of the games (from 2009): technologizer.com Forty Years of Lunar Lander <#> Lunar Lander games abound on every platform. Along with Tetris and Pac-Man, the game--in which your mission is to safely maneuver your lunar module onto the moon's surface--is one of the most widely cloned computer games of all time. But did you know that game players began touching down on the moon in Lunar Lander… 🔗 https://technologizer.com/2009/07/19/lunar-lander/index.html  John :-#)# -- John's Jukes Ltd. 7 - 3979 Marine Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5J 5E3 Call (604)872-5757 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games) flippers.com "Old pinballers never die, they just flip out" --===============5658266972909833113==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Mon Jun 17 20:33:51 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Lunar Lander, bug Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:33:26 -0400 Message-ID: <1409048A-6354-4698-BD38-294461966571@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2710334312503013337==" --===============2710334312503013337== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 17, 2024, at 4:00 PM, John Robertson via cctalk wrote: >=20 > ... > Forty Years of Lunar Lander <#> >=20 > Lunar Lander games abound on every platform. Along with Tetris and Pac-Man,= the game--in which your mission is to safely maneuver your lunar module onto= the moon's surface--is one of the most widely cloned computer games of all t= ime. But did you know that game players began touching down on the moon in Lu= nar Lander=E2=80=A6 >=20 > =F0=9F=94=97 https://technologizer.com/2009/07/19/lunar-lander/index.html <= https://technologizer.com/2009/07/19/lunar-lander/index.html> There's also one for the CDC 6000 series mainframes, using the system console= as the display. ***** LUNAR - LUNAR LANDING SIMULATOR. * * L. R. ATKIN. 70/03/01. * C. G. FILSTEAD. 70/03/01. * D. J. SLATE. 70/03/01. VERSION 1.0 * C. G. FILSTEAD. 70/08/16. VERSION 2.0 * S. D. FREYDER. (LUN INTERFACE) * J. J. DRUMMOND. 77/06/20. CONVERSION TO KRONOS/NOS. LUNAR SPACE 4,10 *** LUNAR SIMULATES A SHIP IN THE VICINITY OF THE MOON. * IT IS ABLE TO ORBIT, LAND, TAKE OFF, ETC. THE SIMULATED SHIP * DOES NOT RESEMBLE THE *APOLLO* LUNAR MODULE, SINCE THRUST AND * FUEL LIMITATIONS WOULD MAKE LANDING TOO DIFFICULT AND TIME * CONSUMING. I tried it once. It's HARD because it doesn't give you a spectator's view, a= s most of the other programs do (where you see the lander and the moon's terr= ain). Instead, it shows you the pilot's view, with little windows showing no= t much at all, and a bunch of instruments that tell you which way is up and w= here you are. I'm not sure if the console display was there in the original, or if that's t= he work of Stephen Freyder (date not given here, but probably 1976). paul --===============2710334312503013337==-- From mhs.stein@gmail.com Mon Jun 17 20:37:35 2024 From: Mike Stein To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Lunar Lander, bug Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:37:19 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6833744632012815231==" --===============6833744632012815231== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "Lunar Lander games abound on every platform" For sure! I even have a copy on tape somewhere for the Burroughs L series machines, but unfortunately I'm not aware of any of those still working; there was an L7xxx and also an L5xxx and L9xxx, but AFAIK they're display only. On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 4:07 PM John Robertson via cctalk wrote: > > On 2024/06/17 12:26 p.m., Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 1:53 PM Mike Katz via cctalk > > wrote: > >> I remember running this program at school in the mid 1970's. > >> > >> This runs on 4K Focal '69 without the extended functions enabled. So it > >> should run on a 4K PDP-8/L. > >> > >> ... > >> > >> It was available as FOCAL8-81 from DECUS (Submitted 20-Jan-1970): > > https://svn.so-much-stuff.com/svn/trunk/pdp8/src/decus/focal8-81/ > > > > I have run this at VCF on a 4K PDP-8. > > > > -ethan > > Fascinating - and there was a video game made by Atari called Lunar > Lander which also tried to put a LEM safely on the surface. > > Some more of the history of the games (from 2009): > > technologizer.com > > Forty Years of Lunar Lander <#> > > Lunar Lander games abound on every platform. Along with Tetris and > Pac-Man, the game--in which your mission is to safely maneuver your > lunar module onto the moon's surface--is one of the most widely cloned > computer games of all time. But did you know that game players began > touching down on the moon in Lunar Lander… > > 🔗 https://technologizer.com/2009/07/19/lunar-lander/index.html > > > John :-#)# > > > -- > John's Jukes Ltd. > 7 - 3979 Marine Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5J 5E3 > Call (604)872-5757 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games) > flippers.com > "Old pinballers never die, they just flip out" > --===============6833744632012815231==-- From wayne.sudol@hotmail.com Mon Jun 17 21:13:45 2024 From: Wayne S To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Lunar Lander, bug Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 21:13:35 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7764181666782877720==" --===============7764181666782877720== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable First job was programming the =E2=80=9CL=E2=80=9D series machines. I imagine = a Lunar Lander game used up a lot of greenbar paper! Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 17, 2024, at 13:37, Mike Stein via cctalk = wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BF"Lunar Lander games abound on every platform" >=20 > For sure! I even have a copy on tape somewhere for the Burroughs L > series machines, but unfortunately I'm not aware of any of those still > working; there was an L7xxx and also an L5xxx and L9xxx, but AFAIK > they're display only. >=20 >=20 >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 4:07=E2=80=AFPM John Robertson via cctalk >> wrote: >>=20 >>> On 2024/06/17 12:26 p.m., Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 1:53=E2=80=AFPM Mike Katz via cctalk >>> wrote: >>>> I remember running this program at school in the mid 1970's. >>>>=20 >>>> This runs on 4K Focal '69 without the extended functions enabled. So it >>>> should run on a 4K PDP-8/L. >>>>=20 >>>> ... >>>>=20 >>>> It was available as FOCAL8-81 from DECUS (Submitted 20-Jan-1970): >>> https://svn.so-much-stuff.com/svn/trunk/pdp8/src/decus/focal8-81/ >>>=20 >>> I have run this at VCF on a 4K PDP-8. >>>=20 >>> -ethan >>=20 >> Fascinating - and there was a video game made by Atari called Lunar >> Lander which also tried to put a LEM safely on the surface. >>=20 >> Some more of the history of the games (from 2009): >>=20 >> technologizer.com >>=20 >> Forty Years of Lunar Lander <#> >>=20 >> Lunar Lander games abound on every platform. Along with Tetris and >> Pac-Man, the game--in which your mission is to safely maneuver your >> lunar module onto the moon's surface--is one of the most widely cloned >> computer games of all time. But did you know that game players began >> touching down on the moon in Lunar Lander=E2=80=A6 >>=20 >> =F0=9F=94=97 https://technologizer.com/2009/07/19/lunar-lander/index.html >> >>=20 >> John :-#)# >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> John's Jukes Ltd. >> 7 - 3979 Marine Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5J 5E3 >> Call (604)872-5757 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games) >> flippers.com >> "Old pinballers never die, they just flip out" >>=20 --===============7764181666782877720==-- From ethan.dicks@gmail.com Mon Jun 17 21:22:41 2024 From: Ethan Dicks To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Lunar Lander, bug Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:22:22 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1392131003360590468==" --===============1392131003360590468== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 4:13 PM John Robertson via cctalk wrote: > Fascinating - and there was a video game made by Atari called Lunar > Lander which also tried to put a LEM safely on the surface. I loved that version when it came out when I was a kid. Sad most of them disappeared (and were converted into Asteroids machines). A buddy of mine has an original with blown-out X-Y drivers. I keep offering to help him repair it. I did recently get a 15" Electrohome vector display that would work with the original boards (but I don't _have_ a set of original boards). What I really need and don't have is the thrust controller. Can build one, but it's not at the top of the list of projects. I have played it many, many times in emulation (MAME), but I miss the real vectors and that thrust controller. There are also several versions for Commodore machines. Raster and chunky, but still flyable. Definitely a popular game framework right along with Star Trek. -ethan --===============1392131003360590468==-- From lyndon@orthanc.ca Mon Jun 17 21:36:31 2024 From: "Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)" To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Lunar Lander, bug Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 14:29:45 -0700 Message-ID: <517f4f93eff3e928@orthanc.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5869992337373116670==" --===============5869992337373116670== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Fascinating - and there was a video game made by Atari called Lunar > Lander which also tried to put a LEM safely on the surface. At the U of Alberta in the graphics terminal room in the General Services Bldg., next door to the I/O room (pick up and drop off cards and printouts from the MTS Amdahl), there was a short rack with a ~10U PDP of some flavour connected to a rack mount GT-40 graphics terminal. There was a version of lunar lander you could download into the PDP from the MTS system and play off- line (i.e. free). You used a light pen to control everything, and the goal was to land successfully beside the only McDonalds on the moon. --lyndon --===============5869992337373116670==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Mon Jun 17 22:01:42 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Lunar Lander, bug Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:01:18 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <517f4f93eff3e928@orthanc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2385076785149246031==" --===============2385076785149246031== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I ha e one for the Honeywell DDP 516 and that class of system on vintagecomputer.net, extracted from papertape...search "lander" it should.come up, feed it into simh. Contact me if you successfully get it to work. Bill On Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 5:36 PM Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > Fascinating - and there was a video game made by Atari called Lunar > > Lander which also tried to put a LEM safely on the surface. > > At the U of Alberta in the graphics terminal room in the General > Services Bldg., next door to the I/O room (pick up and drop > off cards and printouts from the MTS Amdahl), there was a short > rack with a ~10U PDP of some flavour connected to a rack mount > GT-40 graphics terminal. There was a version of lunar lander > you could download into the PDP from the MTS system and play off- > line (i.e. free). You used a light pen to control everything, > and the goal was to land successfully beside the only McDonalds > on the moon. > > --lyndon > --===============2385076785149246031==-- From seefriek@gmail.com Tue Jun 18 12:55:12 2024 From: Ken Seefried To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Heurikon HK68/M10 (Multibus) information? Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 08:54:55 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0392234959097515306==" --===============0392234959097515306== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I have one or two as well. I asked around about this a couple of years ago and didn't turn anything interesting up. A couple of former Heurikon folks said they'd look but nothing came of it. Ping me if you turn anything up. KJ On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 10:04 PM Chris Hanson via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > Does anyone have any manuals or other information on the Heurikon > HK68/M10? Or the Hbug ROMs for it? > > The HK68/M10 is a Multibus 68010 board with serial, SCSI, parallel, > timers, 1MB onboard RAM, 2- or 4-channel DMA, and an optional 68451 MMU. > It's similar but not identical to the HK68/V10 (the VMEbus version) and so > far I haven't been able to find much that would make one usable. > > I'm particularly interested in: > > An Hbug ROM. > Pinouts for the top edge connectors, which provide the serial ports, the > SCSI port, and the parallel port. > Jumpering/strapping and other configuration information. > > And of course it'd be incredible to find the UniPlus+ distribution for it, > but I'm not holding out much hope for that. > > I already know what's on Bitsavers—such as the brochure—and I've already > looked at the MAME HK68/V10 emulation, so no need to point those out. > > -- Chris > > --===============0392234959097515306==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Tue Jun 18 17:11:06 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Lunar Lander, bug Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:10:58 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9142459215212437029==" --===============9142459215212437029== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Interesting that the "40 years of Lander" article doesn't mention the McDonal= d's in the GT40 version. A couple of the commenters refer to it; if you were= close enough the astronaut would walk over and order "two cheeseburgers and = a Big Mac to go". If you were right on, it would give you a particularly rud= e message about destroying the only McDonald's on the moon. I wonder if any of the later Lander programs copied that bit of fun. It was = an early "Easter Egg", probably before that term became common. paul --===============9142459215212437029==-- From c.murray.mccullough@gmail.com Wed Jun 19 02:09:17 2024 From: Murray McCullough To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] L. Conway Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 22:09:20 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3458429476112765865==" --===============3458429476112765865== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Today I came across an obituary of Lynn Conway, computer pioneer in the field of VLSI(along with Carver Mead) and also in one called dynamic instruction scheduling(used in supercomputing world). More to the point Conway was transgender and suffered for this, an almost forgotten pioneer in the microcomputing and supercomputing fields. Also, as a researcher at IBM and Xerox Parc where she contributed to the first years of microcomputing, the GUI and Ethernet protocol development. Eventually the IEEE recognized her contributions as did IBM - better late than never! Murray 🙂 --===============3458429476112765865==-- From cc@informatik.uni-stuttgart.de Wed Jun 19 09:20:18 2024 From: Christian Corti To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Lunar Lander, bug Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 11:20:08 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7237374894940102783==" --===============7237374894940102783== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 18 Jun 2024, Paul Koning wrote: > Interesting that the "40 years of Lander" article doesn't mention the > McDonald's in the GT40 version. A couple of the commenters refer to it; It doesn't mention all the other versions that were written, for example the LGP-30 version written in ACT-V in the early 70s. ;-))) Christian --===============7237374894940102783==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Wed Jun 19 11:43:18 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Lunar Lander, bug Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:42:59 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5935488730340220818==" --===============5935488730340220818== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ooo... I did not know there was an LGP30 version, and written in the 70s...who was doing Royal McBee dev 20.years after the machine was sold for -ehemm- personal computing? On Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 5:20 AM Christian Corti via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jun 2024, Paul Koning wrote: > > Interesting that the "40 years of Lander" article doesn't mention the > > McDonald's in the GT40 version. A couple of the commenters refer to it; > > It doesn't mention all the other versions that were written, for example > the LGP-30 version written in ACT-V in the early 70s. ;-))) > > Christian > --===============5935488730340220818==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Wed Jun 19 15:36:11 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: L. Conway Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 10:36:05 -0500 Message-ID: <61921cd5-8db1-389f-7458-2fd729155eb3@pico-systems.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1926679507642128388==" --===============1926679507642128388== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/18/24 21:09, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: > Today I came across an obituary of Lynn Conway, computer pioneer in the > field of VLSI(along with Carver Mead) and also in one called dynamic > instruction scheduling(used in supercomputing world). More to the point > Conway was transgender and suffered for this, an almost forgotten pioneer > in the microcomputing and supercomputing fields. Also, as a researcher at > IBM and Xerox Parc where she contributed to the first years of > microcomputing, the GUI and Ethernet protocol development. Eventually the > IEEE recognized her contributions as did IBM - better late than never! WOW, sad news!  Yes, Larry/Lynn Conway was right in the middle of MAJOR developments in computers and ICs.  I think as Larry, he wrote a cycle-by-cycle simulator that was used to test performance of computer designs in the 360 series and later machines.  The original ran on the 7094 (that should date this.)  Later, that simulator was used to predict the performance of what became the 360/85, which was really the prototype of the 370/165.  The /85 was the first IBM machine to use a cache (called a storage buffer by IBM).  The /85 was the first production machine from IBM to use monolithic integrated circuits (MST4) and water cooling  The simulator was also used to evaluate the performance of the never-built FS and ACS projects. When I heard about Lynn and Carver's book and work in logic synthesis, I thought they were nuts.  Well, I was looking about a year ahead, and they were looking TWENTY years into the future! Jon --===============1926679507642128388==-- From falcon@freecalypso.org Wed Jun 19 16:46:14 2024 From: Mychaela Falconia To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: L. Conway Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 08:40:44 -0800 Message-ID: <20240619164051.E678737401BE@freecalypso.org> In-Reply-To: <61921cd5-8db1-389f-7458-2fd729155eb3@pico-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6772674000735135693==" --===============6772674000735135693== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon Elson wrote: > WOW, sad news!\u00A0 Yes, very sad news indeed! Lynn's story was my inspiration back in 2013-2014; after coming across her story and reading it breathlessly, I started my own journey, following in her footsteps. > Yes, Larry/Lynn Conway was right in the > middle of MAJOR developments in computers and ICs.\u00A0 I think > as Larry, he wrote a cycle-by-cycle simulator that was used > to test performance of computer designs in the 360 series > and later machines.\u00A0 Where in the world did you get that whole "Larry" part? Lynn never had that name, nor any other name that started with 'L': when she transitioned, she made a full disconnect from her past, entirely new first and last names that bore no resemblance to the identity she had been involuntarily forced into at birth. Why don't you read Lynn's story in her own words: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/RetrospectiveT.html Also when discussing Lynn's life story, it is most appropriate to use her chosen name (Lynn) and female pronouns to refer to her intellectual accomplishments from the very beginning, as she was born with female brain sex. When it is specifically necessary to refer to conditions under which Lynn was forced to perform as a male, use phrases like "Lynn playing/pretending/acting as Robert", which is the phrasing (including the R-name reference) used in her own story, which she wrote for all of us to read. Rest in Power, my dear mother-in-spirit! Your follower Mychaela, a fellow woman with the same condition --===============6772674000735135693==-- From lewissa78@gmail.com Wed Jun 19 17:13:09 2024 From: Steve Lewis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] VCF Southwest 2024 a summary of activity Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:12:53 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0577592169492977279==" --===============0577592169492977279== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Have some notes on my experience at VCF SW over last weekend. I got busy with my exhibits and talks, and didn't get as many photos to cover everything. But for those who couldn't make it over to Texas for this VCF, here is a summary of a few things there. VCF Southwest 2024 (Dallas/Richardson) — voidstar https://voidstar.blog/vcf-southwest-2024-dallas-richardson/ --===============0577592169492977279==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Wed Jun 19 17:45:57 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: L. Conway Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:45:51 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20240619164051.E678737401BE@freecalypso.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7665591751677610441==" --===============7665591751677610441== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/19/24 11:40, Mychaela Falconia via cctalk wrote: > Jon Elson wrote: > >> WOW, sad news!\u00A0 > Yes, very sad news indeed! Lynn's story was my inspiration back in > 2013-2014; after coming across her story and reading it breathlessly, > I started my own journey, following in her footsteps. > >> Yes, Larry/Lynn Conway was right in the >> middle of MAJOR developments in computers and ICs. I think it was >> as Larry, he wrote a cycle-by-cycle simulator that was used >> to test performance of computer designs in the 360 series >> and later machines. > Where in the world did you get that whole "Larry" part? Lynn never > had that name, nor any other name that started with 'L': when she > transitioned, she made a full disconnect from her past, entirely new > first and last names that bore no resemblance to the identity she had > been involuntarily forced into at birth. > > Why don't you read Lynn's story in her own words: > > http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/RetrospectiveT.html Thanks for this much broader part of the story.  I have read some IBM history documents and tried to put things together that might not have been right.  I certainly meant no disrespect. Thanks for the correction, Jon --===============7665591751677610441==-- From mloewen@cpumagic.scol.pa.us Thu Jun 20 01:41:18 2024 From: Mike Loewen To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] VCF Swap Meet this Saturday Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 21:35:32 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1815248008310901077==" --===============1815248008310901077== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Saturday, June 22 from 8:00 - 2:00 across from the Infoage campus in NJ. https://vcfed.org/vcf-swap-meet/ Mike Loewen mloewen(a)cpumagic.scol.pa.us Old Technology http://q7.neurotica.com/Oldtech/ --===============1815248008310901077==-- From spacewar@gmail.com Thu Jun 20 04:01:43 2024 From: Eric Smith To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] wanted: HP-UX 11i v1 (11.11) install media or images Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 22:01:25 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2582130851442754749==" --===============2582130851442754749== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have a new-in-box (but twenty-year-old) HP C8000 workstation (HP Precision Architecture). The box contains an HP-UX license certificate, entitling me to copy and install HP-UX 11i v1 (11.11) TCOE (Technical Computing Operating Environment) for use on the machine. Unfortunately I don't have 11i v1 install media. Unfortunately the license entitlement is not sufficient to be able to get a copy from HPE, because they no longer support HP-UX 11i v1 (11.11), nor the C8000 workstation, and even when they did, you had to have a subscription to get the support and buy media or download images. I'm hoping that someone here might have such media, and be willing to sell me a media set, or copies or ISO/UDF images. (They have to be "real" ripped images, not a rebuild using typical burner software that builds a new ISO/UDF image out of gathered files.) Ideally, the disks I want are AFAIK the final 11i v1 disks:: p/n B6821-10057 HP-UX 11i TCOE DVD from December 2006 p/n B6845-10052 HP-UX 11i MTOE DVD from December 2006 (MTOE is a subset of TCOE) p/n 5014-1459 HP-UX 11i Applications DVD from September 2009 p/n B3921-10061 HP-UX 11i Instant Invo CD from September 2009 p/n 5013-8893 HP-UX 11i Support Plus from December 2008 p/n DV500-10026 HP-UX 11i IUX DVD from 2005 or 2006 However, I can't be that picky. I'd settle for ANY edition of those titles, earlier or later, or the equivalent CD sets instead of the DVDs, as long as it is HP-UL 11i, and not 11.00, 11i v2, or 11i v3. As far as I've been able to determine, the C8000 can run any release of 11i v1, but can't run 10.20 or 11.00. It _might_ be able to run 11i v2 or v3 without graphics support, but I'd really like the graphics to work. If anyone can help me out, please get in touch! Thank you! This is ultimately part of a project to come up with a replacement processing system for the HP 16700 family logic analyzers, which are based on a 150 MHz PA-7300LC. Ultimately I'm hoping to control the logic analayzer acquisition modules from a non-PA-RISC processor (e.g., x86), but I want to tackle this in smaller steps, like making the software run on a newer PA-RISC processor (the PA-8900 in the C8000). It's much easier to start with a processor that at least has the same architecture, rather than having to jump immediately into binary translation. Not to mention that it would just be nice to have the C8000 working at all. I have the p/n 5990-7398 Dcoumentation Library CD for HP Workstation C8000 from May 2004, and the p/n 5991-5986 HP9000 Offline Diagnostics Environment PA0712 from December 2007, if anyone needs copies of those. (The Offline Diagnostics Environment disc says "Valid license required". Best regards, Eric --===============2582130851442754749==-- From artgodwin@gmail.com Thu Jun 20 08:13:07 2024 From: Adrian Godwin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: wanted: HP-UX 11i v1 (11.11) install media or images Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:12:51 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7104433779426854966==" --===============7104433779426854966== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 5:01=E2=80=AFAM Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: > > This is ultimately part of a project to come up with a replacement > processing system for the HP 16700 family logic analyzers, which are based > on a 150 MHz PA-7300LC. Ultimately I'm hoping to control the logic > analayzer acquisition modules from a non-PA-RISC processor (e.g., x86), but > I want to tackle this in smaller steps, like making the software run on a > newer PA-RISC processor (the PA-8900 in the C8000). It's much easier to > start with a processor that at least has the same architecture, rather than > having to jump immediately into binary translation. > > I'm interested in this. I'm looking at the bottom end, the bus and cards, but there may be information we can share. --===============7104433779426854966==-- From spacewar@gmail.com Thu Jun 20 09:15:25 2024 From: Eric Smith To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: wanted: HP-UX 11i v1 (11.11) install media or images Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 03:15:07 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3246521620639233574==" --===============3246521620639233574== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 2:13 AM Adrian Godwin via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > I'm interested in this. I'm looking at the bottom end, the bus and cards, > but there may be information we can share. > That's where I'm starting, too. I'm using a 16500A (rather than a B, C, or 1670x) because it should be much simpler to figure out how the processor accesses the registers and memory of the modules. Then it should be possible to build something like a USB4 PCIe alternate mode interface to the analyzer backplane, replacing the analyzer's CPU card. I don't intend to reverse-engineer details of how the modules actually work. Instead, I want to run the real 16700 software in simulation or binary translation on a PC. The tricky part is going to be figuring out how the module correlation circuitry on the CPU board works, because my plan requires reproducing that. --===============3246521620639233574==-- From mazzini_alessandro@hotmail.com Thu Jun 20 09:39:52 2024 From: Alessandro Mazzini To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: wanted: HP-UX 11i v1 (11.11) install media or images Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:35:52 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5780420477352927860==" --===============5780420477352927860== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I have some images, I'm uploading them to this folder https://1drv.ms/f/s!AimuHQefzYTDgrwm_KAaNUdZRaw6IA?e=3DMwLOVN I will add mcoe 2005 , and oe 2001 Also https://1drv.ms/f/s!FimuHQefzYTDg3RXTWNDb0VLVVNnMCQM?e=3D5fe0c5 patches -----Original Message----- From: Eric Smith via cctalk =20 Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 11:15 AM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Cc: Eric Smith Subject: [cctalk] Re: wanted: HP-UX 11i v1 (11.11) install media or images On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 2:13=E2=80=AFAM Adrian Godwin via cctalk < cctalk(a)c= lassiccmp.org> wrote: > I'm interested in this. I'm looking at the bottom end, the bus and=20 > cards, but there may be information we can share. > That's where I'm starting, too. I'm using a 16500A (rather than a B, C, or 1670x) because it should be much simpler to figure out how the processor acce= sses the registers and memory of the modules. Then it should be possible to b= uild something like a USB4 PCIe alternate mode interface to the analyzer back= plane, replacing the analyzer's CPU card. I don't intend to reverse-engineer details of how the modules actually work. = Instead, I want to run the real 16700 software in simulation or binary transl= ation on a PC. The tricky part is going to be figuring out how the module correlation circui= try on the CPU board works, because my plan requires reproducing that. --===============5780420477352927860==-- From artgodwin@gmail.com Thu Jun 20 09:54:52 2024 From: Adrian Godwin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: wanted: HP-UX 11i v1 (11.11) install media or images Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 10:54:36 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5011142620943397840==" --===============5011142620943397840== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:15 AM Eric Smith via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > That's where I'm starting, too. I'm using a 16500A (rather than a B, C, or > 1670x) because it should be much simpler to figure out how the processor > accesses the registers and memory of the modules. Then it should be > possible to build something like a USB4 PCIe alternate mode interface to > the analyzer backplane, replacing the analyzer's CPU card. > > That was my thinking too, but I am less ambitious on the backplane. I haven't measured the bus speed there yet but i suspect it's rather slow and uses block read / DMA style operations for the buffers (there are not enough address bits for much else). I thought it might be supported by a cypress ez-usb so old HP cards could be used for much wider/faster captures than when they're used in streaming mode. > I don't intend to reverse-engineer details of how the modules actually > work. Instead, I want to run the real 16700 software in simulation or > binary translation on a PC. > I want to look first at what really simple cards like a 16510 get in order to start/stop/transfer. However these typically don't work with the 16700 UI so although running that under emulation is attractive I don't think you can use anything older than a 16555. There's also the division between 16505 software (which I think is related to early 16700) and the 16500C which it drives over SCSI. > > The tricky part is going to be figuring out how the module correlation > circuitry on the CPU board works, because my plan requires reproducing > that. > Yes. I'll be happy getting a single card working. Multicard setups can use a real 16700 but if you're working to accelerate that it's a nice complement to a single-card option. --===============5011142620943397840==-- From cmhanson@eschatologist.net Thu Jun 20 21:50:24 2024 From: Chris Hanson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Heurikon HK68/M10 (Multibus) information? Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 14:50:01 -0700 Message-ID: <8CCFDBCF-5773-42F9-9B45-E5CF28359669@eschatologist.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1709909763291803291==" --===============1709909763291803291== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Will do! Do yours have ROMs, and can you dump them? Even with non-Hbug ROMs t= hey cna be thrown in Ghidra and MAME and at least some of the memory map work= ed out. -- Chris > On Jun 18, 2024, at 5:54=E2=80=AFAM, Ken Seefried wr= ote: >=20 > I have one or two as well. I asked around about this a couple of years ago= and didn't turn anything interesting up. A couple of former Heurikon folks = said they'd look but nothing came of it. Ping me if you turn anything up. >=20 > KJ >=20 > On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 10:04=E2=80=AFPM Chris Hanson via cctalk > wrote: >> Does anyone have any manuals or other information on the Heurikon HK68/M10= ? Or the Hbug ROMs for it? >>=20 >> The HK68/M10 is a Multibus 68010 board with serial, SCSI, parallel, timers= , 1MB onboard RAM, 2- or 4-channel DMA, and an optional 68451 MMU. It's simil= ar but not identical to the HK68/V10 (the VMEbus version) and so far I haven'= t been able to find much that would make one usable. >>=20 >> I'm particularly interested in: >>=20 >> An Hbug ROM. >> Pinouts for the top edge connectors, which provide the serial ports, the S= CSI port, and the parallel port. >> Jumpering/strapping and other configuration information. >>=20 >> And of course it'd be incredible to find the UniPlus+ distribution for it,= but I'm not holding out much hope for that. >>=20 >> I already know what's on Bitsavers=E2=80=94such as the brochure=E2=80=94an= d I've already looked at the MAME HK68/V10 emulation, so no need to point tho= se out. >>=20 >> -- Chris >>=20 --===============1709909763291803291==-- From spacewar@gmail.com Fri Jun 21 09:06:34 2024 From: Eric Smith To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 03:06:17 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2D7EFD2C-A417-48A9-AC37-B3366E6A0A71@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7473396398684288485==" --===============7473396398684288485== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Pn Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 11:57 AM Paul Koning via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > MIPS, perhaps? It has "delay slots". MIPS has delay slots for branches (two for Standord MIPS, one for commercial MIPS), but no delay slots for ALU operations. All MIPS implementations either interlocked the pipeline to avoid a race when an instruction that writes a register is followed by one that reads that register, or (more commonly after the early RISC days) has feed-forward in the pipeline. --===============7473396398684288485==-- From spacewar@gmail.com Fri Jun 21 09:17:28 2024 From: Eric Smith To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 03:17:11 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1143264598.1638666.1718295341266@connect.xfinity.