[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Dave Dunfield via cctalk]

Bill Degnan wrote:
> Thanks Dave - It has been many years since I genned a N* disk.  I don't
> always have success with the port assigning but eventually I get it to work.

Although my Altair was "fully expanded" when I first owned it, I was involved
with it quite some time before that:
 At University of New Brunswick I made friend: Gary -staff at computer center
 Gary found: Dan -former student -built the Altair -Decided to sell to Gary
 -- Dan had assembled a minimal system: Chassis, all Mits: CPU, 1K RAM, Serial
 -- Fortunately he had put in 3 of the 4-slot S100 boards (12 slots)
 Together Gary and I expanded it to a much more usable system
 --- 64K RAM, NorthStar Disks, ADM3A terminal and more

I wrote an 8080 assembler on UNBs IBM 360 mainframe, which gave a good listing
(code values) of our I/O routines. Using front panel: Run at E900 (Boot ROM -
unpersonalized N*DOS), HALT, toggle-in I/O code, restart DOS in memory.

This gave DOS talking to the ADM3A (yes - it took a few trys before we had it
working) - then we loaded clean DOS into memory (DOS self-modifies in memory
as it boots), use N*Monitor to copy our I/O to this copy, initialize
a second disk and save DOS to it - this gave us a working DOS that booted!

If you want to experience doing this, it can all be done on my Virtual Altair!
For the true experience, you should stick to the front panel switches, but if
you want to "cheat" - Virtual Altair has additional capabilities that original
didn't: Full debugger with execution (disassembly) display, memory/register
editors, 'L'oad Intel/Motorola hex images to memory while stopped!


Sometime later, while testing bare code on a second Altair without disks, I
created:  MinimalCodeEntrySerialBoot
This let me load/run large programs, having to toggle in only 18 bytes via
the front panel!

Ah, fond memories!
-Dave

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 3:09 PM Dave Dunfield via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Bill Degnan wrote:
> > >  Without looking through everything you have first (sorry)is the
> > NorthStar DOS genned for a 2SIO card?
> > Bill
>
> Most of the disk images I have in the Altair emulation are set up to
> communicate via my own homebuilt
> dual-serial card - There might be one set up for the original Mits serial
> card...
>
> The ones with the Horizon emulation are set up for the serial ports build
> into the Horizon,
> and the Vector 1+ images are set up for whatever I had in that machine.
>
> There is a an image of the NorthStar master system distribution disk -
> which has "unpersonalised
> I/O" this is what was first used to get it running on the Altair - it
> boots and hangs in an infinite loop
> at I/O initialization - you halt the system and then toggle in minimal I/O
> functions functions through
> the front panel - then you can restart DOS and get a console prompt, at
> which point you can load
> "fresh" DOS elsewhere in memory, then using the NorthStar monitor, poke in
> your I/O routines,
> then IN(itialize) a fresh disk and save that DOS to it - thereby creating
> a bootable disk that "talks to
> the console".
>
> This is one of things you can do on the "Virtual Altair", do/experience
> what it was was involved
> in getting an OS up on a front-panel system when you didn't already have
> this OS running!
> Something you had to do in the first days, but few people today have done!
> (other then list members or course)
>  I do have information about how to do this included with the emulater!
>
> -Dave
>

Thanks Dave - It has been many years since I genned a N* disk.  I don't
always have success with the port assigning but eventually I get it to work.
Bill

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Dave Dunfield via cctalk]

Bill Degnan wrote:
> >  Without looking through everything you have first (sorry)is the
> NorthStar DOS genned for a 2SIO card?
> Bill

Most of the disk images I have in the Altair emulation are set up to 
communicate via my own homebuilt
dual-serial card - There might be one set up for the original Mits serial 
card...

The ones with the Horizon emulation are set up for the serial ports build into 
the Horizon,
and the Vector 1+ images are set up for whatever I had in that machine.

There is a an image of the NorthStar master system distribution disk - which 
has "unpersonalised
I/O" this is what was first used to get it running on the Altair - it boots and 
hangs in an infinite loop
at I/O initialization - you halt the system and then toggle in minimal I/O 
functions functions through
the front panel - then you can restart DOS and get a console prompt, at which 
point you can load
"fresh" DOS elsewhere in memory, then using the NorthStar monitor, poke in your 
I/O routines,
then IN(itialize) a fresh disk and save that DOS to it - thereby creating a 
bootable disk that "talks to
the console".

This is one of things you can do on the "Virtual Altair", do/experience what it 
was was involved
in getting an OS up on a front-panel system when you didn't already have this 
OS running!
Something you had to do in the first days, but few people today have done! 
(other then list members or course)
 I do have information about how to do this included with the emulater!

