Anti-Equipment Manifesto
Charles Eicher
Equipment Manifesto, and I have to interject a counterpoint.
Nobody loves old computer hardware as much as I do.. well, maybe *everyone* in
this newsgroup loves it as much as I do. But I think this "manifesto" to
preserve old hardware is misguided, although in a well-intentioned way.
I've seen some recent videos that show some of the historic old hardware, most
notably Cringely of PBS did a Y2K report, and did much of his report from a
computer museum. And what struck me the most, it was a silent museum, full of
old dead hardware, with some cool retro-50's modernism design, but they don't DO
anything.
It suddenly struck me.. the history of computers is not the history of computer
hardware. It is the history of the things people DID with computers. These
computer artifacts are just the leftover garbage from these projects, and those
projects still live and impact today's society, even though they are long gone.
The effort to preserve computer hardware reminds me of collecting fountain pens.
Undoubtedly, some of these pens are collectible as minor works of art, and they
function even today just as they did when new. However, I am much more
interested in what people WROTE with pens a hundred years ago. For the price of
some collectable pens, you could easily buy the original handwritten manuscript
of a famous book. Which is more important, which is more worth preserving, the
pen, or what it WROTE?
I know that the author of the manifesto places much stock on preserving the
documentation and software for these computers. Perhaps this is a more worthy
cause, as it preserves the true efforts of the people who built the machines.
The machine is just the physical embodiment of their ideas. But without the
hardware, and without the original purpose, the machines are merely relics.
One person commented that there is a whole LOT of hardware that really was
mediocre and deserves the scrap heap. I worked with a lot of that stuff, our
university used to resurrect old useless hardware, and I can tell you, it is no
fun getting an old junker running.
I myself am getting my old Sol-20 running. It has been an interesting project,
but I have only one goal: to resurrect some old code I wrote, and document it.
I'm only interested in what I DID with the machine. And what I did was damn
little. I learned to program, and it changed my career path. And I wrote a few
programs that I exhibited at an art show. THAT is what I'm really interested in,
there aren't too many people who can say they exhibited computer graphics in
1976. After I document everything, I might put my Sol up for sale on eBay. And
its never going to fetch the $3000 I paid for it. Scarcity equals value, but
these machines aren't that scarce. I urge all Sol owners to throw their machines
in the trash, so mine will become more valuable!
On the other hand, people have invoked projects like the restoration of
Colossus. These machines are worth resurrection, but no physical replica of
Colossus can replace the impact of what they DID with their machine. Cracking
the German codes changed the course of history, and we live with that every day.
But its not necessarily Colossus that's so amazing, its how it embodies Turing's
mathematics that is interesting. Colossus didn't do anything that Turing
couldn't do on pencil and paper, but more slowly. But now, we don't have a whole
army of enigma messages to crack, so the function of a colossus is only
historical. I'm a lot more interested in some recent discoveries of unknown
Turing papers, than the reconstruction of Colossus.
As a better example, I like to cite the successful reconstruction of the
Atanasoff computer by ISU. If you go to their website, you can watch their
quicktime videos of the construction. Since only one small part remains of the
original, and no plans exist, they had difficulty producing a replica design.
But they did manage to complete a design that fully implements Atanasoff's
original ideas, and computes exactly like the original, with the same
algorithms. But if you watch the videos, you can see what they're doing: they
used modern CAD machines for the design, and produced the parts on
computer-controlled milling machines. Now this strikes me as cheating. The
engineers are attempting to prove Atanasoff's claim of the first digital
computer, but manufactured the object on devices that have more computer power
than Atanasoff could ever imagine. Atanasoff made his machine with nothing more
complex than a slide rule and a metal lathe. Its like the difference between an
classic Mercedes and a fiberglass repli-car built on a modern VW chassis. And
the old computer takes an hour or two to perform a calculation that can be done
in seconds on any cheap scientific calculator.
So, what is the purpose of preserving machines that really don't DO anything
anymore, because their function has been superceded? Should we really go to
extreme efforts to preserve these machines? I am reminded of one of my CS
professors, who claimed (back in 1976) that he was actively maintaining the only
Univac I that was still in daily service. He said he was on the original design
team, and liked to help maintain it because there was only one other model, in
non-functional condition, in the Smithsonian. But this one worked day in, day
out, computing the company payroll. I spoke up and told him that an AppleII
could do the payroll cheaper and more easily. He said that the company refused
to replace the machine as long as it was functioning properly. THAT is the way
to preserve a machine! But in the end, I got the better of him. I actually set
up that Apple II payroll system for that very company, only a few years later. I
guess the machine died. Or maybe my professor died. I don't know.
I will always prize people and their ideas more than the hardware they created.
I think its more important to consider one's future, but perhaps as we reach the
end of the millenium, it is natural to go back and revisit our past. It is
important to know where we've been in order to know where we are going. But I
think maybe there are more important ways to examine this history.
So maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Maybe I'm just rambling. Maybe
I don't really even feel this way, in my heart of hearts. But I think I raise
some valid objections. I await people's comments.
Howard S Shubs
<cei...@inav.net> wrote:
>Undoubtedly, some of these pens are collectible as minor works of art, and they
>function even today just as they did when new. However, I am much more
>interested in what people WROTE with pens a hundred years ago. For the price of
>some collectable pens, you could easily buy the original handwritten manuscript
>of a famous book. Which is more important, which is more worth preserving, the
>pen, or what it WROTE?
I think it's more a matter of nostalgia. If I had a location to do it in,
I'd look for an IBM 1130 to get running in order to watch the
blinkinlights. This is not because of the power of the machine, or
because of what people did with it, but because of what -I- remember it as
and because of what I liked about it. I doubt anything truly spectacular
was -ever- done with it, anyway. But what -was- done with it was
appreciated by the people who did it.
>So maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Maybe I'm just rambling. Maybe
>I don't really even feel this way, in my heart of hearts. But I think I raise
>some valid objections. I await people's comments.
I agree with you more than I agree with the original poster. It's sad to
see an old machine his the dumpster(s), but you can't keep everything.
That's more the point. The past is gone. It's more to the point that,
while I like coins and stamps, I still have to pay the rent, so I can't
keep all I might like to. Some have to go. This is what makes us
appreciate what remains all the more.
Now, what I'd be more interested in preserving is the -plans- for these
machines. Save the designs. They take less space anyway.
--
Howard S Shubs hsh...@mindspring.com hsh...@bix.com
The Denim Adept Is this the right room for an argument?
SPAM: u...@ftc.gov postmaster@[127.0.0.1] abuse@[127.0.0.1]
lwin
> hardware. It is the history of the things people DID with computers. These
> computer artifacts are just the leftover garbage from these projects, and those
> projects still live and impact today's society, even though they are long gone.
> The effort to preserve computer hardware reminds me of collecting fountain pens.
> function even today just as they did when new. However, I am much more
> interested in what people WROTE with pens a hundred years ago.
I see your point, but don't really agree with it.
There are a number of railroad and trolley museums that restore old
equipment and run them for the public. Static displays of old trains
do not draw a whole lot of interest. Excursions do.
Yes, a mile or so of a steam train is not illustrative of the world of
trains and small town depots and train travel of the past. But it is
a good starting point.
Many old computers were used to do "boring" business tasks such as
keeping accounting records or generating the payroll. I seriously doubt
many paying customers of the general public would be excited about
watching that. I think a demonstration of a card sorter or high
speed printer might be more interesting.
The challenge of computers is that anything an old big mainframe can
do can just as easily be done on someone's home PC a lot easier. In
contrast, many communities today no longer have any passenger rail
service at all (let alone streetcar service), so a steam train or
streetcar ride offers an experience that can't be duplicated otherwise.
> So, what is the purpose of preserving machines that really don't DO anything
> anymore, because their function has been superceded? Should we really go to
> extreme efforts to preserve these machines?
To demonstrate the inguenity of the machines themselves.
Charles Eicher
hsh...@mindspring.com says...
>>function even today just as they did when new. However, I am much more
>>interested in what people WROTE with pens a hundred years ago. For the price of
>>some collectable pens, you could easily buy the original handwritten manuscript
>>of a famous book. Which is more important, which is more worth preserving, the
>>pen, or what it WROTE?
>
>I'd look for an IBM 1130 to get running in order to watch the
>blinkinlights. This is not because of the power of the machine, or
>because of what people did with it, but because of what -I- remember it as
>and because of what I liked about it. I doubt anything truly spectacular
>was -ever- done with it, anyway. But what -was- done with it was
>appreciated by the people who did it.
I think you're getting at the core issue. These machines are dear to us, because
they evoke our memories of what we did with them. But I'll still take the
contrarian view that these memories don't speak to anyone but the former
operators, and when we are gone, so will the interest in these machines
disappear.
Its kinda like collecting cars. There are collectors who save and restore old
historic machines from the early days of automobiles. And those classic cars can
cost over a million bucks. And then there are the guys who collect muscle cars
from the 1970s. They're mostly trying to recapture their youth, and buy the cars
they couldn't afford as teenagers. Its a form of nostalgia, but I think its more
like a midlife crisis.
>>So maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Maybe I'm just rambling. Maybe
>>I don't really even feel this way, in my heart of hearts. But I think I raise
>>some valid objections. I await people's comments.
>
>I agree with you more than I agree with the original poster. It's sad to
>see an old machine his the dumpster(s), but you can't keep everything.
>That's more the point. The past is gone. It's more to the point that,
>while I like coins and stamps, I still have to pay the rent, so I can't
>keep all I might like to. Some have to go. This is what makes us
>appreciate what remains all the more.
>
>Now, what I'd be more interested in preserving is the -plans- for these
>machines. Save the designs. They take less space anyway.
I'm a lot happier with, for example, the Tunney Emulator that runs on windoze,
than I am with the restoration of Colossus. At least I can play with the Tunney
Emulator directly.
Ruud Dingemans
> anymore, because their function has been superceded? Should we really go to
> extreme efforts to preserve these machines?
Kinda silly statement for an old computer collector, really. We don't
preserve machines for what they used to do, (since that amounts to
virtually nothing in current computing terms) but for what they are now
- historical artefacts.
If you found the Holy Grail, you wouldn't exactly throw it away because
it didn't happen to work any wonders anymore, would you?
Regards, RD
Charles Richmond
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
> > anymore, because their function has been superceded? Should we really go to
> > extreme efforts to preserve these machines?
>
>
speaking: "It's not that they do it well, but that they do it at all."
It is facsinating to many in the general public to see how computers
were made and used in the stone age of computing. "Gee, dad, you mean
people really lived like that?" Another thing marveled at is how far
technology has come considering the rather primative tools people had
to use to get us where we are now.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond <rich...@plano.net> |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Derek Peschel
Ruud Dingemans <rdin...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> So, what is the purpose of preserving machines that really don't DO anything
>> anymore, because their function has been superceded? Should we really go to
>> extreme efforts to preserve these machines?
>
>Kinda silly statement for an old computer collector, really. We don't
>preserve machines for what they used to do, (since that amounts to
>virtually nothing in current computing terms) but for what they are now
>- historical artefacts.
I would never advocate throwing an old computer away, and so I don't agree
with the statement you quoted but I do see the validity of it (or at least
of the original manifesto that started this thread). I think it _is_
tremendously important to restore old computers to the point where they can
run, _and_ have them running (interesting things if possible).
And I directly disagree with your statement that what machines used to do
amounts to nothing. Often, old computers DO do interesting things, or were
designed to do interesting things, or perhaps do uninteresting things in an
interesting way.
Let's start with software. Off the top of my head, I can think of a number
of interesting categories:
- old games that have never been rewritten
- programs that are intimately connected to the hardware
(explaining them may be very arcane but it doesn't have to be;
anyone would understand a demonstration of a computer playing
sound through an AM radio)
- old OSs with strange designs
- programs that solve unusual problems or problems that aren't
important anymore (a lot of non-interactive programs fit into
this category, since that mindset is so alien to people these
days... I was especially thinking of text formatters. As for
the unusual problems, I read a while ago about someone using his
Tandy CoCo to design solar sails.)