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5343961726957360274==" --===============5343961726957360274== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:15 AM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > I think I recall an early processor that did out of order execution, > without checking, meaning you could have > > add xxx to accumulator > store accumulator in zzz > The Intel i860 (unrelated to x86, i960, and the much more recent "i860 chipset") has a pipeline that is more exposed to the programmer than in most RISC processors. It has interlocks so that having an instruction write a register followed by an instruction that reads that register will incur a pipeline delay. However, the floating point unit offers most operations in either a scalar mode or a pipelined mode. In pipelined mode, the pipeline is much more visible to the programmer. The destination of a pipelined-mode FP operation is where the result of the FP operation two instructions previous is strored, not the result of the current operation, and there is no interlock. A pipelined FP operation immediately followed by a store will not store the result of that operation. Needless to say, programming in pipelined FP mode is challenging, but it's the way to get the highest FP performance out of the i960. Math libraries used hand-written code to do that, but I don't think any of the i960 compilers were smart enough to do it for you. --===============5343961726957360274==-- From emu@e-bbes.com Fri Jun 21 16:06:53 2024 From: emanuel stiebler To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: early microprocessor limited pipelining [was: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago] Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 12:06:40 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6757272559365076677==" --===============6757272559365076677== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2024-06-21 05:17, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: > A pipelined FP operation immediately followed by a store will > not store the result of that operation. Needless to say, programming in > pipelined FP mode is challenging, but it's the way to get the highest FP > performance out of the i960. Math libraries used hand-written code to do > that, but I don't think any of the i960 compilers were smart enough to do > it for you. I guess, you're still talking about the i860, not the i960? ;-) Anyway, that could be the reason, why most high performance examples in the application notes are hand crafted assembler code ... --===============6757272559365076677==-- From lproven@gmail.com Sat Jun 22 11:56:34 2024 From: Liam Proven To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Fwd: [GreenKeys] FW: [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:56:16 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7529322679168700922==" --===============7529322679168700922== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 at 21:01, Eric Moore via cctalk wrote: > > FYI, RIP Ed Oh no. Awful email style but an interesting chap. Ave, atque, vale. -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 --===============7529322679168700922==-- From marvin@west.net Mon Jun 24 01:44:16 2024 From: Marvin Johnston To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] TexElec Foam and Foil" Capacitive Pads for KeyTronic & BTC Keyboard Repair Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 18:44:11 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <171821160793.2847341.9141168402321516007@classiccmp.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5468284490558986774==" --===============5468284490558986774== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit O n t he recommendation of a couple list members, I ordered five of their Foam and Foil" Capacitive Pads for KeyTronic & BTC Keyboard Repair. I thought the price was very reasonable for about 100 pads for each of the five bags plus shipping. Keyboard disassembly was rather tedious, but not particularly difficult. My guess is about a day to complete the job on a Vector 3 keyboard. An Installation video on Youtube is available... search for "How to fix a Keytronic foam and foil keyboard" and you should fnd it. To me, it helped out immensely covering foam pad removal and reassembly. arrival took about three weeks. Hopefully see everyone in September. Marvin --===============5468284490558986774==-- From cliendo@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 16:47:14 2024 From: Christian Liendo To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:46:58 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3411510472192865178==" --===============3411510472192865178== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable https://www.geekwire.com/2024/seattles-living-computers-museum-logs-off-for-g= ood-as-paul-allen-estate-will-auction-vintage-items/ Living Computers Museum + Labs, the Seattle institution created by the late Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen as a hands-on showcase for rare computing technology and interactive displays, will not reopen, more than four years after closing just ahead of the pandemic. Allen=E2=80=99s estate, which has been managing and winding down his vast array of holdings since his death in 2018, confirmed to GeekWire that the 12-year-old museum is closed for good. The estate also announced Tuesday that some key pieces from Allen=E2=80=99s personal collection of computer artifacts, displayed over the years at Living Computers, will be auctioned by Christie=E2=80=99s as part of a broader sale of various Allen items later this year. --===============3411510472192865178==-- From teoz@neo.rr.com Tue Jun 25 18:24:30 2024 From: Teo Zenios To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:17:14 -0400 Message-ID: <3ECD6737AA554843904D6FFBBFFEFA5A@i54570THINK> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1027222769731741852==" --===============1027222769731741852== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So much for museums outliving the founders. -----Original Message-----=20 From: Christian Liendo via cctalk Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:46 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Cc: Christian Liendo Subject: [cctalk] Seattle=E2=80=99s Living Computers Museum logs off for good= as=20 Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items https://www.geekwire.com/2024/seattles-living-computers-museum-logs-off-for-g= ood-as-paul-allen-estate-will-auction-vintage-items/ Living Computers Museum + Labs, the Seattle institution created by the late Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen as a hands-on showcase for rare computing technology and interactive displays, will not reopen, more than four years after closing just ahead of the pandemic. Allen=E2=80=99s estate, which has been managing and winding down his vast array of holdings since his death in 2018, confirmed to GeekWire that the 12-year-old museum is closed for good. The estate also announced Tuesday that some key pieces from Allen=E2=80=99s personal collection of computer artifacts, displayed over the years at Living Computers, will be auctioned by Christie=E2=80=99s as part of a broader sale of various Allen items later this year.=20 --=20 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com --===============1027222769731741852==-- From brad@techtimetraveller.com Tue Jun 25 18:27:36 2024 From: brad To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:27:28 -0700 Message-ID: <667b0c11.170a0220.7ce85.6a3f@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: <3ECD6737AA554843904D6FFBBFFEFA5A@i54570THINK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2740420553757479319==" --===============2740420553757479319== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm curious what happens to items that were donated on the understanding that= the museum would be a safe long term place for them?Pretty sad they couldn't= make it work.BradSent from my Galaxy -------- Original message --------From: Teo Zenios via cctalk Date: 2024-06-25 11:24=E2=80=AFa.m. (GMT-08:00) To: "General Dis= cussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Cc: Teo Zeni= os Subject: [cctalk] Re: Seattle=E2=80=99s Living Compute= rs Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items S= o much for museums outliving the founders.-----Original Message----- From: Ch= ristian Liendo via cctalkSent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:46 PMTo: General Dis= cussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic PostsCc: Christian LiendoSubject: [cctalk] Se= attle=E2=80=99s Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estat= e will auction vintage itemshttps://www.geekwire.com/2024/seattles-living-com= puters-museum-logs-off-for-good-as-paul-allen-estate-will-auction-vintage-ite= ms/Living Computers Museum + Labs, the Seattle institution created by thelate= Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen as a hands-on showcase for rarecomputing tec= hnology and interactive displays, will not reopen, morethan four years after = closing just ahead of the pandemic.Allen=E2=80=99s estate, which has been man= aging and winding down his vastarray of holdings since his death in 2018, con= firmed to GeekWire thatthe 12-year-old museum is closed for good. The estate = also announcedTuesday that some key pieces from Allen=E2=80=99s personal coll= ection ofcomputer artifacts, displayed over the years at Living Computers, wi= llbe auctioned by Christie=E2=80=99s as part of a broader sale of various All= enitems later this year. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast = antivirus software.www.avast.com --===============2740420553757479319==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Tue Jun 25 18:35:58 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:35:50 -0400 Message-ID: <0E01F31E-C5D4-4A5D-9B3C-49AB25636B17@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <667b0c11.170a0220.7ce85.6a3f@mx.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4804523693391051524==" --===============4804523693391051524== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 25, 2024, at 2:27 PM, brad via cctalk wrot= e: >=20 > I'm curious what happens to items that were donated on the understanding th= at the museum would be a safe long term place for them?Pretty sad they couldn= 't make it work. There's a lot to be said for hard rules in signed contracts, though even with= those you aren't necessarily safe. (There are court precedents, in the USA = at least, where museums went against the explicit written terms of donations = and the courts somehow came up with an excuse for approving that.) Personally, I would be very hesistant to *give* anything to a museum; the saf= e route is a loan, with well crafted written terms. That way you're not givi= ng up ownership, and the main risk then becomes damage from inadequate care. = (And yes, that too can happen.) paul --===============4804523693391051524==-- From aperry@snowmoose.com Tue Jun 25 18:53:45 2024 From: Alan Perry To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:48:36 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <0E01F31E-C5D4-4A5D-9B3C-49AB25636B17@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5283179032791651352==" --===============5283179032791651352== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/25/24 11:35 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > >> On Jun 25, 2024, at 2:27 PM, brad via cctalk wro= te: >> >> I'm curious what happens to items that were donated on the understanding t= hat the museum would be a safe long term place for them?Pretty sad they could= n't make it work. > There's a lot to be said for hard rules in signed contracts, though even wi= th those you aren't necessarily safe. (There are court precedents, in the US= A at least, where museums went against the explicit written terms of donation= s and the courts somehow came up with an excuse for approving that.) > > Personally, I would be very hesistant to *give* anything to a museum; the s= afe route is a loan, with well crafted written terms. That way you're not gi= ving up ownership, and the main risk then becomes damage from inadequate care= . (And yes, that too can happen.) Loaning was not an option at LCM. I donated some items and, when I read=20 in the agreement that they could decide to just sell it to help fund the=20 museum, I asked if I could loan it instead. They said that they didn't=20 do loans. What I want to know is whether they even tried to keep the museum intact=20 and fork off a foundation to run it like MoPOP and Flying Heritage. alan --===============5283179032791651352==-- From barythrin@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 19:21:23 2024 From: John Herron To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:21:05 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2215284808214084927==" --===============2215284808214084927== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What a disappointing shame. It happens to too many good computer museums. I wonder if there's a solution for the future. Hopefully they're in contact with CHM and others prior to the auction but it unfortunately sounds like they're looking for money more than preservation :-( On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 11:47 AM Christian Liendo via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > https://www.geekwire.com/2024/seattles-living-computers-museum-logs-off-for= -good-as-paul-allen-estate-will-auction-vintage-items/ > > Living Computers Museum + Labs, the Seattle institution created by the > late Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen as a hands-on showcase for rare > computing technology and interactive displays, will not reopen, more > than four years after closing just ahead of the pandemic. > > Allen=E2=80=99s estate, which has been managing and winding down his vast > array of holdings since his death in 2018, confirmed to GeekWire that > the 12-year-old museum is closed for good. The estate also announced > Tuesday that some key pieces from Allen=E2=80=99s personal collection of > computer artifacts, displayed over the years at Living Computers, will > be auctioned by Christie=E2=80=99s as part of a broader sale of various All= en > items later this year. > --===============2215284808214084927==-- From brad@techtimetraveller.com Tue Jun 25 19:29:32 2024 From: brad@techtimetraveller.com To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Seattle's Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:29:27 -0700 Message-ID: <090101dac735$fe6dbe10$fb493a30$@techtimetraveller.com> In-Reply-To: <0E01F31E-C5D4-4A5D-9B3C-49AB25636B17@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0242398186558929869==" --===============0242398186558929869== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think many donors equated 'museum' with 'forever'. I seem to recall some back and forths between a few of them on a forum somewhere when LCM first closed, and they seemed to be under the impression LCM would be perpetual, especially given who was behind it. It's too bad they could have sold or donated the entire museum to another individual/company/group. I'm assuming they must have tried that route. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Koning Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:36 AM To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org Cc: brad Subject: Re: [cctalk] Seattle's Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items > On Jun 25, 2024, at 2:27 PM, brad via cctalk wrote: > > I'm curious what happens to items that were donated on the understanding that the museum would be a safe long term place for them?Pretty sad they couldn't make it work. There's a lot to be said for hard rules in signed contracts, though even with those you aren't necessarily safe. (There are court precedents, in the USA at least, where museums went against the explicit written terms of donations and the courts somehow came up with an excuse for approving that.) Personally, I would be very hesistant to *give* anything to a museum; the safe route is a loan, with well crafted written terms. That way you're not giving up ownership, and the main risk then becomes damage from inadequate care. (And yes, that too can happen.) paul --===============0242398186558929869==-- From cclist@sydex.com Tue Jun 25 19:47:35 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:47:26 -0700 Message-ID: <9aa194ff-b79b-4b7e-b031-ffb5cb68c0f9@sydex.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2483107334013733704==" --===============2483107334013733704== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/25/24 12:21, John Herron via cctalk wrote: > What a disappointing shame. It happens to too many good computer museums. I > wonder if there's a solution for the future. Hopefully they're in contact > with CHM and others prior to the auction but it unfortunately sounds like > they're looking for money more than preservation :-( On the other hand, Christie's will reap a pile of money in auction fees. So not a complete disaster. (I'm being cynical) --Chuck --===============2483107334013733704==-- From dstalkowski@ody.ca Tue Jun 25 20:13:21 2024 From: dstalkowski@ody.ca To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items RO Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:05:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20240625200531.B909BBEFB47@cel2.x> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5970968513561831643==" --===============5970968513561831643== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Museums may be one of the worst place to donate equipment. This example from ham radio was posted to rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors back in 2000: "Many of us in the Dallas area donated hundreds of highly collectable radios to the National Museum of Communications in Irving, Texas. These included many brands such as Collins, Hallicrafters(several SX-115's among others), National, hammarlund, etc. Two years ago, without our knowledge, they filled five large commercial dumsters with these radios, and hauled them to a dump". I assume computer museums are no better. don On Tue Jun 25 12:46:58 2024 cctalk(a)classiccmp.org (Christian Liendo via cct= alk) wrote: >=20 > https://www.geekwire.com/2024/seattles-living-computers-museum-logs-off-for= -good-as-paul-allen-estate-will-auction-vintage-items/ >=20 > Living Computers Museum + Labs, the Seattle institution created by the > late Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen as a hands-on showcase for rare > computing technology and interactive displays, will not reopen, more > than four years after closing just ahead of the pandemic. >=20 > Allen=C3=A2=C2=80=C2=99s estate, which has been managing and winding down h= is vast > array of holdings since his death in 2018, confirmed to GeekWire that > the 12-year-old museum is closed for good. The estate also announced > Tuesday that some key pieces from Allen=C3=A2=C2=80=C2=99s personal collect= ion of > computer artifacts, displayed over the years at Living Computers, will > be auctioned by Christie=C3=A2=C2=80=C2=99s as part of a broader sale of va= rious Allen > items later this year. >=20 >=20 >=20 --===============5970968513561831643==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Tue Jun 25 20:21:54 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items RO Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:21:46 -0400 Message-ID: <399B5E8E-EE03-4DA4-8F63-C57BEAA840FD@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <20240625200531.B909BBEFB47@cel2.x> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8386479248195795956==" --===============8386479248195795956== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 25, 2024, at 4:05 PM, dstalkowski--- via cctalk wrote: >=20 > Museums may be one of the worst place to donate equipment. >=20 > This example from ham radio was posted to rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors > back in 2000: >=20 > "Many of us in the Dallas area donated hundreds of highly collectable > radios to the National Museum of Communications in Irving, Texas. These > included many brands such as Collins, Hallicrafters(several SX-115's > among others), National, hammarlund, etc. Two years ago, without our > knowledge, they filled five large commercial dumsters with these radios, > and hauled them to a dump". >=20 > I assume computer museums are no better. That makes me think of a similar case, involving a national technology museum= in Holland. It at one time had (owned or on loan, I'm not sure) the world's= first FM broadcast transmitter, from 1919. (No, not Armstrong's; different = technology and more than a decade before Armstrong's work.) Then it disappea= red; it may have gone back to its previous owner but I'm not sure about that. This is why I speak of loans. Sure, some museums say "no loans". My reply w= ould be "sorry to hear that, I'll have to look elsewhere then". paul --===============8386479248195795956==-- From uban@ubanproductions.com Tue Jun 25 20:35:42 2024 From: Tom Uban To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:28:42 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0306088626632659505==" --===============0306088626632659505== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If Paul Allen was unable to setup his museum, something he clearly cared deep= ly about, in a way that=20 would not be dissolved when he passed, who could? On 6/25/24 11:46, Christian Liendo via cctalk wrote: > https://www.geekwire.com/2024/seattles-living-computers-museum-logs-off-for= -good-as-paul-allen-estate-will-auction-vintage-items/ > > Living Computers Museum + Labs, the Seattle institution created by the > late Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen as a hands-on showcase for rare > computing technology and interactive displays, will not reopen, more > than four years after closing just ahead of the pandemic. > > Allen=E2=80=99s estate, which has been managing and winding down his vast > array of holdings since his death in 2018, confirmed to GeekWire that > the 12-year-old museum is closed for good. The estate also announced > Tuesday that some key pieces from Allen=E2=80=99s personal collection of > computer artifacts, displayed over the years at Living Computers, will > be auctioned by Christie=E2=80=99s as part of a broader sale of various All= en > items later this year. --===============0306088626632659505==-- From cclist@sydex.com Tue Jun 25 20:51:15 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 13:51:04 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8930281886940579019==" --===============8930281886940579019== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/25/24 13:28, Tom Uban via cctalk wrote: > If Paul Allen was unable to setup his museum, something he clearly cared > deeply about, in a way that would not be dissolved when he passed, who > could? Mr. Allen collected a lot of things, which, given his wealth, probably can be viewed in the same way that we have an attic full of old stuff. --Chuck --===============8930281886940579019==-- From tony@tonyjones.com Tue Jun 25 22:05:50 2024 From: Tony Jones To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:05:33 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2749212094561251083==" --===============2749212094561251083== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:53 AM Alan Perry via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > What I want to know is whether they even tried to keep the museum intact > and fork off a foundation to run it like MoPOP and Flying Heritage. > I was curious on this too. It seems his entire estate is being liquidated into cash? It seems a sad end to one's legacy. As said by John one would assume he was aware of estate planning and had he wished he could have arranged for entities to be preserved in some ongoing way. It would be interesting to know the details. --===============2749212094561251083==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 22:09:27 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:08:53 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6936699268726853260==" --===============6936699268726853260== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "The estate says, in keeping with Allen’s wishes, proceeds from the sale of any items will go to charitable causes. Allen’s sister Jody Allen is the executor of his estate and for several years has been selling pieces of it, ranging from Seattle’s Cinerama movie theater, the Everett, Wash.-based Flying Heritage and Combat Armor Museum, Vulcan Productions, Stratolaunch, the superyacht Octopus, and more." "proceeds from the sale of any items will go to charitable causes" Has anyone been verifying that this is true? I know trust law can be murky but from what I've heard the trustee is in it for herself (allegedly) and there are strict laws to follow when disgorging a trust. The least we can do is hold the trustee to the terms of the trust indenture, and the law. Does someone by chance have a copy of the trust indenture that I can look at? And/or a donation receipt (I'd like to read the terms)? Sellam On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 1:51 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > On 6/25/24 13:28, Tom Uban via cctalk wrote: > > If Paul Allen was unable to setup his museum, something he clearly cared > > deeply about, in a way that would not be dissolved when he passed, who > > could? > > Mr. Allen collected a lot of things, which, given his wealth, probably > can be viewed in the same way that we have an attic full of old stuff. > > --Chuck > > > --===============6936699268726853260==-- From wayne.sudol@hotmail.com Tue Jun 25 22:25:38 2024 From: Wayne S To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 22:25:31 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6106859971996969931==" --===============6106859971996969931== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Who is the trustee? Anyone know for sure? Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 25, 2024, at 15:09, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BF"The estate says, in keeping with Allen=E2=80=99s wishes, proceeds= from the sale of > any items will go to charitable causes. Allen=E2=80=99s sister Jody Allen i= s the > executor of his estate and for several years has been selling pieces of it, > ranging from Seattle=E2=80=99s Cinerama movie theater, the Everett, Wash.-b= ased > Flying Heritage and Combat Armor Museum, Vulcan Productions, Stratolaunch, > the superyacht Octopus, and more." >=20 > "proceeds from the sale of any items will go to charitable causes" >=20 > Has anyone been verifying that this is true? I know trust law can be murky > but from what I've heard the trustee is in it for herself (allegedly) and > there are strict laws to follow when disgorging a trust. The least we can > do is hold the trustee to the terms of the trust indenture, and the law. >=20 > Does someone by chance have a copy of the trust indenture that I can look > at? And/or a donation receipt (I'd like to read the terms)? >=20 > Sellam >=20 >=20 >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 1:51=E2=80=AFPM Chuck Guzis via cctalk < >> cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: >>=20 >>> On 6/25/24 13:28, Tom Uban via cctalk wrote: >>> If Paul Allen was unable to setup his museum, something he clearly cared >>> deeply about, in a way that would not be dissolved when he passed, who >>> could? >>=20 >> Mr. Allen collected a lot of things, which, given his wealth, probably >> can be viewed in the same way that we have an attic full of old stuff. >>=20 >> --Chuck >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 --===============6106859971996969931==-- From cz@alembic.crystel.com Tue Jun 25 22:27:23 2024 From: cz To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:27:09 -0400 Message-ID: <998de694-5495-4ee1-a1b5-634fae511e7c@alembic.crystel.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0179073526981828200==" --===============0179073526981828200== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yeah, but at least for AI he actually seemed to care about it as something he used back in the early 80's. *sigh* I was wondering if it would come to this. I guess I need to draft a letter to the executor of this mess, asking them to please open AI, look in the inside metal pocket on the door, and read the letter I wrote when Rich came out to pick the system up. Because I knew inside that this would happen. It happened at MIT, happened at FTP, happened at Sandstorm, happened at Digex. And each time I had to go out AGAIN and pick the damn thing up to take care of it. Funny. I said at the time that Paul would never go bankrupt or lose interest and that AI was finally safe. But I knew in my heart it wouldn't be. So I guess it's time to rent a U-Haul Again.... So who do I contact? CZ CZ(a)MIT-AI On 6/25/2024 4:51 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 6/25/24 13:28, Tom Uban via cctalk wrote: >> If Paul Allen was unable to setup his museum, something he clearly cared >> deeply about, in a way that would not be dissolved when he passed, who >> could? > > Mr. Allen collected a lot of things, which, given his wealth, probably > can be viewed in the same way that we have an attic full of old stuff. > > --Chuck > > --===============0179073526981828200==-- From wayne.sudol@hotmail.com Tue Jun 25 22:31:34 2024 From: Wayne S To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 22:31:21 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <998de694-5495-4ee1-a1b5-634fae511e7c@alembic.crystel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2640708495475303596==" --===============2640708495475303596== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You should draft the letter ASAP. Also send via registered mail. And if you are claiming ownership, send a copy to the auction house. =20 Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 25, 2024, at 15:27, cz via cctalk wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFYeah, but at least for AI he actually seemed to care about it as s= omething he used back in the early 80's. >=20 > *sigh* I was wondering if it would come to this. I guess I need to draft a = letter to the executor of this mess, asking them to please open AI, look in t= he inside metal pocket on the door, and read the letter I wrote when Rich cam= e out to pick the system up. >=20 > Because I knew inside that this would happen. It happened at MIT, happened = at FTP, happened at Sandstorm, happened at Digex. And each time I had to go o= ut AGAIN and pick the damn thing up to take care of it. >=20 > Funny. I said at the time that Paul would never go bankrupt or lose interes= t and that AI was finally safe. But I knew in my heart it wouldn't be. So I g= uess it's time to rent a U-Haul >=20 > Again.... >=20 > So who do I contact? >=20 > CZ >=20 > CZ(a)MIT-AI >=20 >> On 6/25/2024 4:51 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >>> On 6/25/24 13:28, Tom Uban via cctalk wrote: >>> If Paul Allen was unable to setup his museum, something he clearly cared >>> deeply about, in a way that would not be dissolved when he passed, who >>> could? >> Mr. Allen collected a lot of things, which, given his wealth, probably >> can be viewed in the same way that we have an attic full of old stuff. >> --Chuck --===============2640708495475303596==-- From mjkerpan@kerpan.com Tue Jun 25 22:58:18 2024 From: Michael Kerpan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:58:00 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CCY4PR1001MB21816881E0176A21557EDADDE4D52=40CY4PR10?= =?utf-8?q?01MB2181=2Enamprd10=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5799711126935034000==" --===============5799711126935034000== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit What are the odds that the letter was removed and lost when the system was disassembled to be shipped to the auction house? I suspect that what was ultimately a handshake deal is going to be ignored here. Mike On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 6:31 PM Wayne S via cctalk wrote: > You should draft the letter ASAP. > Also send via registered mail. > And if you are claiming ownership, send a copy to the auction house. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jun 25, 2024, at 15:27, cz via cctalk wrote: > > > > Yeah, but at least for AI he actually seemed to care about it as > something he used back in the early 80's. > > > > *sigh* I was wondering if it would come to this. I guess I need to draft > a letter to the executor of this mess, asking them to please open AI, look > in the inside metal pocket on the door, and read the letter I wrote when > Rich came out to pick the system up. > > > > Because I knew inside that this would happen. It happened at MIT, > happened at FTP, happened at Sandstorm, happened at Digex. And each time I > had to go out AGAIN and pick the damn thing up to take care of it. > > > > Funny. I said at the time that Paul would never go bankrupt or lose > interest and that AI was finally safe. But I knew in my heart it wouldn't > be. So I guess it's time to rent a U-Haul > > > > Again.... > > > > So who do I contact? > > > > CZ > > > > CZ(a)MIT-AI > > > >> On 6/25/2024 4:51 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > >>> On 6/25/24 13:28, Tom Uban via cctalk wrote: > >>> If Paul Allen was unable to setup his museum, something he clearly > cared > >>> deeply about, in a way that would not be dissolved when he passed, who > >>> could? > >> Mr. Allen collected a lot of things, which, given his wealth, probably > >> can be viewed in the same way that we have an attic full of old stuff. > >> --Chuck > --===============5799711126935034000==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Tue Jun 25 23:03:17 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:03:10 -0500 Message-ID: <072b89a9-c90f-93f0-3ac2-3e89b44a064d@pico-systems.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8553808375099928009==" --===============8553808375099928009== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/25/24 15:51, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 6/25/24 13:28, Tom Uban via cctalk wrote: >> If Paul Allen was unable to setup his museum, something he clearly cared >> deeply about, in a way that would not be dissolved when he passed, who >> could? I think he really thought he had more time on earth, and didn't consider the estate planning of the museum to be an urgent matter.  Sadly, he was wrong about that! Jon --===============8553808375099928009==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 23:16:24 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:16:06 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <072b89a9-c90f-93f0-3ac2-3e89b44a064d@pico-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1854599939544762948==" --===============1854599939544762948== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 4:03 PM Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > On 6/25/24 15:51, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > > On 6/25/24 13:28, Tom Uban via cctalk wrote: > >> If Paul Allen was unable to setup his museum, something he clearly cared > >> deeply about, in a way that would not be dissolved when he passed, who > >> could? > > I think he really thought he had more time on earth, and > didn't consider the estate planning of the museum to be an > urgent matter. Sadly, he was wrong about that! > > Jon > When one is literally one of the wealthiest men on earth, there is literally no excuse. It was just plain dumb and inexcusable. I'll be willing to help anyone with a claim to press their legal interest. Contact me off-list to discuss. Sellam --===============1854599939544762948==-- From cclist@sydex.com Tue Jun 25 23:18:24 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:18:13 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <072b89a9-c90f-93f0-3ac2-3e89b44a064d@pico-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8041817685218797931==" --===============8041817685218797931== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/25/24 16:03, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > I think he really thought he had more time on earth, and didn't consider > the estate planning of the museum to be an urgent matter.  