-Dave

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 at 06:10, Sellam Abraham via cctalk
 wrote:

>  If you use
> a computer that simultaneously is or can be used by other people via
> multiple concurrent user sessions across whatever signal path, whatever the
> setting, it is *not* "personal".

I disagree. You are trying to make a binary yes/no split when it just ain't so.

Take, say, a Compaq Deskpro 386, a late-'80s desktop. It's indubitably a PC.

Now boot CDOS-386 on it. Plug a couple of terminals into its serial
ports. Now it's a multiuser host. No hardware change.

Stick a DOS floppy in, reboot. It's a single user PC again.

There is no hardware change. Ben Idontneedasurname says if it doesn't
have a multitasking OS it's not a PC.

Who is right?

Neither of you. You are trying to make out this is an absolute split. It's not.

I used DESQview to multitask DOS apps. Resolutely single user. I know
people who used DESQview to run BBSes. Definitely multiuser.
But the _same software_.

But could one ordinary person afford it? At least in some countries,
e.g. where it's made or at least designed? That is a clearer, easier
split, I think.

-- 
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 10:07 AM Dave Dunfield via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Having some fun reliving the memories ... I'll also mention that I do have
> other emulators for some
> of the classic systems I had on "Daves Old Computers" (look under "DOS
> Widgets")
> again - in case anyone wants to experience actually using one of these
> systems:
>
> NorthStar Horizon (Z80) - also does: Vector 1+
>  NorthStar DOS, CP/M
>
>
>
Without looking through everything you have first (sorry)is the
NorthStar DOS genned for a 2SIO card?
Bill

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Dave Dunfield via cctalk]

Chuck Guzis wrote:
> I never expanded my 8800 beyond the original 4-slot kit with
> limp-wristed power supply.  The construction (I built from the kit) I
> found to be appalling.  More than once I zinged myself brushing against
> the line voltage traces on the front panel board.  And that awful white
> wire.

Mine was "used" and already assembled when I got it.
It had most of the final expansions - I added a few homebrew ones.
Did improve the power supply , and agree completely on the "white wire"
- I used mine LOTS - did much of my earliest software development on it!

-Dave

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Dave Dunfield via cctalk]

Having some fun reliving the memories ... I'll also mention that I do have 
other emulators for some
of the classic systems I had on "Daves Old Computers" (look under "DOS Widgets")
again - in case anyone wants to experience actually using one of these systems:

NorthStar Horizon (Z80) - also does: Vector 1+
 NorthStar DOS, CP/M

Heathkit H8 (8080)
  Hdos, CP/M

Mil MOD8 (8008) - Canadian
 Scelbi BASIC

Dunfield 6809 (6809) [my original portable]
 My own CUBIX OS

There's more software - these are the main OS's and significant

-Dave

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, 9:54 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk 
wrote:

> Still have no idea what to do with
> all that heavy iron--I haven't touched it in perhaps 40 years. I
> congratulate you in finding homes for yours--I doubt that will happen
> with mine.
>
> --Chuck


eBay. Make some retirement cash.

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 6/11/24 02:02, Dave Dunfield via cctalk wrote:
> Chuck Guzis wrote:
>> I find myself in the position of trying to figure
>> out what the latest posts have to do with 'Experience using an Altair
>> 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)'. 
> 
> Thanks! It's gotten so off-topic, I've all but stopped following this thread.
> 
> I recently found a new home for my Altair, and in doing so, I set it up and
> run it to show it working. This reminded me of my Altair emulation I wrote
> back around 2003 when I decided not to maintain the Altair in a "ready to go"
> state and packed it away.

I never expanded my 8800 beyond the original 4-slot kit with
limp-wristed power supply.  The construction (I built from the kit) I
found to be appalling.  More than once I zinged myself brushing against
the line voltage traces on the front panel board.  And that awful white
wire.   A couple of years later, I used an Imsai 8080 and was more
favorably impressed.

My first disk system was an Integrand S100 box with a power supply
suitable for arc-welding that even came with the blueline prints for the
construction (now hopelessly faded).  I used Don Tarbell's controller
and some Calcomp drives.  After one of the drives failed, I got a couple
of Siemens FDD-100 drives that probably still operate.

At any rate, the Altair and the Integrand with its disk box sit on a
shelf in a dusty corner of my workshop.  I suspect that the capacitors
in the Altair have long dried out.   Still have no idea what to do with
all that heavy iron--I haven't touched it in perhaps 40 years. I
congratulate you in finding homes for yours--I doubt that will happen
with mine.

--Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Dave Dunfield via cctalk]

Chuck Guzis wrote:
> I find myself in the position of trying to figure
> out what the latest posts have to do with 'Experience using an Altair
> 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)'. 

Thanks! It's gotten so off-topic, I've all but stopped following this thread.

I recently found a new home for my Altair, and in doing so, I set it up and
run it to show it working. This reminded me of my Altair emulation I wrote
back around 2003 when I decided not to maintain the Altair in a "ready to go"
state and packed it away.

This is more than a "pretty picture" Altair Front Panel emulator, it gives a
pretty accurate emulation of my complete system which includes:

Hardware:
 Mits: Front panel, 8080 CPU, 88-SIO serial
 CDC: 64k Dynamic RAM
 NorthStar: MDS-A1 floppy controlle
 Compu/Time: CT-102 Real Time clock
 Homebuilt: Dual serial
 Lear Seigler: ADM3A terminal
 Sugart: two SA-400 drives

It also contains .NSI (NorthStarImage)s with a fair bit of usable software
including (but not limited to - there's more - this was my working system
at the time)"

Bootable:
 NorthStar DOS 5.1
 My own DMF (one of the first OS's I wrote)
 Fig-Forth system

Application software:
 North Star BASIC
 Byte Shop of Westminster XEK Editor/Assembler/Disassembler
 MicroStuf RCONS/CBBS
 Altair Memory test
 My own BASIC
 My own ALPS (Assembly Language Programming System)

Games:
 Dynacomp Chess Master
 Dynacomp Valdez Supertanker simulation
 Cranston Manor Adventure
 Hunt The Wumpus & many other simple games of the time


No longer having mu own Altair, I've made some minor enhancements to the
"Virtual Altair" and posted about it - just in case anyone would like to
experience actually RUNNING/USING a 70's Altair system!

This was mostly a cut/paste of a posting I had made in a different forum, and
included a bit of information (not needed here:-) about "What is an Altair"
which happened to include a quote from correspondance to me by "Ed Roberts"
which said
 "We coined the phrase Personal Computer and it was first applied to the
 Altair, i.e., by definition the first personal computer." ...
 "The beginning of the personal computer industry started without question
 at MITS with the Altair."
and a couple reasons I do think that this is a fairly reasonable statement!

This (or course) sparked the never-ending controversy of "what is a personal
computer" and "which was the earliest"...

My own interest in classic computing has always been about "Historical,
Technology" - it always seems odd (to me) how many others seems to be more
concerned with "Terminology"

To me a "personal computer" is one "anyone could have and you might find in
someone's home" - There are of course plenty of pre-Altair systems that could
fit in someones home, and "someone could have had" - but not at all common in
such and environment. I do think the Jan 75 issue of Popular Electronics
help a lot to get the Altair into such a environment.

And it was made less-clear by IBM's choice to name the 5150 the "Personal
Computer" (which made sense for them - prior to that most of their offerings
were large time-sharing mainframes!)

FWIW, my own "first personal computer" was NOT the Altair - my first ever was
a "COSMAC ELF" - it's been so long a don't remember much about it (and I got
rid of it before I started "Daves Old Computers") - IIRC is was an 1802
CPU, with a key-keypad - it DID have a "video display" but not character
based (just dots) - it has 256 bytes of memory which was ALL the memory in
the system (so you had to "see your program code on the screen"), and NO
storage (you always had to key in your program code).

This was very limited, and I soon replaced it with various homebuilt (mostly
8080 based) systems - at one point I managed to obtain some solenoid controller
reel-to-reel tape drives from a decomissioned lab - and built my own automatic
storage system (using some direct digital-to-tape methods I managed to get
working).

But the Altair was the first system I had with floppy disks and substantial
memory - and the first I could use for the kinds of things I had been doing
on the universities IBM 360 and PDP-11s - in other words a usable personal
computer!

Dave

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[CJ Reha via cctalk]

 > The LINC exhibited at VCF 10.0 was one of two systems the fine folks of
the
> Washington University team who originally designed and built the LINC
> scraped together and got working in time for the Festival, and their
> presentation therein.  That system went with Bruce Damer to the DigiBarn
> (Bruce was instrumental in putting together the presentation for VCF X)
and
> then a few years ago went off to the System Source Museum in Maryland.