Then there's hardware. The vast computer power we have today is largely
achieved by brute force, thanks to the unimaginative and corner-cutting
designs of personal machines. Yes, computers are faster than ever before
but I do not believe they're better designed. So it's so nice to learn
about some chip (say, for graphics) that lets you achieve something with
very little programming.
A different kind of interesting hardware is the "curiosity" or "why did they
EVER do that?" category, and everyone who reads this group should know that
that category overflows with specimens.
And finally, I think there are a few examples of computer systems
(combinations of software and hardware) that are still noteworthy. Some of
the programming workstations of the late '70s and early '80s come to mind.
-- Derek
Anders Thulin
> If you found the Holy Grail, you wouldn't exactly throw it away because
> it didn't happen to work any wonders anymore, would you?
If it didn't work anymore, certainly I would. What's a Holy Grail?
That's about it, isn't it?
It's nothing, unless you know the culture of which the symbol of the Grail
was important. Have the Grail, but noone who knows what it is, or what
it does, ... Have the blueprints of it, but not the belief in it, or know
the use of it ...
And what for? In the hope that the magic will somehow return? Or be
bestowed on its new owner?
I've been a member of a university computer club that cut its teeth
on D21 - first Swedish commercial computer - which it was a minor art to
get up and running (germanium, not silicon, if that means anything).
There was a huge Bryant ..., well, to call it 'hard disk' is totally
uninformative these days; later a D22, a couple of D5 protoypes, a FCPU
(the asychronous computer that was the basis for the D23), and lots of
other junk. I kept a wire-programmable card-sorting contraption from Bull
(no Honeywell at that time, no) around as a kind of maskot for a while.
It was a heap of junk. And I have very fond memories of most it, and
the stories some of the original designers told when they happened to visit.
But to preserve it? Most of it got thrown out when economics of space
made it impossible to keep them. They were replaced by Suns, I think.
(See http://www.lysator.liu.se for some of the history ...)
The stories, the personalities, the events, the *history* of these things
are worth preserving. (That 24-pass D21 Algol compiler, running off a tape
station, using only 24 kword of memory ... )
But preserving a Bryant disk unit? I know the disks made nice coffee
tables: you could put a flowerpot in the center where the drive axis used to
be ...
The magic is gone from it. The magic was in the people, in the times,
and in the culture (computers were always shown with operators in white
coates ... very intimidating, that; and compilers were *difficult*
to write -- you could get a PhD out of writing one ...), not in the
particular hardware.
And what's a Holy Grail without its magic?
A minor but not entirelly uninteresting piece of early jewellery
techniques? Of course, it may regain some of its reputation by being
venerated by devout believers ... but that's not really the idea, is it?
Reuse it, and it would make gold-plated contacts to more than 1000 HiFi
cables ...
--
Anders Thulin Anders....@telia.se 040-10 50 63
Telia Prosoft AB, Hjälmaregatan 3, S-201 20 Malmö, Sweden
Charles Eicher
>
>lwin wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>> > extreme efforts to preserve these machines?
>>
Machines aren't ingenious, but their designers are.
>As Mr. Ben Johnson said about a certain segment of the population and public
>speaking: "It's not that they do it well, but that they do it at all."
>
>It is facsinating to many in the general public to see how computers
>were made and used in the stone age of computing. "Gee, dad, you mean
>people really lived like that?" Another thing marveled at is how far
>technology has come considering the rather primative tools people had
>to use to get us where we are now.
Right, but I am skeptical of the efforts to preserve the hordes of mediocre
business-class machines that aren't really very historic or remarkable. Let me
give a classic example. Some people collect pocket calculators. People even
collect crappy junk calculators that are completely unremarkable, like the
hundreds of mediocre models from the 1980s. But I found one really interesting
site:
http://www.nefamily.com/friden/
that is devoted to Friden mechanical calculators. The equipment is historic, but
isn't really half as interesting as the story of Mr. Friden himself.
Nick Spalding
> As Mr. Ben Johnson said about a certain segment of the population and public
> speaking: "It's not that they do it well, but that they do it at all."
Not Mr. Ben Jonson, Dr Samuel Johnson.
--
Nick Spalding
David M. Razler
| I have been reading some of the commentary, as well as the original Antiquated
| Equipment Manifesto, and I have to interject a counterpoint.
|
| Nobody loves old computer hardware as much as I do.. well, maybe *everyone* in
| this newsgroup loves it as much as I do. But I think this "manifesto" to
| preserve old hardware is misguided, although in a well-intentioned way.
|
| I've seen some recent videos that show some of the historic old hardware, most
| notably Cringely of PBS did a Y2K report, and did much of his report from a
| computer museum. And what struck me the most, it was a silent museum, full of
| old dead hardware, with some cool retro-50's modernism design, but they don't DO
| anything.
|
| It suddenly struck me.. the history of computers is not the history of computer
| hardware. It is the history of the things people DID with computers.
Exactly my point! For instance, I may be wrong on this, classified DoD data is
notoriously hard to come by, but from the information I obtained, I *believe*
the Pentagon computed estimated impacts of nuclear war damage on a pair of
PDP-1s through the 1980s. I *know* from publications that the DoD switched to
a more modern machine in 1986.
How did the arms experts work with more primitive hardware? How did they come
up with their algorithms, given the limots of their equipment?
What was it like to use them?
How did the MIT crew write its first good chess program in a 4K environment?
|These
| computer artifacts are just the leftover garbage from these projects, and those
| projects still live and impact today's society, even though they are long gone.
The "leftover garbage" theory is like saying that a Ford Model A or 1944
Volkswagen is just leftover garbage on the way to your current gasburner.
Autos live on, but to get the look and feel of those old cars, I have to drive
one.
Question: How did traffic laws develop and why were certain things legal or
illegal? A good part was because of the kind of cars and trucks the laws
regulated.
Without understanding the handling of a Model T, we have no idea why speed
limits were set as they were or how road design evolved, not to mention a
whole lot of sociological impact caused by the popularization of the
automobile.
I'm about to replace an old beast with one equipped with ABS brakes, front-
and side- airbags, lightweight construction, a computer-controlled
fule-injected engine, transverse-mounted front-wheel drive engine, etc.
Driving it tells me nothing about driving a Model T.
Lets go a little farther back.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art (NY) has several MILLION bits and pieces of
everyday Pharonic Egyptian artifacts on display. Parts of their collection are
sufficient for me to gain an understanding of all the resources I would have
living in that culture, along with guides to how that culture evolved.
Now the influences of Pharonic Egypt live on today, because one group broke
away physically, founded a new faith (I will leave out of the discussion the
role which was or was not played by the/a Deity) and became Jews.
One Jew and his followers broke away and became Christians.
A non-Jew influenced by the other People of the Book founded al-Islam
And from Christianity came many divisions
Same from Islam including a new faith B'hai.
Most of us reading this list probably practice or were born into one of the
above faiths (my apology to all others, I don't feel like going into ALL
religious history here) based on our geography and use of English.
Pharonic Egypt lives on.
So does Babalonian culture, and the first writing down of the "golden rule"
adopted as a core principle of the above faiths.
But what does attending a modern religious service tell me about life in
Egypt or Babylon?
|
| The effort to preserve computer hardware reminds me of collecting fountain pens.
| Undoubtedly, some of these pens are collectible as minor works of art, and they
| function even today just as they did when new. However, I am much more
| interested in what people WROTE with pens a hundred years ago. For the price of
| some collectable pens, you could easily buy the original handwritten manuscript
| of a famous book. Which is more important, which is more worth preserving, the
| pen, or what it WROTE?
If the pen limited their writing ability, pen technology would be of
significance, not an individual pen.
The development of typewriting technology and the shift away from the pen for
general work is of more importance. The amount of information retained
exploded because typewriting, and the associated ability to make limited
copies with carbon paper, is easier and faster. better copying processes
caused even more of an explosion of information retained and available for
use.
Even more important is the shift from the communications delivery system of
hand-carry to telography, telephony, electronic communications
And the limits of the above at any given place/time.
A reporter covering the Civil War had to pass messages onto a telographer, who
could introduce errors and changes. And the transmission process took time -
but was far better than the dispatch-by-horse method used to cover the
Revolutionary War,
|
| I know that the author of the manifesto places much stock on preserving the
| documentation and software for these computers. Perhaps this is a more worthy
| cause, as it preserves the true efforts of the people who built the machines.
| The machine is just the physical embodiment of their ideas. But without the
| hardware, and without the original purpose, the machines are merely relics.
Relics<current meaning> are important and influential in understanding the
past in full.
| One person commented that there is a whole LOT of hardware that really was
| mediocre and deserves the scrap heap. I worked with a lot of that stuff, our
| university used to resurrect old useless hardware, and I can tell you, it is no
| fun getting an old junker running.
I consider the electronic keypunch with its zero-feedback keyboard, usually
placed in a roomful of similar devices preventing aural feedback, to be one of
the most evil, sadistic devices ever developed, considering that cards had to
be punched without error. So what? It was an important machine.
| I myself am getting my old Sol-20 running. It has been an interesting project,
| but I have only one goal: to resurrect some old code I wrote, and document it.
| I'm only interested in what I DID with the machine. And what I did was damn
| little. I learned to program, and it changed my career path. And I wrote a few
| programs that I exhibited at an art show. THAT is what I'm really interested in,
| there aren't too many people who can say they exhibited computer graphics in
| 1976. After I document everything, I might put my Sol up for sale on eBay. And
| its never going to fetch the $3000 I paid for it. Scarcity equals value, but
| these machines aren't that scarce. I urge all Sol owners to throw their machines
| in the trash, so mine will become more valuable!
|
| On the other hand, people have invoked projects like the restoration of
| Colossus. These machines are worth resurrection, but no physical replica of
| Colossus can replace the impact of what they DID with their machine. Cracking
| the German codes changed the course of history, and we live with that every day.
| But its not necessarily Colossus that's so amazing, its how it embodies Turing's
| mathematics that is interesting. Colossus didn't do anything that Turing
| couldn't do on pencil and paper, but more slowly. But now, we don't have a whole
| army of enigma messages to crack, so the function of a colossus is only
| historical. I'm a lot more interested in some recent discoveries of unknown
| Turing papers, than the reconstruction of Colossus.
What was it like using the Colossus?
I know what it was like to use an Enigma - done it.
But I don't know what it was like to have to break those messages using the
machinery and technology available at the time.
I curse Churchill for destroying the original (he had a deathly fear that an
incoming Labour government would give the data to the Commies and attempted to
bury, burn and destroy everything - as it turned out, he had raised the Philby
group to power during the War)
It also teaches the general public something minimal about what it was like,
just being able to see the hardware in action.
Some will be interested enough to become historians or computer scientists.
This is the same effect of the NY Met Egyptian collection on 99.9% of the
folks who wander through it.
|
| As a better example, I like to cite the successful reconstruction of the
| Atanasoff computer by ISU. If you go to their website, you can watch their
| quicktime videos of the construction. Since only one small part remains of the
| original, and no plans exist, they had difficulty producing a replica design.
| But they did manage to complete a design that fully implements Atanasoff's
| original ideas, and computes exactly like the original, with the same
| algorithms. But if you watch the videos, you can see what they're doing: they
| used modern CAD machines for the design, and produced the parts on
| computer-controlled milling machines. Now this strikes me as cheating. The
| engineers are attempting to prove Atanasoff's claim of the first digital
| computer, but manufactured the object on devices that have more computer power
| than Atanasoff could ever imagine. Atanasoff made his machine with nothing more
| complex than a slide rule and a metal lathe. Its like the difference between an
| classic Mercedes and a fiberglass repli-car built on a modern VW chassis. And
| the old computer takes an hour or two to perform a calculation that can be done
| in seconds on any cheap scientific calculator.
First of all, if you see another of today's posts, I talk about fencing
medieval/Renaissance rapier. Of course the blade I use is forged in an
assembly line and the hilt is made, to original specifications of size and
weight, out of MIG-welded stainless steel.
So what? Try to gain a practical learning knowledge of rapier any other way
and you either destroy historical blades or spend 100 to 10,000 times as much
for an identical practice weapon made in the original manner. (I know purists
who do such work too - and cannot afford it)
The production of reconstructed parts, as long as they are marked
reconstructions (same with the Difference Engine project, creating a device
that was planned but could not be built because of machine tool limitations of
the time) is fair if the result "handles" like the original, or, in the case
of the Engine, as originally planned.
My rapier handles just like the real thing, though it is entirely a product of
modern technique.
A classic Mercedes replica built from the original designs to original
specifications will handle like the real thing. A fiberglass repli-car is like
an emulator or the UPenn's ENIAC on a Chip. It handles differently.
(the only difference is that a repli-car handles worse, while an emulator may
handle better)
|
| So, what is the purpose of preserving machines that really don't DO anything
| anymore, because their function has been superceded? Should we really go to
| extreme efforts to preserve these machines? I am reminded of one of my CS
| professors, who claimed (back in 1976) that he was actively maintaining the only
| Univac I that was still in daily service. He said he was on the original design
| team, and liked to help maintain it because there was only one other model, in
| non-functional condition, in the Smithsonian. But this one worked day in, day
| out, computing the company payroll. I spoke up and told him that an AppleII
| could do the payroll cheaper and more easily. He said that the company refused
| to replace the machine as long as it was functioning properly. THAT is the way
| to preserve a machine! But in the end, I got the better of him. I actually set
| up that Apple II payroll system for that very company, only a few years later. I
| guess the machine died. Or maybe my professor died. I don't know.
|
| I will always prize people and their ideas more than the hardware they created.
| I think its more important to consider one's future, but perhaps as we reach the
| end of the millenium, it is natural to go back and revisit our past. It is
| important to know where we've been in order to know where we are going. But I
| think maybe there are more important ways to examine this history.
|
| So maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Maybe I'm just rambling. Maybe
| I don't really even feel this way, in my heart of hearts. But I think I raise
| some valid objections. I await people's comments.
I always welcom the devil's advocate.
But I think you miss a point if you do not understand that a full
understanding of how people thought requires, in many cases, an understanding
of their time and place in history.
As a productivity tool, the UNIVAC I was long dead when the Apple II rolled
in.
But I bet your payroll system was a bit different than the original, relying
on advances in programming and hardware technology that did not exist when the
UNIVAC was built or its code cut.
Assuming your professor is now dust, the only way inside the head of the
UNIVAC coders is to read their work, if it survives, and try to understand why
they did things that way because all they had was a UNIVAC I
dmr
David M. Razler
david....@worldnet.att.net
J. Chris Hausler
>Even more important is the shift from the communications delivery system of
>hand-carry to telography, telephony, electronic communications
>
>And the limits of the above at any given place/time.
>A reporter covering the Civil War had to pass messages onto a telographer, who
>could introduce errors and changes. And the transmission process took time -
>but was far better than the dispatch-by-horse method used to cover the
>Revolutionary War,
its telegrapher not telographer, pronounced te leg rapher
with the leg emphasided. In addition to old computer stuff
I collect old telegraphy stuff and old marine navigation
stuff and old.... :-)
pedant off
Chris
Eric Smith
> It is facsinating to many in the general public to see how computers
> were made and used in the stone age of computing. "Gee, dad, you mean
> people really lived like that?"
I had occasion recently to be at serious risk of being maimed or killed
by a large disk drive falling off the lift gate of a truck. I was thinking
to myself, "You know, if that happens, no one will believe it. Everyone
*knows* that disk drives are little 1-lb. things."
Similarly, I look at the amount of emphasis today on the emerging
Voice-over-IP market, and it occurs to me that someday when I'm a crotchety
old man, and try to tell my grandchildren that in the olden days people
ran IP over voice circuits, they won't believe me. "Geez, grampa, were you
people idiots back then or what?"
David M. Razler
| Charles Richmond <rich...@plano.net> writes:
| > It is facsinating to many in the general public to see how computers
| > were made and used in the stone age of computing. "Gee, dad, you mean
| > people really lived like that?"
|
| I had occasion recently to be at serious risk of being maimed or killed
| by a large disk drive falling off the lift gate of a truck. I was thinking
| to myself, "You know, if that happens, no one will believe it. Everyone
| *knows* that disk drives are little 1-lb. things."
And when you tell them it was a 2-meg drive, it'll get even worse.
|
| Similarly, I look at the amount of emphasis today on the emerging
| Voice-over-IP market, and it occurs to me that someday when I'm a crotchety
| old man, and try to tell my grandchildren that in the olden days people
| ran IP over voice circuits, they won't believe me. "Geez, grampa, were you
| people idiots back then or what?"
I hope someone out there has saved wooden, later bakelite and steel Bell
System operator boards, stepper-switch CO panels and crossbar exchanges.
Charles Eicher
>
>Eric Smith <eric-no-s...@brouhaha.com> wrote:
>
>| Similarly, I look at the amount of emphasis today on the emerging
>| Voice-over-IP market, and it occurs to me that someday when I'm a crotchety
>| old man, and try to tell my grandchildren that in the olden days people
>| ran IP over voice circuits, they won't believe me. "Geez, grampa, were you
>| people idiots back then or what?"
>
>
>I hope someone out there has saved wooden, later bakelite and steel Bell
>System operator boards, stepper-switch CO panels and crossbar exchanges.
Sure, there's a whole society devoted to preserving old telephone equipment. I
think its the Society of Telephone Pioneers or something like that. But its not
like this stuff has disappeared completely. I actually know one exchange in my
area code in Iowa that STILL uses this obsolete stuff. The locals told me that
the operator still uses a plugboard system for their exchange. If you go to a
local pay phone, even the new ones are labeled something like EMPIRE 7-1234. I
couldn't believe it until I saw it, but its true, I just saw it a couple of
months ago.
But I do have to worry about this sort of stuff. A lot of these old stories
sound like "back when I was YOUR age, we had to walk 10 miles through 6 foot
snowdrifts, just to go make a telephone call at the phone booth at Woolworths.
And we LIKED it!"
Ruud Dingemans
> >> extreme efforts to preserve these machines?
> >
> >preserve machines for what they used to do, (since that amounts to
> >virtually nothing in current computing terms) but for what they are now
> >- historical artefacts.
>
> And I directly disagree with your statement that what machines used to do
> amounts to nothing.
Whoa - I never said that. I said that is not what *we collect* them for
- not that what they did wasn't important.
> Often, old computers DO do interesting things, or were
> designed to do interesting things, or perhaps do uninteresting things in an
> interesting way.
Certainly.
Regards, Ruud
Ruud Dingemans
> > it didn't happen to work any wonders anymore, would you?
>
> If it didn't work anymore, certainly I would. What's a Holy Grail?
If it would be found now, it would be what it is now: a historical
artefact, nothing more - at least factually.
To people who believe in miracles, it would be a whole lot more, but
that's a different story (no, Indy Jones fans,
we don't need to hear it).
> That's about it, isn't it?
No. There is intrinsic historical value to non-operating artefacts. It
doesn't need to 'work' to be important.
Most monuments and historical objects have lost their original purpose
or meaning, but that doesn't mean they're not worth
keeping, if only to study how people did something in earlier days.
> It's nothing, unless you know the culture of which the symbol of the Grail
> was important. Have the Grail, but noone who knows what it is, or what
> it does, ... Have the blueprints of it, but not the belief in it, or know
> the use of it ...
>
> And what for? In the hope that the magic will somehow return? Or be
> bestowed on its new owner?
Apart from the fact that that would be jolly handy for the health
services, hope and bestowment are really irrelevant
when it comes to historical objects. It's what you find that's
interesting *historically* - there is more to life than
a solely utalitarian view, imho.
Regards, RD
Charles Eicher
>
>>like this stuff has disappeared completely. I actually know one exchange in my
>>area code in Iowa that STILL uses this obsolete stuff. The locals told me that
>> the operator still uses a plugboard system for their exchange. If you go to a
>
>for it?
>
>Is it a former Bell company or an independent? If an indepedent, would
>you know the name of the company?
>
>(I'd like to find out more about it.)
This is a small mostly-Amish community, centered around Washington, Iowa. Yes,
the Amish do use telephones (at least, the ones who aren't Old Order Amish). I
don't know the exchange, but its in the 319 area code. I'm pretty sure its an
independent telco but I don't know the name. I don't think I believe that they
use plugboards exchanges, the people who live in this community are Luddites in
the strictest sense of the word, and proud of it. I wouldn't be surprised if
they were just spreading stories.
>There are a few electro-mechanical exchanges left in the US, but the
>number is diminishing rapidly. Actually, the small town remote
>exchanges were one of the first to convert since the cost savings in
>less maintenance and space requirements are so dramatic in those
>cases. (Small towns were also the first to go dial years ago because
>it was not cost efficient to have an operator serve low volumes of traffic
>24/7.) Electronic switching systems can be mantained from remote locations
>easier than a mechanical one.
In this case, the community seems to want to spend whatever it takes to keep the
single operator employed. Apparently they take great pride that they have a Mrs.
Busybody whose primary function is to eavesdrop and spread the local gossip, and
secondarily sits at a switchboard all day.
>>local pay phone, even the new ones are labeled something like EMPIRE 7-1234. I
>
>Philadelphia was the last place to switch from exchange names to all number,
>and did so in 1980. Some places in the country converted in the early 1960s.
>Kids today don't even know why letters are on the telephone dial.
I assure you, I saw a pay phone installed in a building that was built long
after 1980, bearing such a label. The phone had to be installed fairly recently.
Remember, these people LIKE being throwbacks.
>> But I do have to worry about this sort of stuff. A lot of these old stories
>> sound like "back when I was YOUR age, we had to walk 10 miles through 6 foot
>>snowdrifts, just to go make a telephone call at the phone booth at Woolworths.
>> And we LIKED it!"
>
>Woolworth's is gone.
No kidding. Apparently you haven't ever seen the famous SNL comedy sketch with
Dana Carvey, featuring a crotchety old fart, going on and on about stuff like
"when I was your age, we didn't have no dad-blinkin' TeeVee, for entertainment
we had to stand outside and stare at the sun until our eyes boiled away. And we
LIKED it!"
>Another old vestige going away is multi-party line service. For some
>time, many states have limited this service to existing customers only,
>and now it is being discontinued altogether in many places. It's hard
>to believe, but at different times virtually everyone had party line
>service even in cities, indeed during the postwar period, there was such
>a demand for service that they only offered party line. Rock Hudson and
>Doris Day made a movie over that.
I can recall a time when my home phone service was a party line. And we LIKED
it!
lwin
> System operator boards, stepper-switch CO panels and crossbar exchanges.
Oh yes. There are two organizations of telephone collectors. The majority
collect only telephone sets, but some have central office equipment,
including restored and working miniature step-by-step exchanges.
It's neat watching the stepper switch go up and then rotate in response
to dial pulls.
I don't know about crossbar, since you need the common control stuff
to make it all work. With step, you need only one switch to have
something working.
Derek Peschel
There is a working No. 5 Crossbar switch not too far from downtown Seattle.
(This is in a museum, not an individual's collection.) They also have a
number of other switches, including one from a battleship (with party-line
ringing), at least one of the ESS switches (I think 3ESS), a number of
manual switchboards, etc, and loads of Stuff Of All Kinds (tm).
