Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oldest computer on the internet?
744 views
Skip to first unread message
Stan Barr
Sep 14, 2011, 11:22:15 AM9/14/11
to
Hi,
I got myself into an argument with a newby today, he seemed to think the
internet started in about 1995* and he didn't believe I'd been using it
for around 20 years!
This prompted a question, what's the oldest computer still active on
the internet? I can only go back to 1989 but ISTR someone here runs an
old 286. I have a vague memory of someone with an IBM mainframe from
the sixties who has it hitched up - anyone any ideas?
(Just getting things back to talking about computers...:-)
* It turned out he suffered from the common delusion that the www
*is* the internet.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr plan.b .at. dsl .dot. pipex .dot. com
The future was never like this!
I got myself into an argument with a newby today, he seemed to think the
internet started in about 1995* and he didn't believe I'd been using it
for around 20 years!
This prompted a question, what's the oldest computer still active on
the internet? I can only go back to 1989 but ISTR someone here runs an
old 286. I have a vague memory of someone with an IBM mainframe from
the sixties who has it hitched up - anyone any ideas?
(Just getting things back to talking about computers...:-)
* It turned out he suffered from the common delusion that the www
*is* the internet.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr plan.b .at. dsl .dot. pipex .dot. com
The future was never like this!
Stephen Wolstenholme
Sep 14, 2011, 12:00:17 PM9/14/11
to
On 14 Sep 2011 15:22:15 GMT, Stan Barr <pla...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I got myself into an argument with a newby today, he seemed to think the
>internet started in about 1995* and he didn't believe I'd been using it
>for around 20 years!
>This prompted a question, what's the oldest computer still active on
>the internet? I can only go back to 1989 but ISTR someone here runs an
>old 286. I have a vague memory of someone with an IBM mainframe from
>the sixties who has it hitched up - anyone any ideas?
>
>
>(Just getting things back to talking about computers...:-)
>
>* It turned out he suffered from the common delusion that the www
>*is* the internet.
The Internet evolved from ARPANET in around 1962. There is probably
>Hi,
>
>I got myself into an argument with a newby today, he seemed to think the
>internet started in about 1995* and he didn't believe I'd been using it
>for around 20 years!
>This prompted a question, what's the oldest computer still active on
>the internet? I can only go back to 1989 but ISTR someone here runs an
>old 286. I have a vague memory of someone with an IBM mainframe from
>the sixties who has it hitched up - anyone any ideas?
>
>
>(Just getting things back to talking about computers...:-)
>
>* It turned out he suffered from the common delusion that the www
>*is* the internet.
some old ARPANET hardware still running in a museum. Do a web search.
Steve
--
Neural network software applications, help and support.
Neural Network Software. www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 14, 2011, 12:20:38 PM9/14/11
to
Stan Barr <pla...@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
> I got myself into an argument with a newby today, he seemed to think the
> internet started in about 1995* and he didn't believe I'd been using it
> for around 20 years!
> This prompted a question, what's the oldest computer still active on
> the internet? I can only go back to 1989 but ISTR someone here runs an
> old 286. I have a vague memory of someone with an IBM mainframe from
> the sixties who has it hitched up - anyone any ideas?
RFC 801 NCP/TCP(/IP) transition plan 1Nov81:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc801.txt
tcp/ip is the technology basis for the modern internet, NSFNET backbone
was the operational basis for the modern internet and CIX was the
business basis for the modern internet.
Misc. old email related to NSFNET backbone
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#nsfnet
In IMPs/host-protocol, the IMPs were the network nodes and typically one
or more hosts/mainframes connected to IMPs. At time of the switch-over,
there supposedly were approx. 100 IMPs (network nodes) and possibly 250
or so host/mainframes.
RFC 1000
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1000.txt
from above:
The procurement of the ARPANET was initiated in the summer of 1968 --
Remember Vietnam, flower children, etc? There had been prior
experiments at various ARPA sites to link together computer systems, but
this was the first version to explore packet-switching on a grand scale.
("ARPA" didn't become "DARPA" until 1972.) Unlike most of the ARPA/IPTO
procurements of the day, this was a competitive procurement. The
contract called for four IMPs to be delivered to UCLA, SRI, UCSB and The
University of Utah. These sites were running a Sigma 7 with the SEX
operating system, an SDS 940 with the Genie operating system, an IBM
360/75 with OS/MVT (or perhaps OS/MFT), and a DEC PDP-10 with the Tenex
operating system. Options existed for additional nodes if the first
experiments were successful. BBN won the procurement in December 1968,
but that gets ahead of this story.
... snip ...
RFC 240 Site Status (& list of hosts) 27Sep71:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc240.txt
The above mentions Joel Winnet getting host protocol up on cp67 (ran on
360/67, precusor to vm370) at lincoln labs.
IBM mainframe tcp/ip product was done about the time of the NSFNET
backbone (although some sites had implemented their own mainframe tcp/ip
support earlier) ... it was written in pascal/vs for vm370 ... a kludged
up version was later made available on MVS by implementing simulation
for some vm370 functions. The original version had some performance and
thruput issues. I did the changes for supporting RFC1044 and in some
tuning tests at Cray Research (between cray and 4341-clone) got possibly
500 times improvement (in instructions executed per bytes transferred)
running at 4341-clone channel media speed. misc. past posts mentioning
doing rfc 1044 support
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#1044
not real machines ... but various players have old mainframe system
software running under hercules
http://www.hercules-390.org/
http://www.ibiblio.org/jmaynard/
as aside ... the internal network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
was larger than the arpanet/internet from just about the beginning until
possibly late-85 or early-86 ... originally implemented at the science
center on cp67
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Michael Black
Sep 14, 2011, 1:28:05 PM9/14/11
to
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2011 15:22:15 GMT, Stan Barr <pla...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I got myself into an argument with a newby today, he seemed to think the
>> internet started in about 1995* and he didn't believe I'd been using it
>> for around 20 years!
