At 12:53 01/08/99 -0800, Sellam wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Christian Fandt wrote:
>
>> Were there many computer companies, if any, who were not manufacturers but,
>> like RCA from around 1921 to 1928, sales-only outfits? I'm thinking of
>> pre-PC compatible days, '82 and earlier, because as you know, any major or
>> fly-by-night outfit could put their name on a PC nowadays. Also, strictly
>> non-PC computer companies are included even up to ten years ago (to keep it
>> on classics). Keep it on-topic and change your Subject line if you reply on
>> some other on-topic subject.
>
>Sure, plenty! I can't think of a whole lot of good examples right now,
>but for starters there was Bell & Howell with their "RARE!" black Apple II
>models.
Were those black models part of the equipment one got with the Bell &
Howell mail order computer electronics school? If so, I had not thought of
that type of "non-manufacturer".
--Chris
-- --
Christian Fandt, Electronic/Electrical Historian
Jamestown, NY USA cfandt(a)netsync.net
Member of Antique Wireless Association
URL: http://www.ggw.org/freenet/a/awa/
At 05:33 PM 1/4/99 -0700, you wrote:
>those credit card pumps may not be ok, even if the credit card is. Do I
An unrelated but similar (and ironically timed) issue is that of the new US
20 dollar bills. I have seen a lot of vending machines/gas pumps/etc. that
indicate they cannot handle the new bills. The problem is, bills typically
last 18 months at most. I expect that by summer, we won't see any more
old-style $20's in circulation. A real problem if they haven't updated the
machines yet.
(Hmmm... Maybe I'll start hoarding old 20's... 8^)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.sinasohn.com/
At 05:25 PM 1/4/99 -0700, you wrote:
>What boggles the mind is that this is a problem at all. It seems hard to
>believe (in retrospect) that people really did deliberately build software
>with only 2 digit years. I know it saved a few bytes, and yes, I remember
1,000,000 records (a small sample) x 2 bytes x 3 dates (birthdate, initial
trx, most recent trx) = 6,000,000 bytes. That was a lot 20 years ago.
Keep in mind, also, that reading in a record required enough workspace to
hold the record, and this may have been a limiting factor as well. Not to
mention bandwidth issues -- we may not think much of downloading a 6MB file
now, but imagine doing that 20 years ago with a 300bps modem.
>when a byte of memory was a significant amount, but still. How did standard
>programming practice come to be so short sighted as to assume that software
>infrastructure would be thrown out and replaced on a regular basis?
Today it is. We keep hoping that one of these days Microbloat will get it
right... 8^)
But seriously, 20+ years ago, it wasn't so much that it was expected that
it would be replaced as it was the idea that if they can get the software
out the door now, they may still be around to fix the problem later,
whereas if they hold off, they may not be around.
It was also a self-perpetuating problem. No point in building a 4-digit
date if your source data (internal or external) is 2-digits. In fact, a
4-digit program might fail if given 2-digit data.
There are lots of reasons, many of them valid (at the time).
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.sinasohn.com/
>
> I wonder if it was a mistyped $50.00....
> --
Somehow I doubt it. I looked at this listing extensively because it has links
to his web site. He has very interesting comments about ebay. He states he
makes a living off ebay but I notice he is a stockbroker. Looking at his
current auctions he specializes in collectable ceramics and coins at normal
realistic prices. He has some Transoceanic tube radios that have not met their
reserves.
The Osborne is a nice collectable with lots of SW and Documentation. These are
the type of items that bring high prices. However his asking price is
ridiculous. I think this is a classic case of speculation by someone who is
not knowledgeable in the field but has a nice find. What is interesting is
that he does know how to sell on ebay.
This, the recent Kaypro and other high priced asking prices have lead me to
wonder if there is a new scam being played on ebay. With all the hits it is a
great source of advertising. List something at a high asking price or reserve.
You pay $2. People who are really interested I think would contact the seller
after the sale to try to find out what happened. The seller could then
negotiate a sale independently, without paying the commission to ebay. The
commission on a high-priced item, while not a lot, is considerably more than
the $2.
The gentleman :) with the Osborne has some very interesting comments about
selling on ebay. His site is http://www.freewarehof.org/
It is obvious that he is a speculator. It is also interesting to notice that
his site link (rey2) to his current sales on ebay has been delisted by them.
His current sales are under a very similar but different name (rey).
I communicated with the $1000 Kaypro seller. He wrote me that he pulled the ad
after he realized that it was priced to high. He also left me an opening to
make an offer. Since I am not buying I didn't reply but I haven't seen it
relisted. Marvin, have You seen it again? I don't follow ebay all that well.
Paxton
At 03:24 PM 1/1/99 -0800, you wrote:
>BBSes are, IMHO, a dying breed. However, they do still fulfill a niche
>that the 'net does not. There are significant numbers of people who are
Another niche is in local groups that want to provide a forum for their
members, but cannot afford to provide net access for all its members. My
local Atari club is one such group. Not all atari users in this area are
on the net, so a 'net-only solution is not acceptable, and we can't afford
to connect the BBS to the 'net. Mind you, it doesn't get used a lot...
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.sinasohn.com/
> The same is not true of html. It's not the waste of bandwidth - it's the
> fact that it's darn difficult to read. And it doesn't convey any extra
> meaning
Actually, I wouldn't even mind simple html, like <HTML><BODY>message
text</BODY></HTML>. But most of those programs make crazy html documents
that would make its original authors cringe, no doubt. 20 lines of code,
mostly weird numbers and font commands and style sheets and so on. Now
_that_ is unreadable, and I don't consider it real html, either.
> OK, I'll do {\bf bold face} like that. Documented standard, you know...
Of course, doing it *with asterisks* is a lot easier to type and
understand.