There are some PBXs in the collection; one cute little one uses crossbar
switches to handle 20 lines, though I suspect the control is pretty dumb --
nothing like the No. 5. Something like that would be quite feasible to set
up in your house.
See http://www.scn.org/tech/telmuseum/index.html for more information.
-- Derek
lwin
> area code in Iowa that STILL uses this obsolete stuff. The locals told me that
> the operator still uses a plugboard system for their exchange. If you go to a
Would you know the name of the town and the area code and exchange code
for it?
Is it a former Bell company or an independent? If an indepedent, would
you know the name of the company?
(I'd like to find out more about it.)
Thanks.
There are a few electro-mechanical exchanges left in the US, but the
number is diminishing rapidly. Actually, the small town remote
exchanges were one of the first to convert since the cost savings in
less maintenance and space requirements are so dramatic in those
cases. (Small towns were also the first to go dial years ago because
it was not cost efficient to have an operator serve low volumes of traffic
24/7.) Electronic switching systems can be mantained from remote locations
easier than a mechanical one.
> local pay phone, even the new ones are labeled something like EMPIRE 7-1234. I
Philadelphia was the last place to switch from exchange names to all number,
and did so in 1980. Some places in the country converted in the early 1960s.
Kids today don't even know why letters are on the telephone dial.
> But I do have to worry about this sort of stuff. A lot of these old stories
> sound like "back when I was YOUR age, we had to walk 10 miles through 6 foot
> snowdrifts, just to go make a telephone call at the phone booth at Woolworths.
> And we LIKED it!"
Woolworth's is gone.
Another old vestige going away is multi-party line service. For some
time, many states have limited this service to existing customers only,
and now it is being discontinued altogether in many places. It's hard
to believe, but at different times virtually everyone had party line
service even in cities, indeed during the postwar period, there was such
a demand for service that they only offered party line. Rock Hudson and
Doris Day made a movie over that.
Even in the 1950s, a lot of people didn't have phones, esp in cities
where they shared a pay phone in the apartment hall or used the one
at the corner drugstore (another gone relic.) Kids would pick up
some change running messages for callers.
Interesting comparison to today where so many of us not only have a
phone line, but a second line for our computer, a separate cellular
line; as well as monthly rents for cable service and Internet service.
Derek Peschel
Ruud Dingemans <rdin...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> >> anymore, because their function has been superceded? Should we really go to
>> >> extreme efforts to preserve these machines?
>> >Kinda silly statement for an old computer collector, really. We don't
>> >preserve machines for what they used to do, (since that amounts to
>> >virtually nothing in current computing terms) but for what they are now
>> >- historical artefacts.
>> And I directly disagree with your statement that what machines used to do
>> amounts to nothing.
>Whoa - I never said that. I said that is not what *we collect* them for
>- not that what they did wasn't important.
Sorry about the misunderstanding. I have to say that your statement was
confusing. (I read it and assumed that "that" in "since that amounts to
nothing" was "what they used to do".)
-- Derek
David M. Razler
| In article <iDYeOHIim7IZWe...@4ax.com>, David says...
| >
| >Eric Smith <eric-no-s...@brouhaha.com> wrote:
| >
| >| Similarly, I look at the amount of emphasis today on the emerging
| >| Voice-over-IP market, and it occurs to me that someday when I'm a crotchety
| >| old man, and try to tell my grandchildren that in the olden days people
| >| ran IP over voice circuits, they won't believe me. "Geez, grampa, were you
| >| people idiots back then or what?"
| >
| >
| >I hope someone out there has saved wooden, later bakelite and steel Bell
| >System operator boards, stepper-switch CO panels and crossbar exchanges.
|
| Sure, there's a whole society devoted to preserving old telephone equipment. I
| think its the Society of Telephone Pioneers or something like that. But its not
| like this stuff has disappeared completely. I actually know one exchange in my
| area code in Iowa that STILL uses this obsolete stuff. The locals told me that
| the operator still uses a plugboard system for their exchange. If you go to a
| local pay phone, even the new ones are labeled something like EMPIRE 7-1234. I
| couldn't believe it until I saw it, but its true, I just saw it a couple of
| months ago.
|
| But I do have to worry about this sort of stuff. A lot of these old stories
| sound like "back when I was YOUR age, we had to walk 10 miles through 6 foot
| snowdrifts, just to go make a telephone call at the phone booth at Woolworths.
| And we LIKED it!"
The TPA is the association of retired Bell employees - they do all kinds of
good work, some are collectors, but that is secondary to their function.
dmr
"We programmed with 1s and with 0s, and sometimes we ran out of 1s"
'When I was a Boy' - Tom Smith
David M. Razler
david....@worldnet.att.net
donald tees
older working machines for research purposes.
Recently, I visited a museum that had dozen of first and second drafts of
some major literary works by one of Canada's more famous authors. As I read
the hand-written drafts and the margin notes on some of my favourite bits of
literature, I could not help but think a display of ten 8" floppy disks
would be much less interesting.
Ruud Dingemans wrote in message <381D1A61...@xs4all.nl>...
Ron Hunsinger
> Philadelphia was the last place to switch from exchange names to all number,
> and did so in 1980. Some places in the country converted in the early 1960s.
> Kids today don't even know why letters are on the telephone dial.
Or why they call it a 'dial' when it's just a bunch of buttons.
Or why they call it a 'dial tone'. (Or even, why there is a dial tone.)
-Ron Hunsinger
lwin
>
> Or why they call it a 'dial tone'. (Or even, why there is a dial tone.)
The same applies to a radio "dial".
Al Kossow
> One thing in this thread that no one has mentioned yet is the need to have
> older working machines for research purposes.
>
> Recently, I visited a museum that had dozen of first and second drafts of
> some major literary works by one of Canada's more famous authors. As I read
> the hand-written drafts and the margin notes on some of my favourite bits of
> literature, I could not help but think a display of ten 8" floppy disks
> would be much less interesting.
>
As I've been saying, if you have software and documentation for old computer
systems that you have no use for yourself, try to find a person or organization
trying to preserve this information. I have a short list of people on my orphans
web page for some systems (www.spies.com/aek/orphan.html). If no one else is
already doing this, I would be willing to provide a web-based contact list of
people willing to either scan or make copies of the information available to
others.
Charles Richmond
as "tapes". For the same reason that UNIX does a "core" dump. Old
words and old ways of thinking about things just kind of morph into
describing the new technology. I heard on the History channel that
the reason copany names are refered to as "brands" is because in the
old days when you bought a barrel of product, the company would take
a hot iron and burn their name into the side of the barrel...they
actually branded it like a cow, see?
Jose Pina Coelho
Eric Smith wrote:
> I had occasion recently to be at serious risk of being maimed or killed
> by a large disk drive falling off the lift gate of a truck. I was thinking
> to myself, "You know, if that happens, no one will believe it. Everyone
> *knows* that disk drives are little 1-lb. things."
Just to freshen my mind I have a small (40Kg (88 lb for the non-metrics
out there))
disk in my house.
> Similarly, I look at the amount of emphasis today on the emerging
> Voice-over-IP market, and it occurs to me that someday when I'm a crotchety
> old man, and try to tell my grandchildren that in the olden days people
> ran IP over voice circuits, they won't believe me. "Geez, grampa, were you
> people idiots back then or what?"
"No you little runt, we just liked our voice to be predictable."
--
Doing AIX support was the most monty-pythonesque
activity available at the time.
William Hamblen
>Kids today don't even know why letters are on the telephone dial.
They're there to work %^&* menu systems. "Spell the last name of the
party ..."
Derek Peschel
That may be true of the letters on the pushbuttons, but not the letters on
the dial! I thought we already covered that word in this thread. :)
-- Derek
Bill Bereza
> > Or why they call it a 'dial' when it's just a bunch of buttons.
> >
> > Or why they call it a 'dial tone'. (Or even, why there is a dial tone.)
>
> The same applies to a radio "dial".
Except that many radios still have dials, especially clock/radios
and cheap car radios.
And I've never heard anyone refer to the buttons on a phone as a
dial.
Although I have heard people use dial as a verb as in "dial the number".
Ten years ago already I knew people who didn't understand why floppy
disks were called floppy when all they ever saw was the hard case
of a 3.5" disk. It must be even worse now.
--
Bill Bereza ber...@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~bereza/
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.
(H. D. Thoreau)
John Varela
> lwi...@bbs.cpcn.com (lwin) writes:
>
> > > Or why they call it a 'dial' when it's just a bunch of buttons.
> > >
> > > Or why they call it a 'dial tone'. (Or even, why there is a dial tone.)
> >
> > The same applies to a radio "dial".
>
> Except that many radios still have dials, especially clock/radios
> and cheap car radios.
Doesn't a dial have to be circular, like a clock face? Circular dials
on radios disappeared in the forties, if I'm not mistaken, and I can't
recall ever having seen one in a car.
This sort of holdover nomenclature is nothing new. Mariners still use
the term starboard even though steering boards haven't been in common
use for centuries.
--
John Varela
to e-mail, remove - between mind and spring
David M. Razler
| lwin wrote:
| >
| > > Or why they call it a 'dial' when it's just a bunch of buttons.
| > >
| > > Or why they call it a 'dial tone'. (Or even, why there is a dial tone.)
| >
| > The same applies to a radio "dial".
| >
| For the same reason that I hear people refering to ROM cartidges
| as "tapes". For the same reason that UNIX does a "core" dump.
Main memory is still core memory - from the word usage I've seen, core
referred to the operating memory at the center of the process as well as the
little round doughnuts, though I have no doubt that the physical form
influenced the application of the word to main memory
dmr
| Old
| words and old ways of thinking about things just kind of morph into
| describing the new technology. I heard on the History channel that
| the reason copany names are refered to as "brands" is because in the
| old days when you bought a barrel of product, the company would take
| a hot iron and burn their name into the side of the barrel...they
| actually branded it like a cow, see?
Yep.
And why they are so protected, least they go the way of former trade marks
aspirin, cellophane, etc.
David M. Razler
| On 2 Nov 1999 03:29:26 GMT, lwi...@bbs.cpcn.com (lwin) wrote:
|
| >Kids today don't even know why letters are on the telephone dial.
|
| They're there to work %^&* menu systems. "Spell the last name of the
| party ..."
Notice how Q has been added to the old PRS/7 on new phones?
Brian Inglis
wrote:
>I have been reading some of the commentary, as well as the original Antiquated
>Equipment Manifesto, and I have to interject a counterpoint.
>
>Nobody loves old computer hardware as much as I do.. well, maybe *everyone* in
>this newsgroup loves it as much as I do. But I think this "manifesto" to
>preserve old hardware is misguided, although in a well-intentioned way.
>
>I've seen some recent videos that show some of the historic old hardware, most
>notably Cringely of PBS did a Y2K report, and did much of his report from a
>computer museum. And what struck me the most, it was a silent museum, full of
>old dead hardware, with some cool retro-50's modernism design, but they don't DO
>anything.
RXC was dead down on programmers on that program, and the
interviewees appeared to be totally clueless.
I know designers/programmers who had analysts/PHMs tell them it
was too expensive to use/store century digits.
I know programmers who brought up Y2K issues in 1995 and were
told it was too expensive to change (on the PHBs tour).
>It suddenly struck me.. the history of computers is not the history of computer
>hardware. It is the history of the things people DID with computers. These
>computer artifacts are just the leftover garbage from these projects, and those
>projects still live and impact today's society, even though they are long gone.
>
[snip]
>
>On the other hand, people have invoked projects like the restoration of
>Colossus. These machines are worth resurrection, but no physical replica of
>Colossus can replace the impact of what they DID with their machine. Cracking
>the German codes changed the course of history, and we live with that every day.
>But its not necessarily Colossus that's so amazing, its how it embodies Turing's
>mathematics that is interesting. Colossus didn't do anything that Turing
>couldn't do on pencil and paper, but more slowly. But now, we don't have a whole
>army of enigma messages to crack, so the function of a colossus is only
>historical. I'm a lot more interested in some recent discoveries of unknown
>Turing papers, than the reconstruction of Colossus.