Sadly, he was > wrong about that! I can understand that. Currently, my wife and I have a sort of "blanket" will that names a couple of charitable foundations as beneficiaries and little more. We have no offspring and my sibs are either dead or aging as well; no way I'll saddle them with the job of executor. Important for me, as I'm facing a couple of rough months health-wise, but estate planning is not at the top of my list. Stuff like "surgery", "palliative care" etc. have grabbed most of my attention. Nobody lives forever--and few live as long as they expect. --Chuck --===============8041817685218797931==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 23:23:13 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:22:53 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8357112178730075782==" --===============8357112178730075782== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 4:18=E2=80=AFPM Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 6/25/24 16:03, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > > > I think he really thought he had more time on earth, and didn't consider > > the estate planning of the museum to be an urgent matter. Sadly, he was > > wrong about that! > > I can understand that. I can't. Dude had virtually limitless money and couldn't hire an estate planner to take care of it? There's literally no excuse in this case. Sellam --===============8357112178730075782==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 23:51:13 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:50:42 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1922787366134819664==" --===============1922787366134819664== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think this is an appropriate time for this announcement. Over the many years I've been collecting, there have been more than several instances of a collector dying and their collection effectively being cast to the wind because their surviving spouse or family members have no idea what to do with their computer collection. We are all very aware of this unfortunate phenomenon. To that end, I've been developing a Revocable Living Trust (RLT) for computer collectors. I've been working on this off and on for the past many months, and though it isn't quite ready yet, this is a good opportunity to announce my plans. The advantages of a RLT are many for the computer collector, including simplicity, and one's continued access to and enjoyment of their collections while they are alive. It's a good start, but not a complete solution, as the effectiveness of the RLT depends on the trustees one has chosen to carry out their wishes once they've departed the mortal coil. That's where what I'm developing comes into play: a multi-modal trustee services corporation which one can name as (at least one of) their trustee(s), which in the event of one's demise will immediately launch into action to protect the trust assets (the computer collection) and distribute it as per the trust indenture. And so much more. The trust indenture itself will be cheap (a nominal $49 is my target price) but I have yet to work out the execution and pricing for all the other services that will be offered, which will include actually coming out to the collection site to secure the collection and handle or assist in its distribution. This message is intended to be a feeler to gauge interest in the product. To that end, if this is of interest to you, please contact me privately and let me know. I can actually set you up with the trust documents right away, as those are basically done at this point, which you can execute and get notarized, etc. to at least have that protection in place. The establishment of the trustee services corporation described above will take a bit more time. If I didn't myself fall ill within the last 9 months (heart attack, nearly died, subsequent heart surgery) I would have already had this ready to go. The irony of this all has not at all escaped me. Fortunately, my collection is now covered for when it's my time to go. How about you? Sellam --===============1922787366134819664==-- From cclist@sydex.com Tue Jun 25 23:51:43 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:51:34 -0700 Message-ID: <3c84e3e3-33ff-4f8f-bb0d-fd7c4abf67e3@sydex.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2118142604880530989==" --===============2118142604880530989== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/25/24 16:22, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > I can't. Dude had virtually limitless money and couldn't hire an estate > planner to take care of it? > > There's literally no excuse in this case. Had Allen given final instructions that the entire LCM be cleaned out and melted for scrap, would you still think that he needed an excuse? It was his money; he had no reason to explain what he did with it or with the toys that he purchased. I can understand your resentment, but that's just the way our world works. Someone with sufficient funds could purchase a da Vinci and use it for toilet paper. Didn't Joseph Haydn's wife (Maria Anna Aloysia Apollonia Keller) use his scores as pastry pan lining and for setting her hair curlers? We have no idea of what has been lost even today. --Chuck --===============2118142604880530989==-- From ethan@757.org Tue Jun 25 23:52:31 2024 From: Ethan O'Toole To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Seattle's Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:46:38 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <090101dac735$fe6dbe10$fb493a30$@techtimetraveller.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6520654418011173254==" --===============6520654418011173254== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > It's too bad they could have sold or donated the entire museum to another > individual/company/group. I'm assuming they must have tried that route. I think I remember that he had no will? And his sister doesn't care about the nerd stuff. - Ethan --===============6520654418011173254==-- From rickb@bensene.com Tue Jun 25 23:54:05 2024 From: Rick Bensene To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 23:53:56 +0000 Message-ID: <831ef0f2036947029c3e6fee1db886f4@bensene.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5673680403048155667==" --===============5673680403048155667== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Allen=E2=80=99s estate, which has been managing and winding down his vast a= rray of holdings=20 > since his death in 2018, confirmed to GeekWire that the 12-year-old museum = is closed for=20 > good.=20 I held out hope that somehow this would not be the end of this place. Alas, i= t was not to be. =20 I had the occasion to have a nice informal chat with Mr. Allen about LCM shor= tly after it opened. I got the clear impression that A) He was absolutely dev= oted and passionate about this aspect of history, B) He wanted as many people= as possible to be able to experience this history *hands-on*, and C) that he= wanted it to be a lasting legacy of his passion. =20 Of course, things can change along the way, and I know that the museum was st= ruggling with the rather enormous expenses of keeping all of the machines up = and running, as well as the expertise necessary to keep them that way(even wi= th some very gracious volunteers), not to mention all of the administrative a= spects of such an endeavor. =20 Re-creating the inter-bay wiring of the Control Data 6500, as well as keeping= the refrigeration system running with unobtainium parts, by themselves, had = to cost a King's Ransom. The onset of the pandemic and the absolute necessity to close a "hands on" mu= seum made the situation even more dire. =20 I suspect that the costs involved with trying to resurrect it in any way that= would have been consistent with Mr. Allen's passion were simply unsupportabl= e. The thing that I=E2=80=99m really pissed off about is that there were no upda= tes about the status of the museum for the entire period of time since its cl= osure until the news release today. The veil of secrecy surrounding the wh= ole thing seems sketchy to me. =20 Based on my admittedly short visit with him, I honestly don't think that Mr. = Allen would be at all happy with the outcome and how it was managed. I will cherish the many memories of this amazing and unique place, and am gra= teful that Mr. Allen built and supported it during his lifetime. I am just a= s thankful for all of the amazing people that made the LCM what it was. =20 Rest in Pieces, DCM (Dead Computer Museum). -Rick -- Rick Bensene The Old (and still living) Calculator Museum https://oldcalculatormuseum.com --===============5673680403048155667==-- From wayne.sudol@hotmail.com Tue Jun 25 23:56:28 2024 From: Wayne S To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 23:56:18 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <831ef0f2036947029c3e6fee1db886f4@bensene.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5772615195968161821==" --===============5772615195968161821== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here=E2=80=99s an article about it. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/paul-allens-will-sheds-little= -light-on-what-will-happen-to-estate/ Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2024, at 16:54, Rick Bensene via cctalk = wrote: =EF=BB=BF Allen=E2=80=99s estate, which has been managing and winding down his vast arr= ay of holdings since his death in 2018, confirmed to GeekWire that the 12-year-old museum is= closed for good. I held out hope that somehow this would not be the end of this place. Alas, i= t was not to be. I had the occasion to have a nice informal chat with Mr. Allen about LCM shor= tly after it opened. I got the clear impression that A) He was absolutely dev= oted and passionate about this aspect of history, B) He wanted as many people= as possible to be able to experience this history *hands-on*, and C) that he= wanted it to be a lasting legacy of his passion. Of course, things can change along the way, and I know that the museum was st= ruggling with the rather enormous expenses of keeping all of the machines up = and running, as well as the expertise necessary to keep them that way(even wi= th some very gracious volunteers), not to mention all of the administrative a= spects of such an endeavor. Re-creating the inter-bay wiring of the Control Data 6500, as well as keeping= the refrigeration system running with unobtainium parts, by themselves, had = to cost a King's Ransom. The onset of the pandemic and the absolute necessity to close a "hands on" mu= seum made the situation even more dire. I suspect that the costs involved with trying to resurrect it in any way that= would have been consistent with Mr. Allen's passion were simply unsupportabl= e. The thing that I=E2=80=99m really pissed off about is that there were no upda= tes about the status of the museum for the entire period of time since its cl= osure until the news release today. The veil of secrecy surrounding the wh= ole thing seems sketchy to me. Based on my admittedly short visit with him, I honestly don't think that Mr. = Allen would be at all happy with the outcome and how it was managed. I will cherish the many memories of this amazing and unique place, and am gra= teful that Mr. Allen built and supported it during his lifetime. I am just a= s thankful for all of the amazing people that made the LCM what it was. Rest in Pieces, DCM (Dead Computer Museum). -Rick -- Rick Bensene The Old (and still living) Calculator Museum https://oldcalculatormuseum.com --===============5772615195968161821==-- From tony@tonyjones.com Tue Jun 25 23:59:17 2024 From: Tony Jones To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:58:55 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7537618623598729487==" --===============7537618623598729487== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 4:23 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > I can't. Dude had virtually limitless money and couldn't hire an estate > planner to take care of it? > Who knows the details. I see a lot of assumptions being thrown out. I am a bit skeptical of the "he must have thought he had years to live" theory given that he had non-hodgkins lymphoma which has a 25-40% relapse rate and was the cause of death but again who knows. --===============7537618623598729487==-- From cz@alembic.crystel.com Wed Jun 26 00:02:08 2024 From: cz To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:01:58 -0400 Message-ID: <9275e1c9-3ac4-45e6-a897-bcdf0dade1a8@alembic.crystel.com> In-Reply-To: <3c84e3e3-33ff-4f8f-bb0d-fd7c4abf67e3@sydex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5496553783490327303==" --===============5496553783490327303== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Had Allen given final instructions that the entire LCM be cleaned out > and melted for scrap, would you still think that he needed an excuse? > It was his money; he had no reason to explain what he did with it or > with the toys that he purchased. If he had done that, that would be fine (although that may also have triggered the "Fine, I'll drive the fuck up there with a U-Haul and add you to a long list of dot.coms who made my life annoying) but he did one worse. He gave a serious damn about at least AI, and agreed to take care of it. In the end, Paul failed. C --===============5496553783490327303==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 00:07:07 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:06:36 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <831ef0f2036947029c3e6fee1db886f4@bensene.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0140049125774450961==" --===============0140049125774450961== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 4:54 PM Rick Bensene via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > Allen’s estate, which has been managing and winding down his vast array > of holdings > > since his death in 2018, confirmed to GeekWire that the 12-year-old > museum is closed for > > good. > > I held out hope that somehow this would not be the end of this place. > Alas, it was not to be. > > I had the occasion to have a nice informal chat with Mr. Allen about LCM > shortly after it opened. I got the clear impression that A) He was > absolutely devoted and passionate about this aspect of history, B) He > wanted as many people as possible to be able to experience this history > *hands-on*, and C) that he wanted it to be a lasting legacy of his > passion. > > Of course, things can change along the way, and I know that the museum was > struggling with the rather enormous expenses of keeping all of the machines > up and running, as well as the expertise necessary to keep them that > way(even with some very gracious volunteers), not to mention all of the > administrative aspects of such an endeavor. > I'm compelled to look at this from a perspective that I believe is completely objective (yell at me if you think otherwise): If I was worth $20 BILLION and had the passion and goals that were expressed to you by Mr. Allen, I'd have immediately funded the museum with a $100 million endowment, which would be relative pocket change to me, but would guarantee the existence of the museum probably in perpetuity, even if the endowment moneys weren't managed particularly skillfully. Note that the Computer History Museum's endowment goal (at least back in 2005) was $125 million. And that's to secure the world's largest computer history archive, so $100M for the LCM would've effectively been perpetual. That nothing was done to secure the museum and the collection during the five years Mr. Allen remained alive until his demise is quite frankly irresponsible (to be polite). All this being said, god rest the soul of Paul Gardner Allen. He accomplished a lot of good in his lifetime. Sellam --===============0140049125774450961==-- From cz@alembic.crystel.com Wed Jun 26 00:07:32 2024 From: cz To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:07:26 -0400 Message-ID: <1cdb1407-40c5-49aa-8068-e4b7c199e842@alembic.crystel.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1994016665686808762==" --===============1994016665686808762== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dumb asses couldn't even get the computer right..... "A highlight of the sale is a computer that Allen helped restore and on=20 which he worked, a DEC PDP-10: KI-10. Built in 1971, it=E2=80=99s the first=20 computer that both Allen and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates ever used=20 prior to founding Microsoft. It=E2=80=99s estimated to fetch $30,000 to $50,0= 00." A) It's a DecSystem 20/20, not a KI. B) They used it in the mid 80's C) He really did care about it, but not enough to save it. I am really annoyed with this. I don't WANT to have to go up there with=20 the U-Haul and get the damn thing. It's BIG. It has a TU77 magtape drive=20 that isn't working properly because the TM03's 18 bit fiddler is screwed=20 up. *grumble* CZ On 6/25/2024 3:21 PM, John Herron via cctalk wrote: > What a disappointing shame. It happens to too many good computer museums. I > wonder if there's a solution for the future. Hopefully they're in contact > with CHM and others prior to the auction but it unfortunately sounds like > they're looking for money more than preservation :-( >=20 > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 11:47 AM Christian Liendo via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: >=20 >> >> https://www.geekwire.com/2024/seattles-living-computers-museum-logs-off-fo= r-good-as-paul-allen-estate-will-auction-vintage-items/ >> >> Living Computers Museum + Labs, the Seattle institution created by the >> late Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen as a hands-on showcase for rare >> computing technology and interactive displays, will not reopen, more >> than four years after closing just ahead of the pandemic. >> >> Allen=E2=80=99s estate, which has been managing and winding down his vast >> array of holdings since his death in 2018, confirmed to GeekWire that >> the 12-year-old museum is closed for good. The estate also announced >> Tuesday that some key pieces from Allen=E2=80=99s personal collection of >> computer artifacts, displayed over the years at Living Computers, will >> be auctioned by Christie=E2=80=99s as part of a broader sale of various Al= len >> items later this year. >> --===============1994016665686808762==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 00:11:42 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:11:11 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2435164338330931369==" --===============2435164338330931369== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit By the way, I think I already indicated this, but if anyone has a legitimate claim, the disbursement of the collection could be challenged in court, and some alternate outcome decreed by virtue of public policy (sometimes we can use government power for our benefit). How do we even know for sure that his sister, Jody, is actually the legal executor to his estate? Sellam --===============2435164338330931369==-- From cz@alembic.crystel.com Wed Jun 26 00:17:16 2024 From: cz To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:17:06 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1248250079914988865==" --===============1248250079914988865== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Possible, however museums tend to catalog artifacts completely. Last I saw the tape on the front where the MIT punch card with MIT-AI written on the back was still there (I still have the punch card, kept it as a memory and yes the tape will line up :-) If the "handshake" deal is ignored then it points out clearly that Paul's family has zero sense of honor and should never claim such in the future. That does mean something. I'm not going to endlessly fuck with lawyers and the like. I will offer to show up, pick it up, and find a BETTER home for it if I can, or just be buried in it when I die. That is the pact. If it goes to auction then I'll place a bid on it high enough to ensure that whomever DOES buy it takes on the role of the protector of the thing. Then I can lay down that burden and concentrate on the last of the ITS systems: MC which is safe in my work shed. Oi.... CZ On 6/25/2024 6:58 PM, Michael Kerpan via cctalk wrote: > What are the odds that the letter was removed and lost when the system was > disassembled to be shipped to the auction house? I suspect that what was > ultimately a handshake deal is going to be ignored here. > > Mike > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 6:31 PM Wayne S via cctalk > wrote: > >> You should draft the letter ASAP. >> Also send via registered mail. >> And if you are claiming ownership, send a copy to the auction house. >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jun 25, 2024, at 15:27, cz via cctalk wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, but at least for AI he actually seemed to care about it as >> something he used back in the early 80's. >>> >>> *sigh* I was wondering if it would come to this. I guess I need to draft >> a letter to the executor of this mess, asking them to please open AI, look >> in the inside metal pocket on the door, and read the letter I wrote when >> Rich came out to pick the system up. >>> >>> Because I knew inside that this would happen. It happened at MIT, >> happened at FTP, happened at Sandstorm, happened at Digex. And each time I >> had to go out AGAIN and pick the damn thing up to take care of it. >>> >>> Funny. I said at the time that Paul would never go bankrupt or lose >> interest and that AI was finally safe. But I knew in my heart it wouldn't >> be. So I guess it's time to rent a U-Haul >>> >>> Again.... >>> >>> So who do I contact? >>> >>> CZ >>> >>> CZ(a)MIT-AI >>> >>>> On 6/25/2024 4:51 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/24 13:28, Tom Uban via cctalk wrote: >>>>> If Paul Allen was unable to setup his museum, something he clearly >> cared >>>>> deeply about, in a way that would not be dissolved when he passed, who >>>>> could? >>>> Mr. Allen collected a lot of things, which, given his wealth, probably >>>> can be viewed in the same way that we have an attic full of old stuff. >>>> --Chuck >> --===============1248250079914988865==-- From cz@alembic.crystel.com Wed Jun 26 00:19:09 2024 From: cz To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:19:02 -0400 Message-ID: <63281808-0b55-480e-ab37-7e79201e5f72@alembic.crystel.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0110182779819757447==" --===============0110182779819757447== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit There is one other possibility: Can someone reach out to Bill and put him in contact with me? He cared about the system as well, maybe he can take on the role of protector and do a better job than Paul did. Maybe he could be worthy. CZ On 6/25/2024 6:58 PM, Michael Kerpan via cctalk wrote: > What are the odds that the letter was removed and lost when the system was > disassembled to be shipped to the auction house? I suspect that what was > ultimately a handshake deal is going to be ignored here. > > Mike > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 6:31 PM Wayne S via cctalk > wrote: > >> You should draft the letter ASAP. >> Also send via registered mail. >> And if you are claiming ownership, send a copy to the auction house. >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jun 25, 2024, at 15:27, cz via cctalk wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, but at least for AI he actually seemed to care about it as >> something he used back in the early 80's. >>> >>> *sigh* I was wondering if it would come to this. I guess I need to draft >> a letter to the executor of this mess, asking them to please open AI, look >> in the inside metal pocket on the door, and read the letter I wrote when >> Rich came out to pick the system up. >>> >>> Because I knew inside that this would happen. It happened at MIT, >> happened at FTP, happened at Sandstorm, happened at Digex. And each time I >> had to go out AGAIN and pick the damn thing up to take care of it. >>> >>> Funny. I said at the time that Paul would never go bankrupt or lose >> interest and that AI was finally safe. But I knew in my heart it wouldn't >> be. So I guess it's time to rent a U-Haul >>> >>> Again.... >>> >>> So who do I contact? >>> >>> CZ >>> >>> CZ(a)MIT-AI >>> >>>> On 6/25/2024 4:51 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/24 13:28, Tom Uban via cctalk wrote: >>>>> If Paul Allen was unable to setup his museum, something he clearly >> cared >>>>> deeply about, in a way that would not be dissolved when he passed, who >>>>> could? >>>> Mr. Allen collected a lot of things, which, given his wealth, probably >>>> can be viewed in the same way that we have an attic full of old stuff. >>>> --Chuck >> --===============0110182779819757447==-- From cz@alembic.crystel.com Wed Jun 26 00:30:29 2024 From: cz To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:30:21 -0400 Message-ID: <3cfa8320-2db1-413f-b8fc-676d528c0bc9@alembic.crystel.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6587860325674301758==" --===============6587860325674301758== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/25/2024 8:11 PM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > By the way, I think I already indicated this, but if anyone has a > legitimate claim, the disbursement of the collection could be challenged in > court, and some alternate outcome decreed by virtue of public policy > (sometimes we can use government power for our benefit). > > How do we even know for sure that his sister, Jody, is actually the legal > executor to his estate? That could be helpful. I just want the damn thing to go to a place where someone will take care of it and not just be a Col. Kilgore type that goes I'LL SAVE IT then wanders off to someone else. I looked up the date, it was November 2006, that's like 18 years ago. Which means the document would be in either WriteNow or WordPerfect on my NeXTStation alembic. Where did I put the NeXT monitor.... CZ --===============6587860325674301758==-- From mooreericnyc@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 00:46:33 2024 From: Eric Moore To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:46:17 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5797297936554915460==" --===============5797297936554915460== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit For those on the list, Sellam trolled the ccmp discord under a pseudonym recently. Did not seem relevant to bring up until now, but... yeah. -Eric On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 6:51 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > I think this is an appropriate time for this announcement. > > Over the many years I've been collecting, there have been more than several > instances of a collector dying and their collection effectively being cast > to the wind because their surviving spouse or family members have no idea > what to do with their computer collection. We are all very aware of this > unfortunate phenomenon. > > To that end, I've been developing a Revocable Living Trust (RLT) for > computer collectors. I've been working on this off and on for the past > many months, and though it isn't quite ready yet, this is a good > opportunity to announce my plans. > > The advantages of a RLT are many for the computer collector, including > simplicity, and one's continued access to and enjoyment of their > collections while they are alive. It's a good start, but not a complete > solution, as the effectiveness of the RLT depends on the trustees one has > chosen to carry out their wishes once they've departed the mortal coil. > > That's where what I'm developing comes into play: a multi-modal trustee > services corporation which one can name as (at least one of) their > trustee(s), which in the event of one's demise will immediately launch into > action to protect the trust assets (the computer collection) and distribute > it as per the trust indenture. And so much more. > > The trust indenture itself will be cheap (a nominal $49 is my target price) > but I have yet to work out the execution and pricing for all the other > services that will be offered, which will include actually coming out to > the collection site to secure the collection and handle or assist in its > distribution. > > This message is intended to be a feeler to gauge interest in the product. > To that end, if this is of interest to you, please contact me privately and > let me know. I can actually set you up with the trust documents right > away, as those are basically done at this point, which you can execute and > get notarized, etc. to at least have that protection in place. The > establishment of the trustee services corporation described above will take > a bit more time. > > If I didn't myself fall ill within the last 9 months (heart attack, nearly > died, subsequent heart surgery) I would have already had this ready to go. > The irony of this all has not at all escaped me. Fortunately, my > collection is now covered for when it's my time to go. > > How about you? > > Sellam > --===============5797297936554915460==-- From phil@regressive.org Wed Jun 26 01:37:16 2024 From: phil@regressive.org To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:29:44 -0400 Message-ID: <667b6f08.01vDzL8ENI+/XRJ4%phil@regressive.org> In-Reply-To: <1cdb1407-40c5-49aa-8068-e4b7c199e842@alembic.crystel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8412436550797200058==" --===============8412436550797200058== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit CZ wrote: > Dumb asses couldn't even get the computer right..... > > "A highlight of the sale is a computer that Allen helped restore and on > which he worked, a DEC PDP-10: KI-10. Built in 1971, it’s the first > computer that both Allen and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates ever used > prior to founding Microsoft. It’s estimated to fetch $30,000 to $50,000." > > A) It's a DecSystem 20/20, not a KI. > B) They used it in the mid 80's > C) He really did care about it, but not enough to save it. Nope. LCM had a KI-10, ISTR it was half of a dual CPU system from Kiel. When I visted there was a 2060 and a 2065, as well as a KS. I understand that later they acquired a KA and the MIT-MC KL (1080). --===============8412436550797200058==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 01:54:29 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:53:59 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6030863973507685073==" --===============6030863973507685073== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The below quoted message is a libel. I have demanded an apology and retraction from Eric Moore via e-mail. The ball is in his court. Sellam On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 5:46 PM Eric Moore wrote: > For those on the list, Sellam trolled the ccmp discord under a pseudonym > recently. > > Did not seem relevant to bring up until now, but... yeah. > > -Eric > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 6:51 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> I think this is an appropriate time for this announcement. >> >> Over the many years I've been collecting, there have been more than >> several >> instances of a collector dying and their collection effectively being cast >> to the wind because their surviving spouse or family members have no idea >> what to do with their computer collection. We are all very aware of this >> unfortunate phenomenon. >> >> To that end, I've been developing a Revocable Living Trust (RLT) for >> computer collectors. I've been working on this off and on for the past >> many months, and though it isn't quite ready yet, this is a good >> opportunity to announce my plans. >> >> The advantages of a RLT are many for the computer collector, including >> simplicity, and one's continued access to and enjoyment of their >> collections while they are alive. It's a good start, but not a complete >> solution, as the effectiveness of the RLT depends on the trustees one has >> chosen to carry out their wishes once they've departed the mortal coil. >> >> That's where what I'm developing comes into play: a multi-modal trustee >> services corporation which one can name as (at least one of) their >> trustee(s), which in the event of one's demise will immediately launch >> into >> action to protect the trust assets (the computer collection) and >> distribute >> it as per the trust indenture. And so much more. >> >> The trust indenture itself will be cheap (a nominal $49 is my target >> price) >> but I have yet to work out the execution and pricing for all the other >> services that will be offered, which will include actually coming out to >> the collection site to secure the collection and handle or assist in its >> distribution. >> >> This message is intended to be a feeler to gauge interest in the product. >> To that end, if this is of interest to you, please contact me privately >> and >> let me know. I can actually set you up with the trust documents right >> away, as those are basically done at this point, which you can execute and >> get notarized, etc. to at least have that protection in place. The >> establishment of the trustee services corporation described above will >> take >> a bit more time. >> >> If I didn't myself fall ill within the last 9 months (heart attack, nearly >> died, subsequent heart surgery) I would have already had this ready to go. >> The irony of this all has not at all escaped me. Fortunately, my >> collection is now covered for when it's my time to go. >> >> How about you? >> >> Sellam >> > --===============6030863973507685073==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Wed Jun 26 01:57:07 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:56:58 -0500 Message-ID: <6cf85f66-2ff1-7713-aee7-4b5366799b11@pico-systems.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7585056829550396951==" --===============7585056829550396951== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/25/24 18:50, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > I think this is an appropriate time for this announcement. > > Over the many years I've been collecting, there have been more than several > instances of a collector dying and their collection effectively being cast > to the wind because their surviving spouse or family members have no idea > what to do with their computer collection. We are all very aware of this > unfortunate phenomenon. > > To that end, I've been developing a Revocable Living Trust (RLT) for > computer collectors. I've been working on this off and on for the past > many months, and though it isn't quite ready yet, this is a good > opportunity to announce my plans. > Well, this is very interesting!  I finally gave away (to the LSSM) my one TRULY rare item.  I displayed it at the VCFMW in fall 2022, it was a Honeywell Alert computer that was developed for the X-15 project.  It was as far as I know the first delivered all IC computer.  Honeywell started designing it in 1964 and had deliverable units in 1965, so they started development after the Apollo Guidance Computer, but got done earlier.  The amazing part of this is that I got a 2-volume history of the development document from Honeywell for this system.  The rest of my stuff is fairly pedestrian. I think I will take you up on this offer when it is ready.  My wife knows nothing of what this stuff is, and my kids really don't know a whole lot either. Jon --===============7585056829550396951==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 02:13:10 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:12:39 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6cf85f66-2ff1-7713-aee7-4b5366799b11@pico-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1673446909263384009==" --===============1673446909263384009== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jon. Thank you very much for the feedback. I'm busy through the end of this week with priority projects but I'll get back to you with the RLT documents and instructions either this weekend or early next week so you'll at least have that in place. The rest of the plan will come together over the next few months, and I hope to have the basic operation and supporting foundation established legally by end of year. I appreciate your interest. Sellam On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 6:57=E2=80=AFPM Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > On 6/25/24 18:50, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > > I think this is an appropriate time for this announcement. > > > > Over the many years I've been collecting, there have been more than > several > > instances of a collector dying and their collection effectively being > cast > > to the wind because their surviving spouse or family members have no idea > > what to do with their computer collection. We are all very aware of this > > unfortunate phenomenon. > > > > To that end, I've been developing a Revocable Living Trust (RLT) for > > computer collectors. I've been working on this off and on for the past > > many months, and though it isn't quite ready yet, this is a good > > opportunity to announce my plans. > > > Well, this is very interesting! I finally gave away (to the > LSSM) my one TRULY rare item. I displayed it at the VCFMW > in fall 2022, it was a Honeywell Alert computer that was > developed for the X-15 project. It was as far as I know the > first delivered all IC computer. Honeywell started > designing it in 1964 and had deliverable units in 1965, so > they started development after the Apollo Guidance Computer, > but got done earlier. The amazing part of this is that I > got a 2-volume history of the development document from > Honeywell for this system. The rest of my stuff is fairly > pedestrian. > > I think I will take you up on this offer when it is ready. > My wife knows nothing of what this stuff is, and my kids > really don't know a whole lot either. > > Jon > > --===============1673446909263384009==-- From geneb@deltasoft.com Wed Jun 26 02:16:22 2024 From: geneb To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:11:12 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4721267412996444694==" --===============4721267412996444694== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > The below quoted message is a libel. I have demanded an apology and > retraction from Eric Moore via e-mail. The ball is in his court. > I was today years old when I found out "libel" is a noun. Two things. 