>> This prompted a question, what's the oldest computer still active on
>> the internet? I can only go back to 1989 but ISTR someone here runs an
>> old 286. I have a vague memory of someone with an IBM mainframe from
>> the sixties who has it hitched up - anyone any ideas?
>>
>>
>> (Just getting things back to talking about computers...:-)
>>
>> * It turned out he suffered from the common delusion that the www
>> *is* the internet.
>
> The Internet evolved from ARPANET in around 1962. There is probably
> some old ARPANET hardware still running in a museum. Do a web search.
>
That's stretching it, since Arpanet didn't go online till 1969, the fall
> On 14 Sep 2011 15:22:15 GMT, Stan Barr <pla...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I got myself into an argument with a newby today, he seemed to think the
>> internet started in about 1995* and he didn't believe I'd been using it
>> for around 20 years!
>> This prompted a question, what's the oldest computer still active on
>> the internet? I can only go back to 1989 but ISTR someone here runs an
>> old 286. I have a vague memory of someone with an IBM mainframe from
>> the sixties who has it hitched up - anyone any ideas?
>>
>>
>> (Just getting things back to talking about computers...:-)
>>
>> * It turned out he suffered from the common delusion that the www
>> *is* the internet.
>
> The Internet evolved from ARPANET in around 1962. There is probably
> some old ARPANET hardware still running in a museum. Do a web search.
>
if I remember. And technically that's not the internet.
Michael
Stan Barr
Sep 14, 2011, 2:06:24 PM9/14/11
to
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:20:38 -0400, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
[snip]
Loads of interesting stuff for me to read...thanks!
Al Kossow
Sep 14, 2011, 2:08:12 PM9/14/11
to
On 9/14/11 9:00 AM, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2011 15:22:15 GMT, Stan Barr<pla...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> There is probably
> some old ARPANET hardware still running in a museum. Do a web search.
>
> On 14 Sep 2011 15:22:15 GMT, Stan Barr<pla...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> There is probably
> some old ARPANET hardware still running in a museum. Do a web search.
>
Unlikely, since as far as anyone knows there are no surviving copies of
the software for the IMP.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Rich Alderson
Sep 14, 2011, 8:01:41 PM9/14/11
to
Stan Barr <pla...@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
> This prompted a question, what's the oldest computer still active on
> the internet? I can only go back to 1989 but ISTR someone here runs an
> old 286. I have a vague memory of someone with an IBM mainframe from
> the sixties who has it hitched up - anyone any ideas?
Well, our Tops-10 system is a KL-10PW (DECSYSTEM-2065) built in 1983. (We
> This prompted a question, what's the oldest computer still active on
> the internet? I can only go back to 1989 but ISTR someone here runs an
> old 286. I have a vague memory of someone with an IBM mainframe from
> the sixties who has it hitched up - anyone any ideas?
use it for Tops-10 because we have an XKL Toad-1 for TOPS-20). Accessible
on the net at DEC-10.LivingComputerMuseum.org .
Come to think of it, our VAX-11/780-5 (that is, an original 11/780 which was
field upgraded to a /785) is older than the -10 (though not as old as the other
-10 in the room, which is not on the 'Net).
And once of these days we'll get around to putting our PDP-8/e running MULTOS
on the 'Net (with a terminal server). The PDP-7 just doesn't have the right
features for that.
--
Rich Alderson ne...@alderson.users.panix.com
the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...
Chris Adams
Sep 14, 2011, 10:24:28 PM9/14/11
to
Once upon a time, Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> said:
>And once of these days we'll get around to putting our PDP-8/e running MULTOS
>on the 'Net (with a terminal server). The PDP-7 just doesn't have the right
>features for that.
My computers at home are in a PDP-8 rack, does that count? :-)
>And once of these days we'll get around to putting our PDP-8/e running MULTOS
>on the 'Net (with a terminal server). The PDP-7 just doesn't have the right
>features for that.
I bought the empty rack from a friend; no computer parts were in it. It
is a short rack (24 U, 50" overall height), beige, and the front panel
just says "pdp8" (no model suffix). I've looked around online, but
haven't found a picture of any PDP-8 rack that looks like this. Anybody
know what model this would have held (and when it might have been made)?
--
Chris Adams <cma...@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Michael Black
Sep 14, 2011, 11:00:09 PM9/14/11
to
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> said:
>> And once of these days we'll get around to putting our PDP-8/e running MULTOS
>> on the 'Net (with a terminal server). The PDP-7 just doesn't have the right
>> features for that.
>
> My computers at home are in a PDP-8 rack, does that count? :-)
>
I remember seeing an ad about 1996, maybe a tad earlier, from someone
> Once upon a time, Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> said:
>> And once of these days we'll get around to putting our PDP-8/e running MULTOS
>> on the 'Net (with a terminal server). The PDP-7 just doesn't have the right
>> features for that.
>
> My computers at home are in a PDP-8 rack, does that count? :-)
>
selling stuff before moving. He had a PDP-8 for about a hundred dollars,
and a modem for more than that. The modem had to be whatever speed was
top at the time. It was an interesting contrast.