>
[snip]
>
>I will always prize people and their ideas more than the hardware they created.
>I think its more important to consider one's future, but perhaps as we reach the
>end of the millenium, it is natural to go back and revisit our past. It is
>important to know where we've been in order to know where we are going. But I
>think maybe there are more important ways to examine this history.
>
>So maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Maybe I'm just rambling. Maybe
>I don't really even feel this way, in my heart of hearts. But I think I raise
>some valid objections. I await people's comments.
Totally agree!
Two things I would like to see in any computer history exhibit:
- DEC GT40 playing MNLNDR -- the FlightSim of its day -- but Ks
of times better -- so many little touches that made the
simulation always interesting -- used to sell admirals on digital
control systems -- could not get the buggers to look at the real
system prototypes -- too boring by comparison!
ISTR the machine booted up and downloaded the sim over a comm
link from a host system, in 197?
Anyone know who did that masterful hack?
- documentation of original concepts and what they meant -- once
saw Turing's original notes on subroutines c. 194? published in a
journal -- wish I could recall where it was.
Any pointers out there to the birth of the programming concepts?
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
--
Brian_...@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
use address above to reply
Brian Inglis
wrote:
>Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> As Mr. Ben Johnson said about a certain segment of the population and public
>> speaking: "It's not that they do it well, but that they do it at all."
>
>Not Mr. Ben Jonson, Dr Samuel Johnson.
ISTR it was animals/dogs/horses counting by making pawing/hoofing
movements: "What's 2 + 2 fido/dobbin? 1-2-3-4! Correct!"
Peter Seebach
David M. Razler <david....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Notice how Q has been added to the old PRS/7 on new phones?
Yes, but on others, either '1' has QZ, or '0' has QZ.
Really.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
Dave Hansen
<david....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[...]
>Notice how Q has been added to the old PRS/7 on new phones?
As well as Z to the old WXY/9.
I remember some old movies that gave out phone numbers like QUincy
7-1234 and ZEnith 9-8765. No worries about getting someones real
number by accident.
Wouldn't you hate to have 867-5309?
Regards,
-=Dave
Just my (10-010) cents
I can barely speak for myself, so I certainly can't speak for B-Tree.
Change is inevitable. Progress is not.
John Ahlstrom
he said it was like a dog walking on its hind legs.
Life of Johnson (Boswell). 11 Vol. ii. Chap. ix.Sir, a woman preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.
Quoted at:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:389193&dq=cache:www.columbia.edu/acis/bartleby/bartlett/249.html
--
Those who don't remember Multics are
doomed to reimplement it -- badly.
Jordin Kare
Brian.do...@SystematicSw.ab.ca wrote:
> Two things I would like to see in any computer history exhibit:
>
> - DEC GT40 playing MNLNDR -- the FlightSim of its day -- but Ks
> of times better -- so many little touches that made the
> simulation always interesting -- used to sell admirals on digital
> control systems -- could not get the buggers to look at the real
> system prototypes -- too boring by comparison!
> ISTR the machine booted up and downloaded the sim over a comm
> link from a host system, in 197?
> Anyone know who did that masterful hack?
>
Sorry, can't identify the author, but I'll note that there was a GT40
running MNLNDR at the Vintage Computer Festival 3.0 last month in San
Jose. It was the first time I'd seen MNLNDR since I played it for hours
on a PDP-15 at a DEC trade show in 1971 (give or take a year). Apparently
you *really* never forget how to do some things -- on my first try on the
GT40, I not only landed successfully, I set down next to McDonalds and got
lunch...
Jordin Kare
Charlie Gibbs
david....@worldnet.att.net (David M. Razler) writes:
>william...@nashville.com (William Hamblen) wrote:
>
>| On 2 Nov 1999 03:29:26 GMT, lwi...@bbs.cpcn.com (lwin) wrote:
>|
>| >Kids today don't even know why letters are on the telephone dial.
>|
>| They're there to work %^&* menu systems. "Spell the last name of the
>| party ..."
>
>Notice how Q has been added to the old PRS/7 on new phones?
No, I haven't. But I remember seeing some old rotary dials that
had it on the zero along with the Z. (Does anyone else remember
Zenith numbers?)
However, recently I've seen a couple of numeric pads with Q and
Z on the 1 instead. I guess some people will never be content
until they've fiddled with something until it breaks - or becomes
incompatible with anything else, if they happen to be marketroids.
I'll never forgive AT&T for turning the calculator pad
upside-down. Or worse, not quite upside-down - I still
get internal sequence errors when I go to dial a zero.
> dmr
Not Dennis M. Ritchie!?
>David M. Razler
>david....@worldnet.att.net
No, I guess not.
--
cgi...@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs)
Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply.
Mark Harrison
Which is a terrible shame, because it invalidates the time
honored practice of inducing someone to call the "Aggie Joke
Hotline" at 1-800-AGGIE-IQ. :-(
--
Mark Harrison ma...@usai.asiainfo.com
AsiaInfo Computer Networks http://www.markharrison.net
Beijing / Santa Clara http://usai.asiainfo.com:8080
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>I remember some old movies that gave out phone numbers like QUincy
>7-1234 and ZEnith 9-8765. No worries about getting someones real
>number by accident.
Zenith is used by at least one service in British Columbia. My
directory has in the Province of British Columbia section:
Child Abuse-Neglect
Call Operator (No Chg) ----------- Zenith-1234
I think that forest fire reporting used to be Zenith number as well,
but now it's listed as an 800 number.
Interestingly, the Government of Canada entry for Revenue Canada
starts:
REVENUE CANADA
Web:
----------------------------- www.rc.gc.ca
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Jacqui or (maybe) Pete
wrote:
>Ten years ago already I knew people who didn't understand why floppy
>disks were called floppy when all they ever saw was the hard case
>of a 3.5" disk. It must be even worse now.
We tried to popularise the name 'stiffies' at the time. Never caught
on.
Julian Thomas
>The same applies to a radio "dial".
Ah - Ah - Ah - don't touch that dial!
--
Julian Thomas: jt . epix @ net http://home.epix.net/~jt
remove letter a for email (or switch . and @)
Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org
In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State!
-- --
Bugs fly in through open Windows.
lwin
New phones being made today have the Q and Z added. I don't know of
any announcement made of this. There is no more Bell System setting
standards.
> No, I haven't. But I remember seeing some old rotary dials that
> had it on the zero along with the Z. (Does anyone else remember
> Zenith numbers?)
Zenith, also known as Enterprise or UX, were the toll free method
before 800 numbers came along. You dialed the operator and asked for
the Zenith number. She'd look it up in a table, then connect you,
automatically charging them the collect rate for the call.
AFAIK, these numbers still exist in a few places for a few firms.
I tried one recently and the operators had no idea what I was talking
about until they got a supervisor who did know and know where the conversion
table was.
> I'll never forgive AT&T for turning the calculator pad
> upside-down. Or worse, not quite upside-down - I still
> get internal sequence errors when I go to dial a zero.
When Touch Tone pads were developed, extensive studies were conducted
and they found the arrangement used was the easiest for most people.
The arrangement was also necessary to preserve the alpha order as well.
Remember too that when TT was designed, most adding machines were in
the older full keyset (0-9 for each digit) rather than 10-key design.
Eric Fischer
> When Touch Tone pads were developed, extensive studies were conducted
> and they found the arrangement used was the easiest for most people.
> The arrangement was also necessary to preserve the alpha order as well.
Since I have the article sitting right here, I'll give the citation:
R. L. Deininger, "Human Factors Engineering Studies of the Design
and Use of Pushbutton Telephone Sets," Bell System Technical Journal,
July, 1960, pp. 995-1012.
"Notice that the arrangement frequently found in ten-key adding machines
was not the best of the first three arrangements compared."
eric
Louis RAPHAEL
: AFAIK, these numbers still exist in a few places for a few firms.
: I tried one recently and the operators had no idea what I was talking
: about until they got a supervisor who did know and know where the conversion
: table was.
I came across one in the phone book 2-3 years ago. I wonder why a
company would still *want* to have them, save for the fact that it
probably limits call volume somewhat.
Louis
lwin
> company would still *want* to have them, save for the fact that it
> probably limits call volume somewhat.
For some reason, they seemed to be prevalent among industrial
firms, such as oil refineries and steel suppliers.
I suspect they were a service that just got buried in with all the other
telephone arrangements. I have no idea what the monthly carrying charge is
for such service. Probably something that got overlooked.
Alan T. Bowler
>
> Main memory is still core memory - from the word usage I've seen, core
> referred to the operating memory at the center of the process as well as the
> little round doughnuts, though I have no doubt that the physical form
> influenced the application of the word to main memory
The word "core" was used partly because some people took serious
objection to applying the term "memory" to a machine. "Memory"
was something that people had.
J. Chris Hausler
core memory back then and after it was replaced with IC
memory, the habit of using the word core for main memory
stuck (at least for a while, I haven't heard it in a long
time). IBM IIRC did have a problem with the word "memory"
and used "storage" instead, ie LCS was Large Core Storage,
DASD was Direct Access Storage Device (or something close
to that) instead of "disk memory".......
Chris
AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE
$$
Charles Eicher
>
>"David M. Razler" wrote:
>
>>
>> Main memory is still core memory - from the word usage I've seen, core
>> referred to the operating memory at the center of the process as well as the
>> little round doughnuts, though I have no doubt that the physical form
>> influenced the application of the word to main memory
>
>The word "core" was used partly because some people took serious
>objection to applying the term "memory" to a machine. "Memory"
>was something that people had.
That was an answer worthy of Dr. Science. Here's another amusing one, you can
read it at:
http://www.drscience.com/vault/980227.htm
Q: If computers are so powerful, and so good at memory, how come everybody at my
office has post-it notes stuck on their computers?
A: Those are there to help the computer operator remember small things, like
where he put his lunch, or what his name is. Working in front of a computer all
day does a pretty good job of erasing volatile memory from the pre-frontal
lobes. The post it notes keep the operator living and working in this time and
space, while his actual brain is drifting somewhere back at the end of the last
ice age. I've seen notes reading Remember to go home at night, or You own a dog.
The little things, that make life almost worth living.
Here's a few more amusing Dr. Science remarks about computers:
http://www.drscience.com/vault/970707.htm
http://www.drscience.com/vault/970502.htm
http://www.drscience.com/vault/980831.htm
http://www.drscience.com/vault/980225.htm
http://www.drscience.com/vault/970317.htm
http://www.drscience.com/vault/980915.htm
Edward Rice
David M. Razler <david....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Main memory is still core memory - from the word usage I've seen, core
> referred to the operating memory at the center of the process as well as
the
> little round doughnuts, though I have no doubt that the physical form
> influenced the application of the word to main memory
> dmr
No, it did not. It was named "core memory" for the little doughnuts. The
little doughnuts behaved, electrically, just like the core of a
transformer, and that use of the word pre-dates operating systems by a fair
bit.
John Carpenter
the term "core" frequently, when they wanted to make sure the reference was
to the physical, "real" memory rather than to virtual memory or some buffer.
As programs have used absolute memory address less frequently in recent
years, and as operating systems have moved most applications farther away
from the "bare metal," there has been less need (except in the real
bits-and-bytes shops) to distinguish between real and virtual memory, so
references to 'core' have gone away.
But we still use other words to refer to previous versions of equipment.
For example, everyone knows what a 'carriage return' is, even though it
refers to an operation performed on a typewriter or, more recently, the IBM
Selectric terminal that was the operator console for IBM 360 (and earlier)
mainframe computers. More recently, we still call a 3.5" diskette a
"floppy" even though the case is rigid (but the old 8-inchers and 5.25"
floppies really were flexible). And the key layout on a QWERTY keyboard is
designed so that the metal keys on the old manual typewriters were least
likely to jam (by arranging for least likelihood of pressing keys that were
next to each other, thereby permitting the keys to have more room to rise to
the platten and fall back without hitting each other). So, we never lose
the old words or the old specs, we just build on them.