> What about the waste in _my_ resources - the carbon-based computer I am
> using to compose this message - in trying to decode the real information
> from a pile of useless html tags ?
Indeed. Some people think they are doing me and others a great service by
sending messages with no value whatsoever, and they think they ought to
send it in what format is convenient to _them_. Nah.
> Well, there's be a good reason for doing that in the UK. The license for
> a colour TV is something like 4 times the cost of one for a black and
> white TV. And the extra 'entertainment' might not be worth that much.
TVs require licenses in the UK? What about if you buy a CRT and make your
own?
At the risk of turning off our new list member I'll throw my USD $0.02
into the fray. Commercial vs non-commercial broadcasting was a hot
topic back in the early 1920's when broadcasting first began on a
large scale in the U.S. Many people were opposed to crass commercials
for toothpaste, etc flooding the airwaves and wanted an alternative
which would have took the form of a use tax as in England.
Interesting but true, one of the first if not the first radio stations
that was supported by commercials was WEAF in New York city, one of
several commercial stations owned by Ma Bell (AT&T). The chain of
stations owned by AT&T were sold to RCA to become NBC in 1926
following anti-trust suit threats and corporate fighting. AT&T and RCA
basically had come to a 'gentleman's agreement.'
Marty
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: OT! Re: Message formats
Author: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu at internet
Date: 1/8/99 2:53 AM
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Tony Duell wrote:
> The license is for something like 'installing and operating a TV
> receiver'. The money from it is used to fund the BBC. One license covers
> all the TVs (and VCRs, etc) in use at one 'household'. A colour license
> allows you to operate B/W TVs as well (but not vice versa of course). Yes
> there are other terms, conditions and exceptions but that will do for now.
I'm sorry, but I just gotta say, requiring a license to watch TV is
something I would overthrow the government over. I've never heard of a
more cockamamy tax.
The way we fund public TV and radio in the U.S. is annoying (pledge
drives) but they only last for a couple weeks until the necessary funds
are accumulated and they only happen but once or twice a year (and I'm
proud to say I pay my "membership" dues dutifully...public radio in the US
is top notch).
ObCC: Can't think of anything so screw it.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always being hassled by the man.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 12/27/98]
------ Message Header Follows ------
Received: from lists5.u.washington.edu by smtp.itgonline.com
(PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.9i(b5) for Windows NT(tm))
id AA-1999Jan08.025325.1767.90243; Fri, 08 Jan 1999 02:53:26 -0500
Received: from host (lists.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.13])
by lists5.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with SMTP
id XAA12233; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 23:51:21 -0800
Received: from mxu3.u.washington.edu (mxu3.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.7])
by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.1+UW98.09/8.9.1+UW98.09) with ESMTP id XAA2
1758
for <classiccmp(a)lists.u.washington.edu>; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 23:51:09 -0800
Received: from mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (mailhub2.ncal.verio.com
[204.247.247.54])
by mxu3.u.washington.edu (8.9.1+UW98.09/8.9.1+UW98.09) with ESMTP id XAA20
405
for <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 23:51:09 -0800
Received: from shell1-n1 (dastar(a)shell1.ncal.verio.com [204.247.248.254])
by mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA06285
for <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 23:51:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9901072346200.17756-100000(a)shell1.ncal.verio.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 23:51:08 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Sender: CLASSICCMP-owner(a)u.washington.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Sam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com>
To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers"
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Subject: OT! Re: Message formats
In-Reply-To: <m0zyKVc-000IyJC@p850ug1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 beta -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
My first KIM-1 (from Computer Components, L.A., CA, in 1977) is
marked much the same as Marvin describes:
It is a MOS KIM, the component side has etched Rev. A, and beneath
the KIM-1 logo is etched EC - 715. Beneath that is what looks like a
round QC inspection stamp, ?CC 201 ECI in the circle.
The earliest chip is a NatSemi LM565CN (7340). The 6102s are all
'76, as are the 6502, and both 6530s.
The solder side has that 'rubber stamp' looking number between the
edge connectors: 3879 [*not* the date] in whitish ink, and to the
right is a partially obscured stamp in black, ending in 15. Near the
top right is another 'QC' stamp, a circle enclosing ACC, 201, ????.
Below this is a partial sqaure stamp, barely readable, with the
letters 'est' visible. Below *that* is a partial triangle stamp, not
legible at all.
Perhaps this will help others out there in dating KIMs.... I tried
slicing into the card to count the rings, but the results were
inconclusive.
Cheers
John
Zane Healy wrote:
> Again, how typically American! I'm starting to hate American's to the
> point I'm looking for another country to move to, since I'm embarrased to
> say that I'm an American myself. Anyone know any good countries that I
can
> move to, and not be embarassed to be associated with? The Internet is
not
> an American only thing!
I'd recommend Britain, except that we hate Americans too, and you might not
be too welcome ;-)
Canada might be worth a try, though.
Philip.
Picked up some more goodies, got a Plus+ Hardcard 40 hard drive(SMS OMTI
chipset for the controller side! Maybe I can plug it into my Apollos...),
and two DEC boards. The first one seems to be a CPU card,, it's part number
is L0111. The second one looks like I/O or a drive controller, it's an
L0101. I have no idea what they go into, but a glance at my PDP-11 card
list has another Lxxxx on it, and it's a Vax card. So maybe I have some VAX
cards? I don't know. Anyone know exactly what they are? I really doubt
they'll plug into my PDP-11/84, but it might be a good idea to stop me
before I try... :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
| http://members.tripod.com/~jrollins/index.html - Computers |
| http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/1681/ - Star Trek |
| orham(a)qth.net list admin KD7BCY |
| ham-mac(a)qth.net Portland, OR |
--------------------------------------------------------------