Michael
Message has been deleted
Stan Barr
Sep 15, 2011, 11:18:59 AM9/15/11
to
On 14 Sep 2011 20:01:41 -0400, Rich Alderson
>
> Come to think of it, our VAX-11/780-5 (that is, an original 11/780 which was
> field upgraded to a /785) is older than the -10 (though not as old as the
> other
> -10 in the room, which is not on the 'Net).
>
> And once of these days we'll get around to putting our PDP-8/e running MULTOS
> on the 'Net (with a terminal server). The PDP-7 just doesn't have the right
> features for that.
>
Excellent...My old Mac SE is quite modern then! Still on dialup with
it, but I'll get my old Cisco router with serial input running
eventually and connect it to that.
<ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
> Stan Barr <pla...@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
>
>> This prompted a question, what's the oldest computer still active on
>> the internet? I can only go back to 1989 but ISTR someone here runs an
>> old 286. I have a vague memory of someone with an IBM mainframe from
>> the sixties who has it hitched up - anyone any ideas?
>
> Well, our Tops-10 system is a KL-10PW (DECSYSTEM-2065) built in 1983. (We
> use it for Tops-10 because we have an XKL Toad-1 for TOPS-20). Accessible
> on the net at DEC-10.LivingComputerMuseum.org .
Logins??
> Stan Barr <pla...@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
>
>> This prompted a question, what's the oldest computer still active on
>> the internet? I can only go back to 1989 but ISTR someone here runs an
>> old 286. I have a vague memory of someone with an IBM mainframe from
>> the sixties who has it hitched up - anyone any ideas?
>
> Well, our Tops-10 system is a KL-10PW (DECSYSTEM-2065) built in 1983. (We
> use it for Tops-10 because we have an XKL Toad-1 for TOPS-20). Accessible
> on the net at DEC-10.LivingComputerMuseum.org .
>
> Come to think of it, our VAX-11/780-5 (that is, an original 11/780 which was
> field upgraded to a /785) is older than the -10 (though not as old as the
> other
> -10 in the room, which is not on the 'Net).
>
> And once of these days we'll get around to putting our PDP-8/e running MULTOS
> on the 'Net (with a terminal server). The PDP-7 just doesn't have the right
> features for that.
>
it, but I'll get my old Cisco router with serial input running
eventually and connect it to that.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Rich Alderson
Sep 15, 2011, 5:54:15 PM9/15/11
to
Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> *****************************************************************
> * *
> * T h e L i v i n g C o m p u t e r M u s e u m *
> * *
> * P D P p l a n e t D E C s y s t e m - 1 0 *
> * *
> * Unauthorized access to this machine is prohibited. *
> * Use of this system is limited to authorized individuals only. *
> * All activity is monitored. *
> * *
> * To request an account on this system, please visit us at *
> * *
> * http://www.PDPplanet.com/ *
> * *
> *****************************************************************
And I just noticed that our terminal server that connects the serial lines on
the -10 to the Internet still has the old domain name in its greeting. I'll
fix that after the HVAC is refrangled.
(Hey, I rarely go in through that interface, and I'm looking for other things
when I do. ;-)
> *****************************************************************
> * *
> * T h e L i v i n g C o m p u t e r M u s e u m *
> * *
> * P D P p l a n e t D E C s y s t e m - 1 0 *
> * *
> * Unauthorized access to this machine is prohibited. *
> * Use of this system is limited to authorized individuals only. *
> * All activity is monitored. *
> * *
> * To request an account on this system, please visit us at *
> * *
> * http://www.PDPplanet.com/ *
> * *
> *****************************************************************
And I just noticed that our terminal server that connects the serial lines on
the -10 to the Internet still has the old domain name in its greeting. I'll
fix that after the HVAC is refrangled.
(Hey, I rarely go in through that interface, and I'm looking for other things
when I do. ;-)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
David Gesswein
Sep 27, 2011, 9:17:47 PM9/27/11
to
In article <9dbv57...@mid.individual.net>,
sure exactly when it was made but that model was made from 1970 to 1978.
The PDP-8 doesn't really know about the internet. A more modern
computer handles all the interfacing.
http://www.pdp8online.com/run.shtml
>This prompted a question, what's the oldest computer still active on
>the internet?
>
My PDP-8/E is back online after being down for a couple weeks. I'm not
>the internet?
>
sure exactly when it was made but that model was made from 1970 to 1978.
The PDP-8 doesn't really know about the internet. A more modern
computer handles all the interfacing.
http://www.pdp8online.com/run.shtml
jim
Oct 1, 2011, 9:10:45 PM10/1/11
to
On Sep 14, 11:22 am, Stan Barr <pla...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got myself into an argument with a newby today, he seemed to think the
> internet started in about 1995* and he didn't believe I'd been using it
> for around 20 years!
Well, scientists are always fast to point out that the Internet
> Hi,
>
> I got myself into an argument with a newby today, he seemed to think the
> internet started in about 1995* and he didn't believe I'd been using it
> for around 20 years!
actually began
as the Arpanet in the mid 60s. But the problem with scientists is
that
the only thing they know about computer architecture is AT&T.
So, it's always difficult to point out to them, that they are the
only
people who have been working on AT&T electronics architectures of
any kind, since WWII.
The actual electronics engineers have been working on Satellites,
atomic clocks,
lasers, optical networks, led tech, and nano-technology for almost
60 years.
The software engineers have likewise been working on Holographics
DNA Technology, and 3D Digital Television for 50 years.
