Gallery of old junk for Jim
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: discount cheap and fashion coach handbags,purses,wallets
Next: Second-hand Mac Pro buying advice
From: Rowland McDonnell on 18 Apr 2010 23:27 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > I don't think it was even important (or unexpected) that there were no > customers. I think it was a showcase product (as the only thing unique > was the casing, the computer was 'off the shelf') > I am sure the publicity from it was very important. My thinking exactly. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 19 Apr 2010 01:20 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > On 18/04/2010 01:38, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> Rowland McDonnell<real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>>> zoara wrote: > >>>>> Via daringfireball.net - loads of old computers. Jim, take a deep breath > >>>>> and don't get overexcited... > >>>>> > >>>>> http://j.mp/bxKP2P > >>>>> > >>>>> I really love the naivety of the "kitchen computer" (and the > >>>>> "yesterday's tomorrow" stylings > >>>> > >>>> They really did put a lot of effort not just into the creation of those, > >>>> but the image of them as well. I guess at the price they may as well! > >>>> > >>>> That kitchen computer - anyone know anything about it, like, how does it > >>>> hold recipes with lights and switches? > >>> > >>> ISTR reading the details once. 7 seg LEDs'll do for alpha output, just > >>> about. I see what appears to be a one line 7 seg LED display on that > >>> beastie, which is what my memory tells me it ought to have. > >> > >> The computer at the center of this is the same machine, Honeywell 316 > >> > >> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_y944mbczg> > >> > >> Why they didn't just include the printer. I guess it was the budget > >> model. > >> > >> Not like the one at bradwell nuclear reactor up until 2000. > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_316 > > > > <heh> If it works, why change it? > > > > Oh Lord - binary light output even on the kitchen computer, specified by > > Wikip anyway. Hmm. I read about the beasties somewhere else, could > > have sworn I recall some mention of 7 seg LEDs which are after all > > really easy to drive from binary. > > Easy yes, but if this was in 1969, LEDs were very expensive, <sigh> Your usual `Let's find a point to bicker with Rowland about, never mind anything else, I've just got to object to Rowland's ideas because I'm like that'. Why don't you ever lay off, Woody? But I shall dismiss your nonsensical missing of the point. Two points: 1) So maybe they used a different form of alpha indicator - 7 seg display lit by incandescent light, for example, almost as easy to drive. 2) Oh no they weren't *VERY* expensive. In 1969, LED prices had come down from the stratosphere. This was right on the doorstep of the microcomputer era, don't forget. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED#Discoveries_and_early_devices> "Up to 1968 visible and infrared LEDs were extremely costly, on the order of US $200 per unit, and so had little practical application.[16] The Monsanto Company was the first organization to mass-produce visible LEDs, using gallium arsenide phosphide in 1968 to produce red LEDs suitable for indicators.[16] Hewlett Packard (HP) introduced LEDs in 1968, initially using GaAsP supplied by Monsanto. The technology proved to have major applications for alphanumeric displays and was integrated into HP's early handheld calculators" The first LEDs were lasers. Can't find an on-line ref to that right now - bloody strange, though. But: mass produced cheap LEDs in 1968. > and they > had only just began to mass produce them to get the costs down, so they > are probably actual bulbs. No, they mass produced them in 1968 at low iniital cost compared to the alternatives - and as costs dropped still further, they found their way from Nixie tube replacement in expensive lab equipment like the minicomputer in question, from there into more prosaic gear like yer cheap bedside alarm clock. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Woody on 19 Apr 2010 02:56 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 18/04/2010 01:38, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > >> Rowland McDonnell<real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> zoara wrote: > > >>>>> Via daringfireball.net - loads of old computers. Jim, take a deep > > >>>>> breath and don't get overexcited... > > >>>>> > > >>>>> http://j.mp/bxKP2P > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I really love the naivety of the "kitchen computer" (and the > > >>>>> "yesterday's tomorrow" stylings > > >>>> > > >>>> They really did put a lot of effort not just into the creation of > > >>>> those, but the image of them as well. I guess at the price they may > > >>>> as well! > > >>>> > > >>>> That kitchen computer - anyone know anything about it, like, how > > >>>> does it hold recipes with lights and switches? > > >>> > > >>> ISTR reading the details once. 7 seg LEDs'll do for alpha output, just > > >>> about. I see what appears to be a one line 7 seg LED display on that > > >>> beastie, which is what my memory tells me it ought to have. > > >> > > >> The computer at the center of this is the same machine, Honeywell 316 > > >> > > >> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_y944mbczg> > > >> > > >> Why they didn't just include the printer. I guess it was the budget > > >> model. > > >> > > >> Not like the one at bradwell nuclear reactor up until 