History of S-100 Board company Industrial Micro Systems (IMS)
monahanz
vintage S100 computers with a strong
focus on hardware. It's at www.S100Computers.com. I started it just a
few months ago and clearly have a long way to go. This is strictly a
hobby.
I think there is a need for a good central place that describes the
different S-100 boards that anybody can quickly go to with good images
and details/manuals about each board. As you might expect this is
going to take a lot of time to do. I am allowing myself 2+ years!
Ther are some other excellent sites but they are not consistant in
having everything in one place or having an extensive collection of
images/manuals for all boards/manufacturers.
Anyway, I am working my way through the different companies doing the
common/easy ones first. For each company I have tried to add a little
history about the company.
One company, Industrial Micro Systems located in Orange,CA back in the
early 1980's had a number of good S-100 boards. However I am drawing a
complete blank about the history of the company or its founders.
Does anybody out there know about them. and/ot what happened to them.
PS. A few of the images I have so far on the site are not great. If
you see a poor image of an S-100 board on the site and you have a
better one please let me know. Also I am still looking for some
manuals -- also indicated on the site.
James Moxham (Dr_Acula)
boards in various ancient books and it is great to see photos of real
ones and in color too. I've put a link to your site on the N8VEM site
as there are some S100 boards available for the N8VEM. I see the page
with suppliers is blank at the moment and hopefully that will get
filled in over time. I seem to recall posts in the past about boards
still being available, even new ones. Keep up the good work.
Mr Emmanuel Roche, France
> I have started putting together a web site completely focused on
> vintage S100 computers, with a strong focus on hardware.
I had a look. The contrast with the comp.os.cpm Newsgroup is very
funny: here, you cannot use lines longer than 66 columns while, on
your Web site, the texts are so much wider. I would advise you to
stick with 78 columns.
The pictures are also, usually, too wide. Yet, I don't use my 12"
screen when "surfing the Net".
Finally, you decided to put everything in a single page. Me, I would
have made a first Web page like the "Table of Contents" of a book,
with links to the Web pages proper.
I note that you use "S100". Me, I am using "S-100 Bus". (As far as I
know, "S" stands for "Standard", "100" for the number of lines.)
There is a "Software" Web page. I suggest adding the source code of
the utilties of "The Programmer's CP/M Handbook". As far as I know,
this is the only book published about BIOS writing and debugging.
My favorite bug (I did not proof-read all the text) is: "there is a
growing number of *armature* computer collectors". Hahaha! Yes, we
need to be bullet-proof, to resist MicroShit and its WinDozes.
Yours Sincerely,
Mr. Emmanuel Roche, France
Tom Lake
"monahanz" <mon...@vitasoft.org> wrote in message
news:64a94b80-2277-4976...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> I have started putting together a web site completely focused on
> vintage S100 computers with a strong
> focus on hardware. It's at www.S100Computers.com. I started it just a
> few months ago and clearly have a long way to go. This is strictly a
> hobby.
Great site! One correction, though. It's Vector Graphic, not Victor
Graphic.
http://www.retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/d_vector.html
Tom Lake
monahanz
do and I am
currently trying to get some foundations in place.
Responding to comments so far...
James.. Yes it is blank currently. If people have S-100 boards they
would
like to sell please let me know I will pop them in there. Need
picture, brief description,
price and contact info.
Emmanuel...
I figured on a 1024X768 Internet Explorer format as the lowest common
dominator screen
format. I feel lower than this will really not allow good picture
resolution. I am assuming most
users will be using a desktop display anyway.
How much on the home page is always an issue. Again a compromise
between enough
there to interest first time (and perhaps non informed) viewers and
length of download time.
These days however most desktops have decent download bandwidth. I
will pass on mobile
displays etc. It's just not worth bringing everything to that reduced
level.
I did consider calling the site S-100Computers.com, but in the past I
found that URL's with anything
other than the 26 letters of the alphabet get forgotten/mixed up.
Particularly if they are verbally
passed along. Throughout the actual text of course I try to use
S-100. If you see an error please let me know.
The whole software section will need weeks to do. Trying to get the
bulk of the individual boards
done first. Thanks for the suggestion will certainly incorporate it.
Oops armature/amateur -- the wonders of spell checkers!
Tom...
Thanks Tom missed that one, has been corrected.
Guys, back to original question, anybody know who/what/when about the
S-100 board
manufacture Industrial Micro Systems. I think they may also have been
called
Intercontinental Micro Systems.
On Jul 8, 5:11 am, "Tom Lake" <tl...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> "monahanz" <mona...@vitasoft.org> wrote in message
>
> news:64a94b80-2277-4976...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I have started putting together a web site completely focused on
> > vintage S100 computers with a strong
> > focus on hardware. It's atwww.S100Computers.com. I started it just a
commodorejohn
what other information gets uploaded in the future.