John
> "David M. Razler" wrote:
> > Main memory is still core memory - from the word usage I've seen, core
> > referred to the operating memory at the center of the process as well as
the
> > little round doughnuts, though I have no doubt that the physical form
influenced the application of the word to main memory...
David M. Razler
OK, I'm going to check through my library - and possibly send off a memo to
some real old timers.
It may be a chicken and egg question solvable only if I can find a reference
to 'core' memory predating Whirlwind. But I still hold that the reason the
stuff was called "core" has more to do with function over form.
Chris Stratford
> More recently, we still call a 3.5" diskette a "floppy" even though
> the case is rigid (but the old 8-inchers and 5.25" floppies really
> were flexible).
3.5" discs are still flexible (they just require a bit more
"persuasion" before they bend). Now 3" discs (horrible though they
were), they were solid.
Chris.
Dowe Keller
Well, thats not alltogether true, if you take them [3.5"
micro-diskettes] out of that little plastic case they come in, they
are just as flexible as the 8" and 5.25" varieties.
NOTE: I have found, through careful investigation, that diskettes
don't work very well after removal from their plastic cases. I
believe, as informed consumers, that we should demand better quality
products from diskette manufacturers.
P.S. - They don't seem to handle magnetic fields to well either.
These manufacturers should really get on the ball about this stuff!
--------------
Dowe Keller do...@worldnet.att.net http://home.att.net/~dowe
Charles Richmond
>
> Well, thats not alltogether true, if you take them [3.5"
> micro-diskettes] out of that little plastic case they come in, they
> are just as flexible as the 8" and 5.25" varieties.
>
> NOTE: I have found, through careful investigation, that diskettes
> don't work very well after removal from their plastic cases. I
> believe, as informed consumers, that we should demand better quality
> products from diskette manufacturers.
>
> P.S. - They don't seem to handle magnetic fields to well either.
> These manufacturers should really get on the ball about this stuff!
>
that some might do. At that time, Radio Shack would sell you a *single*
5 1/4" floppy disk. So they guy would go in and buy *one* floppy. After
paying for the disk, he would neatly *fold* it in half, stick it in his
back pocket, and walk out of the store--leaving the sales person with his
mouth hanging open in disbelief...
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond <rich...@plano.net> |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Brian Inglis
<david....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"John Carpenter" <carpe...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>| I remember in the 1980's in computer shops where I worked, people would use
>| the term "core" frequently, when they wanted to make sure the reference was
>| to the physical, "real" memory rather than to virtual memory or some buffer.
>|
>| As programs have used absolute memory address less frequently in recent
>| years, and as operating systems have moved most applications farther away
>| from the "bare metal," there has been less need (except in the real
>| bits-and-bytes shops) to distinguish between real and virtual memory, so
>| references to 'core' have gone away.
>|
>| But we still use other words to refer to previous versions of equipment.
>| For example, everyone knows what a 'carriage return' is, even though it
>| refers to an operation performed on a typewriter or, more recently, the IBM
>| Selectric terminal that was the operator console for IBM 360 (and earlier)
>| mainframe computers. More recently, we still call a 3.5" diskette a
>| "floppy" even though the case is rigid (but the old 8-inchers and 5.25"
>| floppies really were flexible). And the key layout on a QWERTY keyboard is
>| designed so that the metal keys on the old manual typewriters were least
>| likely to jam (by arranging for least likelihood of pressing keys that were
>| next to each other, thereby permitting the keys to have more room to rise to
>| the platten and fall back without hitting each other). So, we never lose
>| the old words or the old specs, we just build on them.
>| John
>|
>| > "David M. Razler" wrote:
>| > > Main memory is still core memory - from the word usage I've seen, core
>| > > referred to the operating memory at the center of the process as well as
>| the
>| > > little round doughnuts, though I have no doubt that the physical form
>| influenced the application of the word to main memory...
>|
>|
>OK, I'm going to check through my library - and possibly send off a memo to
>some real old timers.
>
>It may be a chicken and egg question solvable only if I can find a reference
>to 'core' memory predating Whirlwind. But I still hold that the reason the
>stuff was called "core" has more to do with function over form.
>
> dmr
>
>David M. Razler
>david....@worldnet.att.net
We called it core when memory was made of ferrite doughnuts.
We called it MOS when memory was made of semiconductor material.
Did any virtual memory systems run with core memory?
Bob Morrisette
some real old timers.
It may be a chicken and egg question solvable only if I can find a reference
to 'core' memory predating Whirlwind. But I still hold that the reason the
stuff was called "core" has more to do with function over form.
dmr
David M. Razler
david....@worldnet.att.net
-----------------------------------------------
I can testify that in 1957 we referred to core because the
memory was made out of cores. The term was used by many long
after core memory became obsolete.
Bob Morrisette
Shez
>we still call a 3.5" diskette a
>"floppy" even though the case is rigid (but the old 8-inchers and 5.25"
>floppies really were flexible).
Floppy refers to the actual disk. Hard disks are made of rigid material
(glass or aluminium), which the disk heads must not touch; floppies are
flexible plastic (PVC?), which it's ok for the disk head to press against,
same as with a tape drive.
-Shez.
--
____________________________________________________________
"Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the
usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody
thinks of complaining." -- Jeff Raskin, in Doctor Dobb's Journal
____________________________________________________________
Take a break at the Last Stop Cafe at <URL: http://www.xerez.demon.co.uk/>
David Rifkind
>OK, I'm going to check through my library - and possibly send off a memo to
>some real old timers.
>
>It may be a chicken and egg question solvable only if I can find a reference
>to 'core' memory predating Whirlwind. But I still hold that the reason the
>stuff was called "core" has more to do with function over form.
This is negative information so not definitive, but in "High-Speed
Computing Devices" (Engineering Research Associates, 1950) I can not
find the word "core" used anywhere. This was intended as a survey of
all major equipment in use at the time. The Whirlwind computer is
mentioned as being in a working but incomplete state; it was still
planned to use electrostatic tubes at that time.
--
"I know, I know. I behaved like an absolute bounder and a cad. It's
the only way you can enjoy yourself these days!"
jmfb...@aol.com
Brian Inglis <Brian.do...@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:26:31 -0500, David M. Razler
><david....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>"John Carpenter" <carpe...@mediaone.net> wrote:
<snip-I'm too lazy to reformat>
>>| > "David M. Razler" wrote:
>>| > > Main memory is still core memory - from the word usage I've seen,
core
>>| > > referred to the operating memory at the center of the process as
well as
>>| the
>>| > > little round doughnuts, though I have no doubt that the physical
form
>>| influenced the application of the word to main memory...
>>|
>>|
>>OK, I'm going to check through my library - and possibly send off a memo
to
>>some real old timers.
>>
>>It may be a chicken and egg question solvable only if I can find a
reference
>>to 'core' memory predating Whirlwind. But I still hold that the reason
the
>>stuff was called "core" has more to do with function over form.
>>
>> dmr
>>
>>David M. Razler
>>david....@worldnet.att.net
>
>We called it core when memory was made of ferrite doughnuts.
Right. Look in book that deal with magnets. I seem to remember
that the term core was used when inducing a current.
>We called it MOS when memory was made of semiconductor material.
>Did any virtual memory systems run with core memory?
TOPS10 had VM which was a software implementation of extending
the address space beyond the limits of physical memory. Is
that what you mean by virtual memory systems?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Joe Morris
>I can testify that in 1957 we referred to core because the
>memory was made out of cores. The term was used by many long
>after core memory became obsolete.
That's true, of course, in many fields where a term that originated
in hardware references became associated with the function being
performed, and survived long after the hardware had long since
disappeared.
For example, how many readers of this newsgroup who are --- h'mmm, let's
say under 21 years old --- think of the hardware from which the phrase
originated when they hear the term "dial tone"?
OK, how many people read that line have a gut reaction that associates
the term with sticking your finger a hole along the perimeter of a
circular metal disk and turning it clockwise until the finger encounters
a curved stop? And how many associate the term only with punching buttons
laid out on a 3x4 grid?
Or to take another telephone term that has carried over to the
computer world: how many people have any recollection of why
you say that a modem that is in use is said to be "off-hook", or
why you end a call by "going on-hook", especially since the use
of the components works "off" and "on" seem to be used in the
opposite of their usual sense?
I left the IBM mainframe world some time ago so maybe someone still
in that corner of the industry can tell me if the standard memory-
mapping macro for the bottom memory addresses (absolute zero through
perhaps a couple of hundred) is still called IHAFLC?
IHA := the prefix for mapping macros
FLC := "Fixed Low Core"
And when will UNIX systems write their memory dumps to a file
called "ram" instead of "core"?
Joe Morris
David M. Razler
| John Carpenter <carpe...@mediaone.net> writes:
| >we still call a 3.5" diskette a
| >"floppy" even though the case is rigid (but the old 8-inchers and 5.25"
| >floppies really were flexible).
|
| Floppy refers to the actual disk. Hard disks are made of rigid material
| (glass or aluminium), which the disk heads must not touch; floppies are
| flexible plastic (PVC?), which it's ok for the disk head to press against,
| same as with a tape drive.
|
| -Shez.
Not PVC, I believe an acetate, a thicker version of the magnetic tape
substrate.
David M. Razler
|
| Or to take another telephone term that has carried over to the
| computer world: how many people have any recollection of why
| you say that a modem that is in use is said to be "off-hook", or
| why you end a call by "going on-hook", especially since the use
| of the components works "off" and "on" seem to be used in the
| opposite of their usual sense?
|
youngsters, it has nothing to do with ringers and everything to do with
anatomy)
Dave Vandervies
Joe Morris <jcmo...@linus.mitre.org> wrote:
>
>For example, how many readers of this newsgroup who are --- h'mmm, let's
>say under 21 years old --- think of the hardware from which the phrase
>originated when they hear the term "dial tone"?
>
>OK, how many people read that line have a gut reaction that associates
>the term with sticking your finger a hole along the perimeter of a
>circular metal disk and turning it clockwise until the finger encounters
>a curved stop? And how many associate the term only with punching buttons
>laid out on a 3x4 grid?
>
>computer world: how many people have any recollection of why
>you say that a modem that is in use is said to be "off-hook", or
>why you end a call by "going on-hook", especially since the use
>of the components works "off" and "on" seem to be used in the
>opposite of their usual sense?
I'm 19, and the first telephone I had (it stayed with the house when my
family moved when I was ~7, and I doubt it's still there) had a dial
and a hook that you put the mouthpiece on to hang up. (I'm guessing
that the hook from that phone isn't where the term came from, though.)
I'm not sure what's behind the reason for the tone, though - for as
long as I can remember it only meant that the phone system was ready
for you to dial out.
After the move we still had a dial, though the phone wasn't
wall-mounted so it was more of a cradle than a hook that you put the
mouthpiece on. I think that phone is still around somewhere, but it
hasn't been used for a while.
dave
Brian Inglis
>In article <wjksOAavLtdiz00ic5+9cPaXyME=@4ax.com>,
> Brian Inglis <Brian.do...@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote:
>>On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:26:31 -0500, David M. Razler
>><david....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"John Carpenter" <carpe...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
><snip-I'm too lazy to reformat>
>
>>>| > "David M. Razler" wrote:
>>>| > > Main memory is still core memory - from the word usage I've seen,
>core
>>>| > > referred to the operating memory at the center of the process as
>well as
>>>| the
>>>| > > little round doughnuts, though I have no doubt that the physical
>form
>>>| influenced the application of the word to main memory...