David Dyer-Bennet
Oct 7, 2011, 2:15:24 PM10/7/11
to
I've been running your 8/I console picture as my wallpaper for many
months now, thanks! (We had an 8/I at college, 1972-77.)
lup...@gmail.com
Oct 12, 2018, 11:04:07 AM10/12/18
to
I had a 286 connected to the Internet (started with 2400bps modem, then upgraded to 14.kpbs). I was running Windows 3.0 on MSDOS 5. My uncle had an IBM XT (8088 processor) with a 300bps modem running on PC-DOS 1. Obviosly we weren't transmitting very much data, but it was good enough for email and FTP. We sold both of those a long time ago, so I imaging they were scarped at some point.
JimP
Oct 12, 2018, 12:09:27 PM10/12/18
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 08:04:05 -0700 (PDT), lup...@gmail.com wrote:
>I had a 286 connected to the Internet (started with 2400bps modem, then upgraded to 14.kpbs). I was running Windows 3.0 on MSDOS 5. My uncle had an IBM XT (8088 processor) with a 300bps modem running on PC-DOS 1. Obviosly we weren't transmitting very much data, but it was good enough for email and FTP. We sold both of those a long time ago, so I imaging they were scarped at some point.
Hmm... In my visits to various Amiga computer forums, there are folks
>I had a 286 connected to the Internet (started with 2400bps modem, then upgraded to 14.kpbs). I was running Windows 3.0 on MSDOS 5. My uncle had an IBM XT (8088 processor) with a 300bps modem running on PC-DOS 1. Obviosly we weren't transmitting very much data, but it was good enough for email and FTP. We sold both of those a long time ago, so I imaging they were scarped at some point.
who claim their A500, or A3000, is being used to read email, post to
forums, etc.
About 1990, I had my Amiga A1000 connected to the local university so
I could read my Bitnet emails. I used a VT100 emulator and a 1200 bps
modem.
I still have the computer, but not the modem.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 12, 2018, 1:08:32 PM10/12/18
to
JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 08:04:05 -0700 (PDT), lup...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I had a 286 connected to the Internet (started with 2400bps modem, then
>> upgraded to 14.kpbs). I was running Windows 3.0 on MSDOS 5. My uncle
>> had an IBM XT (8088 processor) with a 300bps modem running on PC-DOS 1.
>> Obviosly we weren't transmitting very much data, but it was good enough
>> for email and FTP. We sold both of those a long time ago, so I imaging
>> they were scarped at some point.
>
> Hmm... In my visits to various Amiga computer forums, there are folks
> who claim their A500, or A3000, is being used to read email, post to
> forums, etc.
There’s no reason why not. I had my Amiga 1200 online a few years ago. Next
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 08:04:05 -0700 (PDT), lup...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I had a 286 connected to the Internet (started with 2400bps modem, then
>> upgraded to 14.kpbs). I was running Windows 3.0 on MSDOS 5. My uncle
>> had an IBM XT (8088 processor) with a 300bps modem running on PC-DOS 1.
>> Obviosly we weren't transmitting very much data, but it was good enough
>> for email and FTP. We sold both of those a long time ago, so I imaging
>> they were scarped at some point.
>
> Hmm... In my visits to various Amiga computer forums, there are folks
> who claim their A500, or A3000, is being used to read email, post to
> forums, etc.
to nothing constructive to do with it online, of course, but I did connect
to Usenet with it successfully.
> About 1990, I had my Amiga A1000 connected to the local university so
> I could read my Bitnet emails. I used a VT100 emulator and a 1200 bps
> modem.
>
> I still have the computer, but not the modem.
>
was online until recently. I have several dead Mac SE/30s, from 1988, that
I plan to refurbish to end up with one functional example and will be
putting online for Usenet and IRC.
--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Scott Lurndal
Oct 12, 2018, 1:18:40 PM10/12/18
to
lup...@gmail.com writes:
>I had a 286 connected to the Internet (started with 2400bps modem, then upg=
>raded to 14.kpbs). I was running Windows 3.0 on MSDOS 5. My uncle had an =
>IBM XT (8088 processor) with a 300bps modem running on PC-DOS 1. Obviosly =
>we weren't transmitting very much data, but it was good enough for email an=
>d FTP. We sold both of those a long time ago, so I imaging they were scarp=
>ed at some point.
I believe that Rich Alderson has one or more PDP-10s on the internet, and
I've heard of people using PDP-11s and other mini's.
>I had a 286 connected to the Internet (started with 2400bps modem, then upg=
>raded to 14.kpbs). I was running Windows 3.0 on MSDOS 5. My uncle had an =
>IBM XT (8088 processor) with a 300bps modem running on PC-DOS 1. Obviosly =
>we weren't transmitting very much data, but it was good enough for email an=
>d FTP. We sold both of those a long time ago, so I imaging they were scarp=
>ed at some point.
I believe that Rich Alderson has one or more PDP-10s on the internet, and
I've heard of people using PDP-11s and other mini's.
JimP
Oct 12, 2018, 2:44:48 PM10/12/18
to
On 12 Oct 2018 17:08:31 GMT, Stephen Thomas Cole
restoring them. There are open source 68030 accelerators for them to.
>> About 1990, I had my Amiga A1000 connected to the local university so
>> I could read my Bitnet emails. I used a VT100 emulator and a 1200 bps
>> modem.
>>
>> I still have the computer, but not the modem.