Herbert Johnson
> I have started putting together a web site completely focused on
> vintage S100 computers with a strong
> focus on hardware. It's at www.S100Computers.com. I started it just a
> few months ago and clearly have a long way to go. This is strictly a
> hobby.
>
> I think there is a need for a good central place that describes the
> different S-100 boards that anybody can quickly go to with good images
> and details/manuals about each board. As you might expect this is
> going to take a lot of time to do. I am allowing myself 2+ years!
> Ther are some other excellent sites but they are not consistant in
> having everything in one place or having an extensive collection of
> images/manuals for all boards/manufacturers.
John, I have a comment, but a strong one. Also some explanation about
how my S-100 Web site is like yours, or different, and the value of
MANY S-100 Web sites. And some question about what "hobby" means.
I welcome your new site, more S-100 sites are better. But I believe
that my S-100 Web pages, which have a home page at
http://www.retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/s100.html
provides many - but not all - of the features you describe. Other
sites provide other features I don't. So I object to your notion of
"a good central place", as either being central or singular, or not
currently available. You have a good idea, but it's your own vision of
what your Web site will do and why and how. Other sites, have other
visions, simply put.
Through my Web site, I have provided S-100 manuals for *decades*, and
still do; I have what I believe is one of the largest S-100 original
manual collections. And they are all available, as photocopies for a
per page fee plus postage and handling. There's lots of other
information there on my site - histories of S-100 companies, links to
other sites, technical discussions and content by many people, new
work done recently - including YOUR OWN work, John.
All that aside, there are a number of on-line archives of PDFs of
scanned manuals, which include many if not all the commonly-discussed
and in-use S-100 boards manuals. Those are freely downloadable. And,
finally, there are many Web sites which describe one or a few S-100
companies' products, with photos and some manuals, some in great
detail. One of my Web pages points to most of these, and I keep it
current.
Also, I've seen sites come and go - one site is not stable, over years
and decades. (However, individual sites do better than institutional
ones.)
I also take issue with "central". I don't think the Web has a center,
or needs one, simply put.
All that said, I certainly welcome another S-100 oriented site. As
S-100 systems get older, and the original owners of them get older,
more sites are needed to preserve their history, especially as
personal Web sites come and go. More sites, shows more interest - that
encourages people to "adopt" S-100 systems, they won't feel alone in
doing so. More site developers, means more ways HOW to show S-100
systems. I don't have a picture gallery - if you believe that is
important, then your site can fill that need. I don't offer on-line
manual archives, but other sites do, one more site does no harm.
Bottom line: I welcome "more", more is better. I dispute "one". If
you mean your site has a specific focus, that's fine.
Specific to your request for Industrial Micro Systems information, I
only have what I call a "stub" about that company on my Web site:
http://www.retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/d_ims.html
(Intercontinental Micro Systems. is a different company.)
But I have many IMS manuals, again available as good photocopies for a
per page fee plus postage. I also welcome more information about IMS
(or any other S-100 company): the history of their products, comments
from former owners and employees, and comments and Web links to those
people who are working on them today. One person who is working on an
IMS system, contacted me months ago. I have his correspondence with me
on my site, to show other people HOW to work on S-100 systems, what
that is all about, at a personal level. He's posted in comp.os.cpm - I
suggested that - and he's getting more help.
I also mention this, because it highlights what I do with *my* Web
site, these days. In the past, my site was mostly a repository of
manuals - paper and photocopies, that being the technology of the
1990's. Today, my site provides a service of preserving S-100 history
and technology, as a place where people describe their S-100
activities, past and present. I help some people directly; I carry
their discussions on my site. I provide other supporting information -
I spent a few years just gathering old CP/M history for instance, and
put it on my Web site, in a CP/M section. They contact me, I respond.
This takes a lot of my time, every day.
More and more, my site is about preserving technology history and
encouraging use of "old" tech. My domain name is not "retrotechnology"
by accident. My focus is larger than S-100, but S-100 has a distinct
section in my Web domain.
John, you emphasize photos on your site. Most of the content on my
site is in "text" form, because that is still the best way to describe
technology and how to work with it. That is, beyond books and manuals
and other documents, which I provide off line - or others already
provide in large part. If you want to show more photos of boards, go
for it. There are hundreds of companies, so there will be thousands of
boards. 21st century people like photos, no doubt about that!
Finally, one quick point. John, you say "This is strictly a hobby." Do
you mean anything by that in particular? You are welcome to explain.