1. Truth is an affirmative defence against "libel". 2. You are apparently exhibiting the symptoms of 3rd Degree Butthurt. You may want to see a physician about that. ...and don't email me directly to vent your spleen at me. It'll either get deleted out of hand or you'll get an explicitly rude 5.7.1 bounce. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_! --===============4721267412996444694==-- From wrcooke@wrcooke.net Wed Jun 26 02:16:30 2024 From: wrcooke@wrcooke.net To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:16:21 -0500 Message-ID: <2048395213.804906.1719368181219@email.ionos.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0303852785036914550==" --===============0303852785036914550== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On 06/25/2024 7:06 PM CDT Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 4:54=E2=80=AFPM Rick Bensene via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: >=20 > > > Allen=E2=80=99s estate, which has been managing and winding down his va= st array > > of holdings > > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > I'm compelled to look at this from a perspective that I believe is > completely objective (yell at me if you think otherwise): >=20 > If I was worth $20 BILLION and had the passion and goals that were > expressed to you by Mr. Allen,... ... >=20 > All this being said, god rest the soul of Paul Gardner Allen. He > accomplished a lot of good in his lifetime. >=20 > Sellam Once I let my shock and anger at this settle, I thought of another possibilit= y. Not making any sort of claim that this is how it went, but just throwing = it out there. Man people, once they are up close and personal with their mortality, change = their perspective dramatically. When Allen realized he didn't have long, may= be what had seemed very important suddenly just seemed a waste of time. Or s= omething similar. I've witnessed that sort of thing quite a few times, and e= ven experienced it personally to some degree. And perhaps to someone with hi= s wealth, that mortality is even more shocking. If you are used to getting a= nything and everything you want or need at the wave of a hand, realizing you = are going to die and can't do a damned thing about it must be a real shock. = I'll never know :-) =20 So, maybe, just maybe, he did have that passion to preserve that history. Bu= t when he realized he didn't have long, his perspective changed and he just d= idn't care, whether it was "I just don't care about it any more" or "it's fut= ile to try," either way, he just let it go. As someone (Chuck?) mentioned, many, many things have been lost that are hist= orically significant. Many more will. It's impossible to preserve everythin= g that everyone want to preserve, so it will continue to happen. So perhaps = this end result was intentional. We'll probably never know. Would that make it any better? =20 Will --===============0303852785036914550==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 02:22:44 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:22:13 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6764908184320265068==" --===============6764908184320265068== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I should point out that the Revocable Living Trust as I have developed is only applicable under U.S. law (thanks to Peter C. for having me remember there are many members here not in the USA). At some point I may look into creating similar trust documents for collectors in other countries as applicable in various nations/jurisdictions, but for now this product and service is intended for United States citizens and residents only. Sellam On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 4:50 PM Sellam Abraham wrote: > I think this is an appropriate time for this announcement. > > Over the many years I've been collecting, there have been more than > several instances of a collector dying and their collection effectively > being cast to the wind because their surviving spouse or family members > have no idea what to do with their computer collection. We are all very > aware of this unfortunate phenomenon. > > To that end, I've been developing a Revocable Living Trust (RLT) for > computer collectors. I've been working on this off and on for the past > many months, and though it isn't quite ready yet, this is a good > opportunity to announce my plans. > > The advantages of a RLT are many for the computer collector, including > simplicity, and one's continued access to and enjoyment of their > collections while they are alive. It's a good start, but not a complete > solution, as the effectiveness of the RLT depends on the trustees one has > chosen to carry out their wishes once they've departed the mortal coil. > > That's where what I'm developing comes into play: a multi-modal trustee > services corporation which one can name as (at least one of) their > trustee(s), which in the event of one's demise will immediately launch into > action to protect the trust assets (the computer collection) and distribute > it as per the trust indenture. And so much more. > > The trust indenture itself will be cheap (a nominal $49 is my target > price) but I have yet to work out the execution and pricing for all the > other services that will be offered, which will include actually coming out > to the collection site to secure the collection and handle or assist in its > distribution. > > This message is intended to be a feeler to gauge interest in the product. > To that end, if this is of interest to you, please contact me privately and > let me know. I can actually set you up with the trust documents right > away, as those are basically done at this point, which you can execute and > get notarized, etc. to at least have that protection in place. The > establishment of the trustee services corporation described above will take > a bit more time. > > If I didn't myself fall ill within the last 9 months (heart attack, nearly > died, subsequent heart surgery) I would have already had this ready to go. > The irony of this all has not at all escaped me. Fortunately, my > collection is now covered for when it's my time to go. > > How about you? > > Sellam > --===============6764908184320265068==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 02:27:43 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:27:13 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1279482042494381158==" --===============1279482042494381158== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yeah, fuck yourself, Gene. Delete away. On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:16 PM geneb via cctalk wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > > > The below quoted message is a libel. I have demanded an apology and > > retraction from Eric Moore via e-mail. The ball is in his court. > > > > I was today years old when I found out "libel" is a noun. > > Two things. > > 1. Truth is an affirmative defence against "libel". > > 2. You are apparently exhibiting the symptoms of 3rd Degree Butthurt. You > may want to see a physician about that. > > ...and don't email me directly to vent your spleen at me. It'll either > get deleted out of hand or you'll get an explicitly rude 5.7.1 bounce. > > g. > > -- > Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 > http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. > http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. > Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. > > ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment > A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. > http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_! > --===============1279482042494381158==-- From mooreericnyc@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 02:29:28 2024 From: Eric Moore To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Chumba on discord Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:29:13 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3193050653370293861==" --===============3193050653370293861== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sellam joined the ccmp discord as "Chumba" and, among other things, claimed long covid is not real, and doubled down on similar incendiary topics. When we found out it was Sellam, he complained about getting "doxed". Due to his toxic behaviour, myself and at least 2 others left the discord we had been part of for years. He is now threatening me with legal action, claiming that his behaviour was not trolling, or perhaps that Chumba was not a pseudonym since the server admin apparently knew it was him? So this is to clarify his behaviour was toxic, and resulted in multiple people leaving the discord, before and after they found out who "Chumba" was. Whether that is "trolling" I suppose is up to interpretation. He demanded I not reply to him, so I had to create a new thread. :) -Eric --===============3193050653370293861==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 02:33:47 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Chumba on discord Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:33:17 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1922508503712558509==" --===============1922508503712558509== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:29=E2=80=AFPM Eric Moore via cctalk wrote: > Sellam joined the ccmp discord as "Chumba" and, among other things, claimed > long covid is not real, and doubled down on similar incendiary topics. > > When we found out it was Sellam, he complained about getting "doxed". > > Due to his toxic behaviour, myself and at least 2 others left the discord > we had been part of for years. > > He is now threatening me with legal action, claiming that his behaviour was > not trolling, or perhaps that Chumba was not a pseudonym since the server > admin apparently knew it was him? > > So this is to clarify his behaviour was toxic, and resulted in multiple > people leaving the discord, before and after they found out who "Chumba" > was. Whether that is "trolling" I suppose is up to interpretation. > > He demanded I not reply to him, so I had to create a new thread. :) > > -Eric > All that matters here is that you can defend your statements in a court of law. As indicated privately, I'm providing you 72 hours to publicly retract and apologize. Sellam --===============1922508503712558509==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 02:43:51 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:43:19 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5792103570515605685==" --===============5792103570515605685== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Oops, that wasn't supposed to be public. Oh well. On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:27 PM Sellam Abraham wrote: > Yeah, fuck yourself, Gene. > > Delete away. > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:16 PM geneb via cctalk > wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: >> >> > The below quoted message is a libel. I have demanded an apology and >> > retraction from Eric Moore via e-mail. The ball is in his court. >> > >> >> I was today years old when I found out "libel" is a noun. >> >> Two things. >> >> 1. Truth is an affirmative defence against "libel". >> >> 2. You are apparently exhibiting the symptoms of 3rd Degree Butthurt. >> You >> may want to see a physician about that. >> >> ...and don't email me directly to vent your spleen at me. It'll either >> get deleted out of hand or you'll get an explicitly rude 5.7.1 bounce. >> >> g. >> >> -- >> Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 >> http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. >> http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. >> Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. >> >> ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment >> A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. >> http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_! >> > --===============5792103570515605685==-- From js@cimmeri.com Wed Jun 26 02:47:14 2024 From: js@cimmeri.com To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Chumba on discord Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:44:28 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7010486353107363006==" --===============7010486353107363006== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm not involved, Sellam, but just the ignore the trolls.=C2=A0 Life is too=20 short. On 6/25/2024 9:33 PM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:29=E2=80=AFPM Eric Moore via cctalk > wrote: > >> Sellam joined the ccmp discord as "Chumba" and, among other things, claimed >> long covid is not real, and doubled down on similar incendiary topics. >> >> When we found out it was Sellam, he complained about getting "doxed". >> >> Due to his toxic behaviour, myself and at least 2 others left the discord >> we had been part of for years. >> >> He is now threatening me with legal action, claiming that his behaviour was >> not trolling, or perhaps that Chumba was not a pseudonym since the server >> admin apparently knew it was him? >> >> So this is to clarify his behaviour was toxic, and resulted in multiple >> people leaving the discord, before and after they found out who "Chumba" >> was. Whether that is "trolling" I suppose is up to interpretation. >> >> He demanded I not reply to him, so I had to create a new thread. :) >> >> -Eric >> > All that matters here is that you can defend your statements in a court of > law. > > As indicated privately, I'm providing you 72 hours to publicly retract and > apologize. > > Sellam --===============7010486353107363006==-- From cclist@sydex.com Wed Jun 26 02:56:27 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:56:17 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <667b6f08.01vDzL8ENI+/XRJ4%phil@regressive.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8825965038834839836==" --===============8825965038834839836== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/25/24 18:29, phil--- via cctalk wrote: > > Nope. LCM had a KI-10, ISTR it was half of a dual CPU system from > Kiel. When I visted there was a 2060 and a 2065, as well as a KS. > I understand that later they acquired a KA and the MIT-MC KL (1080). Please pardon the side trip on this thread, but something surfaced from the muck otherwise known as my memory. I remember my friend, Debbie, who worked as a CE for DEC back in the primordial ages, made a big deal about the Super Foonly. Have any working Foonly systems survived? --Chuck --===============8825965038834839836==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 02:57:38 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Chumba on discord Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:57:08 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1176729201556182504==" --===============1176729201556182504== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:47 PM js--- via cctalk wrote: > > I'm not involved, Sellam, but just the ignore the trolls. Life is too > short. > I would agree, but this is apparently a long-running beef between me and people I don't even know, including this Eric guy, who use every opportunity to take potshots at me for some grievance I've apparently committed against them. And I believe it was done maliciously to cause me harm, being that he came out of the blue and posted that in response to something I am offering to the community that I believe is very beneficial. Trolling I can overlook, libel I cannot. Thanks for the note. Sellam --===============1176729201556182504==-- From cz@alembic.crystel.com Wed Jun 26 03:52:15 2024 From: cz To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 23:52:09 -0400 Message-ID: <21ba8eac-4c90-4293-be3a-eb0945756455@alembic.crystel.com> In-Reply-To: <667b6f08.01vDzL8ENI+/XRJ4%phil@regressive.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4720422289120381268==" --===============4720422289120381268== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Nope. LCM had a KI-10, ISTR it was half of a dual CPU system from > Kiel. When I visted there was a 2060 and a 2065, as well as a KS. > I understand that later they acquired a KA and the MIT-MC KL (1080). Yep, my error. I saw the picture in Christie's and thought "Heh, they picked the shiny cup" which is not really that important. This will be fun to watch. We should take turns watching the dumpster outside LCS for all the stuff that "isn't worth Christie's". Also this is a classic time to try and keep stories straight as the research and provenance done on this stuff will be hilarious. Such is the way of "museums" CZ --===============4720422289120381268==-- From thedestructionchannel2000@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 04:22:48 2024 From: CJ Reha To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Chumba on discord Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:22:32 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3255869054594606701==" --===============3255869054594606701== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Who gives a shit? - squidward On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 10:29 PM Eric Moore via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > Sellam joined the ccmp discord as "Chumba" and, among other things, claimed > long covid is not real, and doubled down on similar incendiary topics. > > When we found out it was Sellam, he complained about getting "doxed". > > Due to his toxic behaviour, myself and at least 2 others left the discord > we had been part of for years. > > He is now threatening me with legal action, claiming that his behaviour was > not trolling, or perhaps that Chumba was not a pseudonym since the server > admin apparently knew it was him? > > So this is to clarify his behaviour was toxic, and resulted in multiple > people leaving the discord, before and after they found out who "Chumba" > was. Whether that is "trolling" I suppose is up to interpretation. > > He demanded I not reply to him, so I had to create a new thread. :) > > -Eric > --===============3255869054594606701==-- From tommyeg@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 04:27:17 2024 From: Thomas G To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Chumba on discord Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:26:36 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8288036156118134320==" --===============8288036156118134320== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agreed. Keep this OT first-time-on-the-internet drama out of my inbox, please. - squidward On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:22=E2=80=AFAM CJ Reha via cctalk wrote: > Who gives a shit? > > - squidward > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 10:29=E2=80=AFPM Eric Moore via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > Sellam joined the ccmp discord as "Chumba" and, among other things, > claimed > > long covid is not real, and doubled down on similar incendiary topics. > > > > When we found out it was Sellam, he complained about getting "doxed". > > > > Due to his toxic behaviour, myself and at least 2 others left the discord > > we had been part of for years. > > > > He is now threatening me with legal action, claiming that his behaviour > was > > not trolling, or perhaps that Chumba was not a pseudonym since the server > > admin apparently knew it was him? > > > > So this is to clarify his behaviour was toxic, and resulted in multiple > > people leaving the discord, before and after they found out who "Chumba" > > was. Whether that is "trolling" I suppose is up to interpretation. > > > > He demanded I not reply to him, so I had to create a new thread. :) > > > > -Eric > > > --===============8288036156118134320==-- From aloha@blastpuppy.com Wed Jun 26 04:33:52 2024 From: Robert Johnson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: wanted: HP-UX 11i v1 (11.11) install media or images Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 23:33:36 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6320156171536110405==" --===============6320156171536110405== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I=E2=80=99m all but certain that the 16500 series is a 68k not PA-RISC though. Robert Johnson --- Telegram: @alohawolf Telephone:+1-206-683-5108 C*NET: 18219881 Email:aloha(a)blastpuppy.com --=20 "Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the= danger of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of "crackpot"= than the stigma of conformity." - Thomas J. Watson Sr. > On Jun 20, 2024, at 04:15, Eric Smith via cctalk = wrote: >=20 > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 2:13=E2=80=AFAM Adrian Godwin via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: >=20 >> I'm interested in this. I'm looking at the bottom end, the bus and cards, >> but there may be information we can share. >>=20 >=20 > That's where I'm starting, too. I'm using a 16500A (rather than a B, C, or > 1670x) because it should be much simpler to figure out how the processor > accesses the registers and memory of the modules. Then it should be > possible to build something like a USB4 PCIe alternate mode interface to > the analyzer backplane, replacing the analyzer's CPU card. >=20 > I don't intend to reverse-engineer details of how the modules actually > work. Instead, I want to run the real 16700 software in simulation or > binary translation on a PC. >=20 > The tricky part is going to be figuring out how the module correlation > circuitry on the CPU board works, because my plan requires reproducing that. --===============6320156171536110405==-- From drb@msu.edu Wed Jun 26 04:34:54 2024 From: Dennis Boone To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Chumba on discord Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:34:49 -0400 Message-ID: <20240626043449.A659D510BFA@yagi.h-net.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3133782134168743829==" --===============3133782134168743829== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, This thread needs to end here, please. I'd rather not have to break out the emergency moderation flag and the banhammer. De --===============3133782134168743829==-- From lars@nocrew.org Wed Jun 26 05:56:30 2024 From: Lars Brinkhoff To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 05:56:24 +0000 Message-ID: <7w4j9gb62f.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5501928389415056850==" --===============5501928389415056850== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chuck Guzis wrote: > I remember my friend, Debbie, who worked as a CE for DEC back in the > primordial ages, made a big deal about the Super Foonly. > > Have any working Foonly systems survived? The Stanford Super Foonly was designed, but never built. The project ran out of ARPA funding in the earl 70s. There may or may not be SUDS drawing and/or microcode in the Saildart archives. There was ever only one Foonly F1. It was used in movie production, but no one knows where it ended up. I have seen bits and pieces of the smaller Foonlies in musems catalogs and such. I doubt there's anything complete enough to be considered working. But who knows, there were a few made and maybe one will pop up from somewhere eventually. Software wise, besides running the standard PDP-10 stuff. There is a copy of Foonex, the Foonly hacked TENEX, on Bitsavers. There is also microcode for the F2, and it even comes with a working assembler should anyone want to hack it. WAITS can run on a Foonly. --===============5501928389415056850==-- From lars@nocrew.org Wed Jun 26 06:06:48 2024 From: Lars Brinkhoff To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Foolishness, I mean Foonlyness Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 06:06:42 +0000 Message-ID: <7wzfr89r0t.fsf_-_@junk.nocrew.org> In-Reply-To: <7w4j9gb62f.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6682592300412952800==" --===============6682592300412952800== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Chuck Guzis wrote: >> I remember my friend, Debbie, who worked as a CE for DEC back in the >> primordial ages, made a big deal about the Super Foonly. >> >> Have any working Foonly systems survived? > > Software wise Oh, and I forgot. There's a bunch of Foonly stuff from Tymshare/Tymnet. Maybe on SRI tapes too, ARC/NLS stuff. --===============6682592300412952800==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Wed Jun 26 13:02:43 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: =?utf-8?q?Seattle=E2=80=99s?= Living Computers Museum logs off for good as Paul Allen estate will auction vintage items Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:02:33 -0400 Message-ID: <0215DA41-22E2-47D8-A1D4-A787CAB877E2@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8503257479146253932==" --===============8503257479146253932== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 25, 2024, at 8:11 PM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: >=20 > ... > How do we even know for sure that his sister, Jody, is actually the legal > executor to his estate? I think that's a bit of a silly question. For one thing, "executor" is a sta= tus assigned by a probate court, and courts usually don't just make stuff up.= For another, one thing auction houses take extremely seriously is "provenan= ce" which amounts to "what, precisely, is the thing being auctioned, and how = did it come to be the property of the owner?" If there's doubt about proper = title, it's not likely a shop like Christie's would touch the thing. paul --===============8503257479146253932==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Wed Jun 26 13:04:24 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:04:17 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3576499264188780809==" --===============3576499264188780809== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 25, 2024, at 10:11 PM, geneb via cctalk wr= ote: >=20 > On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: >=20 >> The below quoted message is a libel. I have demanded an apology and >> retraction from Eric Moore via e-mail. The ball is in his court. >>=20 >=20 > I was today years old when I found out "libel" is a noun. >=20 > Two things. >=20 > 1. Truth is an affirmative defence against "libel". That depends on the country. What you say is correct in the USA; I have the = impression it isn't in the UK. paul --===============3576499264188780809==-- From vaxorcist@googlemail.com Wed Jun 26 13:40:02 2024 From: Hans-Ulrich =?utf-8?q?H=C3=B6lscher?= To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:39:44 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3686266316854022771==" --===============3686266316854022771== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Although my collection does not contain any particularly rare computers, I am still interested in the RLT. I live in Germany and therefore need a version adapted to German law. Thank you for your efforts! Ulli Am Mi., 26. Juni 2024 um 04:22 Uhr schrieb Sellam Abraham via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>: > I should point out that the Revocable Living Trust as I have developed is > only applicable under U.S. law (thanks to Peter C. for having me remember > there are many members here not in the USA). > > At some point I may look into creating similar trust documents for > collectors in other countries as applicable in various > nations/jurisdictions, but for now this product and service is intended for > United States citizens and residents only. > > Sellam > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 4:50 PM Sellam Abraham > wrote: > > > I think this is an appropriate time for this announcement. > > > > Over the many years I've been collecting, there have been more than > > several instances of a collector dying and their collection effectively > > being cast to the wind because their surviving spouse or family members > > have no idea what to do with their computer collection. We are all very > > aware of this unfortunate phenomenon. > > > > To that end, I've been developing a Revocable Living Trust (RLT) for > > computer collectors. I've been working on this off and on for the past > > many months, and though it isn't quite ready yet, this is a good > > opportunity to announce my plans. > > > > The advantages of a RLT are many for the computer collector, including > > simplicity, and one's continued access to and enjoyment of their > > collections while they are alive. It's a good start, but not a complete > > solution, as the effectiveness of the RLT depends on the trustees one has > > chosen to carry out their wishes once they've departed the mortal coil. > > > > That's where what I'm developing comes into play: a multi-modal trustee > > services corporation which one can name as (at least one of) their > > trustee(s), which in the event of one's demise will immediately launch > into > > action to protect the trust assets (the computer collection) and > distribute > > it as per the trust indenture. And so much more. > > > > The trust indenture itself will be cheap (a nominal $49 is my target > > price) but I have yet to work out the execution and pricing for all the > > other services that will be offered, which will include actually coming > out > > to the collection site to secure the collection and handle or assist in > its > > distribution. > > > > This message is intended to be a feeler to gauge interest in the product. > > To that end, if this is of interest to you, please contact me privately > and > > let me know. I can actually set you up with the trust documents right > > away, as those are basically done at this point, which you can execute > and > > get notarized, etc. to at least have that protection in place. The > > establishment of the trustee services corporation described above will > take > > a bit more time. > > > > If I didn't myself fall ill within the last 9 months (heart attack, > nearly > > died, subsequent heart surgery) I would have already had this ready to > go. > > The irony of this all has not at all escaped me. Fortunately, my > > collection is now covered for when it's my time to go. > > > > How about you? > > > > Sellam > > > --===============3686266316854022771==-- From geneb@deltasoft.com Wed Jun 26 14:01:25 2024 From: geneb To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:01:18 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0907798669816347691==" --===============0907798669816347691== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Paul Koning wrote: >> 1. Truth is an affirmative defence against "libel". > > That depends on the country. What you say is correct in the USA; I have th= e impression it isn't in the UK. > Absolutely. The UK enjoys heavily weaponized butthurt. ;) g. --=20 Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_! --===============0907798669816347691==-- From a.carlini@ntlworld.com Wed Jun 26 14:46:01 2024 From: Antonio Carlini To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:32:44 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1010983763155621617==" --===============1010983763155621617== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 26/06/2024 15:01, geneb via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Paul Koning wrote: > >>> 1. Truth is an affirmative defence against "libel". >> >> That depends on the country.  What you say is correct in the USA; I >> have the impression it isn't in the UK. >> > > Absolutely.  The UK enjoys heavily weaponized butthurt. ;) > I've never been in legal proceedings on either side of the courtroom, so take this with a pinch of salt, but the very first reasonable link that Google threw out would seem to suggest that, at least in this case, the weapon is both blunt and crumbly: https://www.carruthers-law.co.uk/our-services/defamation/defamation-defences/ I think that where it differs from (some) other systems is that if you are the defendant then it is up to you to prove the truth of the statement rather than up to the plaintiff to prove that it is not true. Then again, if you win, you generally get your legal expenses paid by the other side. So swings and roundabouts. None of this is legal advice and if things were this easy then lawyers would be starving. Ones man's truth ... Antonio -- Antonio Carlini antonio(a)acarlini.com --===============1010983763155621617==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 14:52:43 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 10:52:24 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2214837781708622206==" --===============2214837781708622206== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 10:01 AM geneb via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Paul Koning wrote: > > >> 1. Truth is an affirmative defence against "libel". > > > > That depends on the country. What you say is correct in the USA; I have > the impression it isn't in the UK. > > > > Absolutely. The UK enjoys heavily weaponized butthurt. ;) > > g. > > Paul Allen should have given the items to the curators of the museum upon his death. If preservation is the goal anyway. To that end, he could have ID'd specific items and detailed who gets what. Set a provision that discourages the recipient from selling the items. For example a clause where 85% of the proceeds of a given item would go to a charitable trust if sold within the first 5 years. Whatever works. The Allen family does not need another million or so dollars, which will be spent in a heartbeat. So many of these items will end up on a shelf, never to be used properly again. What gets lost is the ephemera, the details and less-valuable bits that only a historian would value. The on-going process of moving an entire small computer museum (Kennett Classic) including re-curating/integration of the exhibits is a huge effort that requires a lot of expertise and physical labor (re-racking DEC server components, etc.). The "value" is quickly lost if the collection becomes a pile. I/we have been working through every document, every part, every item. I could only imagine moving the Living History Museum. OMG I had a lot of help, and the inventory/museum moved was about 3000 sq feet of space. All of which must be climate controlled. We liquidated about 10 shelving units of various items and put another 10 in storage as "maybe needed or sell?" categorization. My rule has always been, if an item comes in something has to go out. Keeps the inventory at a steady level but improving quality. It's not as simple as just making a living will or a trust for your collection. HIstorical computers are not stock portfolios. The storage and management costs outweigh the value over time. I have been on a lot of computer rescues and I have seen what happens to lifetime collections. Families don't want the effort of dealing with heavy old computers and collections often spend the last 30 years in a shed in the back, attic, or musty basement. The "value" disintegrates quickly. I honestly believe it's better to give away / sell off your items before you lose the ability to do so. Disburse to multiple persons. Large collections are too tough to transition unless you have the resources. Bill --===============2214837781708622206==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 15:17:53 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 08:17:21 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5381776703378198843==" --===============5381776703378198843== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 7:52 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > It's not as simple as just making a living will or a trust for your > collection. HIstorical computers are not stock portfolios. The storage > and management costs outweigh the value over time. I have been on a lot of > computer rescues and I have seen what happens to lifetime collections. > Families don't want the effort of dealing with heavy old computers and > collections often spend the last 30 years in a shed in the back, attic, or > musty basement. The "value" disintegrates quickly. > ... > Bill > That is where the "back office" part of what I'm working on comes into play. I'm working to put in place a team/staff that will be able to travel out to where the collection is and handle the disgorgement for the surviving spouse or family. But as I mentioned, this is still a ways away. For now, I can offer the trust documents needed to at least put instructions in place in the event of one's untimely demise. It's a start. Sellam --===============5381776703378198843==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 15:32:40 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:32:21 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5222955695265373235==" --===============5222955695265373235== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:29 AM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 7:52 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > > It's not as simple as just making a living will or a trust for your > > collection. HIstorical computers are not stock portfolios. The storage > > and management costs outweigh the value over time. I have been on a lot > of > > computer rescues and I have seen what happens to lifetime collections. > > Families don't want the effort of dealing with heavy old computers and > > collections often spend the last 30 years in a shed in the back, attic, > or > > musty basement. The "value" disintegrates quickly. > > > ... > > Bill > > > > That is where the "back office" part of what I'm working on comes into > play. I'm working to put in place a team/staff that will be able to travel > out to where the collection is and handle the disgorgement for the > surviving spouse or family. But as I mentioned, this is still a ways > away. For now, I can offer the trust documents needed to at least put > instructions in place in the event of one's untimely demise. It's a start. > > Sellam > I would start with the biggest collectors who can afford to do it right. Bill --===============5222955695265373235==-- From kirkbdavis@me.com Wed Jun 26 15:58:29 2024 From: Kirk Davis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Chumba on discord Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 08:50:37 -0700 Message-ID: <6C850C35-F880-4C1B-827B-ED8FA80C89D1@me.