>>
>
>I am a vintage Macintosh enthusiast, I have an LCIII+ dating to 1993 that
>was online until recently. I have several dead Mac SE/30s, from 1988, that
>I plan to refurbish to end up with one functional example and will be
>putting online for Usenet and IRC.
I have spotted several 'restore old Mac' videos on youtube due to me
looking at 'restore old Amiga computers' videos.
My problem with the videos is hearing what they are saying. I prefer a
pdf. Well, a book over a pdf, but apparently only videos are
available.
<use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 08:04:05 -0700 (PDT), lup...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I had a 286 connected to the Internet (started with 2400bps modem, then
>>> upgraded to 14.kpbs). I was running Windows 3.0 on MSDOS 5. My uncle
>>> had an IBM XT (8088 processor) with a 300bps modem running on PC-DOS 1.
>>> Obviosly we weren't transmitting very much data, but it was good enough
>>> for email and FTP. We sold both of those a long time ago, so I imaging
>>> they were scarped at some point.
>>
>> Hmm... In my visits to various Amiga computer forums, there are folks
>> who claim their A500, or A3000, is being used to read email, post to
>> forums, etc.
>
>There’s no reason why not. I had my Amiga 1200 online a few years ago. Next
>to nothing constructive to do with it online, of course, but I did connect
>to Usenet with it successfully.
I know of several A600 and A1200 videos where they talk about
>JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 08:04:05 -0700 (PDT), lup...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I had a 286 connected to the Internet (started with 2400bps modem, then
>>> upgraded to 14.kpbs). I was running Windows 3.0 on MSDOS 5. My uncle
>>> had an IBM XT (8088 processor) with a 300bps modem running on PC-DOS 1.
>>> Obviosly we weren't transmitting very much data, but it was good enough
>>> for email and FTP. We sold both of those a long time ago, so I imaging
>>> they were scarped at some point.
>>
>> Hmm... In my visits to various Amiga computer forums, there are folks
>> who claim their A500, or A3000, is being used to read email, post to
>> forums, etc.
>
>There’s no reason why not. I had my Amiga 1200 online a few years ago. Next
>to nothing constructive to do with it online, of course, but I did connect
>to Usenet with it successfully.
restoring them. There are open source 68030 accelerators for them to.
>> About 1990, I had my Amiga A1000 connected to the local university so
>> I could read my Bitnet emails. I used a VT100 emulator and a 1200 bps
>> modem.
>>
>> I still have the computer, but not the modem.
>>
>
>I am a vintage Macintosh enthusiast, I have an LCIII+ dating to 1993 that
>was online until recently. I have several dead Mac SE/30s, from 1988, that
>I plan to refurbish to end up with one functional example and will be
>putting online for Usenet and IRC.
looking at 'restore old Amiga computers' videos.
My problem with the videos is hearing what they are saying. I prefer a
pdf. Well, a book over a pdf, but apparently only videos are
available.
jmreno
Oct 12, 2018, 3:18:40 PM10/12/18
to
connected to bulletin boards since there was no Internet for us common folk.
Later I had a 25 MHz 386 running DOS but that was for AOL, also not the
Internet.
I tried IBM OS2 that came on a zillion floppies ("A Better DOS than DOS,
A Better Windows Than Windows") but it wasn't either one so on the first
day that Windows 95 came out I bought it.
It actually ran on my 25 MHz 386 with 5 MBytes of main memory, just not
very fast. By then I had a 2400 Baud direct connect modem.
Then I got on the real Internet but every time I signed up with a new
dial-up service it would start out ok but then go to crap, usually after
a month.
It was several years before I got broadband. It was through ComCast
Cable. One of the benefits was that when they opened the filter for
Broadband it let the SCIFI channel through so I could watch StarGate SG-1.
That was many years ago when the SCIFI Channel (now SYFY) actually
showed science fiction. CSI is not science fiction. Or is it?
Jorgen Grahn
Oct 12, 2018, 3:25:02 PM10/12/18
to
On Fri, 2018-10-12, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
...
> , but I did connect to Usenet with it successfully.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
...
> I had my Amiga 1200 online a few years ago. Next
> to nothing constructive to do with it online, of course
In other words, just like most computers in that respect ;-)
> to nothing constructive to do with it online, of course
> , but I did connect to Usenet with it successfully.
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Kerr-Mudd,John
Oct 12, 2018, 3:38:07 PM10/12/18
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:18:40 GMT, jmreno <no...@znet.com> wrote:
[]
channel.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
[]
>
> It was several years before I got broadband. It was through ComCast
> Cable. One of the benefits was that when they opened the filter for
> Broadband it let the SCIFI channel through so I could watch StarGate
> SG-1.
>
> That was many years ago when the SCIFI Channel (now SYFY) actually
> showed science fiction. CSI is not science fiction. Or is it?
>
>
>
We (UK, Freeview) now get Star Trek (TOS) repeats on the "Horror"
> It was several years before I got broadband. It was through ComCast
> Cable. One of the benefits was that when they opened the filter for
> Broadband it let the SCIFI channel through so I could watch StarGate
> SG-1.
>
> That was many years ago when the SCIFI Channel (now SYFY) actually
> showed science fiction. CSI is not science fiction. Or is it?
>
>
>
channel.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Scott Lurndal
Oct 12, 2018, 4:19:35 PM10/12/18
to
with a bunch of other older series.
syfy has been useless for several years now, as has the history channel
and the science channel (all filled with reality tv).