I can confirm that it is still on active display at System Source. Although
a bit off topic, I think the readers of the list would be happy to hear it
is more or less still functional. The power supply required some work (caps
and some failed parts on a regulator card as figured out by Dave Gesswein)
as did the LINCtape drives (new bearings, tension adjustments on the
belts), and probably some other things I'm forgetting. Early this year it
was successfully brought into LAP6 and played a game of Pong for the first
time in years :) Unfortunately the LINCtapes themselves have degraded and
started not reliably reading, so it was decided to not mess with them any
further until they could be imaged. I'm not sure if they've made any
progress since - most of this was from my visit back in January.

Regards,
CJ

On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 9:53 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 7:43 AM Jon Elson via cctalk  >
> wrote:
>
> > On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:
> > > On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
> > >> OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix about
> > >> 1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in
> > >> biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people involved
> > >> with it later moved to Washington University in St.
> > >> Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some
> > >> features such a a crude memory mapping unit and more
> > >> memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not
> > >> to scare people away.  Artronix began building these PC's
> > >> and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy
> > >> planning.  I have no idea how many were sold. They were
> > >> built into a desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They
> > >> etched their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and
> > >> soldered in the chips by hand.  I wrote a series of
> > >> diagnostics for them.
> > >
> > > Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one.
> >
> > An Artronix PC?  I seriously doubt it, but it is possible.
> > There is at least one LINC that was restored about a decade
> > ago, and taken out to VCF 10.  If an Artronix PC did evade
> > the scrapper, it would not be that hard to get it running again.
> >
> > Jon
> >
>
> Is it Artronix or Artronics, out of Plainfield, New Jersey (according to
> the label, formally TechArt Systems 2000)?  Because if the latter, I have
> one right here, though I can't tell you the model number because it is not
> displaying one.  The serial number seems to indicate it was made in 1984.
>
> Here's a link to an ad in PC World circa 1984 ==>
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=-C_xVnQCcsEC=PA48=artronics++plainfield=en=X=2ahUKEwiv_-DQs82GAxWPmO4BHahVB_YQ6AF6BAgEEAI#v=onepage=artronics%20%20plainfield=false
>
> The LINC exhibited at VCF 10.0 was one of two systems the fine folks of the
> Washington University team who originally designed and built the LINC
> scraped together and got working in time for the Festival, and their
> presentation therein.  That system went with Bruce Damer to the DigiBarn
> (Bruce was instrumental in putting together the presentation for VCF X) and
> then a few years ago went off to the System Source Museum in Maryland.  The
> second backup/parts system went with me.  I eventually sold my system* to a
> private collector.  Unfortunately, I never had a chance to do anything with
> it.
>
> Sellam
>
> * When my collection was effectively stolen, the console was taken by the
> scrappers but I retained the CPU cabinet.  I eventually sold the CPU to the
> private collector, and I more recently learned he was subsequently able to
> recover the console from the said scrappers and reunite the parts to make
> the system whole again.  In any event, it was due some parts and much
> effort to be made working.
>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 6/8/24 20:52, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:


Is it Artronix or Artronics, out of Plainfield, New Jersey (according to
the label, formally TechArt Systems 2000)?  Because if the latter, I have
one right here, though I can't tell you the model number because it is not
displaying one.  The serial number seems to indicate it was made in 1984.


Artronix.  They were manufacturing the computers in a 
business park in St. Louis county, MO.


See :

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Artronix-PC-12-treatment-planning-computer-rho-theta-transducer-A-tapedeck-B_fig1_12217056

That has a pretty good picture of the console, tape drives 
and desk, as well as the Tek 611 storage tube and hardcopy unit.



* When my collection was effectively stolen, the console was taken by the
scrappers but I retained the CPU cabinet.  I eventually sold the CPU to the
private collector, and I more recently learned he was subsequently able to
recover the console from the said scrappers and reunite the parts to make
the system whole again.  In any event, it was due some parts and much
effort to be made working.


Wow, that's quite a story!

Jon

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Kenton A. Hoover via cctalk]

I believe the term was coined at PARC and was to distinguish between a 
time-sharing system and a computer which was “yours” when you put your disk 
pack on it and sat in the room where you were. Thus the Alto and Dorados were 
personal as they melded to their user, when being used by that user, and then 
to the next user when the new pack was installed.  Time-sharing systems were 
pretty much not customizable and were certainly shared.

..