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0985205373093151090==" --===============0985205373093151090== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2nd this. Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 25, 2024, at 7:47=E2=80=AFPM, js--- via cctalk wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BF > I'm not involved, Sellam, but just the ignore the trolls. Life is too shor= t. >=20 >=20 >> On 6/25/2024 9:33 PM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:29=E2=80=AFPM Eric Moore via cctalk >> wrote: >>=20 >>> Sellam joined the ccmp discord as "Chumba" and, among other things, claim= ed >>> long covid is not real, and doubled down on similar incendiary topics. >>>=20 >>> When we found out it was Sellam, he complained about getting "doxed". >>>=20 >>> Due to his toxic behaviour, myself and at least 2 others left the discord >>> we had been part of for years. >>>=20 >>> He is now threatening me with legal action, claiming that his behaviour w= as >>> not trolling, or perhaps that Chumba was not a pseudonym since the server >>> admin apparently knew it was him? >>>=20 >>> So this is to clarify his behaviour was toxic, and resulted in multiple >>> people leaving the discord, before and after they found out who "Chumba" >>> was. Whether that is "trolling" I suppose is up to interpretation. >>>=20 >>> He demanded I not reply to him, so I had to create a new thread. :) >>>=20 >>> -Eric >>>=20 >> All that matters here is that you can defend your statements in a court of >> law. >>=20 >> As indicated privately, I'm providing you 72 hours to publicly retract and >> apologize. >>=20 >> Sellam >=20 >=20 --===============0985205373093151090==-- From brad@techtimetraveller.com Wed Jun 26 16:01:33 2024 From: brad To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:01:25 -0700 Message-ID: <667c3b56.050a0220.490de.16b3@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5143810559855483657==" --===============5143810559855483657== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have thought about this a lot.. and as I begin to creep into my 50s and exp= erience real aging and the health issues that sometimes come with that, I am = giving serious thought to liquidating well before I die.=C2=A0 Even at very c= onservative average ebay values I've got a lot of money tied up in this mess.= =C2=A0 I don't even want to think what I've spent to have FedEx make their be= st attempts at parcel destruction over the years.I don't want to leave it to = my family to dispose of all this stuff at a future time when possibly my gene= ration is shuffling off this world and prices start to crater, as I suspect t= hey will for most of it eventually. I can see some GenZ and on down taking an= interest in vintage machines but not nearly enough to hold up a price floor.= It's either that or instruct they be entombed in my mausoleum with me, for th= e enjoyment of future grave robbers/treasure hunters.BSent from my Galaxy -------- Original message --------From: Bill Degnan via cctalk Date: 2024-06-26 8:32=E2=80=AFa.m. (GMT-08:00) To: "General Dis= cussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Cc: Bill Deg= nan Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for= Computer Collectors On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:29=E2=80=AFAM Sellam Abraham = via cctalk wrote:> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 7:52=E2= =80=AFAM Bill Degnan via cctalk <> cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:>> >> > It'= s not as simple as just making a living will or a trust for your> > collectio= n.=C2=A0=C2=A0 HIstorical computers are not stock portfolios.=C2=A0 The stora= ge> > and management costs outweigh the value over time.=C2=A0 I have been on= a lot> of> > computer rescues and I have seen what happens to lifetime colle= ctions.> > Families don't want the effort of dealing with heavy old computers= and> > collections often spend the last 30 years in a shed in the back, atti= c,> or> > musty basement.=C2=A0 The "value" disintegrates quickly.> >> ...> >= Bill> >>> That is where the "back office" part of what I'm working on comes = into> play.=C2=A0 I'm working to put in place a team/staff that will be able = to travel> out to where the collection is and handle the disgorgement for the= > surviving spouse or family.=C2=A0 But as I mentioned, this is still a ways>= away.=C2=A0 For now, I can offer the trust documents needed to at least put>= instructions in place in the event of one's untimely demise.=C2=A0 It's a st= art.>> Sellam>I would start with the biggest collectors who can afford to do = it right.Bill --===============5143810559855483657==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 16:09:24 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:08:53 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <667c3b56.050a0220.490de.16b3@mx.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1188792241949940986==" --===============1188792241949940986== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:01 AM brad via cctalk wrote: > I have thought about this a lot.. and as I begin to creep into my 50s and > experience real aging and the health issues that sometimes come with that, > I am giving serious thought to liquidating well before I die. Even at very > conservative average ebay values I've got a lot of money tied up in this > mess. I don't even want to think what I've spent to have FedEx make their > best attempts at parcel destruction over the years.I don't want to leave it > to my family to dispose of all this stuff at a future time when possibly my > generation is shuffling off this world and prices start to crater, as I > suspect they will for most of it eventually. I can see some GenZ and on > down taking an interest in vintage machines but not nearly enough to hold > up a price floor.It's either that or instruct they be entombed in my > mausoleum with me, for the enjoyment of future grave robbers/treasure > hunters.BSent from my Galaxy > I used to think this as well (the hobby will wane, along with interest in these old machines, much like what happened with the vintage radio hobby) but I see a different phenomenon developing here: vintage computer collecting is bigger than ever, and growing. New YT channels pop up almost every week. The VCFs are getting increasingly larger crowds attending, and there are more VCFs. Time will tell, but I see a trend emerging, and I'll be speaking on it at VCF events as I continue to explore what I see happening. I now believe the next computer revolution will come as a result of this hobby. Sellam --===============1188792241949940986==-- From teoz@neo.rr.com Wed Jun 26 16:31:36 2024 From: Teo Zenios To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:31:28 -0400 Message-ID: <42E95528EB6F42BC9567330F081DE7CD@i54570THINK> In-Reply-To: <667c3b56.050a0220.490de.16b3@mx.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5898692635231286309==" --===============5898692635231286309== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ditching a collection is a full time job. It took you so many years to put it together and it will take the same amount of time to part it out if you expect to get any real money out of it (unless you sell the most wanted items and recycle the rest). -----Original Message----- From: brad via cctalk Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 12:01 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Cc: brad Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors I have thought about this a lot.. and as I begin to creep into my 50s and experience real aging and the health issues that sometimes come with that, I am giving serious thought to liquidating well before I die. Even at very conservative average ebay values I've got a lot of money tied up in this mess. I don't even want to think what I've spent to have FedEx make their best attempts at parcel destruction over the years.I don't want to leave it to my family to dispose of all this stuff at a future time when possibly my generation is shuffling off this world and prices start to crater, as I suspect they will for most of it eventually. I can see some GenZ and on down taking an interest in vintage machines but not nearly enough to hold up a price floor.It's either that or instruct they be entombed in my mausoleum with me, for the enjoyment of future grave robbers/treasure hunters.BSent from my Galaxy -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com --===============5898692635231286309==-- From dave.g4ugm@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 16:49:04 2024 From: dave.g4ugm@gmail.com To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 17:48:56 +0100 Message-ID: <351e01dac7e8$bc62c2a0$352847e0$@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8917313561619916682==" --===============8917313561619916682== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I really can't see how this would work. I see the big problem being one that = Sellam has faced before, that is paying for storage for the stuff. You can put whatever you want in a trust document, but how do you pay for the= storage or stop someone simply trashing it. Unless there is something of exceptional value in the collection then are you= r trustees really going to court over this? Is anyone going to accept being a trustee if they are limited in how they can= dispose of their collection? If Sellams spread sheet of items for sale is still up for sale, then some ite= ms have been there for seven years.... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I53wxarLHlNmlPVf_HJ5oMKuab4zrApI_hiX0= pNmy48/edit?pli=3D1&fbclid=3DIwAR29aeaPInesPowqSLeq_ElmtOwSThjfRAJyW9T_oN6mnj= PPt4wO1CchMGQ#gid=3D0&range=3DA1=20 ... I really think the only way to have any say is to dispose of your item yo= urself.... .. and not to museums which need to make money to survive... Dave G4UGM =20 p.s. In the UK still trying to dispose of VAX Station 3100/30(Working), HP Pl= otter(Working), AlphaServer 2100 (Does not power up) Also some Q-Bus cards.=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Sellam Abraham via cctalk > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 12:51 AM > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Cc: Sellam Abraham > Subject: [cctalk] Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors >=20 > I think this is an appropriate time for this announcement. >=20 > Over the many years I've been collecting, there have been more than several > instances of a collector dying and their collection effectively being cast = to the > wind because their surviving spouse or family members have no idea what to = do > with their computer collection. We are all very aware of this unfortunate > phenomenon. >=20 > To that end, I've been developing a Revocable Living Trust (RLT) for comput= er > collectors. I've been working on this off and on for the past many months,= and > though it isn't quite ready yet, this is a good opportunity to announce my = plans. >=20 > The advantages of a RLT are many for the computer collector, including > simplicity, and one's continued access to and enjoyment of their collections > while they are alive. It's a good start, but not a complete solution, as t= he > effectiveness of the RLT depends on the trustees one has chosen to carry out > their wishes once they've departed the mortal coil. >=20 > That's where what I'm developing comes into play: a multi-modal trustee > services corporation which one can name as (at least one of) their trustee(= s), > which in the event of one's demise will immediately launch into action to p= rotect > the trust assets (the computer collection) and distribute it as per the tru= st > indenture. And so much more. >=20 > The trust indenture itself will be cheap (a nominal $49 is my target price)= but I > have yet to work out the execution and pricing for all the other services t= hat will > be offered, which will include actually coming out to the collection site t= o secure > the collection and handle or assist in its distribution. >=20 > This message is intended to be a feeler to gauge interest in the product. > To that end, if this is of interest to you, please contact me privately and= let me > know. I can actually set you up with the trust documents right away, as th= ose > are basically done at this point, which you can execute and get notarized, = etc. to > at least have that protection in place. The establishment of the trustee s= ervices > corporation described above will take a bit more time. >=20 > If I didn't myself fall ill within the last 9 months (heart attack, nearly = died, > subsequent heart surgery) I would have already had this ready to go. > The irony of this all has not at all escaped me. Fortunately, my collectio= n is now > covered for when it's my time to go. >=20 > How about you? >=20 > Sellam --===============8917313561619916682==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 17:00:22 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:59:49 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <42E95528EB6F42BC9567330F081DE7CD@i54570THINK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9127994963064034194==" --===============9127994963064034194== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:31=E2=80=AFAM Teo Zenios via cctalk wrote: > Ditching a collection is a full time job. It took you so many years to put > it together and it will take the same amount of time to part it out if you > expect to get any real money out of it (unless you sell the most wanted > items and recycle the rest). > This is very true, as I discovered when I began selling off (what remained of) my collection in 2017. I thought I'd get it all out in a year or so. It's been 7 years and I'm still at it, with no real end in sight. Granted I haven't been working on it diligently, and I still ended up with 40 pallets of stuff after the Great Vintage Computing Heist of 2012, but disgorging a large collection is in fact a major undertaking, unless you're willing to sell it all at one price, and can find such a buyer to take it in one lot. Sellam --===============9127994963064034194==-- From vaxorcist@googlemail.com Wed Jun 26 17:02:24 2024 From: Hans-Ulrich =?utf-8?q?H=C3=B6lscher?= To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:02:08 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <351e01dac7e8$bc62c2a0$352847e0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6556883000060534733==" --===============6556883000060534733== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable May I ask what Qbus cards? I still need some for my MicroVAXen and my MicroPDPs ... Dave Wade G4UGM via cctalk schrieb am Mi., 26. Juni 2024, 18:49: > I really can't see how this would work. I see the big problem being one > that Sellam has faced before, that is paying for storage for the stuff. > You can put whatever you want in a trust document, but how do you pay for > the storage or stop someone simply trashing it. > Unless there is something of exceptional value in the collection then are > your trustees really going to court over this? > Is anyone going to accept being a trustee if they are limited in how they > can dispose of their collection? > If Sellams spread sheet of items for sale is still up for sale, then some > items have been there for seven years.... > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I53wxarLHlNmlPVf_HJ5oMKuab4zrApI_hi= X0pNmy48/edit?pli=3D1&fbclid=3DIwAR29aeaPInesPowqSLeq_ElmtOwSThjfRAJyW9T_oN6m= njPPt4wO1CchMGQ#gid=3D0&range=3DA1 > > ... I really think the only way to have any say is to dispose of your item > yourself.... > .. and not to museums which need to make money to survive... > > Dave > G4UGM > > p.s. In the UK still trying to dispose of VAX Station 3100/30(Working), HP > Plotter(Working), AlphaServer 2100 (Does not power up) > Also some Q-Bus cards. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sellam Abraham via cctalk > > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 12:51 AM > > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> > > Cc: Sellam Abraham > > Subject: [cctalk] Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors > > > > I think this is an appropriate time for this announcement. > > > > Over the many years I've been collecting, there have been more than > several > > instances of a collector dying and their collection effectively being > cast to the > > wind because their surviving spouse or family members have no idea what > to do > > with their computer collection. We are all very aware of this > unfortunate > > phenomenon. > > > > To that end, I've been developing a Revocable Living Trust (RLT) for > computer > > collectors. I've been working on this off and on for the past many > months, and > > though it isn't quite ready yet, this is a good opportunity to announce > my plans. > > > > The advantages of a RLT are many for the computer collector, including > > simplicity, and one's continued access to and enjoyment of their > collections > > while they are alive. It's a good start, but not a complete solution, > as the > > effectiveness of the RLT depends on the trustees one has chosen to carry > out > > their wishes once they've departed the mortal coil. > > > > That's where what I'm developing comes into play: a multi-modal trustee > > services corporation which one can name as (at least one of) their > trustee(s), > > which in the event of one's demise will immediately launch into action > to protect > > the trust assets (the computer collection) and distribute it as per the > trust > > indenture. And so much more. > > > > The trust indenture itself will be cheap (a nominal $49 is my target > price) but I > > have yet to work out the execution and pricing for all the other > services that will > > be offered, which will include actually coming out to the collection > site to secure > > the collection and handle or assist in its distribution. > > > > This message is intended to be a feeler to gauge interest in the product. > > To that end, if this is of interest to you, please contact me privately > and let me > > know. I can actually set you up with the trust documents right away, as > those > > are basically done at this point, which you can execute and get > notarized, etc. to > > at least have that protection in place. The establishment of the > trustee services > > corporation described above will take a bit more time. > > > > If I didn't myself fall ill within the last 9 months (heart attack, > nearly died, > > subsequent heart surgery) I would have already had this ready to go. > > The irony of this all has not at all escaped me. Fortunately, my > collection is now > > covered for when it's my time to go. > > > > How about you? > > > > Sellam > > --===============6556883000060534733==-- From teoz@neo.rr.com Wed Jun 26 21:04:37 2024 From: Teo Zenios To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 17:04:24 -0400 Message-ID: <88BB02C2D7514B489CA9152FAC514507@i54570THINK> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0116787824931272390==" --===============0116787824931272390== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit When you sell it as a lot all you are doing is taking pennies on the dollar and the buyer gets all the profit. If collecting starts to decline the buyer still makes money, if the hobby goes up they make even more money. The issue starts to suck more if you actually paid a pretty penny for your collectables and then want to cash out. Plenty of people started collecting what was pretty much trash (before e-waste was even a thing and Ebay didn't exist yet) and those people will make out well either way. I remember as a teen going to a coin/stamp shop and seeing people in suits show up to buy the place out with a suitcase full of cash for maybe $15% of catalog value when stamp collecting was going crazy in the early 1980's. Granted he probably would have been better off auctioning his best stuff at that time and burning the rest as collecting has been going down every year since (except for some rarities here and there). -----Original Message----- From: Sellam Abraham via cctalk Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 12:59 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Cc: Sellam Abraham Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:31 AM Teo Zenios via cctalk wrote: > Ditching a collection is a full time job. It took you so many years to put > it together and it will take the same amount of time to part it out if you > expect to get any real money out of it (unless you sell the most wanted > items and recycle the rest). > This is very true, as I discovered when I began selling off (what remained of) my collection in 2017. I thought I'd get it all out in a year or so. It's been 7 years and I'm still at it, with no real end in sight. Granted I haven't been working on it diligently, and I still ended up with 40 pallets of stuff after the Great Vintage Computing Heist of 2012, but disgorging a large collection is in fact a major undertaking, unless you're willing to sell it all at one price, and can find such a buyer to take it in one lot. Sellam -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com --===============0116787824931272390==-- From barythrin@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 21:24:14 2024 From: John Herron To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] SMECC museum status Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 16:23:59 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8517298321300357088==" --===============8517298321300357088== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit While we're on the topic of the fate of collections and museums, does anyone know if SMECC (Southwest Museum of Engineering, Communications and Computation) is ok? I'm unaware if there was staff outside of Ed Sharpe (who respectfully rests in piece). --===============8517298321300357088==-- From healyzh@avanthar.com Wed Jun 26 22:04:59 2024 From: Zane Healy To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: SMECC museum status Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:04:42 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7389333701420258208==" --===============7389333701420258208== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jun 26, 2024, at 2:23 PM, John Herron via cctalk = wrote: >=20 > While we're on the topic of the fate of collections and museums, does > anyone know if SMECC (Southwest Museum of Engineering, Communications and > Computation) is ok? I'm unaware if there was staff outside of Ed Sharpe > (who respectfully rests in piece). I did a double-take on this, and checked the mailing list. I=E2=80=99d misse= d the word that he=E2=80=99d passed away on June 1st. He will be missed. Zane --===============7389333701420258208==-- From glen.slick@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 23:40:15 2024 From: Glen Slick To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: SMECC museum status Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 16:39:59 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3056207170218339663==" --===============3056207170218339663== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 3:14=E2=80=AFPM Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: > On Jun 26, 2024, at 2:23 PM, John Herron via cctalk > wrote: > > > > While we're on the topic of the fate of collections and museums, does > > anyone know if SMECC (Southwest Museum of Engineering, Communications and > > Computation) is ok? I'm unaware if there was staff outside of Ed Sharpe > > (who respectfully rests in piece). > > I did a double-take on this, and checked the mailing list. I=E2=80=99d mis= sed the > word that he=E2=80=99d passed away on June 1st. He will be missed. > > Zane > Were there any posts about that on this list? I didn't see that either. https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/glendale-az/edward-sharpe-11846518 > --===============3056207170218339663==-- From cisin@xenosoft.com Wed Jun 26 23:51:26 2024 From: Fred Cisin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: SMECC museum status Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 16:51:20 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8083320121572982064==" --===============8083320121572982064== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Glen Slick via cctalk wrote: > Were there any posts about that on this list? I didn't see that either. > https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/glendale-az/edward-sharpe-118465= 18 Here is what was on the list: Subject: Re: [cctalk] Fwd: [GreenKeys] FW: [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK On Sat, 15 Jun 2024, Eric Moore via cctalk wrote: > FYI, RIP Ed > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: W2HX > Date: Sat, Jun 15, 2024, 1:22~@PM > Subject: [GreenKeys] FW: [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK > To: Greenkeys > > FYI > > 73 Eugene W2HX > > *From:* cca(a)groups.io *On Behalf Of *Scott Johnson via > groups.io > *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2024 6:52 PM > *To:* cca(a)groups.io > *Subject:* [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK > > All- > > With sadness, I must report that Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, passed away 1 June > 2024. He was 72. > > Ed was a consummate archivist, and had a large Collins collection, which > he > housed in a Historic house in Glendale , AZ, known as the Coury House. > > This was the home of SMECC, the Southwest Museum of Engineering, > Communications, and Computing. > > Ed was a USAF veteran, a ground radio repairman stationed at Luke AFB in > the early seventies. > > Ed haunted many of the vintage and military radio sites and garnered=20 much > of his collection through these channels. > > His rampant enthusiasm for technology of any kind will be missed! > > www.smecc.org >=20 https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/glendale-az/edward-sharpe-11846 > 518 > > Scott Johnson W7SVJ --===============8083320121572982064==-- From w2hx@w2hx.com Thu Jun 27 01:07:33 2024 From: W2HX To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:07:22 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <88BB02C2D7514B489CA9152FAC514507@i54570THINK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1783165453588014111==" --===============1783165453588014111== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable None of our survivors will give a rats-arse about getting even a nickel for t= his stuff. All they will want is for it to be gone. They would probably eve= n pay to have it carted away. So I don't think any economic analysis of how = to dispose of a collection to maximize return is relevant. Sent from Nine ________________________________ From: Teo Zenios via cctalk Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 5:04 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Cc: Teo Zenios Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors When you sell it as a lot all you are doing is taking pennies on the dollar and the buyer gets all the profit. If collecting starts to decline the buyer still makes money, if the hobby goes up they make even more money. The issue starts to suck more if you actually paid a pretty penny for your collectables and then want to cash out. Plenty of people started collecting what was pretty much trash (before e-waste was even a thing and Ebay didn't exist yet) and those people will make out well either way. I remember as a teen going to a coin/stamp shop and seeing people in suits show up to buy the place out with a suitcase full of cash for maybe $15% of catalog value when stamp collecting was going crazy in the early 1980's. Granted he probably would have been better off auctioning his best stuff at that time and burning the rest as collecting has been going down every year since (except for some rarities here and there). -----Original Message----- From: Sellam Abraham via cctalk Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 12:59 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Cc: Sellam Abraham Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:31 AM Teo Zenios via cctalk wrote: > Ditching a collection is a full time job. It took you so many years to put > it together and it will take the same amount of time to part it out if you > expect to get any real money out of it (unless you sell the most wanted > items and recycle the rest). > This is very true, as I discovered when I began selling off (what remained of) my collection in 2017. I thought I'd get it all out in a year or so. It's been 7 years and I'm still at it, with no real end in sight. Granted I haven't been working on it diligently, and I still ended up with 40 pallets of stuff after the Great Vintage Computing Heist of 2012, but disgorging a large collection is in fact a major undertaking, unless you're willing to sell it all at one price, and can find such a buyer to take it in one lot. Sellam -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com --===============1783165453588014111==-- From cisin@xenosoft.com Thu Jun 27 01:24:47 2024 From: Fred Cisin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 18:24:42 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6113778016215463390==" --===============6113778016215463390== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In the meantime, set up price lists, and means for contacting survivors.=20 And compete over who will charge the least to haul it all away. When I die, my sister has a list of email addresses, including this list=20 and a few individuals. Show up with a truck, and make sure that she sees=20 that you also have a broom, a mop, and a shop-vac. Then quote the best=20 price for the "clean-out". If the auction starts to get into positive=20 numbers, offer brass musical instruments. Chuck will have a MAJOR edge at=20 that point (Who could possibly compete with tubas?). (she plays French=20 Horn, Alp-horn, and any other "brass" instrument, and I have even seen=20 her with a left-handed floogle horn.) -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, W2HX via cctalk wrote: > None of our survivors will give a rats-arse about getting even a nickel for= this stuff. All they will want is for it to be gone. They would probably e= ven pay to have it carted away. So I don't think any economic analysis of ho= w to dispose of a collection to maximize return is relevant. > > Sent from Nine > ________________________________ --===============6113778016215463390==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 01:44:40 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:44:22 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4239163579195021192==" --===============4239163579195021192== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:24=E2=80=AFPM Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > In the meantime, set up price lists, and means for contacting survivors. > And compete over who will charge the least to haul it all away. > > > When I die, my sister has a list of email addresses, including this list > and a few individuals. Show up with a truck, and make sure that she sees > that you also have a broom, a mop, and a shop-vac. Then quote the best > price for the "clean-out". If the auction starts to get into positive > numbers, offer brass musical instruments. Chuck will have a MAJOR edge at > that point (Who could possibly compete with tubas?). (she plays French > Horn, Alp-horn, and any other "brass" instrument, and I have even seen > her with a left-handed floogle horn.) > > -- > That's the spirit! These computers are for our enjoyment not their hassle. b --===============4239163579195021192==-- From brain@jbrain.com Thu Jun 27 01:47:13 2024 From: Jim Brain To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:42:06 -0500 Message-ID: <0d87a4cd-e655-40b7-9b06-627f781be6f8@jbrain.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1683686773876466243==" --===============1683686773876466243== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/26/2024 8:07 PM, W2HX via cctalk wrote: > None of our survivors will give a rats-arse about getting even a nickel for= this stuff. All they will want is for it to be gone. They would probably e= ven pay to have it carted away. So I don't think any economic analysis of ho= w to dispose of a collection to maximize return is relevant. As someone who just had to recently dispose of a collection (not PC, but=20 still), the above might be extreme, but there's truth in there. 10 garages full of collections (multiple: vintage collectible cars, old=20 tools, washing machine engines, collectible farm equipment, old growth=20 oak pulled from houses, timbers from 1900 era cribs and sheds, record=20 players (Victrola, etc.), vintage kitchen appliance, etc.), interspersed=20 with nominal materials and some junk. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=3Da.5088326641182317&type=3D3 Tens of thousands of square feet of stuff. Too packed to easily auction In a word, overwhelming.=C2=A0 Being tech savvy, one could look some things=20 up, but even that task is overwhelming.=C2=A0 You can implicitly know the=20 Maytag engines were worth money, but assigning value to most items is=20 hard.=C2=A0 Some of the very big items were easy to parcel out (the=20 automobiles, etc.), but the tools, lumber, appliances, etc were nearly=20 impossible to fathom. The wife could not even bear to go to the largest building (~6000 sqft),=20 but all of it still being there stressed her out, on top of grieving the=20 loss of her partner of 50+ years. She doesn't need the money, and looking at the items just brought back=20 memories of trips they'd taken to pick things up.=C2=A0 Some of the purchases= =20 were good memories, and some were not (they sometimes disagreed on=20 whether to buy an item).=C2=A0 Who wants to deal with all that? On the other hand, the presence of the items was comforting to the=20 youngest daughter, who spent hours each year tagging along to buy items=20 and build the collections. Cleaning out the locations meant removing the=20 one final memory of her father. And, some of the properties were garages adjoining rental homes that=20 needed to be sold, so delaying the cleanup was delaying the sale of the=20 properties. I would not wish this on anyone, even my worst enemy. As much as it hurt, someone had to go in, take stock of what was=20 important, and call cleaners to take the rest to the trash/recycling=20 center. Knowing full well some irreplaceable and incredibly important or=20 valuable items ended up in a landfill. There was simply no other way to=20 deal with this.=C2=A0 And, it had to be done quickly, both to free up the=20 properties for sale and to "rip off the bandaid" on feelings from the=20 youngest daughter. I don't know if the Revocable Living Trust is the right mechanism, but I=20 can say that just leaving this to your loved ones or your children is=20 almost an unforgivable offense. If you care for your friends and family=20 at all, I beg each member of this list to find a way to document your=20 items and what you'd like done with them after your passing. If they=20 choose not to follow your wishes, that's on them, but leaving this=20 activity solely to them is unconscionable. If I had a book or some papers (or even a video) noting what we of=20 interest/importance, and what didn't really matter, I'd have felt so=20 much better about the process.