Stephen Thomas Cole
Oct 13, 2018, 1:53:19 AM10/13/18
to
JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 Oct 2018 17:08:31 GMT, Stephen Thomas Cole
> <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 08:04:05 -0700 (PDT), lup...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had a 286 connected to the Internet (started with 2400bps modem, then
>>>> upgraded to 14.kpbs). I was running Windows 3.0 on MSDOS 5. My uncle
>>>> had an IBM XT (8088 processor) with a 300bps modem running on PC-DOS 1.
>>>> Obviosly we weren't transmitting very much data, but it was good enough
>>>> for email and FTP. We sold both of those a long time ago, so I imaging
>>>> they were scarped at some point.
>>>
>>> Hmm... In my visits to various Amiga computer forums, there are folks
>>> who claim their A500, or A3000, is being used to read email, post to
>>> forums, etc.
>>
>> There’s no reason why not. I had my Amiga 1200 online a few years ago. Next
>> to nothing constructive to do with it online, of course, but I did connect
>> to Usenet with it successfully.
>
> I know of several A600 and A1200 videos where they talk about
> restoring them. There are open source 68030 accelerators for them to.
>
The Amiga scene is incredibly vibrant and big enough to support several
> On 12 Oct 2018 17:08:31 GMT, Stephen Thomas Cole
> <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 08:04:05 -0700 (PDT), lup...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had a 286 connected to the Internet (started with 2400bps modem, then
>>>> upgraded to 14.kpbs). I was running Windows 3.0 on MSDOS 5. My uncle
>>>> had an IBM XT (8088 processor) with a 300bps modem running on PC-DOS 1.
>>>> Obviosly we weren't transmitting very much data, but it was good enough
>>>> for email and FTP. We sold both of those a long time ago, so I imaging
>>>> they were scarped at some point.
>>>
>>> Hmm... In my visits to various Amiga computer forums, there are folks
>>> who claim their A500, or A3000, is being used to read email, post to
>>> forums, etc.
>>
>> There’s no reason why not. I had my Amiga 1200 online a few years ago. Next
>> to nothing constructive to do with it online, of course, but I did connect
>> to Usenet with it successfully.
>
> I know of several A600 and A1200 videos where they talk about
> restoring them. There are open source 68030 accelerators for them to.
>
companies to design and manufacture various upgrades, including an
impressive array of CPU upgrade boards! It’s pretty wild when you think
about it.
I’ve got a long-stalled Amiga project in progress; fitting an A1200 inside
an A500 case and festooning it with add-ons; CPU upgrade, CD drive,
scandoubler, SSD, SCSI, USB, LEDs, fans, black keycaps from a CDTV, and the
case painted matte black. It’ll be great when I finish it, but I started in
around 2012... :-D
>>> About 1990, I had my Amiga A1000 connected to the local university so
>>> I could read my Bitnet emails. I used a VT100 emulator and a 1200 bps
>>> modem.
>>>
>>> I still have the computer, but not the modem.
>>>
>>
>> I am a vintage Macintosh enthusiast, I have an LCIII+ dating to 1993 that
>> was online until recently. I have several dead Mac SE/30s, from 1988, that
>> I plan to refurbish to end up with one functional example and will be
>> putting online for Usenet and IRC.
>
> I have spotted several 'restore old Mac' videos on youtube due to me
> looking at 'restore old Amiga computers' videos.
>
> My problem with the videos is hearing what they are saying. I prefer a
> pdf. Well, a book over a pdf, but apparently only videos are
> available.
waffle on, it’s a rare talent to be able to produce compelling videos.
ma...@mail.com
Oct 13, 2018, 3:35:39 AM10/13/18
to
is by a guy wearing an anarok(sp), who peers out at the camera, and
occasionally loses track. I love it.!
Some years ago a neighbour asked me to service his chain saw, so I
did the usual, but it wouldn't start, so I looked up the youtube video,
and remembered the anti-kickback thingie.
--
Ma...@ireland.com
Will Rant For Food
Kerr-Mudd,John
Oct 13, 2018, 6:27:07 AM10/13/18
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 20:19:34 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
> "Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@invalid.org> writes:
>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:18:40 GMT, jmreno <no...@znet.com> wrote:
>>
>>[]
>>>
>>> It was several years before I got broadband. It was through ComCast
>>> Cable. One of the benefits was that when they opened the filter for
>>> Broadband it let the SCIFI channel through so I could watch StarGate
>>> SG-1.
>>>
>>> That was many years ago when the SCIFI Channel (now SYFY) actually
>>> showed science fiction. CSI is not science fiction. Or is it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>We (UK, Freeview) now get Star Trek (TOS) repeats on the "Horror"
>>channel.
>
> We get Stargate SG-1 and Stargate atlantis on El Rey network. Along
> with a bunch of other older series.
We don't get that channel, AFAICT
wrote:
> "Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@invalid.org> writes:
>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:18:40 GMT, jmreno <no...@znet.com> wrote:
>>
>>[]
>>>
>>> It was several years before I got broadband. It was through ComCast
>>> Cable. One of the benefits was that when they opened the filter for
>>> Broadband it let the SCIFI channel through so I could watch StarGate
>>> SG-1.
>>>
>>> That was many years ago when the SCIFI Channel (now SYFY) actually
>>> showed science fiction. CSI is not science fiction. Or is it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>We (UK, Freeview) now get Star Trek (TOS) repeats on the "Horror"
>>channel.
>
> We get Stargate SG-1 and Stargate atlantis on El Rey network. Along
> with a bunch of other older series.