But if that's about me charging for things I do or sell, as some kind
of issue, let me know - some people have issues about "money". I
charge "money", to pay for my time and expenses and taxes, just as
most people have salaries and income, without embarrassment or
apology. If it's your way of saying you have to limit your time and
money spent on your Web site, therefore things will happen slowly,
that's certainly reasonable.
Good luck with your new site.
Herb Johnson
Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA
http://www.retrotechnology.com/ retro-technology home pages
-- S-100, CP/M history by "Dr. S-100"
-- other old tech in iron, glass, rock
domain mirror: retrotechnology.net
email: hjohnson AAT retrotechnology DOTT com
if no reply, try: herbjohnson ATT retrotechnology DOTT info
monahanz
central site for S-100 systems. Perhaps "another" would be a better
choice. I agree the more the better for such sites. It's great to see
a revival of these vintage computers.
I do disagree with you about images. I actually like looking at
detailed images of S-100 boards. Perhaps I'm weird and the only one,
but I like seeing how the chips are placed and connected. My goal was
to provide detailed images of S-100 boards along with a discussion of
the hardware implementation. This takes a lot of time to do. The
Versafloppy boards being where I would like to get to for many boards.
I have a lot of boards here and I can get others from the web -- even
eBay! My initial task is just to get them all placed/listed. That
said almost every image takes time to cleanup and set on a consistent
black background. Where .pdf files are available on the web I am
including these. Also for each company I am adding a short history
about the company as best I can tell from a fairly extensive review of
many sites on the web and books like Fire in the Valley etc.
Yes, this is a hobby for me in the simplest meaning of the word. I am
retired and while I have other interests reviving S-100 computers is
right up there. I have no problem with you charging for hard copies
of manuals. Your store may well be the last depository of the rare
ones and I can appreciate the time and effort involved. That said
there are many scattered sites with S-100 .pdf files on the web. I
list and acknowledge the major ones I have found at
http://www.s100computers.com/Web%20Sites.htm
If there are others please let me know but I have not found one with
ALL the S-100 manuals and corresponding images yet.
Finally S100Computers.com will not just be a depository of board info
I would like it to be:-
A blog for my own extensive S-100 systems, a forum for discussions
about S-100 boards and computers. Perhaps you might say ANOTHER forum,
but I hope I can build it up with discussions about hardware &
software issues etc.
Also I would like to have a section for people that are either looking
for S-100 boards or have boards to sell. Currently the only practical
way to do this today is on eBay. I will do it for free.
In summary Herb I would like to see if I can build a site that S-100
hobbyist can freely participate in with the above tools.
This is a fairly major task I have thought about it for some time. It
will indeed take perhaps a year or two before I have it close to where
I want it.
BTW, I would really appreciate any (better) images and information of
boards I am presenting from ANYBODY reading this tread.
Back to IMS….
I did not know that Intercontinental Micro Systems is a different
company. That makes two mysteries. Both made what looked like
excellent S-100 boards – and a large number of them. It’s so strange
nothing is written about the companies themselves.
Greegor
I saw a Swiss site with a photo of an Altair 8800b
but it didn't look like the one I built.
Then I remembered that they made TURNKEY versions also.
It's a good thing that the reproduction Altair 8800 kits
are front panel versions, but it occurred to me, was
there any 'having it both ways" on that aspect?
Did they make 8800b's that had both the
front panel and the turnkey feature?
For the one I built we wrote up a little step by step crib sheet.
It always reminded me of a pilots preflight check list.
Thomas "Todd" Fischer
news:64a94b80-2277-4976...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Somehow, I don't recall that as being exactly the case. Maybe a bit more
subject background research on your part might be in order?
Just sayin'.
monahanz
http://virtualaltair.com/
> It always reminded me of a pilots preflight check list.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
monahanz
that based on the statement over on http://www.pc-history.org/imsai.htm
where at the end he said:-
"Millard had stripped Imsai of all its resources and put them into
Computerland. Bankruptcy quickly followed for Imsai."
Also in Paul Freiberger & Michael Swaine's book "Fire in the
Valley" (pages 239-243) they outlined the "close" relationship Millard
had with Computerland . They said "he founded it and poured initial
capital into it". He was in fact chairman of the board of directors
of Computerland. And while IMSAI and Computerland were legal seperate
enteties most accounts I read suggest Millard drained IMSAI to build
Computerland moving resources and people across.
Since you were there I would be interested to hear your views.
On Jul 8, 7:46 pm, "Thomas \"Todd\" Fischer" <t...@imsai.net> wrote:
> "monahanz" <mona...@vitasoft.org> wrote in message
>
> news:64a94b80-2277-4976...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >I have started putting together a web site completely focused on
> > vintage S100 computers with a strong
> > focus on hardware. It's atwww.S100Computers.com. I started it just a
> > few months ago and clearly have a long way to go. This is strictly a
> > hobby.