--
Kenton A. Hoover
ken...@nemersonhoover.org
shib...@mail.marchordie.org
+1 415 830 5843
On Jun 5, 2024 at 06:50 -0700, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk 
, wrote:
>
>
> On 6/5/2024 9:33 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03 AM Will Cooke via cctalk 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 06/05/2024 7:17 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means
> > > > ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only
> > > > personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe.
> > > >
> > >
> > > To my mind, there are two things that define a computer as a personal
> > > computer. The first is what you say above, affordable by the masses. The
> > > second is "intended for" the masses.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general
> > purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the
> > masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine
> > was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing,
> > it's not a "personal computer"?
>
> I think the term "personal computer" is impossible to define. Its
> meaning will mean something different to just about anybody. Kinda
> like "intelligence". Some accept IQ as a measurement. Some accept
> membership in Mensa as a measure of very high IQ. I, on the other
> hand, I see membership in Mensa a a factor requiring the subtraction
> of at least 50 points from IQ because they were stupid enough to pay
> someone for it. :-)
>
> bill

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Adrian Godwin via cctalk]

Please kill it.
It's a marketing term, defined to suit the needs of the moment.
Even if we ever define it to our satisfaction, nobody else will ever use
that definition.


On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 2:32 AM Chuck Guzis via cctalk 
wrote:

>
> Liebe Leser, after consigning most of this thread to the bit bucket over
> the last week or more, I find myself in the position of trying to figure
> out what the latest posts have to do with 'Experience using an Altair
> 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)'.  Indeed, it seems that much of the
> thread has been filled with replies having nothing at all to do with the
> MITS 8800.
>
> Please, someone--either kill the thread or start a new one that has
> content relative to the thread title.
>
> Thanks,
> Chuck
>
>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 7:43 AM Jon Elson via cctalk 
wrote:

> On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:
> > On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
> >> OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix about
> >> 1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in
> >> biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people involved
> >> with it later moved to Washington University in St.
> >> Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some
> >> features such a a crude memory mapping unit and more
> >> memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not
> >> to scare people away.  Artronix began building these PC's
> >> and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy
> >> planning.  I have no idea how many were sold. They were
> >> built into a desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They
> >> etched their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and
> >> soldered in the chips by hand.  I wrote a series of
> >> diagnostics for them.
> >
> > Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one.
>
> An Artronix PC?  I seriously doubt it, but it is possible.
> There is at least one LINC that was restored about a decade
> ago, and taken out to VCF 10.  If an Artronix PC did evade
> the scrapper, it would not be that hard to get it running again.
>
> Jon
>

Is it Artronix or Artronics, out of Plainfield, New Jersey (according to
the label, formally TechArt Systems 2000)?  Because if the latter, I have
one right here, though I can't tell you the model number because it is not
displaying one.  The serial number seems to indicate it was made in 1984.

Here's a link to an ad in PC World circa 1984 ==>
https://books.google.com/books?id=-C_xVnQCcsEC=PA48=artronics++plainfield=en=X=2ahUKEwiv_-DQs82GAxWPmO4BHahVB_YQ6AF6BAgEEAI#v=onepage=artronics%20%20plainfield=false

The LINC exhibited at VCF 10.0 was one of two systems the fine folks of the
Washington University team who originally designed and built the LINC
scraped together and got working in time for the Festival, and their
presentation therein.  That system went with Bruce Damer to the DigiBarn
(Bruce was instrumental in putting together the presentation for VCF X) and
then a few years ago went off to the System Source Museum in Maryland.  The
second backup/parts system went with me.  I eventually sold my system* to a
private collector.  Unfortunately, I never had a chance to do anything with
it.

Sellam

* When my collection was effectively stolen, the console was taken by the
scrappers but I retained the CPU cabinet.  I eventually sold the CPU to the
private collector, and I more recently learned he was subsequently able to
recover the console from the said scrappers and reunite the parts to make
the system whole again.  In any event, it was due some parts and much
effort to be made working.

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

Liebe Leser, after consigning most of this thread to the bit bucket over
the last week or more, I find myself in the position of trying to figure
out what the latest posts have to do with 'Experience using an Altair
8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)'.  Indeed, it seems that much of the
thread has been filled with replies having nothing at all to do with the
MITS 8800.

Please, someone--either kill the thread or start a new one that has
content relative to the thread title.

Thanks,
Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 6/8/24 15:17, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:



On 6/8/24 12:33, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:56, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:

On 6/8/2024 7:43 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:

On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:

On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix 
about 1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT 
for use in biomedical research labs, and a bunch of 
people involved with it later moved to Washington 
University in St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab 
there later added some features such a a crude memory 
mapping unit and more memory, and called this the 
Programmed Console, so as not to scare people away. 
Artronix began building these PC's and selling them 
to hospitals for radiation therapy planning.  I have 
no idea how many were sold. They were built into a 
desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They etched 
their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and 
soldered in the chips by hand.  I wrote a series of 
diagnostics for them.


Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one. 