=C2=A0 Doing the work was lots of work, but it = was not nearly as hard to making decisions about what to care about, and=20 knowing that mistakes were made and there was no way to fix them. If any of you want money from your collection, pull up your pants and=20 sell it off while you're still around. Buyers will enjoy your stories=20 about the items and you can gain some satisfaction seeing the seeds you=20 plant dispersing your collection. But, don't harbor any delusions that=20 keeping it is going to be a windfall for your family when you depart.=20 It's not. Dad, I loved how much collecting meant to you, but you left a huge mess=20 to clean up and it's a shame it's the last thing I'll remember about you. Jim --===============1683686773876466243==-- From wayne.sudol@hotmail.com Thu Jun 27 01:48:05 2024 From: Wayne S To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:47:54 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5891921024828371691==" --===============5891921024828371691== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Everyone have their collections appraised and see what their worth. Might be = eye-opening. Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 26, 2024, at 18:44, Bill Degnan via cctalk = wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:24=E2=80=AFPM Fred Cisin via cctalk > wrote: >=20 >> In the meantime, set up price lists, and means for contacting survivors. >> And compete over who will charge the least to haul it all away. >>=20 >>=20 >> When I die, my sister has a list of email addresses, including this list >> and a few individuals. Show up with a truck, and make sure that she sees >> that you also have a broom, a mop, and a shop-vac. Then quote the best >> price for the "clean-out". If the auction starts to get into positive >> numbers, offer brass musical instruments. Chuck will have a MAJOR edge at >> that point (Who could possibly compete with tubas?). (she plays French >> Horn, Alp-horn, and any other "brass" instrument, and I have even seen >> her with a left-handed floogle horn.) >>=20 >> -- >>=20 >=20 > That's the spirit! >=20 > These computers are for our enjoyment not their hassle. >=20 > b --===============5891921024828371691==-- From cclist@sydex.com Thu Jun 27 02:45:11 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:44:55 -0700 Message-ID: <605be700-7dd9-4f2b-903d-21f000b6e1bf@sydex.com> In-Reply-To: <0d87a4cd-e655-40b7-9b06-627f781be6f8@jbrain.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7807111248183398482==" --===============7807111248183398482== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm reminded of how long it took to get access to Don Maslin's disk collection. His widow didn't want to deal with it. Very fortunate that the storage fees were paid. --Chuck --===============7807111248183398482==-- From cz@alembic.crystel.com Thu Jun 27 03:12:20 2024 From: cz To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:12:11 -0400 Message-ID: <16c41f85-1461-4013-9fdb-57fe044abe67@alembic.crystel.com> In-Reply-To: <605be700-7dd9-4f2b-903d-21f000b6e1bf@sydex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8597382412427513964==" --===============8597382412427513964== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit *nod* And then there's the PERQ tapes and schematics that we rescued from Bob Davis' house over a decade after he died in a tragic accident. That may be the last and only copy of PERQ OS and application files, he was the guardian of those systems. The writer and maintainer of the FAQ. And everything he had was almost lost forever. Like tears in rain..... CZ (I miss Bob. I look forward to seeing that stuff in a museum with a nice description of who he was and what he did)..... On 6/26/2024 10:44 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > I'm reminded of how long it took to get access to Don Maslin's disk > collection. His widow didn't want to deal with it. Very fortunate > that the storage fees were paid. > > --Chuck > --===============8597382412427513964==-- From doc@vaxen.net Thu Jun 27 04:17:21 2024 From: Doc Shipley To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:17:14 -0500 Message-ID: <35127e39-228b-40f9-b584-ac3e6371a8b8@vaxen.net> In-Reply-To: <88BB02C2D7514B489CA9152FAC514507@i54570THINK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1337472091331497896==" --===============1337472091331497896== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To some extent I agree with you, but the Sunk Cost Fallacy is a real thing. I'm 50-ish minutes from turning 66 years old. I've already outlived most of my contemporaries and the collectors I knew personally are either dead or lost interest long ago. In good conscience, I simply can't avoid dealing with all my junk *now*. I don't have energy or resources - the space requirement alone has skyrocketed in cost the last few years - to continue to collect physical examples of my computing interests. For my own economic security I've started divesting. I plan to 90% cash out while I'm physically able and while I'm able to enjoy whatever return that brings. Much, much more important than the money, though, is the impact leaving a large collection would have on my descendants. News Flash: THESE TREASURES ARE THEIR TRASH. It would be unconscionable for me to put any expectation on them to "properly" dispose of my computers. To do so would require a silly amount of self-education for them to know even what these things ARE, much less what they're worth and where to sell them. At this time I'm culling my collection on paper. Evaluating what I want to keep, what I can reasonably *afford* to curate, what I can effectively emulate, and current value. What I paid for any of it is absolutely irrelevant. My longer term plan is to die with one Uhaul load or less of Stuff, and a detailed inventory of what's there, including current value and current best venue for sales. My daughter also has contact info for a friend who will post here and a couple of other places if she wants somebody to just come take it off her hands. Doc On 6/26/24 16:04, Teo Zenios via cctalk wrote: > When you sell it as a lot all you are doing is taking pennies on the > dollar and the buyer gets all the profit. If collecting starts to > decline the buyer still makes money, if the hobby goes up they make even > more money. > > The issue starts to suck more if you actually paid a pretty penny for > your collectables and then want to cash out. Plenty of people started > collecting what was pretty much trash (before e-waste was even a thing > and Ebay didn't exist yet) and those people will make out well either way. > > I remember as a teen going to a coin/stamp shop and seeing people in > suits show up to buy the place out with a suitcase full of cash for > maybe $15% of catalog value when stamp collecting was going crazy in the > early 1980's. Granted he probably would have been better off auctioning > his best stuff at that time  and burning the rest as collecting has been > going down every year since (except for some rarities here and there). > > -----Original Message----- From: Sellam Abraham via cctalk > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 12:59 PM > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Cc: Sellam Abraham > Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:31 AM Teo Zenios via cctalk > > wrote: > >> Ditching a collection is a full time job. It took you so many years to >> put >> it together and it will take the same amount of time to part it out if >> you >> expect to get any real money out of it (unless you sell the most wanted >> items and recycle the rest). >> > > This is very true, as I discovered when I began selling off (what remained > of) my collection in 2017.  I thought I'd get it all out in a year or so. > It's been 7 years and I'm still at it, with no real end in sight.  Granted > I haven't been working on it diligently, and I still ended up with 40 > pallets of stuff after the Great Vintage Computing Heist of 2012, but > disgorging a large collection is in fact a major undertaking, unless you're > willing to sell it all at one price, and can find such a buyer to take it > in one lot. > > Sellam > --===============1337472091331497896==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 05:30:19 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 22:29:48 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <35127e39-228b-40f9-b584-ac3e6371a8b8@vaxen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5103550602532640193==" --===============5103550602532640193== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:17 PM Doc Shipley via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > Much, much more important than the money, though, is the impact leaving > a large collection would have on my descendants. News Flash: > > THESE TREASURES ARE THEIR TRASH. > > It would be unconscionable for me to put any expectation on them to > "properly" dispose of my computers. To do so would require a silly > amount of self-education for them to know even what these things ARE, > much less what they're worth and where to sell them. > > Not necessarily. It depends on the trash in question. The second-hand market is huge, and the computer collecting hobby is currently a thriving part of it. As long as there's time and worth (there is) to list everything on eBay, doing so at the very least will ensure that the stuff ends up in appreciative hands. I don't subscribe to this idea that just because stuff gets sold on eBay means it'll never again see the light of day. First of all, it's better than going into a dumpster. And second, it takes money to buy stuff on eBay. The trend is up, and this stuff ain't cheap anymore. And third, the people buying stuff on eBay are people like me, people who work at computer museums, or run their own, etc. The stuff on eBay is probably going to a collector that's probably going to make use of it or appreciate it. LGR and Brad Hodges (YouTubers) are two people that regularly feature stuff they buy off eBay on their channels. Bottom line is that vintage computer stuff now has a lot of value, and there's a generation of younger people coming up behind my generation that has a definite interest in this stuff, from the 1990s PCs all the way back to 1940s mainframes. So even if they were to hire one of those companies that comes and hauls everything away and sells it all on eBay and gives a cut back to the owner, it will still result in much of your effort to preserve historical computer stuff not at all being in vain. Bonus if you leave behind a detailed inventory with historical notes. My longer term plan is to die with one Uhaul load or less of Stuff, and > a detailed inventory of what's there, including current value and > current best venue for sales. > A good plan. > My daughter also has contact info for a friend who will post here and a > couple of other places if she wants somebody to just come take it off > her hands. > You're way ahead of the game. Sellam --===============5103550602532640193==-- From doc@vaxen.net Thu Jun 27 06:25:11 2024 From: Doc Shipley To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:25:05 -0500 Message-ID: <766cb8ee-f780-4cea-8e34-da231b1728f2@vaxen.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5048482600298648187==" --===============5048482600298648187== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/27/24 00:29, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:17 PM Doc Shipley via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> Much, much more important than the money, though, is the impact leaving >> a large collection would have on my descendants. News Flash: >> >> THESE TREASURES ARE THEIR TRASH. >> >> It would be unconscionable for me to put any expectation on them to >> "properly" dispose of my computers. To do so would require a silly >> amount of self-education for them to know even what these things ARE, >> much less what they're worth and where to sell them. >> >> > Not necessarily. It depends on the trash in question. The second-hand > market is huge, and the computer collecting hobby is currently a thriving > part of it. > > > Bottom line is that vintage computer stuff now has a lot of value, and > there's a generation of younger people coming up behind my generation that > has a definite interest in this stuff, from the 1990s PCs all the way back > to 1940s mainframes. So even if they were to hire one of those companies > that comes and hauls everything away and sells it all on eBay and gives a > cut back to the owner, it will still result in much of your effort to > preserve historical computer stuff not at all being in vain. Bonus if you > leave behind a detailed inventory with historical notes. > > Sellam My point was, and is, that my heirs must get a choice in all that. Even casual listing on ebay takes time and attention, and in the case of computers there's a significant up-front expense just *housing* them, even temporarily. All my kids have kids of their own and not a lot of available time and attention. It's on me as a responsible father to make it available if, and only if, they feel it's worth their time. Otherwise I'm leaving them a burden that's not of their choosing. I should add that organizing and making coherent the physical storage of all this is a big part of my goal. *I* know what that open topped cardboard carton of circuit boards is, but J Random Helper will have no idea how to tell the ISA adapters from the AGB cards from the QBus RAM boards, and even if there's a detailed inventory, somebody would have to find the *correct* set of characters on the silkscreens and look them up. I feel that just sorting for some kind of coherency and consistently labeling all the little parts and pieces, and packing them in stackable cartons or tubs, will go a very long way toward making my collection an asset to the heirs instead of a giant pain in the butt. Doc --===============5048482600298648187==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 06:29:47 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:29:30 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <766cb8ee-f780-4cea-8e34-da231b1728f2@vaxen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5662034199095949436==" --===============5662034199095949436== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All very good points. This is why I'm putting together the organization I've described. It is to fill in where the surviving family members can't take on the burden. Sellam On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 11:25=E2=80=AFPM Doc Shipley via cctalk wrote: > On 6/27/24 00:29, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:17=E2=80=AFPM Doc Shipley via cctalk < > > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > >> Much, much more important than the money, though, is the impact leaving > >> a large collection would have on my descendants. News Flash: > >> > >> THESE TREASURES ARE THEIR TRASH. > >> > >> It would be unconscionable for me to put any expectation on them to > >> "properly" dispose of my computers. To do so would require a silly > >> amount of self-education for them to know even what these things ARE, > >> much less what they're worth and where to sell them. > >> > >> > > Not necessarily. It depends on the trash in question. The second-hand > > market is huge, and the computer collecting hobby is currently a thriving > > part of it. > > > > > > Bottom line is that vintage computer stuff now has a lot of value, and > > there's a generation of younger people coming up behind my generation > that > > has a definite interest in this stuff, from the 1990s PCs all the way > back > > to 1940s mainframes. So even if they were to hire one of those companies > > that comes and hauls everything away and sells it all on eBay and gives a > > cut back to the owner, it will still result in much of your effort to > > preserve historical computer stuff not at all being in vain. Bonus if > you > > leave behind a detailed inventory with historical notes. > > > > > Sellam > > My point was, and is, that my heirs must get a choice in all that. Even > casual listing on ebay takes time and attention, and in the case of > computers there's a significant up-front expense just *housing* them, > even temporarily. > > All my kids have kids of their own and not a lot of available time and > attention. It's on me as a responsible father to make it available if, > and only if, they feel it's worth their time. Otherwise I'm leaving > them a burden that's not of their choosing. > > I should add that organizing and making coherent the physical storage of > all this is a big part of my goal. > > *I* know what that open topped cardboard carton of circuit boards is, > but J Random Helper will have no idea how to tell the ISA adapters from > the AGB cards from the QBus RAM boards, and even if there's a detailed > inventory, somebody would have to find the *correct* set of characters > on the silkscreens and look them up. > > I feel that just sorting for some kind of coherency and consistently > labeling all the little parts and pieces, and packing them in stackable > cartons or tubs, will go a very long way toward making my collection an > asset to the heirs instead of a giant pain in the butt. > > > Doc > --===============5662034199095949436==-- From cc@informatik.uni-stuttgart.de Thu Jun 27 08:49:51 2024 From: Christian Corti To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: SMECC museum status Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:49:35 +0200 Message-ID: <894860fe-f895-a720-348c-27478d8d6557@informatik.uni-stuttgart.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1575810298816755266==" --===============1575810298816755266== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Fred Cisin wrote: > Here is what was on the list: > Subject: Re: Fwd: [GreenKeys] FW: [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK Not a subject line that would get my attention on this list. Christian --===============1575810298816755266==-- From bill.gunshannon@hotmail.com Thu Jun 27 14:20:58 2024 From: Bill Gunshannon To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:20:48 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CCY4PR1001MB2181371A8F7CCE2AA3CC8D9BE4D72=40CY4PR10?= =?utf-8?q?01MB2181=2Enamprd10=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1481233354092017921==" --===============1481233354092017921== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/26/2024 9:47 PM, Wayne S via cctalk wrote: > Everyone have their collections appraised and see what their worth. Might b= e eye-opening. >=20 You are right. Especially when the number comes in around $0.00. I have attempted to sell off parts of my collection at various times when situations forced it. So far I have made a grand total of $0.00 selling vintage computer equipment. I was once offered $100 for all of my DEC Modules. They wouldn't take things like tape drives, disk drives or racks which made up the bulk of the stuff I really needed to dispose of. And to add insult to injury included in that collection were two UNIBUS Ethernet Modules, brand new, still in the original packing which the person offering the $100 was currently selling for $1800 per. I suspect when I go (and I expect to go before my wife) all of my remaining stuff will go in the dumpster she will need to clean out the house so she can sell it. Value is seldom what people expect. My mother collected all that crap that people like the Bradbury Mint and many other places sold to unwitting spinsters and widows. She also collected "First Day Covers" from the USPS. Buying Block Sheets with the Engraving Numbers to match them. She probably spent over $80,000 on that junk in her lifetime. When she died an appraiser was brought in. The estate got $1000 for everything. bill --===============1481233354092017921==-- From bill.gunshannon@hotmail.com Thu Jun 27 14:36:59 2024 From: Bill Gunshannon To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:36:49 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3893710173467358395==" --===============3893710173467358395== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/27/2024 1:29 AM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:17 PM Doc Shipley via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> Much, much more important than the money, though, is the impact leaving >> a large collection would have on my descendants. News Flash: >> >> THESE TREASURES ARE THEIR TRASH. >> >> It would be unconscionable for me to put any expectation on them to >> "properly" dispose of my computers. To do so would require a silly >> amount of self-education for them to know even what these things ARE, >> much less what they're worth and where to sell them. >> >> > Not necessarily. It depends on the trash in question. The second-hand > market is huge, and the computer collecting hobby is currently a thriving > part of it. Only if the individual involved knows what the stuff is and is familiar with that second hand market. My wife has no idea what any of the stuff in my basement is. > > As long as there's time and worth (there is) to list everything on eBay, > doing so at the very least will ensure that the stuff ends up in > appreciative hands. I don't subscribe to this idea that just because stuff > gets sold on eBay means it'll never again see the light of day. First of > all, it's better than going into a dumpster. And second, it takes money to > buy stuff on eBay. The trend is up, and this stuff ain't cheap anymore. > And third, the people buying stuff on eBay are people like me, people who > work at computer museums, or run their own, etc. The stuff on eBay is > probably going to a collector that's probably going to make use of it or > appreciate it. LGR and Brad Hodges (YouTubers) are two people that > regularly feature stuff they buy off eBay on their channels. Hogwash. I have attempted many times to sell stuff on ebay. Even at the suggestion of people I would have thought were potential buyers. To date, I have sold nothing. I once went back to the list that suggested I use ebay to report my failure only to be greeted with, "Well, what did you expect. You are not an established seller." I have tried non-computer stuff, too. I offered a Chilton Automotive Repair Manual for a classic car. I listed the cost of a USPS "If it fits, It ships" padded envelope for postage. Ebay denied my listing saying I was asking to much for shipping. At that point I quit trying to sell anything on ebay. > > Bottom line is that vintage computer stuff now has a lot of value, and And yet, as recently as a couple months ago I couldn't garner any interest in some items (mostly DEC) I had. > there's a generation of younger people coming up behind my generation that > has a definite interest in this stuff, from the 1990s PCs all the way back > to 1940s mainframes. So even if they were to hire one of those companies > that comes and hauls everything away and sells it all on eBay and gives a > cut back to the owner, it will still result in much of your effort to > preserve historical computer stuff not at all being in vain. Bonus if you > leave behind a detailed inventory with historical notes. > That sounds a lot to me like a DNR. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why they think the EMT is going to go thru my pockets looking for it when I am lying on the floor after having a heart attack. If I left a detailed list of everything I have my wife would still not have a clue what it was other than junk. bill PS. My wife is a ham radio operator just like me and all the old Ham gear I have would be in the same boat. --===============3893710173467358395==-- From brain@jbrain.com Thu Jun 27 15:22:54 2024 From: Jim Brain To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:22:49 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CPH0PR17MB574359CC236BDBE002D5388EEDD72=40PH0PR17MB?= =?utf-8?q?5743=2Enamprd17=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5883055960411086163==" --===============5883055960411086163== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/27/2024 9:36 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: Bill, I empathize with your comments. As you note, to successfully realize financial value from these items, one needs to be willing to put them into the various marketplaces, potential customers need to be comfortable with you as a seller, and customers need to find your pricing reasonable. I'm a business concern and even I am loathe to try to list items I have on the various marketplaces, for the reasons you note. Some people on this list have the "presence" and patience to see good results, but I don't think many of us do. Still, as long as we're talking about those of us here pricing, packing, and selling items, I wish everyone great transactions and positive experiences. The idea of leaving these items behind and thinking our loved ones will see any value from selling is ludicrous, though, and I question the sanity of those who seriously believe this. While I am sure there are exceptions to the rule, I do not believe there are many. I still say, if you think it is worth something, make sure you sell it yourself while you are still alive. Jim --===============5883055960411086163==-- From bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca Thu Jun 27 15:42:08 2024 From: ben To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 09:41:58 -0600 Message-ID: <08a6dff6-855e-4546-bb48-7e62859c765b@jetnet.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2582217528644543469==" --===============2582217528644543469== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2024-06-27 9:22 a.m., Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > The idea of leaving these items behind and thinking our loved ones will > see any value from selling is ludicrous, though, and I question the > sanity of those who seriously believe this. While I am sure there are > exceptions to the rule, I do not believe there are many. > > I still say, if you think it is worth something, make sure you sell it > yourself while you are still alive. > > Jim How many computers here, have been pulled out of the dumpster I wonder? Politics and management can be real ASSES on the value of something like computers. I grumble about the loss of knowledge in libraries as older computer books get trashed.A lot computers must get tossed also do to lack of software. Ben. Get a C64 now with a free dumpster. --===============2582217528644543469==-- From linimon@portsmon.org Thu Jun 27 15:59:27 2024 From: Mark Linimon To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:46:12 -0500 Message-ID: <1091702988.405331.1719503172887@privateemail.com> In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CPH0PR17MB574359CC236BDBE002D5388EEDD72=40PH0PR17MB?= =?utf-8?q?5743=2Enamprd17=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2337352326553735694==" --===============2337352326553735694== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > On 06/27/2024 9:36 AM CDT Bill Gunshannon via cctalk > To date, I have sold nothing. I once went back to the list that > suggested I use ebay to report my failure only to be greeted with, > "Well, what did you expect. You are not an established seller." I also have a whole pile of stuff that needs to go "somewhere". Sounds like we more need a "make offer" page. Is there somewhere on the net that already does this? mcl --===============2337352326553735694==-- From brain@jbrain.com Thu Jun 27 16:03:12 2024 From: Jim Brain To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:03:05 -0500 Message-ID: <68d75a28-d259-4ab8-b815-cb815e74a9f7@jbrain.com> In-Reply-To: <08a6dff6-855e-4546-bb48-7e62859c765b@jetnet.ab.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5593325083974463657==" --===============5593325083974463657== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/27/2024 10:41 AM, ben via cctalk wrote: > How many computers here, have been pulled out of the dumpster I wonder? > Politics and management can be real ASSES on the value of something > like computers. I grumble about the loss of knowledge in libraries > as older computer books get trashed.A lot computers must get tossed also > do to lack of software. > Ben. > Get a C64 now with a free dumpster. > Lightening the mood a bit: I assume it's different from systems of different eras, but I remember some of the early home game consoles being in boxes at garage sales in the late 1980s for pennies.  Then, in the early 2000s, I drove around to many widows' and "downsizing so I can move into a retirement apt" users' homes and "rescued" home computers. Some of the duplicate items that were obviously of value I sold, but I kept most since I didn't see a path to selling and realizing a profit. Time moved on, and companies relocated me to different states, packing and dragging all of this stuff to new homes. When we arrived in our current home, the movers moved so many computer monitors they started taking bets on how many I had (I didn't know, I just stacked them up as I rescued them).  I think they tallied 44 in total. Now, of course the market for home computers has greatly expanded, and what was once given away is now worth a tidy some of money. I do wonder, though, when the market will fall back down on certain era machines.  It appears classic cars (well kept and restored, of course) continue to appreciate in value, but I am not sure the same will apply to computing technology. Jim -- Jim Brain brain(a)jbrain.com www.jbrain.com --===============5593325083974463657==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 17:14:13 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:13:38 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5814172685264648109==" --===============5814172685264648109== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 8:22=E2=80=AFAM Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > On 6/27/2024 9:36 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > Bill, I empathize with your comments. > > As you note, to successfully realize financial value from these items, > one needs to be willing to put them into the various marketplaces, > potential customers need to be comfortable with you as a seller, and > customers need to find your pricing reasonable. > > I'm a business concern and even I am loathe to try to list items I have > on the various marketplaces, for the reasons you note. Some people on > this list have the "presence" and patience to see good results, but I > don't think many of us do. > Over the years I have more often than not been critical of eBay for one reason or another, but since I re-established an account and began selling off my remaining collection (aside from a slightly rocky start due to PayPal always withholding payments because of the newness of my account, and similar with eBay for sales over $1,000) I've had pretty much nothing but a positive experience with it. I don't know if I've hit the right formula or am just very conscientious with my listings and sales (I am) but it works for me and I really have no complaints. eBay has actually been very good to me with disputes as well (pretty much haven't lost any, even when the stupid buyer in one instance tried to do an end-run around eBay and cancelled the transaction through his bank), especially after I became a "Top Rated Seller" (I only lost that status due to inactivity from being in and out of the hospital for most of the past 9 months). I actually first began selling from my own "website" (the afore-linked Google Sheets "store" I set up) which I would flog here and on VCFed forums, and through which I initially sold quite a bit. I then learned that there was a lot of vintage computing activity on Facebook, so I logged in there and started finding all the vintage computing groups, set up my own page to sell, and started advertising it around, as well as my Google Sheets page, and met with a lot of success there. My terms were always payment through PayPal via "Friends & Family" (based on my previous reputation) and it worked out fine, I never had a problem with anyone. Anything that didn't sell on FB within a certain amount of time I would eventually list on eBay (for much higher). The idea of leaving the se items behind and thinking our loved ones will > see any value from selling is ludicrous, though, and I question the > sanity of those who seriously believe this. While I am sure there are > exceptions to the rule, I do not believe there are many. > I don't think it's as bad as you and Bill make it out to be. But then, I have a vision. > I still say, if you think it is worth something, make sure you sell it > yourself while you are still alive. > Not bad advice at all. Sellam --===============5814172685264648109==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 17:18:26 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:17:56 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1091702988.405331.1719503172887@privateemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0587856552906126042==" --===============0587856552906126042== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 8:59=E2=80=AFAM Mark Linimon via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > On 06/27/2024 9:36 AM CDT Bill Gunshannon via cctalk > > To date, I have sold nothing. I once went back to the list that > > suggested I use ebay to report my failure only to be greeted with, > > "Well, what did you expect. You are not an established seller." > > I also have a whole pile of stuff that needs to go "somewhere". > > Sounds like we more need a "make offer" page. Is there somewhere on the > net that already does this? > > mcl > VCFed Forums =3D=3D> https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?forums/vintage-computer-items-for-sale-or-t= rade.40/ ClassicCmp Discord server =3D=3D> https://discord.gg/ahh42jXFd6 Facebook (if you dare). Sellam --===============0587856552906126042==-- From bitwiz@12bitsbest.com Thu Jun 27 17:28:05 2024 From: Mike Katz To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:27:53 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1091702988.405331.1719503172887@privateemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6090617396863268321==" --===============6090617396863268321== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Look in the for sale forums at vcfed.org. ' The Vintage Computer Federation. On 6/27/2024 10:46 AM, Mark Linimon via cctalk wrote: >> On 06/27/2024 9:36 AM CDT Bill Gunshannon via cctalk >> To date, I have sold nothing. I once went back to the list that >> suggested I use ebay to report my failure only to be greeted with, >> "Well, what did you expect. You are not an established seller." > I also have a whole pile of stuff that needs to go "somewhere". > > Sounds like we more need a "make offer" page. Is there somewhere on the > net that already does this? > > mcl --===============6090617396863268321==-- From bill.gunshannon@hotmail.com Thu Jun 27 17:30:39 2024 From: Bill Gunshannon To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 13:30:24 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1091702988.405331.1719503172887@privateemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2259004218626024295==" --===============2259004218626024295== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/27/2024 11:46 AM, Mark Linimon wrote: >> On 06/27/2024 9:36 AM CDT Bill Gunshannon via cctalk >> To date, I have sold nothing. I once went back to the list that >> suggested I use ebay to report my failure only to be greeted with, >> "Well, what did you expect. You are not an established seller." > > I also have a whole pile of stuff that needs to go "somewhere". > > Sounds like we more need a "make offer" page. Is there somewhere on the > net that already does this? > As I previously stated I tried that just a month or two ago. Got zero offers. Scrapped a whole bunch of stuff cause keeping everything I have now just isn't an option anymore. bill --===============2259004218626024295==-- From julf@julf.com Thu Jun 27 17:58:54 2024 From: Johan Helsingius To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:50:15 +0200 Message-ID: <0f056ca8-89e8-4f07-90a3-4a991ee08f9a@Julf.com> In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CPH0PR17MB57434C3865CB715F904630B9EDD72=40PH0PR17MB?