>
> syfy has been useless for several years now, as has the history channel
> and the science channel (all filled with reality tv).
>
"History" is mostly WWII repeats.
> syfy has been useless for several years now, as has the history channel
> and the science channel (all filled with reality tv).
>
Peter Flass
Oct 13, 2018, 7:44:32 AM10/13/18
to
interesting premise. Don't think I've watched it since. Now I mostly stream
stuff from Amazon; I'm currently working my way thru five seasons of
_Babylon 5_, but they also have SG-1, various ST shows, etc.
--
Pete
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Oct 13, 2018, 8:30:08 AM10/13/18
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 20:19:34 GMT
sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> syfy has been useless for several years now,
The Expanse being the notable exception.
sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> syfy has been useless for several years now,
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
JimP
Oct 13, 2018, 10:51:29 AM10/13/18
to
JimP
Oct 13, 2018, 10:59:37 AM10/13/18
to
On 13 Oct 2018 05:53:17 GMT, Stephen Thomas Cole
I was on the Bitnet listserv list I-Amiga back about 1990. We were
talking about painting our cases. Several people did mention be sure
to take the case off the electronics before painting.
One guy didn't, just took his computer out to the driveway and painted
his computer with a spray can of paint. That shorted all of the chips
and hardware and it fried when he turned it back on. He tried to blame
us for his mistake, but that didn't work.
<use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12 Oct 2018 17:08:31 GMT, Stephen Thomas Cole
>> <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 08:04:05 -0700 (PDT), lup...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I had a 286 connected to the Internet (started with 2400bps modem, then
>>>>> upgraded to 14.kpbs). I was running Windows 3.0 on MSDOS 5. My uncle
>>>>> had an IBM XT (8088 processor) with a 300bps modem running on PC-DOS 1.
>>>>> Obviosly we weren't transmitting very much data, but it was good enough
>>>>> for email and FTP. We sold both of those a long time ago, so I imaging
>>>>> they were scarped at some point.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm... In my visits to various Amiga computer forums, there are folks
>>>> who claim their A500, or A3000, is being used to read email, post to
>>>> forums, etc.
>>>
>>> There?s no reason why not. I had my Amiga 1200 online a few years ago. Next
>JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12 Oct 2018 17:08:31 GMT, Stephen Thomas Cole
>> <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 08:04:05 -0700 (PDT), lup...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I had a 286 connected to the Internet (started with 2400bps modem, then
>>>>> upgraded to 14.kpbs). I was running Windows 3.0 on MSDOS 5. My uncle
>>>>> had an IBM XT (8088 processor) with a 300bps modem running on PC-DOS 1.
>>>>> Obviosly we weren't transmitting very much data, but it was good enough
>>>>> for email and FTP. We sold both of those a long time ago, so I imaging
>>>>> they were scarped at some point.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm... In my visits to various Amiga computer forums, there are folks
>>>> who claim their A500, or A3000, is being used to read email, post to
>>>> forums, etc.
>>>
>>> to nothing constructive to do with it online, of course, but I did connect
>>> to Usenet with it successfully.
>>
>> I know of several A600 and A1200 videos where they talk about
>> restoring them. There are open source 68030 accelerators for them to.
>>
>
>The Amiga scene is incredibly vibrant and big enough to support several
>companies to design and manufacture various upgrades, including an
>impressive array of CPU upgrade boards! It’s pretty wild when you think
>about it.
>
>I’ve got a long-stalled Amiga project in progress; fitting an A1200 inside
>an A500 case and festooning it with add-ons; CPU upgrade, CD drive,
>scandoubler, SSD, SCSI, USB, LEDs, fans, black keycaps from a CDTV, and the
>case painted matte black. It’ll be great when I finish it, but I started in
>around 2012... :-D
[snip]
>>> to Usenet with it successfully.
>>
>> I know of several A600 and A1200 videos where they talk about
>> restoring them. There are open source 68030 accelerators for them to.
>>
>
>The Amiga scene is incredibly vibrant and big enough to support several
>companies to design and manufacture various upgrades, including an
>impressive array of CPU upgrade boards! It’s pretty wild when you think
>about it.
>
>I’ve got a long-stalled Amiga project in progress; fitting an A1200 inside
>an A500 case and festooning it with add-ons; CPU upgrade, CD drive,
>scandoubler, SSD, SCSI, USB, LEDs, fans, black keycaps from a CDTV, and the
>case painted matte black. It’ll be great when I finish it, but I started in
>around 2012... :-D
I was on the Bitnet listserv list I-Amiga back about 1990. We were
talking about painting our cases. Several people did mention be sure
to take the case off the electronics before painting.
One guy didn't, just took his computer out to the driveway and painted
his computer with a spray can of paint. That shorted all of the chips
and hardware and it fried when he turned it back on. He tried to blame
us for his mistake, but that didn't work.
JimP
Oct 13, 2018, 11:01:33 AM10/13/18
to
The Military Channel.
Discovery Science has some interesting shows: What on Earth ? and
Mysteries of the Abandoned. Most of its about 1800 to current, but
some of it goes back further.
Scott Lurndal
Oct 13, 2018, 12:59:09 PM10/13/18
to
JimP <solo...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>"History" is mostly WWII repeats.
>
>Not any more. Those have moved to American Heroes Channel, used to be
>The Military Channel.
>
>Discovery Science has some interesting shows: What on Earth ? and
>Mysteries of the Abandoned. Most of its about 1800 to current, but
>some of it goes back further.