>
> > I think there is a need for a good central place that describes the
> > different S-100 boards that anybody can quickly go to with good images
> > and details/manuals about each board. As you might expect this is
> > going to take a lot of time to do. I am allowing myself 2+ years!
> > Ther are some other excellent sites but they are not consistant in
> > having everything in one place or having an extensive collection of
> > images/manuals for all boards/manufacturers.
>
> > Anyway, I am working my way through the different companies doing the
> > common/easy ones first. For each company I have tried to add a little
> > history about the company.
>
> > One company, Industrial Micro Systems located in Orange,CA back in the
> > early 1980's had a number of good S-100 boards. However I am drawing a
> > complete blank about the history of the company or its founders.
>
> > Does anybody out there know about them. and/ot what happened to them.
>
> > PS. A few of the images I have so far on the site are not great. If
> > you see a poor image of an S-100 board on the site and you have a
> > better one please let me know. Also I am still looking for some
> > manuals -- also indicated on the site.
>
> From your site: "IMSAI became part of a company called Computerland."
>
> Somehow, I don't recall that as being exactly the case. Maybe a bit more
> subject background research on your part might be in order?
>
> Just sayin'.- Hide quoted text -
Barry Watzman
IMSAI card at all, or [definitely] is not the one that was common, or
that people [properly] remember.
"Victor Graphics" should be "Vector Graphics"
You are right: It will take 2 years to do this right. You have just
scratched the surface.
I would suggest that you get the boards and companies off the main page.
Rather, my recommendation would be that the main page should have two
columns of links, side by side: One by company, one by board type, each
leading to a totally separate page for each company or each board (the
company page can also have a link to the board pages of boards made by
the company). It would end up being hundreds if not thousands of web pages.
Thomas "Todd" Fischer
Hi Thomas, being there I am sure you know the story better. I said
that based on the statement over on http://www.pc-history.org/imsai.htm
where at the end he said:-
"Millard had stripped Imsai of all its resources and put them into
Computerland. Bankruptcy quickly followed for Imsai."
Also in Paul Freiberger & Michael Swaine's book "Fire in the
Valley" (pages 239-243) they outlined the "close" relationship Millard
had with Computerland . They said "he founded it and poured initial
capital into it". He was in fact chairman of the board of directors
of Computerland. And while IMSAI and Computerland were legal seperate
enteties most accounts I read suggest Millard drained IMSAI to build
Computerland moving resources and people across.
Since you were there I would be interested to hear your views.
On Jul 8, 7:46 pm, "Thomas \"Todd\" Fischer" <t...@imsai.net> wrote:
> "monahanz" <mona...@vitasoft.org> wrote in message
>
> news:64a94b80-2277-4976...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
Such is the vagary of relying solely on the often misquoted and,
occasionally, "invented" histories as they're related. One poster gets the
"facts" wrong and eventually becomes the reliable source of authority for
all the clones that follow.
Frieberger and Swaine got it mostly right, even softening the "edginess" of
the 1984 edition with their 2000 revision (which was the loose basis for
TNT's "Pirates of Silicon Valley"). IMSAI was never connected in any manner
with Computerland; Bill Millard controlled both, but kept operations and
identities legally separated. See the following reference for a clearer
understanding based on factual material:
"Fire In The Valley" (1984 edition, p. 77 - 2000 edition, pp. 107-108)
JackRubin
> PS. A few of the images I have so far on the site are not great. If
> you see a poor image of an S-100 board on the site and you have a
> better one please let me know. Also I am still looking for some
> manuals -- also indicated on the site.
John,
Nice start to an ambitious project. One thing that might help is to
trade your camera for a scanner. A decent scanner with a little depth
of field can produce incredible hi-res images with little effort. I'm
still using an old SCSI Epson 800 and it does a great job. I'll send
some images to you over the weekend for review.
best,
Jack
monahanz
ScanJet 4C and while there is a great "flat field" with no distorsion
the chips themselves seem to have a smear on their surface. Hard to
explain, but I will try again. Perhaps if I place the boards 1 or 2mm
above the surface.
Thanks for the offer of images. Dont worry about backgrounds etc I
will do that.
Related, I am having no success locating a decent image of the two
Processor Technology Helios-II FDC boards. If anybody out there has
one that would be great.
monahanz
relevant line to:-
1979...... "IMSAI no longer was the dominant company it once was".
I kind of got the impression from the book that the problems IMSAI had
was three fold.
1, Millard set unrealistic goals for upper management/sales force, who
could never afford to admit errors irrespective of what was reality.