= =?utf-8?q?5743=2Enamprd17=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7141442542581892538==" --===============7141442542581892538== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 27/06/2024 19:30, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > As I previously stated I tried that just a month or two ago. > Got zero offers. Scrapped a whole bunch of stuff cause keeping > everything I have now just isn't an option anymore. An extra problem for us living outside the US is that freight/ postage charges often makes even interested people go "no thanks". Julf --===============7141442542581892538==-- From cctalk@ibm51xx.net Thu Jun 27 19:45:51 2024 From: Ali To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:40:47 -0700 Message-ID: <002501dac8c9$e9948f60$bcbdae20$@net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3443011078892054762==" --===============3443011078892054762== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Sheets page, and met with a lot of success there. My terms were always > payment through PayPal via "Friends & Family" (based on my previous > reputation) and it worked out fine, I never had a problem with anyone. I am not sure how good of advice this is.=20 This is also why I never buy from you. Reputation means you are (more than li= kely) reliable, are advertising what you are selling, have an idea of what yo= u are talking about and your pricing is reasonable. It does not protect again= st random acts of BS (e.g. item getting lost by carrier - something I have ha= d happen to me when I have shipped stuff out). Plus when it comes to money, e= specially when someone is trying to make a profit, in my experience everythin= g changes. I would never buy PP friends and family/Venmo/Zelle/Cash etc. unle= ss you are local, I am picking up or you are delivering, and there is testing= /inspection before exchange of goods for money or we are talking about what t= o me is fudge around money (i.e. under a $50). Of course others may be less r= isk averse or have much more resources so they don't blink an eye at losing a= couple of grand so their calculations may be different. -Ali --===============3443011078892054762==-- From cctalk@ibm51xx.net Thu Jun 27 19:45:57 2024 From: Ali To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:40:48 -0700 Message-ID: <002701dac8c9$ea44cc90$bece65b0$@net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7159548697064028522==" --===============7159548697064028522== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Sounds like we more need a "make offer" page. Is there somewhere on > the > > net that already does this? The problem with this is it gets tedious from a buyer's perspective. The way = I see it either of three scenarios are occurring when I see make an offer: 1. You are fishing to see what the highest price you can get is 2. You have a price in mind but it is high/eBay level and you just don't want= to say it 3. You are not serious Every time I have engaged in this BS it has been a waste of time. Most recent= ly was two weeks ago. Someone posted an item on VCF about five months ago. I = make a very fair offer for the item. It is obvious I am the only one interest= ed but the guys goes radio silent after the offer (insulted, ego bruised, thi= nks it is too low, whatever). No one else is making an offer/showing interest= so two weeks ago he comes back accepting my offer. And this isn't the only t= ime this has happened. Had a guys come back to me with an offer I had made hi= m pre-covid. So basically with inflation he ended up taking even less money t= han if he had sold to me initially. At least the guys on VCF are somewhat sane for the most part. The eBay seller= s? Forget about it. Even 10% off of asking price offers are ignored/declined.= =20 If you want to sell something list your price and sell it. If your goal is fo= r someone to take something and have it preserved then just come out and say = it: free to good home for cost of shipping. Just my two cents... -Ali --===============7159548697064028522==-- From cctalk@ibm51xx.net Thu Jun 27 19:53:21 2024 From: Ali To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:40:48 -0700 Message-ID: <002601dac8c9$e9e79160$bdb6b420$@net> In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CPH0PR17MB574359CC236BDBE002D5388EEDD72=40PH0PR17MB?= =?utf-8?q?5743=2Enamprd17=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8598453267383196915==" --===============8598453267383196915== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Hogwash. I have attempted many times to sell stuff on ebay. Even at > the suggestion of people I would have thought were potential buyers. > To date, I have sold nothing. I once went back to the list that > suggested I use ebay to report my failure only to be greeted with, > "Well, what did you expect. You are not an established seller." > I have tried non-computer stuff, too. I offered a Chilton Automotive > Repair Manual for a classic car. I listed the cost of a USPS "If it > fits, It ships" padded envelope for postage. Ebay denied my listing > saying I was asking to much for shipping. At that point I quit trying > to sell anything on ebay. Price rules first. I NEVER look at an eBay seller's rep or newness before buy= ing/bidding. If what you offer is a good price/value then that is all I care = about it. If you end up being a shitty seller, not packing right, or whatever= , then there is eBay Money Back Guarantee. Your trash is coming right back to= you at your expense. I may be disappointed and lose some time but I am not l= osing any money on the deal so I take the risk. Sometimes it pays off sometim= es it doesn't.=20 -Ali --===============8598453267383196915==-- From brad@techtimetraveller.com Thu Jun 27 20:10:19 2024 From: brad@techtimetraveller.com To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 13:10:13 -0700 Message-ID: <03ef01dac8ce$058dfae0$10a9f0a0$@techtimetraveller.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9051921810088780611==" --===============9051921810088780611== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The Great Vintage Computing Heist??? =20 And yes on the time it takes. There is a guy on ebay called scifiman. He ha= s been unloading an absolutely massive vintage computer collection, especiall= y rare commodores, for like 6 or 7 years now. He is being kind of firm on a = lot of his prices though. I do dread the idea of having to package and ship = this stuff. Never enjoyed that process. -----Original Message----- From: Sellam Abraham via cctalk =20 Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 10:00 AM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Cc: Sellam Abraham Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:31=E2=80=AFAM Teo Zenios via cctalk wrote: > Ditching a collection is a full time job. It took you so many years to=20 > put it together and it will take the same amount of time to part it=20 > out if you expect to get any real money out of it (unless you sell the=20 > most wanted items and recycle the rest). > This is very true, as I discovered when I began selling off (what remained of) my collection in 2017. I thought I'd get it all out in a year or so. It's been 7 years and I'm still at it, with no real end in sight. Granted I = haven't been working on it diligently, and I still ended up with 40 pallets o= f stuff after the Great Vintage Computing Heist of 2012, but disgorging a lar= ge collection is in fact a major undertaking, unless you're willing to sell i= t all at one price, and can find such a buyer to take it in one lot. Sellam --===============9051921810088780611==-- From tony@tonyjones.com Thu Jun 27 20:12:07 2024 From: Tony Jones To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 13:11:52 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <002601dac8c9$e9e79160$bdb6b420$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2348359775232172147==" --===============2348359775232172147== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 12:53 PM Ali via cctalk wrote: > > Hogwash. I have attempted many times to sell stuff on ebay. Even at > > the suggestion of people I would have thought were potential buyers. > > To date, I have sold nothing. I once went back to the list that > > suggested I use ebay to report my failure only to be greeted with, > > "Well, what did you expect. You are not an established seller." > > I have tried non-computer stuff, too. I offered a Chilton Automotive > > Repair Manual for a classic car. I listed the cost of a USPS "If it > > fits, It ships" padded envelope for postage. Ebay denied my listing > > saying I was asking to much for shipping. At that point I quit trying > > to sell anything on ebay. > > Price rules first. I NEVER look at an eBay seller's rep or newness before > buying/bidding. If what you offer is a good price/value then that is all I > care about it. If you end up being a shitty seller, not packing right, or > whatever, then there is eBay Money Back Guarantee. Your trash is coming > right back to you at your expense. I may be disappointed and lose some time > but I am not losing any money on the deal so I take the risk. Sometimes it > pays off sometimes it doesn't. > Buyers aren't stupid, quality listings where it is clear that the seller has put time and effort into creating the listing are appealing. If I list an item as "used" under eBay then I make sure it's clean, I make sure that I have tested it and I state this. I also provide as many photographs as eBay allows and they are of good quality. If I can't fully test it, I list it as condition "for parts or repair" and state what I've tested and what I've not. I see so many sellers listing stuff as "used" with poor photos and often some "as-is" disclaimer in the text body. I don't know why sellers do this as eBay is going to force them to take an item back at their own expense. I don't sell much on eBay for entirely different reasons; I find their fees to be BS. . --===============2348359775232172147==-- From aperry@snowmoose.com Thu Jun 27 20:23:07 2024 From: Alan Perry To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 13:22:43 -0700 Message-ID: <382E1C0B-9C36-4AAA-BC3F-BCB95B1E1FB4@snowmoose.com> In-Reply-To: <002601dac8c9$e9e79160$bdb6b420$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5542971083916072552==" --===============5542971083916072552== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 27, 2024, at 12:53, Ali via cctalk wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BF >>=20 >> Hogwash. I have attempted many times to sell stuff on ebay. Even at >> the suggestion of people I would have thought were potential buyers. >> To date, I have sold nothing. I once went back to the list that >> suggested I use ebay to report my failure only to be greeted with, >> "Well, what did you expect. You are not an established seller." >> I have tried non-computer stuff, too. I offered a Chilton Automotive >> Repair Manual for a classic car. I listed the cost of a USPS "If it >> fits, It ships" padded envelope for postage. Ebay denied my listing >> saying I was asking to much for shipping. At that point I quit trying >> to sell anything on ebay. >=20 > Price rules first. I NEVER look at an eBay seller's rep or newness before b= uying/bidding. If what you offer is a good price/value then that is all I car= e about it. If you end up being a shitty seller, not packing right, or whatev= er, then there is eBay Money Back Guarantee. Your trash is coming right back = to you at your expense. I may be disappointed and lose some time but I am not= losing any money on the deal so I take the risk. Sometimes it pays off somet= imes it doesn't. I am an expert occasional eBay buyer and seller. After joining in =E2=80=9897= , I have a 100% positive rating with 370 feedbacks. Unless it is something I haven=E2=80=99t seen elsewhere, I definitely look at= the rating of the seller. As a seller, I avoid eBay because of the excess fees but sometimes things wil= l sell at enough of a premium there to absorb the fee. For some stuff, based = on my conversations with other sellers, that is where the market is (anyone w= ant to buy some signed, first edition Harlan Ellison books ;) ), so one has n= o choice. Most of the vintage computers that I have sold (mostly early 90s SPARC system= s), I sold through group mailings lists, FB pages, etc. alan --===============5542971083916072552==-- From cisin@xenosoft.com Thu Jun 27 20:35:00 2024 From: Fred Cisin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 13:34:55 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <002701dac8c9$ea44cc90$bece65b0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6839155442602282875==" --===============6839155442602282875== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>> Sounds like we more need a "make offer" page. Is there somewhere on >>> the net that already does this? On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, Ali via cctalk wrote: > The problem with this is it gets tedious from a buyer's perspective. The wa= y I see it either of three scenarios are occurring when I see make an offer: I generally don't like "make an offer", unless the seller has already=20 stated an offer. If so,then I can decide whether what I want to pay is in=20 a range that they would discuss it. Otherwise,it is usually futile to start a discussion. All too often, the seller wants far more than I would consider. In flea markets (Foothill, etc.) I will sometimes say, "Would you be=20 offended if I offered xx?" Sometimes, they are. But, sometimes they respond with "I wouldn't be offended, but I wouldn't=20 accept that." That at least gives a starting point for potential=20 negotiation. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com --===============6839155442602282875==-- From cisin@xenosoft.com Thu Jun 27 20:51:46 2024 From: Fred Cisin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 13:51:40 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <002701dac8c9$ea44cc90$bece65b0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8477584736802305932==" --===============8477584736802305932== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>> Sounds like we more need a "make offer" page. Is there somewhere on >>> the net that already does this? It is important to realize that there are two kinds of shopping browsing: have decided to buy one, and looking for best deal or looking for bargains, and will buy if there are any exceptional deals "make an offer" is only suitable for the first of those. --===============8477584736802305932==-- From cclist@sydex.com Thu Jun 27 20:56:25 2024 From: Chuck Guzis To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 13:56:15 -0700 Message-ID: <19e1b21a-4a28-40cd-86d0-58e44592275d@sydex.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3017315364480044614==" --===============3017315364480044614== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/27/24 13:11, Tony Jones via cctalk wrote: > I see so many sellers listing stuff as "used" with poor photos and often > some "as-is" disclaimer in the text body. I don't know why sellers do > this as eBay is going to force them to take an item back at their own > expense. I see a lot of listings with "not working or for parts" with the tag "seller does not accept returns". I don't understand how a seller can ask for more than scrap value in these cases, yet I see outrageous asking prices. One born every minute? --Chuck --===============3017315364480044614==-- From cctalk@ibm51xx.net Thu Jun 27 21:02:59 2024 From: Ali To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:02:52 -0700 Message-ID: <003701dac8d5$60f21cc0$22d65640$@net> In-Reply-To: <382E1C0B-9C36-4AAA-BC3F-BCB95B1E1FB4@snowmoose.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4725519303046078375==" --===============4725519303046078375== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > I am an expert occasional eBay buyer and seller. After joining in =E2=80=98= 97, > I have a 100% positive rating with 370 feedbacks. No comment ;) =20 > Unless it is something I haven=E2=80=99t seen elsewhere, I definitely look = at > the rating of the seller. And how does that help? Let's say seller has 98% rating what does that tell y= ou? Or said in another way how does it affect your decision making process? I= .E. would you pay 30% or even 10% more for the same item with a seller who ha= s 100% rating (for whatever that is worth as ratings are very much manipulate= d by sellers and eBay). -Ali --===============4725519303046078375==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Thu Jun 27 21:04:33 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:04:24 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <19e1b21a-4a28-40cd-86d0-58e44592275d@sydex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8329432368405983718==" --===============8329432368405983718== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 27, 2024, at 4:56 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >=20 > On 6/27/24 13:11, Tony Jones via cctalk wrote: >> I see so many sellers listing stuff as "used" with poor photos and often >> some "as-is" disclaimer in the text body. I don't know why sellers do >> this as eBay is going to force them to take an item back at their own >> expense. >=20 > I see a lot of listings with "not working or for parts" with the tag > "seller does not accept returns". I don't understand how a seller can > ask for more than scrap value in these cases, yet I see outrageous > asking prices. >=20 > One born every minute? >=20 > --Chuck Simple answer: price is what a buyer will give for the item, and the seller w= ill accept. It is a psychological thing, not an objective metric and not a c= onstant or anything that can be determined by analyzing what the item is. For example, consider "luxury goods". The WSJ a few days ago had an article = about luxury handbags (Hermes, I think), which have a list price of $12k or s= o, can be immediately resold on the used market for almost double that, but c= ost perhaps $1k to make. Conversely, an RK05 may have had a list price over $10k new, a parts cost cer= tainly of several thousands of dollars, a cost to reproduce that I can't gues= s at but is bound to be high, a sentimental value that's all over the map. B= ut what can you sell it for, if anything? Not much, I suspect. Those asking prices are simply attempts to see if someone is willing to pay t= hat. If not, not much harm done, except to the extent that it turns away peo= ple who might be interested at a better price and now won't even bid. You can call it an attempt to find suckers, but it might also be a realizatio= n that people vary wildly in what they will pay for weird things, and it may = also in part be a case of the seller not having much of an idea about the mar= ket. paul --===============8329432368405983718==-- From cisin@xenosoft.com Thu Jun 27 21:09:43 2024 From: Fred Cisin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:09:36 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <003701dac8d5$60f21cc0$22d65640$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3734811037416060112==" --===============3734811037416060112== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, Ali via cctalk wrote: > And how does that help? Let's say seller has 98% rating what does that > tell you? Or said in another way how does it affect your decision making > process? I.E. would you pay 30% or even 10% more for the same item with > a seller who has 100% rating (for whatever that is worth as ratings are > very much manipulated by sellers and eBay). It can be important at the other end of the scale. If a seller has too many negative reviews, I read every one of those, and decide whether the risk is worthwhile. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com --===============3734811037416060112==-- From tony@tonyjones.com Thu Jun 27 21:16:32 2024 From: Tony Jones To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:16:15 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <19e1b21a-4a28-40cd-86d0-58e44592275d@sydex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4716394583007199483==" --===============4716394583007199483== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 1:56 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > On 6/27/24 13:11, Tony Jones via cctalk wrote: > > I see so many sellers listing stuff as "used" with poor photos and often > > some "as-is" disclaimer in the text body. I don't know why sellers do > > this as eBay is going to force them to take an item back at their own > > expense. > > I see a lot of listings with "not working or for parts" with the tag > "seller does not accept returns". I don't understand how a seller can > ask for more than scrap value in these cases, yet I see outrageous > asking prices. > > One born every minute? > Depends on the item and the price. "seller does not accept returns" just covers buyers remorse. You can still file a SNAD claim for "not working or for parts" if it arrives damaged, or physically is somehow different than shown. You just can't file one because it didn't work, though I'm sure eBay would still issue a return label and you'd have to dispute it. --===============4716394583007199483==-- From tony@tonyjones.com Thu Jun 27 21:20:45 2024 From: Tony Jones To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:20:29 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <003701dac8d5$60f21cc0$22d65640$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4679572307186914840==" --===============4679572307186914840== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:03 PM Ali via cctalk wrote: > a seller who has 100% rating (for whatever that is worth as ratings are > very much manipulated by sellers and eBay). > This is very true. It's very hard to leave negative feedback that a seller can't get removed (if they try). --===============4679572307186914840==-- From andrei.kudryavtsev@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 21:31:22 2024 From: Andrei Kudryavtsev To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:31:05 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7738749392360534515==" --===============7738749392360534515== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Some sellers are also doing that to protect themselves from a massive buyer's fraud. I can say, nobody is standing for sellers and that's the reason you could see this. Have to say, I had the situation where I actually sold broken gear for parts. Buyer received it, took the part he wanted and then filed a claim. He won it despite those conditions and returned it. eBay forced to take my money, however I filed the appeal, once I got the package back and recognized a fraud. Didn't lead anywhere... On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:16=E2=80=AFPM Tony Jones via cctalk wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 1:56=E2=80=AFPM Chuck Guzis via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > On 6/27/24 13:11, Tony Jones via cctalk wrote: > > > I see so many sellers listing stuff as "used" with poor photos and > often > > > some "as-is" disclaimer in the text body. I don't know why sellers do > > > this as eBay is going to force them to take an item back at their own > > > expense. > > > > I see a lot of listings with "not working or for parts" with the tag > > "seller does not accept returns". I don't understand how a seller can > > ask for more than scrap value in these cases, yet I see outrageous > > asking prices. > > > > One born every minute? > > > > Depends on the item and the price. "seller does not accept returns" just > covers buyers remorse. You can still file a SNAD claim for "not working > or for parts" if it arrives damaged, or physically is somehow different > than shown. You just can't file one because it didn't work, though I'm > sure eBay would still issue a return label and you'd have to dispute it. > --=20 Andrei Kudryavtsev, Deftaudio www.deftaudio.com Manufacturing Luma-1 Drum Machine My last album *Two Match - The 1st Fill* on iTunes and Spotify Follow me on Facebook , Instagram --===============7738749392360534515==-- From aperry@snowmoose.com Thu Jun 27 21:33:25 2024 From: Alan Perry To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:33:18 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7190748739393256421==" --===============7190748739393256421== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/27/24 2:09 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, Ali via cctalk wrote: >> And how does that help? Let's say seller has 98% rating what does >> that tell you? Or said in another way how does it affect your >> decision making process? I.E. would you pay 30% or even 10% more for >> the same item with a seller who has 100% rating (for whatever that is >> worth as ratings are very much manipulated by sellers and eBay). > > It can be important at the other end of the scale. > If a seller has too many negative reviews, I read every one of those, > and decide whether the risk is worthwhile. > The feedback mechanism is biased towards giving positive feedback, so I read a lot of feedback comments. I bid on the item and, within my budget and what I think is reasonable, the price is what it is. Most of what I am looking for is sun3 and non-Sun SPARC systems which don't come up often. I look at what the seller has sold before to help judge whether the description is accurate. alan --===============7190748739393256421==-- From teoz@neo.rr.com Thu Jun 27 21:49:12 2024 From: Teo Zenios To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:49:07 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <19e1b21a-4a28-40cd-86d0-58e44592275d@sydex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2819052912794041933==" --===============2819052912794041933== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Simple really. If you list something as used then it better work, EVERYTHING on it better work or buyer can get a refund. If I have a very popular PR440FX dual Pentium Pro motherboard for sale and wanted to list it as used I would have to check every interface on the board to make sure it all worked or it will come back. And even then if somebody tried to use something on the USB port (which are so early in USB life nothing works on it) they can say its broken. The boards go for hundreds bare. -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Guzis via cctalk Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2024 4:56 PM To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org Cc: Chuck Guzis Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors I see a lot of listings with "not working or for parts" with the tag "seller does not accept returns". I don't understand how a seller can ask for more than scrap value in these cases, yet I see outrageous asking prices. One born every minute? --Chuck -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com --===============2819052912794041933==-- From cctalk@ibm51xx.net Thu Jun 27 21:57:07 2024 From: Ali To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:57:02 -0700 Message-ID: <003801dac8dc$f21391a0$d63ab4e0$@net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4648602281308380220==" --===============4648602281308380220== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Simple really. > If you list something as used then it better work, EVERYTHING on it > better > work or buyer can get a refund. >=20 Well if it is for parts then you better also describe it as such. None of tha= t "it worked the last time I used it", looks real clean, stored well, etc. et= c. because a buyer can also return it for those reasons (it worked the last t= ime you used it great then when I use it, it better work as well). I actually= see some of the Japanese sellers play at this BS. They just put down junk, t= rash, not working for description and list for 100s to 1000s of dollars. Of c= ourse for some reason their stuff never sells and keeps getting relisted? LOL. So have you sold your really popular and expensive board yet? Or are people p= assing it buy because it isn't working and costs way too much for "non-workin= g parts"? -Ali --===============4648602281308380220==-- From cctalk@ibm51xx.net Thu Jun 27 21:57:11 2024 From: Ali To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:57:03 -0700 Message-ID: <003a01dac8dc$f2da8b20$d88fa160$@net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6355601265910846428==" --===============6355601265910846428== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Buyers aren't stupid, quality listings where it is clear that the > seller > has put time and effort into creating the listing are appealing. I never said they were. In fact I argued the opposite that buyers are very sa= vvy. > If I list an item as "used" under eBay then I make sure it's clean, I > make > sure that I have tested it and I state this. I also provide as many > photographs as eBay allows and they are of good quality. If I can't > fully test it, Great. That is all you need to know as a buyer. The seller's reputation doesn= 't really work into it - i.e. a seller with 10K FB and 20 year history on eBa= y who takes grainy photos and can't be bothered to say anything about the ite= m is not about to get more love just because they are established or their re= putation. > I list it as condition "for parts or repair" and state > what > I've tested and what I've not. As long as you also price it as such (i.e. Pennies on the Dollar or lower). M= any sellers pull all that crap and list it as if they were selling a Kidney..= .. >=20 > I see so many sellers listing stuff as "used" with poor photos and > often > some "as-is" disclaimer in the text body. I don't know why sellers do > this as eBay is going to force them to take an item back at their own > expense. "Wired for Service" anyone? LOL. Yeah lots of crappy established sellers on e= Bay (see above). > I don't sell much on eBay for entirely different reasons; I find their > fees > to be BS. Well they got to eat too. I don't buy as much as used to because of the total= and utter lack of CSR for the customer now a days. eBay seems to forget that= the guy with the cash is the customer to be catered to not the guy listing o= n twenty different platforms... -Ali --===============6355601265910846428==-- From cctalk@ibm51xx.net Thu Jun 27 21:57:17 2024 From: Ali To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:57:03 -0700 Message-ID: <003901dac8dc$f28b0b90$d7a122b0$@net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0724028802778331566==" --===============0724028802778331566== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > It can be important at the other end of the scale. > If a seller has too many negative reviews, I read every one of those, > and > decide whether the risk is worthwhile. Fred, I agree if the seller has really crappy ratings (80s or lower) then that may matter if it is an easily found commodity. However, because of the eBay driven manipulation most sellers have stellar ratings. For example there is one seller that keeps listing a IBM 5100 with free shipping and a starting price of 99cents. However, if you actually look at the listing hidden in the text and pictures he states the item is for sale at a specific price to be paid on a different site with a spoofed eBay URL. I have reported him a number of times and most of the time eBay takes the listing off but recently because of the wording he is using the eBay AI is too stupid to figure it out. However, throughout the process and multiple listings he has maintained his 100% FB score. So I ask again what is the FB worth? I bid/buy items I am interested in at a price I think is fair/I can afford; I lose no biggie and if I win great. If the seller screws around after sale eBay Money Back Gurantee is filed immediately no matter what the sellers FB score. -Ali --===============0724028802778331566==-- From teoz@neo.rr.com Thu Jun 27 22:14:00 2024 From: Teo Zenios To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:13:53 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <003801dac8dc$f21391a0$d63ab4e0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8109861873485830170==" --===============8109861873485830170== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If something is sold for parts then unless there is a big difference in the pictures compared to what you actually receive you are SOL. I think people put too much BS into the description when they don't have to. And even stuff sold as used working isn't working because the seller doesn't spend a minute to even bothering checking and will issue a refund if they have to. -----Original Message----- From: Ali via cctalk Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2024 5:57 PM To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts' Cc: Ali Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors > Simple really. > If you list something as used then it better work, EVERYTHING on it > better > work or buyer can get a refund. > Well if it is for parts then you better also describe it as such. None of that "it worked the last time I used it", looks real clean, stored well, etc. etc. because a buyer can also return it for those reasons (it worked the last time you used it great then when I use it, it better work as well). I actually see some of the Japanese sellers play at this BS. They just put down junk, trash, not working for description and list for 100s to 1000s of dollars. Of course for some reason their stuff never sells and keeps getting relisted? LOL. So have you sold your really popular and expensive board yet? Or are people passing it buy because it isn't working and costs way too much for "non-working parts"? -Ali -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com --===============8109861873485830170==-- From aperry@snowmoose.com Thu Jun 27 22:24:15 2024 From: Alan Perry To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:23:53 -0700 Message-ID: <3E72612D-0C41-4A16-8002-80B6C0F4A796@snowmoose.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9033302846752042932==" --===============9033302846752042932== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It isn=E2=80=99t simple. A company gets a lot of stuff that includes vintage computer equipment. They = have no idea how to test it other than to power it on. They have no facilitie= s to repair returned computers. But they are a business and need to make mone= y to continue being a business. Do you really want them selling stuff at scrap prices and see things get scra= pped, depending on who is looking when the item goes up for sale?=20 About a year ago a Tatung COMPstation 40 (a SPARCstation 2 clone) came up on = eBay. I have never seen one before, let alone had a chance to buy one. I nego= tiated the price down a bit but still had to buy a =E2=80=9Cdisk=E2=80=9D (SC= SI2SD) and IDPROM and add memory from my stash to make a working computer. Six months after that an Axil 220 (a SS LX clone) came up. Again, I have neve= r seen one before. I negotiated the 220 down to the same price as the Tatung = (but it was more of a price drop from the asking price). I am still trying to= get it to run (re-cap=E2=80=99ed the PSU, voltages look good around the boar= d, but it doesn=E2=80=99t power up). A couple weeks ago, a =E2=80=9Cuntested=E2=80=9D Sun 3/80 system board and PS= U came up. I offered the same as the systems above. He came down a third betw= een the asking price and my offer. If it were something I =E2=80=9Cneeded=E2= =80=9D I would have taken the offer. The next day someone else did. For some vintage computers, one has limited opportunity to purchase and may n= eed to buy what=E2=80=99s available. alan > On Jun 27, 2024, at 14:49, Teo Zenios via cctalk = wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFSimple really. > If you list something as used then it better work, EVERYTHING on it better = work or buyer can get a refund. >=20 > If I have a very popular PR440FX dual Pentium Pro motherboard for sale and = wanted to list it as used I would have to check every interface on the board = to make sure it all worked or it will come back. And even then if somebody tr= ied to use something on the USB port (which are so early in USB life nothing = works on it) they can say its broken. The boards go for hundreds bare. >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Guzis via cctalk > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2024 4:56 PM > To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org > Cc: Chuck Guzis > Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors >=20 > I see a lot of listings with "not working or for parts" with the tag > "seller does not accept returns". I don't understand how a seller can > ask for more than scrap value in these cases, yet I see outrageous > asking prices. >=20 > One born every minute? >=20 > --Chuck >=20 > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com --===============9033302846752042932==-- From cctalk@ibm51xx.net Thu Jun 27 22:36:59 2024 From: Ali To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:36:55 -0700 Message-ID: <004601dac8e2$845b7000$8d125000$@net> In-Reply-To: <3E72612D-0C41-4A16-8002-80B6C0F4A796@snowmoose.