An Artronix PC?  I seriously doubt it, but it is 
possible. There is at least one LINC that was restored 
about a decade ago, and taken out to VCF 10.  If an 
Artronix PC did evade the scrapper, it would not be 
that hard to get it running again.


Even maintenance drawings would be great.

Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool, 
but so would MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software 
would be useful, but it would still be of historic 
interest.


Well, I believe that LINC LAP-6 will "boot" on an 
Artronix PC. I am fairly sure I did try that a long time 
ago.


And, the guys who resurrected the LINC for the VCF demo 
did have LAP-6 running.  One big feature of the Artronix 
PC was a TEK storage scope that allowed you to see a 
whole page of text at a time, instead of the tiny window 
that was available on the LINC. I think the LINC could 
only support about 8 or 12 short lines due to the slow 
refresh.


Jon

I'll ask Al Weber if he has anything.  I know unless it's 
PC sized he doesn't have it.  He has a lot of RS6000 stuff 
I need to pick up and Victor.  I think he did a give away 
of a lot of his documentation about 5 years ago, so he may 
have given it away if he had it.

thanks
Jim

The Artronix PC CPU box was about an 18" cube, but then 
there was the console and LINCtape drives, which were each 
rack-mount boxes about 9" high.


Jon

[cctalk] Artonix PC (was Re: Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s))

[Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk]

On 6/8/2024 1:17 PM, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:

On 6/8/24 12:33, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:56, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:

Even maintenance drawings would be great.

Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool, but so would 
MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software would be useful, but it would 
still be of historic interest.


Well, I believe that LINC LAP-6 will "boot" on an Artronix PC.  I am 
fairly sure I did try that a long time ago.


And, the guys who resurrected the LINC for the VCF demo did have LAP-6 
running.  One big feature of the Artronix PC was a TEK storage scope 
that allowed you to see a whole page of text at a time, instead of the 
tiny window that was available on the LINC. I think the LINC could 
only support about 8 or 12 short lines due to the slow refresh.


Jon

I'll ask Al Weber if he has anything.  I know unless it's PC sized he 
doesn't have it.  He has a lot of RS6000 stuff I need to pick up and 
Victor.  I think he did a give away of a lot of his documentation about 
5 years ago, so he may have given it away if he had it.

thanks
Jim


Thanks!

Vince

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[jim stephens via cctalk]

On 6/8/24 12:33, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:56, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:

On 6/8/2024 7:43 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:

On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:

On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix about 1972. 
The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in biomedical 
research labs, and a bunch of people involved with it later moved 
to Washington University in St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab 
there later added some features such a a crude memory mapping unit 
and more memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not 
to scare people away. Artronix began building these PC's and 
selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy planning.  I have 
no idea how many were sold. They were built into a desk, and used 
7400-series logic chips. They etched their own PC boards, drilled 
them by hand and soldered in the chips by hand.  I wrote a series 
of diagnostics for them.


Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one. 


An Artronix PC?  I seriously doubt it, but it is possible. There is 
at least one LINC that was restored about a decade ago, and taken 
out to VCF 10.  If an Artronix PC did evade the scrapper, it would 
not be that hard to get it running again.


Even maintenance drawings would be great.

Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool, but so would 
MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software would be useful, but it would 
still be of historic interest.


Well, I believe that LINC LAP-6 will "boot" on an Artronix PC.  I am 
fairly sure I did try that a long time ago.


And, the guys who resurrected the LINC for the VCF demo did have LAP-6 
running.  One big feature of the Artronix PC was a TEK storage scope 
that allowed you to see a whole page of text at a time, instead of the 
tiny window that was available on the LINC. I think the LINC could 
only support about 8 or 12 short lines due to the slow refresh.


Jon

I'll ask Al Weber if he has anything.  I know unless it's PC sized he 
doesn't have it.  He has a lot of RS6000 stuff I need to pick up and 
Victor.  I think he did a give away of a lot of his documentation about 
5 years ago, so he may have given it away if he had it.

thanks
Jim

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 6/8/24 11:56, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:

On 6/8/2024 7:43 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:

On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:

On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix 
about 1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for 
use in biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people 
involved with it later moved to Washington University 
in St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later 
added some features such a a crude memory mapping unit 
and more memory, and called this the Programmed 
Console, so as not to scare people away.  Artronix 
began building these PC's and selling them to hospitals 
for radiation therapy planning.  I have no idea how 
many were sold. They were built into a desk, and used 
7400-series logic chips. They etched their own PC 
boards, drilled them by hand and soldered in the chips 
by hand.  I wrote a series of diagnostics for them.


Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one. 