2. He failed to take on financing under decent terms when they were
flying high and could not get it later when it was too late.
3. The little money he had he invested in ComputerLand and while the
two companies were separate this left him with no money to tide IMSAI
over when they needed it.
monahanz
I went back to my store and looked again. In fact it does not have an
name on it. It looks like a well made (early) card but I dont know
where I got it from. Probably at a flee markey years ago at Trenton/
NJ.
I have changed the Index page section to reflect RAM cards of
increasing complexity over the few years.
If you see othere errors please let me know as I am really trying to
get things right -- per Todd's comments above about incorrect
information getting on to the web.
MdntTrain
> I have started putting together a web site completely focused on
> vintage S100 computers with a strong
> focus on hardware. It's atwww.S100Computers.com.
Format is too wide. 1024 x 768 actually calls for more width due to
tool bars, scroll bars, etc... and I avoid websites where I have to
scroll from side to side to read.
People seem to forget that there's a good reason why newspaper columns
are so narrow, instead of going all the way across the page? Layout
is part of it, but the other reason is that narrow columns are far
easier to for the human eye to scan. The same amount of text can be
read faster in a narrow format than a wide one.
jS
Barry Watzman
found online. Go to Google, select images, then do a search.
MikeS
> "Victor Graphics" should be "Vector Graphics"
Ummm, no, it should be "Vector Graphic" (Inc.)
And the Cromemco I/O board is a TU-ART, not a TU-UART.
I agree, move the images off the main page; that will become
hopelessly unwieldy with time.
But kudos for a good beginning; hope you keep the momentum going and
can devote the time to it that it will require to be a truly inclusive
resource (and that you have a thick skin to absorb all the
corrections, suggestions, criticisms etc. ;-)
mike
Axel Berger
>1024 x 768 actually calls for more width
That's one point. Another is, Windows is not just a name but also a
concept. My browser window rarely is the full screen, and if so
grudgingly for a badly made site.
monahanz
about comments. At my age/experience I'm pretty thick skinned. I
rather get things right.
I'm still thinking what to do about the Index page.
First on width. I'm inclined to stick with a 1000 px width simply
because this allows more detailed and complete images as you scroll up
and down. I'm figuring most users will be utilizing desktops with at
least that width (+ their Browsers Favorites column on the left hand
side). In this day and age most people have desktops far wider than
1024. I use a dual 1920X1200 but I suspect maby thats not that common.
On those writing in here I'm curious what are people using.
On the content figured two types of users, die hards (like us) who
know all about the S100 bus and occasionally may drop in for a
reference, user the forum, something for sale etc. The second would
be people that wander here via Google etc and want to quickly find out
what the heck the S-100 bus is. I for one don't like bouncing all
over the place when I want to find out about something on the web.
For that reason I briefly laid out the principal TYPES of boards and a
short account of the era.
My focus for us hard core types would be to develop the button options
on the top which hopefully will go to 10's of pages later as I am
currently doing for the S-100 boards button.
Nevertheless open to suggestions.
Barry Watzman
Left column: Manufacturers
Imsai
Altair (MITS)
Processor Technology
Cromemco
Godbout (CompuPro)
Heath (Heathkit / Zenith Data Systems)
.
.
.
etc. (there are at least 100 or so).
Right column: Product Categories
MAJOR S-100 Computers
Then a list of board categories:
CPU Cards
RAM Memory Cards (maybe 2 categories for static & dynamic)
I/O cards
Storage Cards (includes both tape and disk)
Video Cards
ROM Cards (incl. ROM Burners)
All-in-One cards (system on a board)
Disk Systems
Music cards
Chassis
Ultimately, pages for individual boards will be accessible from both
columns; so the Cromemco ZPU could be found under CPU Cards, and of
course would also be found under Cromemco.
One COULD envsion a "software" category as well.
Just one other comment: How much storage do you have? I contributed a
huge amount of stuff to Howard Harte, and his library is still one of
the better online libraries. However, he stopped "growing" it when it
got above about 5 gigabytes. My own "classic computer archive" (which
is pretty good, actually) no longer fits on a DUAL-LAYER DVD; it's close
to or over 10 gigabytes. Of course I just saw a 1TB (1,000GB) hard
drive today for $65 (still available, I think; see www.techbargains.com).
monahanz wrote:
> Thanks guys, I'm making changes as they are coming in. Don�t worry
Randy
<mon...@vitasoft.org> wrote:
> Don�t worry
>about comments.
Hmmm...
>First on width. I'm inclined to stick with a 1000 px width simply
I've found that 900 is a good compromise, large enough for good
detail, yet fits the majority of screens OK.