>>>|
>>>|
>>>OK, I'm going to check through my library - and possibly send off a memo
>to
>>>some real old timers.
>>>
>>>It may be a chicken and egg question solvable only if I can find a
>reference
>>>to 'core' memory predating Whirlwind. But I still hold that the reason
>the
>>>stuff was called "core" has more to do with function over form.
>>>
>>> dmr
>>>
>>>David M. Razler
>>>david....@worldnet.att.net
>>
>>We called it core when memory was made of ferrite doughnuts.
>
>Right. Look in book that deal with magnets. I seem to remember
>that the term core was used when inducing a current.
>
>>We called it MOS when memory was made of semiconductor material.
>>Did any virtual memory systems run with core memory?
>
>TOPS10 had VM which was a software implementation of extending
>the address space beyond the limits of physical memory. Is
>that what you mean by virtual memory systems?
>
>/BAH
>
>Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Yes, I had the impression that TOPS10, like most other systems of
that vintage, swapped jobs in and out of core, rather than
paging. My exposure to mainframes at that time was limited to
dial up with a TTY at 110bps to GE/HIS (Multics?) and OnLine
Systems (TOPS?), and the only docs were marketing info and usage
guides.
BBReynolds
>We called it core when memory was made of ferrite doughnuts.
>We called it MOS when memory was made of semiconductor material.
>Did any virtual memory systems run with core memory?
Yes: the Burroughs B5000, B5500, and B3500; the IBM S/370's ending with
"5" rather than "8" (i.e., S/370 Model 155 (machine type 3155 was core,
Model 158 (machine type 3158 was semiconductor memory). Sure there were
others.
--
Bruce B. Reynolds, Systems Consultant: Founder of Trailing Edge Technologies,
Glenside PA (leaving Niles IL on 1999-10-29); Sweeping Up Behind Data
Processing Dinosaurs
Don Stokes
>youngsters, it has nothing to do with ringers and everything to do with
>anatomy)
Que? Maybe I don't has as dirty a mind as you, but take an ordinary audio
plug:
/\
/ \
\ / Tip
/__\
|--|
|__| Ring
|--|
| |
| | Sleeve
| |
|XXXX|
|XXXX|
|XXXX|
|XXXX|
|XXXX|
||
Old manual exchanges used patch cables with these plugs these to connect
callers to extensions. Tip and ring carried the pair; I don't recall if
the sleeve was used for anything, or just kept the potentially dangerous
voltages involved out of harm's way.
-- don
J. Chris Hausler
>Most people don't know why the red and green pair are "tip" and "ring" <hint,
>youngsters, it has nothing to do with ringers and everything to do with
>anatomy)
J. Chris Hausler
>substrate.
base, it tended to dry out and get brittle (chemists
can better explain what actually happened than I can).
Dupont "Mylar" was the chosen substrate by the mid to
late 60's. Early Mylar had a problem with stretching
which was fatal to magnetic tape but then the manufacturers
pre-stretched it (can you say "tensilized") to get rid
of the problem.
Regards,
Chris
AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN.ALGOL,TAPE
$$
Charlie Gibbs
bbrey...@aol.comskipthis (BBReynolds) writes:
>In article <wjksOAavLtdiz00ic5+9cPaXyME=@4ax.com>, Brian Inglis
><Brian.do...@SystematicSw.ab.ca> writes:
>
>>We called it core when memory was made of ferrite doughnuts.
>>We called it MOS when memory was made of semiconductor material.
>>Did any virtual memory systems run with core memory?
>
>Yes: the Burroughs B5000, B5500, and B3500; the IBM S/370's ending
>with "5" rather than "8" (i.e., S/370 Model 155 (machine type 3155
>was core, Model 158 (machine type 3158 was semiconductor memory).
>Sure there were others.
Surely it must depend on the OS, not the hardware (although hardware
assists would have influenced just how feasible it would be to run
a virtual memory OS on a particular box). Didn't MTS use virtual
memory on the 360/67, paging out to drum?
--
cgi...@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs)
Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply.
John Varela
Morris) wrote:
> OK, how many people read that line have a gut reaction that associates
> the term with sticking your finger a hole along the perimeter of a
> circular metal disk and turning it clockwise until the finger encounters
> a curved stop? And how many associate the term only with punching buttons
> laid out on a 3x4 grid?
Gee, Joe, we still have three rotary dial phones in our house, two of
them in use. They're the good old solid indestructible Western
Electric kind.
My wife worked for Bell Atlantic at divestiture in 1984, and was given
all the phones that we then had. They still work (and will likely
work forever) so why not use them?
--
John Varela
to e-mail, remove - between mind and spring
John Varela
Rifkind) wrote:
> This is negative information so not definitive, but in "High-Speed
> Computing Devices" (Engineering Research Associates, 1950) I can not
> find the word "core" used anywhere.
Probably because core hadn't been invented yet.
David Rifkind
>On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 03:25:28, drif...@acm.deleteme.org (David
>Rifkind) wrote:
>
>> This is negative information so not definitive, but in "High-Speed
>> Computing Devices" (Engineering Research Associates, 1950) I can not
>> find the word "core" used anywhere.
>
>Probably because core hadn't been invented yet.
That was the question. The poster wants to know whether "core" really
referred just to memory involving magnetic cores (as most people claim),
or if it might have been used in the more general sense of "central"
memory, as it often is now.
Incidentally, Eckert claimed to have worked on core memory (he called it
magnetic cell memory) at the Moore School in 1945. However, in 1953 he
still described it as "speculative and experimental".
Flenser
buttons were pressed it would emit a series of clicks corresponding to the
number. Press "5", and it clicked five times. I think we got it for subscribing
to Time magazine. Has anyone seen something like this before?
Dave Vandervies wrote:
> In article <80jv2i$lmg$1...@top.mitre.org>,
> Joe Morris <jcmo...@linus.mitre.org> wrote:
> >
> >For example, how many readers of this newsgroup who are --- h'mmm, let's
> >say under 21 years old --- think of the hardware from which the phrase
> >originated when they hear the term "dial tone"?
> >
> >OK, how many people read that line have a gut reaction that associates
> >the term with sticking your finger a hole along the perimeter of a
> >circular metal disk and turning it clockwise until the finger encounters
> >a curved stop? And how many associate the term only with punching buttons
> >laid out on a 3x4 grid?
> >
Dave Vandervies
Flenser <fle...@cs.iastate.edu> wrote:
>I had a phone that was a keypad version of a rotary pulse phone. When the
>buttons were pressed it would emit a series of clicks corresponding to the
>number. Press "5", and it clicked five times. I think we got it for subscribing
>to Time magazine. Has anyone seen something like this before?
I've seen phones that could be switched between doing this and being a
proper touch-tone phone, but I don't think I've seen any that only did
this.
dave
Paul Grayson
> that some might do. At that time, Radio Shack would sell you a *single*
> 5 1/4" floppy disk. So they guy would go in and buy *one* floppy. After
> paying for the disk, he would neatly *fold* it in half, stick it in his
> back pocket, and walk out of the store--leaving the sales person with his
> mouth hanging open in disbelief...
>
This wouldn't work in the UK Radio Shack stores, known simply as Tandy.
They, like most other stores of their type, seemed to employ people with
no touch with reality. One once recommended to me to use bell-wire for
my hi-fi speaker cable.
Has Tandy now closed? I only say this as I passed a long established
branch a couple of days ago, and the shop was no longer trading.
--
Paul Grayson, Ripon, North Yorkshire, UK.
No Microsoft code was used in generating this message - can you say the
same?
Paul Grayson
> The word core was used because main memory was usually
> core memory back then and after it was replaced with IC
> memory, the habit of using the word core for main memory
> stuck (at least for a while, I haven't heard it in a long
> time). IBM IIRC did have a problem with the word "memory"
> and used "storage" instead, ie LCS was Large Core Storage,
> DASD was Direct Access Storage Device (or something close
> to that) instead of "disk memory".......
> Chris
IMHO IBM had a problem with using English words all together, and used
abbreviated terms for almost everything. They even called the cooling
fans on some of their machines AMDs, meaning Air Movement Device.
Was this practice to make them appear superior to the suits?
David M. Razler
| > I heard that back in the 5 1/4" floppy days, there was a practical joke
| > that some might do. At that time, Radio Shack would sell you a *single*
| > 5 1/4" floppy disk. So they guy would go in and buy *one* floppy. After
| > paying for the disk, he would neatly *fold* it in half, stick it in his
| > back pocket, and walk out of the store--leaving the sales person with his
| > mouth hanging open in disbelief...
| >
|
| This wouldn't work in the UK Radio Shack stores, known simply as Tandy.
| They, like most other stores of their type, seemed to employ people with
| no touch with reality. One once recommended to me to use bell-wire for
| my hi-fi speaker cable.
|
| Has Tandy now closed? I only say this as I passed a long established
| branch a couple of days ago, and the shop was no longer trading.
Radio Shack is alive and well in the US, but the Tandy crafts division has now
closed its retail establishments - how this affects the UK is beyond me.
History:
Tandy began umpteen years ago as a leathercraft company with retail outlets
across the 'states.
Around the early 1960s, the stores diversified into probably the first home
crafts chain, leather pushed back for decoupage kits and stuff for making your
own transparent cast-resin grape bunches.
Somewhere along the way, Tandy either started or acquired Radio Shack, a chain
of shops selling mainly bags of surplus components and other electronica to
home-builders.
Well there were more ups and downs than the last seconds of Flight 900 while:
1) Radio Shack hit it big by moving into consumer products and eventually
computers and 2) Tandy first took its crafts shops back to leathercraft shops,
then, last year, closed all its retail stores and placed the entire operation
on the web and catalog sales.
Michael Black
david....@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Paul Grayson <paul.g...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> | > I heard that back in the 5 1/4" floppy days, there was a practical joke
> | > that some might do. At that time, Radio Shack would sell you a *single*
> | > 5 1/4" floppy disk. So they guy would go in and buy *one* floppy. After
> | > paying for the disk, he would neatly *fold* it in half, stick it in his
> | > back pocket, and walk out of the store--leaving the sales person with his
> | > mouth hanging open in disbelief...
> | >
It may seem odd to think of buying a single flppy at a time, but it was
a convenience back then. I got my first floppy drive in 1984, five years
after my first computer, for a Radio Shack Color Computer. I must have
spent $500 for it here in Canada for the drive, a case with power supply
and a floppy controller. And I couldn't use the thing immediately because
I had no floppy disk to go into it. I must have bought one of those
single floppy's so I could use the thing without spending more money.
The first ten pack of floppy disks that I bought, sometime in 1984, cost
me $50. I still have the bill somewhere around. And that box must
have been cheaper than some of the other brands, because I sure can't
imagine spending more than I felt I had to.
I don't remember the pricing after that. I do know that it took me
a while to try generic floppy's, though I can't remember if those
were even available at the time I bought that first box.
The weird thing, a few years ago I was talking to someone who is now
fifteen, and she asked why I call them floppy's. I was holding a 3.5"
disk at the time. I think I made a point of showing her a 5 1/4
and flopped it to show her. I can imagine the effect is even greater
with an 8".
Michael
Charles Richmond
>
> I had a phone that was a keypad version of a rotary pulse phone. When the
> buttons were pressed it would emit a series of clicks corresponding to the
> number. Press "5", and it clicked five times. I think we got it for subscribing
> to Time magazine. Has anyone seen something like this before?
>
allows you to change between pulse and tone dialing. In the US (at least everywhere
I've been), the local phone company charges about a dollar and a half extra
*every* month if you use a touch tone phone. The phone company continues to do
this, even though in 99% of the cases they have to translate the pulses into tones
before putting your call through!!! So by using a touch tone phone, you *not*
only make their work easier, but you get to pay them for the privilege--*every*
month!!!
fungus
Chris Stratford wrote:
>
> In article <b5WW3.4493$Xa5....@wbnws01.ne.mediaone.net>,
>
> > More recently, we still call a 3.5" diskette a "floppy" even though
> > the case is rigid (but the old 8-inchers and 5.25" floppies really
> > were flexible).