For some value of interesting. Both focus on sensationalism,
>>
>>"History" is mostly WWII repeats.
>
>Not any more. Those have moved to American Heroes Channel, used to be
>The Military Channel.
>
>Discovery Science has some interesting shows: What on Earth ? and
>Mysteries of the Abandoned. Most of its about 1800 to current, but
>some of it goes back further.
not science.
Peter Flass
Oct 13, 2018, 4:14:05 PM10/13/18
to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 20:19:34 GMT
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> syfy has been useless for several years now,
>
> The Expanse being the notable exception.
>
I assume there's going to be another season.
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 20:19:34 GMT
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> syfy has been useless for several years now,
>
> The Expanse being the notable exception.
>
--
Pete
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Oct 14, 2018, 1:30:05 PM10/14/18
to
On 13 Oct 2018 20:25:06 GMT
Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> Not on SyFy, for some impenetrable licensing reason.
>
> Bezos likes it, so it's moving to Amazon.
Which may (judgement reserved until I see the next season) along
with the promised Ringworld series (which could be great or dreadful, but
the arguments about whether they got the view right will run for a while)
might justify the existence of Amazon video - and might even pull a
subscription from me.
Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
> Bezos likes it, so it's moving to Amazon.
Which may (judgement reserved until I see the next season) along
with the promised Ringworld series (which could be great or dreadful, but
the arguments about whether they got the view right will run for a while)
might justify the existence of Amazon video - and might even pull a
subscription from me.
Peter Flass
Oct 14, 2018, 4:18:00 PM10/14/18
to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2018 20:25:06 GMT
> Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-10-13, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 20:19:34 GMT
>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> syfy has been useless for several years now,
>>>>
>>>> The Expanse being the notable exception.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I assume there's going to be another season.
>>
>> Not on SyFy, for some impenetrable licensing reason.
>>
>> Bezos likes it, so it's moving to Amazon.
>
> Which may (judgement reserved until I see the next season) along
> with the promised Ringworld series (which could be great or dreadful, but
> the arguments about whether they got the view right will run for a while)
> might justify the existence of Amazon video - and might even pull a
> subscription from me.
>
They've done pretty well with the original stuff I have watched. Season one
> On 13 Oct 2018 20:25:06 GMT
> Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-10-13, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 20:19:34 GMT
>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> syfy has been useless for several years now,
>>>>
>>>> The Expanse being the notable exception.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I assume there's going to be another season.
>>
>> Not on SyFy, for some impenetrable licensing reason.
>>
>> Bezos likes it, so it's moving to Amazon.
>
> Which may (judgement reserved until I see the next season) along
> with the promised Ringworld series (which could be great or dreadful, but
> the arguments about whether they got the view right will run for a while)
> might justify the existence of Amazon video - and might even pull a
> subscription from me.
>
of _The Man in the High Castle_ followed the book fairly closely (IIRC).
[Among all the SF books I gave away before moving, I saved this one to
reread later.]
--
Pete
Charlie Gibbs
Oct 14, 2018, 9:33:34 PM10/14/18
to
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ Fight low-contrast text in web pages! http://contrastrebellion.com
JimP
Oct 14, 2018, 10:08:10 PM10/14/18
to
On 15 Oct 2018 01:33:19 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
>On 2018-10-13, Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> "History" is mostly WWII repeats.
>>>
>>> Not any more. Those have moved to American Heroes Channel, used to be
>>> The Military Channel.
>>>
>>> Discovery Science has some interesting shows: What on Earth ? and
>>> Mysteries of the Abandoned. Most of its about 1800 to current, but
>>> some of it goes back further.
>>
>> For some value of interesting. Both focus on sensationalism,
>> not science.
>
>But that's what Discovery Channel is all about, innit?
Yup, I like to see things we never covered at university. And looking
at new things is interesting.
wrote:
>On 2018-10-13, Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> "History" is mostly WWII repeats.
>>>
>>> Not any more. Those have moved to American Heroes Channel, used to be
>>> The Military Channel.
>>>
>>> Discovery Science has some interesting shows: What on Earth ? and
>>> Mysteries of the Abandoned. Most of its about 1800 to current, but
>>> some of it goes back further.
>>
>> For some value of interesting. Both focus on sensationalism,
>> not science.
>
>But that's what Discovery Channel is all about, innit?
at new things is interesting.
Anssi Saari
Oct 16, 2018, 10:32:55 AM10/16/18
to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> writes:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 20:19:34 GMT
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> syfy has been useless for several years now,
>
> The Expanse being the notable exception.
I like the show so far, as well as the first three books which the TV
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 20:19:34 GMT
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> syfy has been useless for several years now,
>
> The Expanse being the notable exception.
show has covered. But having almost finished the fourth book (Cibola
Burn), I have to wonder if the TV show is really going to continue. The
fourth book is mostly sad and boring and the misery just drags on and on
for close to 600 pages. I have no idea how it could be turned into
decent TV but maybe Amazon does.
Lars Brinkhoff
Nov 13, 2018, 6:13:23 AM11/13/18
to
Al Kossow:
> Unlikely, since as far as anyone knows there are no surviving copies of
> the software for the IMP.
I'm sure Al and many others here know this, but for the record:
http://walden-family.com/impcode/
> Unlikely, since as far as anyone knows there are no surviving copies of
> the software for the IMP.
I'm sure Al and many others here know this, but for the record:
http://walden-family.com/impcode/
Bob Eager
Nov 13, 2018, 7:00:11 AM11/13/18
to
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
0 new messages