>On those writing in here I'm curious what are people using.
1440 X 900 - which can rotate to go either way (i.e. 900 W X 1440
tall 0R 1440 W X 900 tall). Note that with the monitor rotated to
portrait - my pages still fit width wise.
>On the content figured two types of users, die hards (like us) who
>know all about the S100 bus and occasionally may drop in for a
>reference, user the forum, something for sale etc. The second would
>be people that wander here via Google etc and want to quickly find out
>what the heck the S-100 bus is. I for one don't like bouncing all
>over the place when I want to find out about something on the web.
>For that reason I briefly laid out the principal TYPES of boards and a
>short account of the era.
Good entry page. I use a variety, and that is one I use.
See this:
http://www.glimpsesofmeridian.com
Nothing to do with technology - but similar to the layout you describe
above - a blurb at the top - followed by large hi-res pixes serving as
the "gateway" to each section; something like the layout you suggest;
but since this site is 99% pix, and 1% info - it's very biased towards
graphics. Since you're more info with illustrations - you'd adjust
accordingly.
Speaking of Google - keep in mind - Google is both your friend and
your nemesis... As it will "sneak" people around your front door
depending one what specifically they serached for... Be sure and
leave links to your "intended entry" page scattered here and there on
the inside pages.
With glimpses - a great many people enter (and exit) from the NAS /
Airshow pages... never seeing any of the Rail, and other "stuff".
>My focus for us hard core types would be to develop the button options
>on the top which hopefully will go to 10's of pages later as I am
>currently doing for the S-100 boards button.
Master menus on an edge - with submenus opposite can get people where
they are going pretty efficiently. This site is long in the tooth
(we're already looking at a re-build) - but it shows how a lot of tech
stuff can be organized pretty well- there are over 100 "main pages" -
with nearly 1000 pages of auxilary stuff - including a secure area
that requires a sign-in and password to access...
http://www.erathworksaudio.com
just some idea suggestions to ponder...
rg
Randy
wrote:
>http://www.erathworksaudio.com
Oopps - can't type this late... sorry... try this link:
http://www.earthworksaudio.com
And while at it - let me expound on this a bit...
If you go to Microphones - the right-hand menu shows up with all the
Mic families. While not implemented on this site (not needed) - the
extension of that is that one could, then - have a different
right-hand menu set appropriate to other sections - such as pre-amps,
accessories, etc.
In the context of your project - that would / could be manufacturers
on the left - and specific boards on the right - within each
manufacturers "section" (thinking in sections like glimpses). One
could also envision a general "index" where types of boards
(categories) would occupy the left menu (no reason it can't change as
well, when appropriate) - with specific boards (by make / model) on
the right.
You can get a little crazy with "context" menus on a front page - one
of my worst is here:
Be sure and "hover" over the left and right "menus" to activate the
middle "menus" (after giving the page a chance to load - esp. if you
are on a slow connection). That is another thing to consider - some
people are still on dial-up.
The last "gotta have" is a search feature. You can incorporate
generic seraches from Google, etc. - but I don't like the "cost" - so
I use a commercial search engine - Xtreeme Search Engine Studio from
www.xtreeme.com
yeah- a bit pricey for a "do it yourself" project - but I like doing
things "my way" - and won't allow ANY commercial content on sites like
tendertale.
best!
rg
bud
Group: comp.os.cpm Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2009, 10:33am (CDT-2) From:
j...@cimmeri.com (MdntTrain)
script:
>... and I avoid websites where I have to
>scroll from side to side to read.
Thank you. My policy also.
salaam,
dowcom
To e-mail me, add the character zero to "dowcom". i.e.:
dowcom(zero)(at)webtv(dot)net.
The fact that 'conventional wisdom' is indeed 'conventional',
does not, in any way, imply that it is wise.
Charles Kingsholme
> I have started putting together a web site completely focused on
> vintage S100 computers with a strong
> focus on hardware. It's at www.S100Computers.com. I started it just a
> few months ago and clearly have a long way to go. This is strictly a
> hobby.
>
You should change the section on comp.os.cpm. You imply it is a service
provided and run by Google. Nothing is further than the truth. Google
are just providing a poor interface to it.
--
lynchaj
> Thanks guys, I'm making changes as they are coming in. Don’t worry
> about comments. At my age/experience I'm pretty thick skinned. I
> rather get things right.
>
>
> Nevertheless open to suggestions.
Hi! Great attitude! If you actually *do* something *anything* you'll
receive criticism. Just accept it and do not take it personally
regardless of how it is presented. Learn from it, take the best from
it, and ignore the rest.
A hard work, thick skin, and short memory will take you a long way in
this community. You are doing a good thing and I appreciate it.
Please consider additional mirroring of existing sites and archives
though. Yes, your archive will be highly redundant with others and
lose a bit of uniqueness. It is still a good thing in case something
dreadful happens to one of the others so that the knowledge is
preserved. There is a quality in redundancy all of its own and it is
a good thing.
Those who remember Don Maslin and his lost disk image archive know
*exactly* what I am talking about. There are several vintage/classic
computer enthusiasts who'd probably give their eye teeth for a copy of
that lost treasure trove.
Thanks and have a nice day!
Andrew Lynch
Jim Higgins
<mon...@vitasoft.org> wrote:
>Thanks guys, I'm making changes as they are coming in. Don�t worry
>about comments. At my age/experience I'm pretty thick skinned. I
>rather get things right.
>
>I'm still thinking what to do about the Index page.
>First on width. I'm inclined to stick with a 1000 px width simply
>because this allows more detailed and complete images as you scroll up
>and down. I'm figuring most users will be utilizing desktops with at
>least that width (+ their Browsers Favorites column on the left hand
>side). In this day and age most people have desktops far wider than
>1024. I use a dual 1920X1200 but I suspect maby thats not that common.
>On those writing in here I'm curious what are people using.
1280 x 1024 here, run in full screen mode most of the time.
Images are one thing. The page maximum width due to images is
probably best managed by not placing them side by side.
When it comes to width of displayed text, if you will use CSS for
layout rather than fixed width tables, the text on your pages will
readjust for various screen widths. You can also use tables for
layout and have the text rewrap itself within them if you will set
them to a width based on a percentage of the screen width rather than
a width defined by absolute pixels. The table approach can get messy
when some table cells contain images and other cells contain text.
It's far better, at least in my opinion, to avoid the use of tables
for layout and use CSS for both presentation and layout. Do this and
only the rare few should ever see a horizontal scroll bar when viewing
your site unless they deliberately run their browser in a window
narrower than the widest image on a page.
And then put all your CSS in an external CSS file rather than
embedding it in every page. Also easier IMHO if you tie the
formatting in your CSS file directly to layout tags rather than define
style1, style2, etc, and then assign classes to your layout tags. Much
easier to maintain a consistent appearance across all site pages that
way.
Just a suggestion. I'm having no problems viewing your site, but
those with narrower screens (whether physically narrower or browser
not run in full screen mode) are going to find the need to scroll
horizontally rather annoying. I don't clearly recall the last time I
had to scroll horizontally. I'll admit I run full screen, but it's
also a case of web sites generally not being designed these days as
you've designed yours.
It's a nice site, but two years onto the project I think you might be
happier for having reconsidered site design.
Bear
>When it comes to width of displayed text, if you will use CSS for
>layout rather than fixed width tables, the text on your pages will
>readjust for various screen widths.
This is true - however - there are also disadvantages to CSS - in that
it's designed to manage text or graphics pretty well, but still has
short comings when handling text AND graphics. They BOTH have their
advantages, and should, IMHO - be used together to take best advantage
of both.
For instance - one of the real problems with layout comes with the
idea that some browsers handle zooming differently; some allow the
user to specify specific point sizes (ignoring page formatting,
including CSS); and then there are the graphics layout guys that
insist on laying out text and graphics in each other's "space"... Each
of these "issues" are best handled by a careful choise of tables and
CSS (not to mention that often you need to have alternate layouts of
the same page for different devices - I'll come back to that).
Take this page as an example - looks simple enough - but to make it
maximally accessible - one needs to rember there are three major
browsers (which handle zooming differently); and even within the same
browser (like Firebird) the user is "in control" in no small way, and
can wreck havok with layouts that can't "flex" gracefully.
http://earthworksaudio.com/18.html
Here we have text above, below AND beside a graphic - violating a
basic HTML "rule"... Since - as you noted - text expanding and
contracting next to a graphic (which may or may not be expanding or
contracting with the text - depending on the user's set preference)
wil (usually) lead to some ugly issues. Here, however - the problem
is solved by the careful use of tables. The central content is set in
a table having four rows and three columns. The top, left cell is
empty, the second cell contains the text and spans 2 columns.
The next row contains the top "slice" of the microphone picture -
http://earthworksaudio.com/graphics/18fmtop.gif
which includes the links to the right as part of the graphic (i.e.
the graphic is 498 pixels wide - and spans all three columns / cells).
The next row, left cell contains the bottom of the mics -- which is
only 84 pixels wide and is "anchored" to the top of the cell
http://earthworksaudio.com/graphics/18fmbottom.gif
This keeps it firmly anchored to the bottom of the graphic above -
making them appear as one picture. The middle cell contains more text
- and spans the third cell as well.
The text is now free to expand (or contract) with or without the
picture(s) - without bothering them - or messing up the layout too
terribly. Even if there were text beside the top slice - if it's
"anchored" to the bottom of it's cell - if the text beside it needs to
stretch the hieght of the row- the slice still sits "on top" of the
lower slice - keeping them intact. CSS also has a role here - try
printing the page (there is an icon on the left)...
Changing "media" (device) causes CSS to hide certain elements,
reposition others. This shows that the table resides in a CSS Layer so
that the whole table can be moved as needed - but the table insures
the graphics and text layout remains intact.
This is a simple example of using both CSS and table to their
strengths - and certainly not the only way to accomplish the goal...
it is, however - compatible with a very large number of browsers--
(Netscape - back to 4.something, I.E. back to 5.something, FireFox
back to 1.something, Opra, and Safari as well, and loads WAY faster
than a totally graphic solution (which doesn't zoom well); or other
"stuff" like Flash, etc.
The newest I.E. has better zooming, but the site behaves best using
FireFox or Safari - which adhere to the standards better... and while
FireFox and Safari are fast catching I. E. in saturation (making it
tempting to fine-tune for them) - one still needs to consider that
there are users "out there" that are sill on WebTV and other ancient
browsers that need minimal (html) stuff...
just my .02.
monahanz
data together. I currently putting up one company a day -- not sure
how long I can keep this rate up though. Once I have most companies
places I think I can slice and dice the ways of displaying the data.
As to storage, yes that is going to be an issue. I am placing all the
stuff on a Network Solutions server. May have to shop around for
better rates/storage some time later. Howard's, Dave's and Majzel's
are really great however I am contacting individual people for better
pictures in a number of places. It will take time. If you have any
would really appreciate them as some (from eBay) are really poor
resolution and don't do the boards justice.
Axel Berger
>yet fits the majority of screens OK.
Screens yes, but Windows? You can have more than one at the same time
you know, that bit is different from CP/M.
s100fan
> Thanks guys, I'm making changes as they are coming in. Don’t worry
> about comments. At my age/experience I'm pretty thick skinned. I
> rather get things right.
>
> I'm still thinking what to do about the Index page.
> First on width. I'm inclined to stick with a 1000 px width simply
John, the "standards-based" approach to page design recommended by
World Wide Web Consortium is to define widths by percentage of screen,
not by fixed pixel numbers, so each browser can adjust the display to
match it's own current width settings. This can be applied to images
as well as to text columns so that they all auto-adjust to the user's
screen. The user always has browser options to zoom into parts of the
screen if they wish, or open images in a new tab/page for larger
display. AFAIK this has been part of HTML for ever and is described
in every on-line beginners' guide to HTML. The syntax is not at all
challenging and could be dropped into the source of your existing
pages.
Looks like you may be using the Kumon website package. I don't use it
but perhaps it is not offering you the full range of HTML options if,
like Microsoft products, it thinks it is being helpful by not telling
you things the package designer decides you don't need to know or
burying options in ten layers of obscure menus.
You would be doing readers a big favour if a site like this, with a
lot of valuable images, was always visually scannable on any size
screen.
this is a great project - contratulations
Randy
Berger) wrote:
>Screens yes, but Windows? You can have more than one at the same time
>you know, that bit is different from CP/M.
Really? But I *like* 80 col. X 24 lines... Seriously - CP/M could
also support "widows" as well as "screens"... though most people
were moving towards other systems by the time Graphics CP/M and
TurboDOS were making such posible (hardware such as the NorthStar
Advantage running Graphics CP/M had 640px X 240px native on screen,
the Horizon could use S-100 graphics cards that could push well beyond
that). - and of course that was the beauty of S-100 in the early days
- you could add all kinds of cards to do all kinds of "stuff". I'm
going through my half-dozen (give or take) Horizons - starting to put
together an inventory of what S-100 cards I have.
Back to resolution - I agree - there is no "pat / one size fits all
answer" - I'm just sharing (almost) 15 years experience with web pages
(TenderTale itself has been on-line since 1996 - a bunch of us were
"playing" with "stuff" online on Comp-U-Serve and Apple's Applelink a
couple years before that).
900px was a compromise I reached a long time ago - the largest picture
(at 72dpi) I can deliver - and yet still have "visibility and
clickibility" to other windows to the side (given the 1024 most 14in
or larger run at). At 900 X 675 @ 72dpi - people can download that -
and print a nice copy at 450 X 385 at 144dpi on their printer. That
prints at 6.25 inch X 4.5 inch - roughly the size of a "store print".
You can play with some of these here:
http://www.glimpsesofmeridian.com
as always - just my .02