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7332035147578003207==" --===============7332035147578003207== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > For some vintage computers, one has limited opportunity to purchase and > may need to buy what=E2=80=99s available. >=20 Which is exactly what is driving the predatory pricing and massive increase i= n the cost of items. The sellers know this and are banking on it. Also to be = clear my original points were made when the discussion was talking about "our= " personal collections and what future heirs could/would do with them. When y= ou start talking about businesses who have no skin in the game (i.e. they don= 't care if they are recycling an IBM 5100, an Apple IIc, or a microwave) it= =E2=80=99s a whole different ball game with its own set of rules. -Ali --===============7332035147578003207==-- From cctalk@ibm51xx.net Thu Jun 27 22:37:04 2024 From: Ali To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:36:55 -0700 Message-ID: <004701dac8e2$84b41750$8e1c45f0$@net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8299326875383313214==" --===============8299326875383313214== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > If something is sold for parts then unless there is a big difference in > the > pictures compared to what you actually receive you are SOL. Not true at all. =20 > And even stuff sold as used working isn't working because the seller > doesn't > spend a minute to even bothering checking and will issue a refund if > they > have to. Exactly. All these games sellers try to play never work out. People are willi= ng to buy on eBay because at the end of the day you rarely have to worry abou= t a seller successfully scamming you. If you want to avoid refunds there are = only two choices: 1. Sell what you are advertising and don't over hype it trying to get more mo= ney 2. Sell real cheap so that the hassle of committing fraud, returning the item= , waiting weeks for a refund is not worth it to the fraudsters. So I ask again using these tactics have you sold your really popular and expe= nsive board yet? Or are people=20 passing it buy because it isn't working and costs way too much for "non-worki= ng parts"? -Ali --===============8299326875383313214==-- From spacewar@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 00:06:08 2024 From: Eric Smith To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: wanted: HP-UX 11i v1 (11.11) install media or images Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:05:50 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5189081798515505289==" --===============5189081798515505289== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 22:33 Robert Johnson via cctalk wrote: > I=E2=80=99m all but certain that the 16500 series is a 68k not PA-RISC thou= gh. > Yes. It is the 16700 series that uses a PA7300LC CPU. Nevertheless, for reverse-engineering the module interface, working with a 16500 will be easier. --===============5189081798515505289==-- From elson@pico-systems.com Fri Jun 28 00:14:06 2024 From: Jon Elson To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:13:58 -0500 Message-ID: <7247ef24-4c55-138d-4edd-a288e47c152b@pico-systems.com> In-Reply-To: <08a6dff6-855e-4546-bb48-7e62859c765b@jetnet.ab.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1096179392359955513==" --===============1096179392359955513== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/27/24 10:41, ben via cctalk wrote: > On 2024-06-27 9:22 a.m., Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > >> The idea of leaving these items behind and thinking our >> loved ones will see any value from selling is ludicrous, >> though, and I question the sanity of those who seriously >> believe this. While I am sure there are exceptions to the >> rule, I do not believe there are many. >> >> I still say, if you think it is worth something, make >> sure you sell it yourself while you are still alive. >> >> Jim > How many computers here, have been pulled out of the > dumpster I wonder? > Politics and management can be real ASSES on the value of > something > like computers. I grumble about the loss of knowledge in > libraries > as older computer books get trashed.A lot computers must > get tossed also > do to lack of software. > Ben. > Get a C64 now with a free dumpster. I dragged an SGI IRIS 2020 off the loading dock at work (one step away from the dumpster). The boot manager came up right away (it was a minimal Unix system that could access the hard drive.)  but, it would not boot the full SGI Unix OS due to failures in the geometry engine board.  A guy in Germany sold me all his boards for a small fee, and his geometry engine board worked.  I played around with the SGI flight sim for a while, and eventually the geometry engine went out again.  I sold all the boards to an outfit that maintained old SGI machines at an air force base in Alaska. I have dragged a big box of DEC books to the VCF MW twice, and I really was not able to even GIVE them away! Jon --===============1096179392359955513==-- From barythrin@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 01:57:35 2024 From: John Herron To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 20:57:17 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1091702988.405331.1719503172887@privateemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3146775257282970194==" --===============3146775257282970194== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit One thing (if not already making some hardware list and maybe a description of the history and price of the item for your family) that was recommended was just walking around with a video camera and talking about what what. An archive video of the collection will be a huge help to family if they know about the video. At least you could say "btw, this is an x .. it's worth finding a buyer and not trashing" On Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 10:59 AM Mark Linimon via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > On 06/27/2024 9:36 AM CDT Bill Gunshannon via cctalk > > To date, I have sold nothing. I once went back to the list that > > suggested I use ebay to report my failure only to be greeted with, > > "Well, what did you expect. You are not an established seller." > > I also have a whole pile of stuff that needs to go "somewhere". > > Sounds like we more need a "make offer" page. Is there somewhere on the > net that already does this? > > mcl > --===============3146775257282970194==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 02:34:10 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:33:39 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5685553834439880225==" --===============5685553834439880225== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 1:35=E2=80=AFPM Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > >>> Sounds like we more need a "make offer" page. Is there somewhere on > >>> the net that already does this? > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, Ali via cctalk wrote: > > The problem with this is it gets tedious from a buyer's perspective. The > way I see it either of three scenarios are occurring when I see make an > offer: > > I generally don't like "make an offer", unless the seller has already > stated an offer. If so,then I can decide whether what I want to pay is in > a range that they would discuss it. > Otherwise,it is usually futile to start a discussion. > I make offers on eBay all the time and more often than not they are accepted (or a reasonable counter-offer comes as a reply). Maybe it's because I'm not chasing what everyone else is after. Sellam --===============5685553834439880225==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 02:34:38 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:34:06 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2756279999723024787==" --===============2756279999723024787== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 7:04 PM John Herron via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > One thing (if not already making some hardware list and maybe a description > of the history and price of the item for your family) that was recommended > was just walking around with a video camera and talking about what what. An > archive video of the collection will be a huge help to family if they know > about the video. At least you could say "btw, this is an x .. it's worth > finding a buyer and not trashing" This is a really good idea. And then upload it to YouTube. Sellam --===============2756279999723024787==-- From cisin@xenosoft.com Fri Jun 28 02:53:17 2024 From: Fred Cisin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:53:12 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5950290481276530856==" --===============5950290481276530856== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> I generally don't like "make an offer", unless the seller has already >> stated an offer. If so,then I can decide whether what I want to pay is in >> a range that they would discuss it. >> Otherwise,it is usually futile to start a discussion. On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > I make offers on eBay all the time and more often than not they are > accepted (or a reasonable counter-offer comes as a reply). Maybe it's > because I'm not chasing what everyone else is after. absolutely eBay "make an offer" is actually a "counter-offer", since the seller has already posted some sort of price. Those can be quite productive. The ones that I don't like are ones (particularly flea-market) where the seller refuses to give any indication of what they want, and demands that the potential buyer make the first offer. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com --===============5950290481276530856==-- From billdegnan@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 03:09:36 2024 From: Bill Degnan To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 23:09:18 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4579006102190658821==" --===============4579006102190658821== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 10:53 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > >> I generally don't like "make an offer", unless the seller has already > >> stated an offer. If so,then I can decide whether what I want to pay is > in > >> a range that they would discuss it. > >> Otherwise,it is usually futile to start a discussion. > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: > > I make offers on eBay all the time and more often than not they are > > accepted (or a reasonable counter-offer comes as a reply). Maybe it's > > because I'm not chasing what everyone else is after. > > absolutely > eBay "make an offer" is actually a "counter-offer", since the seller has > already posted some sort of price. Those can be quite productive. > > The ones that I don't like are ones (particularly flea-market) where the > seller refuses to give any indication of what they want, and demands that > the potential buyer make the first offer. > > -- > Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com Regardless I think Sellam is on to something here, there is need for a service to manage the vintage computing collections of this who are not predisposed to do so themselves. At a minimum an objective consultation and report produced by an educated appraiser of vintage computing / electronics that can be referenced by the collector's surviving family. Something that says, here is what you have, here are your options. Bill > > --===============4579006102190658821==-- From js@cimmeri.com Fri Jun 28 03:18:38 2024 From: js@cimmeri.com To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 22:15:51 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5294020184449064226==" --===============5294020184449064226== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/27/2024 10:09 PM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: > Regardless I think Sellam is on to something here, there is need for a > service to manage the vintage computing collections of this who are not > predisposed to do so themselves. At a minimum an objective consultation > and report produced by an educated appraiser of vintage computing / > electronics that can be referenced by the collector's surviving family. > Something that says, here is what you have, here are your options. > > Bill I'm interested in this, but.. - How would they be compensated? - How would it be ensured that they didn't have a conflict of interest, or bias, (or an actual interest in the collection)? - How much would such a service cost, or be priced? JohnS. --===============5294020184449064226==-- From cisin@xenosoft.com Fri Jun 28 03:46:36 2024 From: Fred Cisin To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 20:46:31 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0311546022534459156==" --===============0311546022534459156== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, js--- via cctalk wrote: > I'm interested in this, but.. > > - How would they be compensated? presumably by some sort of percentage commission, such as done by art brokers, real estate agents, etc. > - How would it be ensured that they didn't have a conflict of > interest, or bias, (or an actual interest in the collection)? There may be occasional ethics issues. If it is composed of multiple "agents", then an agent who has personal lust for part of the collection should have to recuse themselves? If it is a single entity, then they should openly negotiate with the owners. How is that currently handled in art and real estate? I trust Sellam, at least with that stuff; those who do not will have to find other venues. > - How much would such a service cost, or be priced? THAT's a tough one, and it is likely to go up or down, as things develop. And in fact, it might be necessary to have that be a function of how difficult it will be to move the stuff. Most inheritors, and even owners, of collections would probably be willing to accept fairly substantial commission percentages. There will probably even be more than a few who will effectively say, "I don't care! If you remove ALL of it, we'lll be happy!" I'm for it. Wanna do a test run with a truckload of my crap^h^h^h^h treasures? -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com --===============0311546022534459156==-- From jfoust@threedee.com Fri Jun 28 12:44:14 2024 From: John Foust To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 07:43:57 -0500 Message-ID: <20240628124410.D198F90100@classiccmp.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5810237820369093757==" --===============5810237820369093757== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 10:46 PM 6/27/2024, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: >THAT's a tough one, and it is likely to go up or down, as things develop. An= d in fact, it might be necessary to have that be a function of how difficult = it will be to move the stuff. >Most inheritors, and even owners, of collections would probably be willing t= o accept fairly substantial commission percentages. There will probably even= be more than a few who will effectively say, "I don't care! If you remove A= LL of it, we'lll be happy!" When I had to quickly move/disburse my office warehouse cache two years ago, = I had a trusted friend who was interested in reselling. I offered him a 50/50 split. I let him take (almost) whatever he wanted. He took maybe three minivans worth. I'm still quite content with the terms of that deal, as well as what he's paid me. I still have roughly 1,200 square feet of stuff to deal with. - John --===============5810237820369093757==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 15:27:51 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 08:27:18 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2948337989656393861==" --===============2948337989656393861== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 8:18 PM js--- via cctalk wrote: > On 6/27/2024 10:09 PM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: > > Regardless I think Sellam is on to something here, there is need for a > > service to manage the vintage computing collections of this who are not > > predisposed to do so themselves. At a minimum an objective consultation > > and report produced by an educated appraiser of vintage computing / > > electronics that can be referenced by the collector's surviving family. > > Something that says, here is what you have, here are your options. > > > > Bill > > > I'm interested in this, but.. > > - How would they be compensated? > > - How would it be ensured that they didn't have a conflict of interest, > or bias, (or an actual interest in the collection)? > > - How much would such a service cost, or be priced? > > JohnS. > I'm still working this out. It'll be fee based, including maybe some kind of periodic "subscription" fee. But usually the trust indenture specifies how the expenses are going to be paid, and I imagine in a typical case the fees to disgorge the collection will come from the sale of the collection itself. Sellam --===============2948337989656393861==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 15:33:18 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 08:32:46 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6597809369908884377==" --===============6597809369908884377== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 8:46=E2=80=AFPM Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, js--- via cctalk wrote: > > I'm interested in this, but.. > > > > - How would they be compensated? > > presumably by some sort of percentage commission, such as done by art > brokers, real estate agents, etc. > Right, typical. > > - How would it be ensured that they didn't have a conflict of > > interest, or bias, (or an actual interest in the collection)? > > There may be occasional ethics issues. If it is composed of multiple > "agents", then an agent who has personal lust for part of the collection > should have to recuse themselves? If it is a single entity, then they > should openly negotiate with the owners. How is that currently handled in > art and real estate? > > I trust Sellam, at least with that stuff; those who do not will have to > find other venues. > You won't be trusting me, you'll be trusting the organization I will have built. There are also laws to follow. I'm not interested in breaking any laws or cheating anyone, but in providing a valuable service. > > > - How much would such a service cost, or be priced? > > THAT's a tough one, and it is likely to go up or down, as things develop. > And in fact, it might be necessary to have that be a function of how > difficult it will be to move the stuff. > Like I said, I'm still working this out. But eventually, and naturally (at least how I am seeing it now), I envision several regional operational centers throughout the US in which to receive large collections and process them. Most inheritors, and even owners, of collections would probably be willing > to accept fairly substantial commission percentages. There will probably > even be more than a few who will effectively say, "I don't care! If you > remove ALL of it, we'lll be happy!" > > I'm for it. > Wanna do a test run with a truckload of my crap^h^h^h^h treasures? > Not until after you die, but I expect you to outlive me at this point. So hopefully the organization will be up and running before all that. That being said, don't die, Fred. I like you better alive. Sellam --===============6597809369908884377==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 17:18:14 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:17:40 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <19e1b21a-4a28-40cd-86d0-58e44592275d@sydex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2171046595913306210==" --===============2171046595913306210== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 1:56 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > On 6/27/24 13:11, Tony Jones via cctalk wrote: > > I see so many sellers listing stuff as "used" with poor photos and often > > some "as-is" disclaimer in the text body. I don't know why sellers do > > this as eBay is going to force them to take an item back at their own > > expense. > > I see a lot of listings with "not working or for parts" with the tag > "seller does not accept returns". I don't understand how a seller can > ask for more than scrap value in these cases, yet I see outrageous > asking prices. > > One born every minute? > > --Chuck > I put the same disclaimer in my listings. However, it is for naught, as eBay steps in and applies its own equity based on various factors, so stuff can and has been returned with refunds even when the seller states they do not accept returns. If one is a Top Rated Seller then eBay usually handles things on both ends and makes both sides happy. Conclusion: strive to become a Top Rated Seller if you're going to sell on eBay. --===============2171046595913306210==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 17:21:33 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:21:00 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8017401793660896082==" --===============8017401793660896082== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:29=E2=80=AFPM Tony Jones via cctalk wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:03=E2=80=AFPM Ali via cctalk > wrote: > > > a seller who has 100% rating (for whatever that is worth as ratings are > > very much manipulated by sellers and eBay). > > > > This is very true. It's very hard to leave negative feedback that a seller > can't get removed (if they try). > Can confirm. Even when I was clearly screwed by an unscrupulous buyer, and no matter how much I complained about it, they would not remove the one negative feedback that marred my perfect 100% feedback score. I had to wait 6 months for it to slough off before my score was restored to its true number. As for Ali and his contentions, he has no idea what he's talking about. He has in mind this unattainable ideal of a buyer/seller relationship, and from my experience is nearly impossible to please, which is why I would never sell anything to him, as he'd find something to complain about nonetheless. Sellam --===============8017401793660896082==-- From paulkoning@comcast.net Fri Jun 28 17:23:09 2024 From: Paul Koning To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:23:00 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7334230189017199336==" --===============7334230189017199336== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Jun 28, 2024, at 1:17 PM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: >=20 > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 1:56=E2=80=AFPM Chuck Guzis via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: >=20 >> On 6/27/24 13:11, Tony Jones via cctalk wrote: >>> I see so many sellers listing stuff as "used" with poor photos and often >>> some "as-is" disclaimer in the text body. I don't know why sellers do >>> this as eBay is going to force them to take an item back at their own >>> expense. >>=20 >> I see a lot of listings with "not working or for parts" with the tag >> "seller does not accept returns". I don't understand how a seller can >> ask for more than scrap value in these cases, yet I see outrageous >> asking prices. >>=20 >> One born every minute? >>=20 >> --Chuck >>=20 >=20 > I put the same disclaimer in my listings. However, it is for naught, as > eBay steps in and applies its own equity based on various factors, so stuff > can and has been returned with refunds even when the seller states they do > not accept returns. If one is a Top Rated Seller then eBay usually handles > things on both ends and makes both sides happy. >=20 > Conclusion: strive to become a Top Rated Seller if you're going to sell on > eBay. My conclusion would be: avoid eBay and use an honest third party instead. paul --===============7334230189017199336==-- From tony@tonyjones.com Fri Jun 28 17:26:15 2024 From: Tony Jones To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:57 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0058204319838890310==" --===============0058204319838890310== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 10:18 AM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > I put the same disclaimer in my listings. However, it is for naught, as > eBay steps in and applies its own equity based on various factors, so stuff > can and has been returned with refunds even when the seller states they do > not accept returns. Stating whether you accept returns has nothing to do with the buyers ability to request a return for seller fault (i.e "not as described"). Stating that you will accept returns just means the buyer can return the item if they decide they no longer wanted it (no seller fault). > > --===============0058204319838890310==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 17:28:25 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:27:54 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <003a01dac8dc$f2da8b20$d88fa160$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0901840733184690062==" --===============0901840733184690062== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:57 PM Ali via cctalk wrote: > Well they got to eat too. I don't buy as much as used to because of the > total and utter lack of CSR for the customer now a days. eBay seems to > forget that the guy with the cash is the customer to be catered to not the > guy listing on twenty different platforms... > > -Ali > You don't seem to understand that eBay's customers are its sellers. As a buyer, you're the seller's customer. Sellam --===============0901840733184690062==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 17:31:51 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:31:15 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <004601dac8e2$845b7000$8d125000$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4895634289842702747==" --===============4895634289842702747== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 3:44 PM Ali via cctalk wrote: > > For some vintage computers, one has limited opportunity to purchase and > > may need to buy what’s available. > > > > Which is exactly what is driving the predatory pricing and massive > increase in the cost of items. Wrong, again. Increased interest in computer collecting is driving the increase in price. "Predatory" is your (silly) assessment, because you just don't want to pay what the market will bear. That's on you, not the seller. It's simple supply and demand, Ali. There is no conspiracy here to deprive you of all the toys you want to play with that you couldn't afford as a child. Grow up. Sellam --===============4895634289842702747==-- From tony@tonyjones.com Fri Jun 28 17:35:52 2024 From: Tony Jones To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:35:34 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0245409425295949067==" --===============0245409425295949067== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 10:31 AM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > Grow up. > There is zero need to get personal. Please stop. Ditto for the earlier "does not know what he's talking about" comment. > --===============0245409425295949067==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 17:38:23 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:37:50 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1050003288448200585==" --===============1050003288448200585== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:26 AM Tony Jones via cctalk < cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 10:18 AM Sellam Abraham via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > > I put the same disclaimer in my listings. However, it is for naught, as > > eBay steps in and applies its own equity based on various factors, so > stuff > > can and has been returned with refunds even when the seller states they > do > > not accept returns. > > > Stating whether you accept returns has nothing to do with the buyers > ability to request a return for seller fault (i.e "not as described"). > > Stating that you will accept returns just means the buyer can return the > item if they decide they no longer wanted it (no seller fault). > At the end of the day, I'm effectively selling "junk". I don't want anything back. In the rare event my buyer receives something that turns out to be not as described, I'm happy to work with the buyer to arrive at a mutually agreed compromise, and refund them what they believe is fair. I also follow through and file insurance claims when it's clearly the shippers fault (everything I pack is done so as if it were priceless), and have gotten more than a few claims processed successfully over the years. This is part of why I have 100% feedback on almost 900 transactions across 7 years. I'm extremely conscientious as a seller. My account name is "General Computer" if anyone cares. Sellam --===============1050003288448200585==-- From cctalk@ibm51xx.net Fri Jun 28 17:40:18 2024 From: Ali To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:40:17 -0700 Message-ID: <00d701dac982$3e4176a0$bac463e0$@net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6509864091688446347==" --===============6509864091688446347== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Can confirm. Even when I was clearly screwed by an unscrupulous buyer, > and > no matter how much I complained about it, they would not remove the one > negative feedback that marred my perfect 100% feedback score. I had to > wait 6 months for it to slough off before my score was restored to its > true > number. Read it again. Both of us are saying sellers can get negatives removed with e= ase. In fact standard eBay policy is if you made a full refund then they will= remove the negative FB. Apparently in eBay's eyes the buyer is made whole an= d so shouldn't have anything to gripe about even if their time was wasted, th= eir money was held up for weeks, they did not get the item they wanted to etc= . etc.=20 >=20 > As for Ali and his contentions, he has no idea what he's talking about. > He > has in mind this unattainable ideal of a buyer/seller relationship, and > from my experience is nearly impossible to please, which is why I would > never sell anything to him, as he'd find something to complain about > nonetheless. Hmmm... Should I be filing a libel suit? LOL. Whatever makes you happy man...= . Best of luck to you. -Ali --===============6509864091688446347==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 17:56:28 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:55:55 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <00d701dac982$3e4176a0$bac463e0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3388670282253540498==" --===============3388670282253540498== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:49 AM Ali via cctalk wrote: > > Can confirm. Even when I was clearly screwed by an unscrupulous buyer, > > and > > no matter how much I complained about it, they would not remove the one > > negative feedback that marred my perfect 100% feedback score. I had to > > wait 6 months for it to slough off before my score was restored to its > > true > > number. > > Read it again. Both of us are saying sellers can get negatives removed > with ease. In fact standard eBay policy is if you made a full refund then > they will remove the negative FB. Apparently in eBay's eyes the buyer is > made whole and so shouldn't have anything to gripe about even if their time > was wasted, their money was held up for weeks, they did not get the item > they wanted to etc. etc. > Again, my experience is different from yours. > > > > As for Ali and his contentions, he has no idea what he's talking about. > > He > > has in mind this unattainable ideal of a buyer/seller relationship, and > > from my experience is nearly impossible to please, which is why I would > > never sell anything to him, as he'd find something to complain about > > nonetheless. > > Hmmm... Should I be filing a libel suit? LOL. Whatever makes you happy > man.... Best of luck to you. > If you think I've libeled you, go right ahead. Sellam --===============3388670282253540498==-- From cctalk@ibm51xx.net Fri Jun 28 18:00:35 2024 From: Ali To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:00:23 -0700 Message-ID: <00d801dac985$0d2542b0$276fc810$@net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2982640755535431481==" --===============2982640755535431481== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > For some vintage computers, one has limited opportunity to purchase > and > > > may need to buy what=E2=80=99s available. > > > > > > > Which is exactly what is driving the predatory pricing and massive > > increase in the cost of items. >=20 > It's simple supply and demand, Ali. There is no conspiracy here to > deprive you of all the toys you want to play with that you couldn't > afford > as a child. Conspiracy? Who said anything about conspiracy (except you of course). I simp= ly stated that the supply demand curve is driving predatory pricing. -Ali --===============2982640755535431481==-- From cctalk@ibm51xx.net Fri Jun 28 18:00:39 2024 From: Ali To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:00:24 -0700 Message-ID: <00d901dac985$0dfa45f0$29eed1d0$@net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5636600419075341200==" --===============5636600419075341200== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > You don't seem to understand that eBay's customers are its sellers. As > a > buyer, you're the seller's customer. Nope. I understand perfectly. Sellers are at best a customer of the eBay plat= form if they have a store that they pay monthly fees for. Once eBay stopped c= harging listing fees sellers stopped being a customer. The guys paying the ca= sh, which is where eBay gets their money, is the customer. Of course sellers = always argue this is not true or that they are both customer. -Ali --===============5636600419075341200==-- From linimon@portsmon.org Fri Jun 28 18:02:18 2024 From: Mark Linimon To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:02:14 -0500 Message-ID: <1064459529.526112.1719597734069@privateemail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7922926713136559244==" --===============7922926713136559244== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > If you think I've libeled you, go right ahead. IMHO it's time the two of you take this mini-discussion offline. mcl --===============7922926713136559244==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 18:02:58 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:02:23 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <00d801dac985$0d2542b0$276fc810$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2238931925969511030==" --===============2238931925969511030== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:00 AM Ali wrote: > > > > For some vintage computers, one has limited opportunity to purchase > > and > > > > may need to buy what’s available. > > > > > > > > > > Which is exactly what is driving the predatory pricing and massive > > > increase in the cost of items. > > > > It's simple supply and demand, Ali. There is no conspiracy here to > > deprive you of all the toys you want to play with that you couldn't > > afford > > as a child. > > Conspiracy? Who said anything about conspiracy (except you of course). I > simply stated that the supply demand curve is driving predatory pricing. > > -Ali > "predatory"? Sellers are hunting you down to consume your finances? You have no agency in the matter, but are forced to open your wallet and dispense cash once they catch up with you? Sellam --===============2238931925969511030==-- From sellam.ismail@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 18:03:57 2024 From: Sellam Abraham To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:03:24 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <00d901dac985$0dfa45f0$29eed1d0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6100267735347155008==" --===============6100267735347155008== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:00 AM Ali via cctalk wrote: > > You don't seem to understand that eBay's customers are its sellers. As > > a > > buyer, you're the seller's customer. > > Nope. I understand perfectly. Sellers are at best a customer of the eBay > platform if they have a store that they pay monthly fees for. Once eBay > stopped charging listing fees sellers stopped being a customer. The guys > paying the cash, which is where eBay gets their money, is the customer. Of > course sellers always argue this is not true or that they are both customer. > > -Ali > Like I said, and as you just proved (again), you have no idea what you're talking about. Sellam --===============6100267735347155008==-- From doc@vaxen.net Sat Jun 29 05:20:33 2024 From: Doc Shipley To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: [cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures" Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 00:20:24 -0500 Message-ID: <8b694f2e-aa39-430e-bf15-e3e469a50620@vaxen.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8371244079449943503==" --===============8371244079449943503== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/27/24 21:53, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > The ones that I don't like are ones (particularly flea-market) where the > seller refuses to give any indication of what they want, and demands > that the potential buyer make the first offer. That goes to a lesson I learned long before the internet: "If you have to ask, it's way too much." Doc --===============8371244079449943503==--