2000. > > >> > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_316 > > > > > > <heh> If it works, why change it? > > > > > > Oh Lord - binary light output even on the kitchen computer, specified by > > > Wikip anyway. Hmm. I read about the beasties somewhere else, could > > > have sworn I recall some mention of 7 seg LEDs which are after all > > > really easy to drive from binary. > > > > Easy yes, but if this was in 1969, LEDs were very expensive, > > <sigh> Your usual `Let's find a point to bicker with Rowland about, > never mind anything else, I've just got to object to Rowland's ideas > because I'm like that'. No, having a conversation. why can't you cope with anything other than total agreement? > Why don't you ever lay off, Woody? > > But I shall dismiss your nonsensical missing of the point. Of course you will > Two points: > > 1) So maybe they used a different form of alpha indicator - 7 seg > display lit by incandescent light, for example, almost as easy to drive. Certainly they could have done that (although it wouldn't have been a 7 segment LED). I have never seen one, have you? If so, why dont' you tell me about it rather than going off on a rant? That is what everyone else would do. Why can't you do it? I would certainly be interested to hear about it. > 2) Oh no they weren't *VERY* expensive. In 1969, LED prices had come > down from the stratosphere. This was right on the doorstep of the > microcomputer era, don't forget. > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED#Discoveries_and_early_devices> > > "Up to 1968 visible and infrared LEDs were extremely costly, on the > order of US $200 per unit, and so had little practical application.[16] > The Monsanto Company was the first organization to mass-produce visible > LEDs, using gallium arsenide phosphide in 1968 to produce red LEDs > suitable for indicators.[16] Hewlett Packard (HP) introduced LEDs in > 1968, initially using GaAsP supplied by Monsanto. The technology proved > to have major applications for alphanumeric displays and was integrated > into HP's early handheld calculators" So yes, manufacturing turned leds cheap the year before this computer was released using an off the shelf computer that had been available for at least 3 years. So you think they designed it using a technology that was hideously expensive when they did on the basis it would probably be cheap in a few years time? -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Rowland McDonnell on 20 Apr 2010 00:29 zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > > > I wonder how many warehouses you'd need in order to store Wikipedia > > > on > > > C90 cassette tapes. > > > > Give us an estimate for the size of Wikip, and I'll give you an > > estimate > > for the space required. > > According to http://j.mp/d3tnbP it's a mere 14GB. 1.5 x 10^10 bytes. 1.2 x 10^11 bits > There's a nice little graphic at http://j.mp/9FEiW8 which shows the size > if it were printed and bound. 14GB? Easy enough... Anyway, let's assume we can squeeze data onto audio cassette at 10 kbit/s - abour the highest that could be done reliably without using an exotic approach. 90 x 60 x 10 x 1024 = 55296000 bits/C90 Or 55296000/(1024*8) = 6750 kbytes/C90. Call it 6.5 MB per C90. ----------------------------------------------- Anyway, 1.2 x 10^11 bits / 55296000 bits per C90 = 2175 (4SF). So there you go - Wikip'll fit inside 3000 C90s. Actually, I'd want to be using really high quality tape, nor yer usual `low noise' ferric types, not with the data rates I'm hoping for... Anyway, 3000 C90s isn't much at all: not even a van full, let alone a warehouse. I think I've got getting on for maybe 3000 books in my house[1]. If the data rate I suggest cannot be achieved, halve it: 5 kbit/s is *definitely* practical on a 90 minute compact cassette. That only doubles the number of tapes. Thing is, 3000 C90s? That'll be 4500 hours access time, that will be. You'd need a massively parallel array of tape players, one per cassette, if you wanted a store like that to be practical. Nah, wrong word, it's stupidly impractical, whatever - `workable', then. Rowland. [1] The number was `over 1000' when I was 18. Since then, I got married and neither of us have given up on reading; but we've really not got much of a clue how many books we've got, in part because I for one don't know where they all are. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 20 Apr 2010 00:29
zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > It was naive to think that there were enough potential customers > > > (both > > > rich enough and idiotic enough to buy one) that the project would be > > > profitable. Cynicism and naivety aren't mutually exclusive. > > > > It's very rude of you to insult me with the pejoration you use above - > > calling me naive like that is grossly insulting and I'll thank you to > > leave personal abuse like that out of it in future. > > Er. Not directed at you. Er, I still read it as an insult directed at me. [snip] > > It's therefore a very big mistake on your part to make your firm > > assumptions about their thinking - and very naive of you to fail to > > think that they might not have been thinking of this project as > > anything > > but a publicity stunt. > > It's just an opinion, no need to get your knickers in a twist. It was a gross insult, compounded by your additional insult above. You like insulting me. I dislike being insulted by you. I'd like you to stop behaving badly towards me. You don't want to. I do not understand your behaviour. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |