iPhone
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Graeme on 19 Feb 2010 08:17 In message <1je5s10.nk5w0hscjxwvN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > Duncan Kennedy <nospam(a)nospam.otterson-bg.couk> wrote: > [snip] > > There is an internal > > ribbon connector to get round the wobbly RAM connection and a printer > > output socket as well as a few other bits the purpose of which I don't > > remember. > > Uhuh. The wobbly RAM pack business was an issue. I recall using foam > draught excluder in some cunning scheme to deal with it on mine. Worked > a treat, whatever it was I did, I do recall that. > Mine's still got the blob of blu-tack. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
From: Rowland McDonnell on 19 Feb 2010 08:35 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > >> The best keyboards of that era (IMHO) were on the Tandy model 1/2/3 > >> machines. Good, full sized, full travel jobbies whose only problem (on the > >> model 1 at least) was a tendency towards bounce - you'd type 'z' and > >> sometimes get 'zzz' > > > > Did you never try the early IBM PC keyboards? They date from that era. > > Oh yes - lovely. Early Compaq luggables had quite nice keyboards as well, > but I don't tend to group IBM PCs and their ilk in the same camp as 'proper' > home computers. They were too expensive for that, but the spec was comparable to `the rest of them'. I recall reading the benchmarks comparing an early model 8088 IBM PC (IIRC the model) with a BBC Micro - the Beeb was faster. The Beeb also had graphics, sound, a big set of dead useful interfaces as standard including a serial port running one of the standards meant to supersede RS232, networking as a motherboard standard fitment if you wanted it, not to mention the ability to run with any old CPU you cared to wire up to it via the Tube interface. Okay, I never did anything like that, but I knew a chap who made his own 68000 2nd CPU box *AND* wrote his own compiler to make use of it. He was one of many to make sniffy remarks about Steve Furber's `race' bug in the Tube chip. I think it was Furber - one of the bods at the Manchester Uni EE department they all knew, anyway. If you wanted a computer to do arbitrary things with, the BBC Micro was better than an early IBM PC. (for those who doubt that the Beeb was faster, consider: this was comparing interpreted Basic program execution times. The BBC Micro was optimized for going as fast as possible with the available technology, and used a fast 8 bit CPU running fast with go-faster mods on the logic side, backed up with support chips to make it go faster. The IBM PC was designed to be slower than it needed to be so that it wouldn't be competition for IBM's minicomputers. For example, the 8088 CPU used had an 8 bit external data bus, so every word took two clock cycles to load, /and/ the 8088/86/etc has a four tick machine cycle compared to the two tick machine cycle of the 6502 (IIRC, they're two tick). The BBC Micro also had a Basic interpreter optimized for the hardware. The IBM PC used Microsoft Basic - much older, sod all optimization. That's how come the BBC Micro was faster. The fact that the IBM PC came with 64K RAM compared to the Beeb's 32K max was offset to an extent by the fact that the BBC Micro could use paged ROMs and always had 16K of OS ROM paged in.) [snip] > >> Commodore VIC20 and C64s were pretty good as well, if a bit 'heavy' for my > >> tastes. > > > > I much preferred the BBC Micro keyboard for typing on > > Did you know there were two different keyboards (at least) for the BBC 'B's? > They looked the same, but one was light-and-clacky (and suffered > occasionally from bounce - I've got one of those) and the other was a > heavier, deader-feeling keyboard (although, oddly, not in a bad way). Hmm. Not sure I've met the two different sorts, although I do know that I've never used the BBC Micro I've got at the moment (my dad had two sat in the shed, so I nicked one. At least I'm storing it out of the damp.) > I've never quite worked out if there was anything that defined which > keyboard got used. I used to think the deader ones were fitted to model 'B's > that came pre-installed with the DFS, but that frankly doesn't make any > sense. It certainly wasn't an issue issue (if you see what I mean) as I've > seen issue 7 Beebs with either keyboard. I guess Acorn just sourced their > keyboards from two different suppliers, or the supplier themselves had two > different sources. Or something. Maybe. We had one of the very first BBC As made (by Cleartone, Abercarn, Gwent - so said the address on the label, IIRC), which got upgraded to a B piecemeal. > >, although those > > Commodore keyboards seemed `higher quality' somehow. > > They did, didn't they? And like you I can't explain what it was about them > that made them so. I could have a stab. Nothing rattly about 'em at all. A good solidity to the mechanism and sturdy casings to hold things firmly. > One thing I will say - Commodore keyboards seemed amazingly consistent in > quality - every C64 keyboard I used felt *exactly* like every other C64 > keyboard I used. Ditto the VIC20. I never used that many. > If you ever get a chance then the book "On The Edge" is worth a read. It's > the history of Commodore. I gather it's quite depressing - brilliant technical ideas ruined by management. > Jim > (note to everyone else: I got rid of the killfile after a day. I just hate > the things.) Heh. 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 Feb 2010 08:35 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote: > >>> Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Rowland McDonnell<real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Those watches were reliable if you'd made them carefully enough. What I > >>>>> recall reading, the dodgy ones were dodgy due to dodgy construction, not > >>>>> dodgy design. > >>>> > >>>> These were the ones already built, and they were anything but reliable. > >>> > >>> But how does that preclude the accuracy of my `dodgy build' memory? > >> > >> Well, I guess it doesn't, but if the factory where they were made can't > >> make them well, that doesn't make them very reliable. As was quoted, the > >> return rate was enormous, so it can hardly have been that reliable. > > > > Yes, but the point I was getting at is that the basic design was okay, > > it was let down by poor quality problems elsewhere in the supply chain. > > > > Or so my memory says.<shrug> > > Well, clearly the design wasn't ok if it couldn't be manufactured by the > facilities they had. That effect can be explained by bad production engineering every bit as much as bad design, although obviously if the designer were truly competent he'd design for the available production engineering ability. But my point is that Sinclair didn't have a clue about production engineering - so your point is missing my point slightly. > But no, as a design they used far too much power > and were too likely to drift due to temperature variations. The battery in my original Commodore digital watch needed replacing every month or so, IIRC. 10 days is less than that, but only 1/3 of it. It's bad, but not as dreadfully awful as it seems these days. [snip] > But then on the fascinating things my uncle had (which was most things, > he was the reason I got into electronics) was a nixie tube clock. I > loved watching that thing. Oh god that was a stupid thing to remember.. > look at all the pretty nixie tube clocks on google.. <wanders off>.. Nixie tube wristwatch: <http://www.cathodecorner.com/nixiewatch/watchhist/watchhist.html> 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 Feb 2010 08:40 David Sankey <David.Sankey(a)stfc.ac.uk> wrote: > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: [snip] > > The data's not just held at CERN. It's a *BIG* job, a vast ocean of > > numbers, and it's backed up all over the globe! It's staggering! Big > > enough to make even Google blink. > > We still lose tapes. CERN's got robots on the job. 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: D.M. Procida on 19 Feb 2010 08:44
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > I think you're being insulting to me for the sake of it. I can assure you that I would never be insulting for the sake of it. I am only insulting as a means to some other end. Daniele |