>
> 3.5" discs are still flexible (they just require a bit more
> "persuasion" before they bend).
I thought they were called "stiffies"...
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
Dowe Keller
>Paul Grayson <paul.g...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>| > I heard that back in the 5 1/4" floppy days, there was a practical joke
>| > that some might do. At that time, Radio Shack would sell you a *single*
>| > 5 1/4" floppy disk. So they guy would go in and buy *one* floppy. After
>| > paying for the disk, he would neatly *fold* it in half, stick it in his
>| > back pocket, and walk out of the store--leaving the sales person with his
>| > mouth hanging open in disbelief...
>| >
>|
I used to love Radio shack back in the days when the lion's share of their
buisness was electronic components. I was a wirehead as a kid, and Radio
Shack used to sell little bags full of assorted odds and ends (Capacitors,
Coils, resistors and the sort).
Any more, they're more interested in selling remote-controlled toy cars
and stereos than electronics equipment. You'd be hard pressed to find
a Radio Shack sales clerk who knows the difference between a diode and a
relay any more.
BTW, Remember those neat kits they sold that with different componets
mounted on a board so that you could run wires from component to
component, to build different projects like transistor radios and
logic circuits and such. [emoticon reflecting on fond childhood memories]
Dowe Keller do...@worldnet.att.net http://home.att.net/~dowe
----------------------------------------------------------------
I am a .sig vaccine, remove me from your signature file.
Nick Spalding
> I had a phone that was a keypad version of a rotary pulse phone. When the
> buttons were pressed it would emit a series of clicks corresponding to the
> number. Press "5", and it clicked five times. I think we got it for subscribing
> to Time magazine. Has anyone seen something like this before?
My current phones will do this on demand as indeed do every keypad
phone I have ever seen. There is a little switch underneath to switch
from tone to pulse dialling. And at the other end of the line the
exchanges (aka central offices) can all accept pulse dialling because
(as several people have mentioned) some people still have dial phones.
We got keypad phones before the local exchange went digital and
flipped that switch when we did; we had the last step-by-step
(Strowger) exchange in the country though there were still a few
crossbars around.
--
Nick Spalding
Floyd Davidson
Charles Richmond <rich...@plano.net> wrote:
>Flenser wrote:
>>
>> I had a phone that was a keypad version of a rotary pulse
>> phone. When the buttons were pressed it would emit a series
>> of clicks corresponding to the number. Press "5", and it
>> clicked five times. I think we got it for subscribing to Time
>> magazine. Has anyone seen something like this before?
>>
>switch somewhere that allows you to change between pulse and
>tone dialing. In the US (at least everywhere I've been), the
>local phone company charges about a dollar and a half extra
>*every* month if you use a touch tone phone. The phone company
>continues to do this, even though in 99% of the cases they have
>to translate the pulses into tones before putting your call
>through!!! So by using a touch tone phone, you *not* only make
>their work easier, but you get to pay them for the
>privilege--*every* month!!!
At one time that practice was true almost everywhere, but it no
longer is. It dates from a time when using dual tone signaling
required extra equipment be added to old mechanical switching
systems to convert from tones to pulses. Today most switching
is done with digital systems, all of which accept either pulse
or tone dialing. And those few mechanical systems left almost
all have equipment built in to convert tones to pulses.
However, the style of telephone mentioned above, with a keypad
that outputs pulse dialing, was fairly common in the early 1980's
when many old switching systems did not offer pulse dial. It
was, I suppose, kind of a vanity thing... not having those old
rotary dial phones (even if the phone company would not provide
a "modern" telephone).
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson fl...@barrow.com
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
fungus
>
> I had a phone that was a keypad version of a rotary pulse phone. When the
> buttons were pressed it would emit a series of clicks corresponding to the
> number. Press "5", and it clicked five times. I think we got it for subscribing
> to Time magazine. Has anyone seen something like this before?
>
The first push-button phones emulated the rotary phones, this
emulation is what you're listening to.
The clicks are actually a switch opening and closing inside the
telephone. If you practice a bit you do this manually.
Lift the phone off the hook and listen for the dial tone then
tap the switch under the handset (the one which hangs up the
phone) to dial the number as follows:
To dial a five, tap the switch five times rapidly then pause.
To dial the number "614", tap the switch six times, pause, tap
it once, pause, then tap it four times.
You1 have to get the timing right - if you do it too slowly
it won't work. Imagine the clicks you hear on a pulse dial
phone and try to imitate them.
(Visions of lots of people bashing their 'phones like mad)
When you've got the knack you can do it at parties to
impress your friends...
...and next time you see a rotary phone with one of those
annoying little locks on the dial, you'll know what to do.
Tim Shoppa
>
> Flenser wrote:
> >
> > I had a phone that was a keypad version of a rotary pulse phone. When the
> > buttons were pressed it would emit a series of clicks corresponding to the
> > number. Press "5", and it clicked five times. I think we got it for subscribing
> > to Time magazine. Has anyone seen something like this before?
> >
>
> The first push-button phones emulated the rotary phones, this
> emulation is what you're listening to.
"The first"? I don't think so. There were a couple of different
push-button methods that were tried and junked before the advent
of DTMF ("touch-tone") dialing, but none of these simulated
dial phone "clicks". Remember, we're talking mid-1960's
technology here, where you've got maybe a half-dozen transistors
in the dialing electronics at most. (Some early DTMF keypads
got away with as few as two transistors.)
The "push button emulates rotary dial" phones didn't become popular
until the late 70's, when VLSI semiconductor technology made it
possible and economical to fit the counting circuitry into a chip.
Tim.
Joe Morris
>Most people don't know why the red and green pair are "tip" and "ring" <hint,
>youngsters, it has nothing to do with ringers and everything to do with
>anatomy)
You forgot "sleeve" as the third term of the triad.
Hint: it has nothing to do with shirts.
Joe Morris
Joe Morris
>BTW, Remember those neat kits they sold that with different componets
>mounted on a board so that you could run wires from component to
>component, to build different projects like transistor radios and
>logic circuits and such. [emoticon reflecting on fond childhood memories]
Agreed, and they also sold some non-electronic products that were a
Good Buy. In the 1950s I bought a set of drafting instruments
(by mail) from RS; although I don't recall the price it must not have
been very high if I could do that on a high-school student's budget.
The teacher in my mechanical drawing class was very impressed by the
quality; even if it wasn't up to K&E standards the bang-for-the-buck
ratio was quite high. (I've got the kit stored somewhere in the boxes
of stuff I've not opened since two moves ago...)
Sadly, quality products at decent prices are a thing of the past.
Joe Morris
Tim Shoppa
> Agreed, and they also sold some non-electronic products that were a
> Good Buy. In the 1950s I bought a set of drafting instruments
> (by mail) from RS; although I don't recall the price it must not have
> been very high if I could do that on a high-school student's budget.
> The teacher in my mechanical drawing class was very impressed by the
> quality; even if it wasn't up to K&E standards the bang-for-the-buck
> ratio was quite high. (I've got the kit stored somewhere in the boxes
> of stuff I've not opened since two moves ago...)
>
> Sadly, quality products at decent prices are a thing of the past.
In consumer electronics, I'm not so sure that's true. Today I can go
out and buy a 19" color TV for less than US$200, and that TV will
probably work for most of a decade. Compare this with my family's first
color TV set (I think this was 1970 or so), which within a year had
broken down multiple times. (Of course, back then the TV repairman
came to your house, and he actually *fixed* things, ...) I think
that TV was around $400 in *1970* dollars, a *huge* investment
at the time - $400 would buy you a very nice used car in those days.
Even Bell telephone equipment wasn't nearly as reliable back then.
I remember our telephone breaking several times while growing up
in the 1960's and 1970's, and the telephone repairman coming along
in his van and repairing it on the spot. Of course, at that point
in time we only had one telephone. Now I've got a half-dozen phones
in the house, and none of them have broken for the past decade.
Tim.
John Winters
Flenser <fle...@cs.iastate.edu> wrote:
>I had a phone that was a keypad version of a rotary pulse phone. When the
>buttons were pressed it would emit a series of clicks corresponding to the
>number. Press "5", and it clicked five times. I think we got it for subscribing
>to Time magazine. Has anyone seen something like this before?
They were common over here where BT took a long time to cotton on to
DTMF exchanges.
Interestingly, in New Zealand dials used to be the reverse of most
places so it was 9 clicks for a 1, 8 clicks for a 2 etc. I used a
Sony Videotex terminal designed for the UK market at a site in
Wellington and to dial, say, 0248 391236 you had to enter 0862 719874
After a while it starts to make your brain hurt.
John
--
John Winters. Wallingford, Oxon, England.
The Linux Emporium - the source for Linux CDs in the UK
See http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/
John Varela
<david....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Somewhere along the way, Tandy either started or acquired Radio Shack, a chain
> of shops selling mainly bags of surplus components and other electronica to
> home-builders.
I don't know, but I suspect the RS part of Tandy originated in an
electronic parts store in Boston called you-know-what. I was only in
there once or twice in the mid 50s; as near as I can recall, they sold
parts and surplus stuff to hams and electronic hobbyists. Sort of
like an electronics version of Edmund Scientific.[1] I don't think it
was a chain then, though it may have become one by the 60s.
[1] ObTWIAVBP: Edmund Scientific is a catalog store in New Jersey
that sells military surplus stuff like periscope prisms, and
scientific novelties like gyroscopes. Edmund Scientific is probably
the last place on Earth that you can still buy one of those glass
birds that dunks its bill into a glass of water.
Ignatios Souvatzis
jcmo...@jmorris-pc.MITRE.ORG (Joe Morris) writes:
> And when will UNIX systems write their memory dumps to a file
> called "ram" instead of "core"?
In NetBSD-current (the development version), the core file name is
configurable:
cosinus# ./sysctl -w kern.defcorename=%n.ram
kern.defcorename: %n.core -> %n.ram
cosinus#
-is
--
* Progress (n.): The process through which Usenet has evolved from
smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of
smart terminals. -- o...@burnout.demon.co.uk (obscurity)
Charlie Gibbs
sp...@egg.chips.and.spam.com (fungus) writes:
I prefer the term "crunchies".
Charlie Gibbs
(J. Chris Hausler) writes:
>David M. Razler <david....@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>>Most people don't know why the red and green pair are "tip" and "ring"
>><hint, youngsters, it has nothing to do with ringers and everything
>>to do with anatomy)
>
>You forgot "sleeve"
"I bet you gave that guard a sleeve job." -- Firesign Theatre
Derek Peschel
Tim Shoppa <sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
>"The first"? I don't think so. There were a couple of different
>push-button methods that were tried and junked before the advent
>of DTMF ("touch-tone") dialing, but none of these simulated
>dial phone "clicks". Remember, we're talking mid-1960's
>technology here, where you've got maybe a half-dozen transistors
>in the dialing electronics at most. (Some early DTMF keypads
>got away with as few as two transistors.)
Do you have any more information about the trial pushbutton systems?
Hearing about the two-transistor design would be interesting too.
I once had the idea of making a mechanical DTMF phone... think of the idea
of twelve flat typewriter-style keys, arranged in a steep slope, with bars
heading back to some sort of tuning fork mechanism. For extra luxury it
could have a spring-loaded "redial" feature or storage of common numbers.
-- Derek
Tim Bradshaw
>> The first push-button phones emulated the rotary phones, this
>> emulation is what you're listening to.
> "The first"? I don't think so. There were a couple of different
> push-button methods that were tried and junked before the advent
> of DTMF ("touch-tone") dialing, but none of these simulated
> dial phone "clicks".
They did in the UK, where tone dialing was much later coming than in
the US.
--tim