An Artronix PC?  I seriously doubt it, but it is 
possible. There is at least one LINC that was restored 
about a decade ago, and taken out to VCF 10.  If an 
Artronix PC did evade the scrapper, it would not be that 
hard to get it running again.


Even maintenance drawings would be great.

Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool, but 
so would MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software would be 
useful, but it would still be of historic interest.


Well, I believe that LINC LAP-6 will "boot" on an Artronix 
PC.  I am fairly sure I did try that a long time ago.


And, the guys who resurrected the LINC for the VCF demo did 
have LAP-6 running.  One big feature of the Artronix PC was 
a TEK storage scope that allowed you to see a whole page of 
text at a time, instead of the tiny window that was 
available on the LINC. I think the LINC could only support 
about 8 or 12 short lines due to the slow refresh.


Jon

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk]

On 6/8/2024 7:43 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:

On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:

On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix about 1972. The 
LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in biomedical research 
labs, and a bunch of people involved with it later moved to 
Washington University in St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there 
later added some features such a a crude memory mapping unit and more 
memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not to scare 
people away.  Artronix began building these PC's and selling them to 
hospitals for radiation therapy planning.  I have no idea how many 
were sold. They were built into a desk, and used 7400-series logic 
chips. They etched their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and 
soldered in the chips by hand.  I wrote a series of diagnostics for 
them.


Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one. 


An Artronix PC?  I seriously doubt it, but it is possible. There is at 
least one LINC that was restored about a decade ago, and taken out to 
VCF 10.  If an Artronix PC did evade the scrapper, it would not be that 
hard to get it running again.


Even maintenance drawings would be great.

Does any software survive? Diagnostics would be cool, but so would 
MUMPS. Not sure the radiology software would be useful, but it would 
still be of historic interest.


Thanks,

Vince

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 6/7/24 20:42, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk wrote:

On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix about 
1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in 
biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people involved 
with it later moved to Washington University in St. 
Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some 
features such a a crude memory mapping unit and more 
memory, and called this the Programmed Console, so as not 
to scare people away.  Artronix began building these PC's 
and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy 
planning.  I have no idea how many were sold. They were 
built into a desk, and used 7400-series logic chips. They 
etched their own PC boards, drilled them by hand and 
soldered in the chips by hand.  I wrote a series of 
diagnostics for them.


Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one. 


An Artronix PC?  I seriously doubt it, but it is possible.  
There is at least one LINC that was restored about a decade 
ago, and taken out to VCF 10.  If an Artronix PC did evade 
the scrapper, it would not be that hard to get it running again.


Jon

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk]

On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix about 1972. The LINC 
computer was developed at MIT for use in biomedical research labs, and a 
bunch of people involved with it later moved to Washington University in 
St. Louis. The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some features 
such a a crude memory mapping unit and more memory, and called this the 
Programmed Console, so as not to scare people away.  Artronix began 
building these PC's and selling them to hospitals for radiation therapy 
planning.  I have no idea how many were sold.  They were built into a 
desk, and used 7400-series logic chips.  They etched their own PC 
boards, drilled them by hand and soldered in the chips by hand.  I wrote 
a series of diagnostics for them.


Do any survive? I've looked for them but never found one.

Vince

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 6/7/24 10:29, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:

Still valid?
  Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the
question: "What was the first PC?"
http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml

OK, I have to chime in here.  I worked for Artronix about 
1972. The LINC computer was developed at MIT for use in 
biomedical research labs, and a bunch of people involved 
with it later moved to Washington University in St. Louis.  
The Biomedical Computer Lab there later added some features 
such a a crude memory mapping unit and more memory, and 
called this the Programmed Console, so as not to scare 
people away.  Artronix began building these PC's and selling 
them to hospitals for radiation therapy planning.  I have no 
idea how many were sold.  They were built into a desk, and 
used 7400-series logic chips.  They etched their own PC 
boards, drilled them by hand and soldered in the chips by 
hand.  I wrote a series of diagnostics for them.


Jon

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 3:31 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 11:01 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 12:39 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
> > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:29 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <
> > > cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Still valid?
> > > >  Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the
> > > > question: "What was the first PC?"
> > > > http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml
> > >
> > >
> > > That's Doug Salot's old website circa 2000.  He did an admirable job
> back
> > > then for what we all collectively knew (he didn't just pull this stuff
> > out
> > > of his arse, he actually did some research).
> > >
> > > Sellam
> > >
> >
> > Yes I mean, how well did this page / research age?  For example I have
> > elsewhere made the case that the NRI 832 pre-dates the Kenbak and I made
> > the case as well that yes is a personal computer.  The LGP-30 is totally
> > missing.  Olivetti 101, Etc.
> >
>
> I don't know that we (collectively) knew about the LGP-30 back then.  The
> Olivetti, maybe.  Remember, he made that website back when the Internet was
> about as searchable as it is today (i.e. not that great) to say nothing of
> the fact that not that many computer history/collector websites were out
> there back then.
>
> Sellam
>
> >
>

So you're saying it has aged, new facts have crept in to make this site
look dated.

B

>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 11:01 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk 
wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 12:39 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:29 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <
> > cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Still valid?
> > >  Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the
> > > question: "What was the first PC?"
> > > http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml
> >
> >
> > That's Doug Salot's old website circa 2000.  He did an admirable job back
> > then for what we all collectively knew (he didn't just pull this stuff
> out
> > of his arse, he actually did some research).
> >
> > Sellam
> >
>
> Yes I mean, how well did this page / research age?  For example I have
> elsewhere made the case that the NRI 832 pre-dates the Kenbak and I made
> the case as well that yes is a personal computer.  The LGP-30 is totally
> missing.  Olivetti 101, Etc.
>

I don't know that we (collectively) knew about the LGP-30 back then.  The
Olivetti, maybe.  Remember, he made that website back when the Internet was
about as searchable as it is today (i.e. not that great) to say nothing of
the fact that not that many computer history/collector websites were out
there back then.

Sellam

>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 12:39 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:29 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Still valid?
> >  Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the
> > question: "What was the first PC?"
> > http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml
>
>
> That's Doug Salot's old website circa 2000.  He did an admirable job back
> then for what we all collectively knew (he didn't just pull this stuff out
> of his arse, he actually did some research).
>
> Sellam
>

Yes I mean, how well did this page / research age?  For example I have
elsewhere made the case that the NRI 832 pre-dates the Kenbak and I made
the case as well that yes is a personal computer.  The LGP-30 is totally
missing.  Olivetti 101, Etc.

>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Will Cooke via cctalk]

> On 06/07/2024 9:18 AM CDT Fred Cisin via cctalk  wrote:
>

>
> We can at least all agree that the Ford Mustang was not a "personal
> computer", nor "Personal Computer", although almost any Personal Computer
> could fit in the back seat or the trunk, but probably not in the glove
> compartment. A mini-computer, disunirregardless of whether it was
> "Personal", would require the convertible model, with the top down.
>
> --
> Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Hmmm, if you get into that shiny new 1965 'stang, start it (that's the hard 
part.  It IS a Ford.), put it in D and press the accelerator, it will solve a 
whole slew of differential equations concerning mass, engine power and RPM, 
gravity, friction, wind resistance, etc for the speed that solves them all 
simultaneously and give an answer on a "solution gauge" (aka speedometer.)  So, 
a computer.  And since automobiles are a very personal thing, most definitely a 
"personal computer." :-)

Will
Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for 
children to be always and forever explaining things to them,

Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:29 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk 
wrote:

> Still valid?
>  Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the
> question: "What was the first PC?"
> http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml


That's Doug Salot's old website circa 2000.  He did an admirable job back
then for what we all collectively knew (he didn't just pull this stuff out
of his arse, he actually did some research).

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Sports cars (was: Re: Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s))

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 9:10 AM Christian Kennedy via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Not sure about that.  We stuck a Nova 840, a couple of Diablo 30's, and
> assorted other bits and bobs in a 1960's Mustang, and I once dragged an
> Eclipse S/130, Diablo model 30, and a Hazeltine 2000 home in a early
> 1970's Toyota Corolla.  All sans racks, of course...
>
> --
> Christian Kennedy, Ph.D.
>

I once hauled home about 20 Apple //e's and peripherals in a 2-door Honda
Civic Coupe.

Trust me, it was impressive.

Sellam

[cctalk] Sports cars (was: Re: Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s))

[Christian Kennedy via cctalk]

On 6/7/24 07:18, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
Before we do any more automotive analogies of the "personal computer" 
definitions, . . .

Could somebody explain to me
What is a "muscle car"?
A semi-archaic term used in reference to cars defined primarily by power 
output relative to the average at the time the vehicle was marketed.

What is a "sports car"


A semi-archaic term used to describe a car which is designed to handle 
well at the expense of ride comfort and size.


A muscle car was typically relatively good at the quarter mile, but 
frequently miserable on the track.


A sports car frequently was not particularly powerful.  The series one 
Lotus 7 shipped with a Ford Sidevalve engine rocking in at 36HP, the 
Series two upgraded to a Ford Kent, initially making...39HP.




I have heard the Ford Mustang, which seems like a Foulcon with 
cosmetically redesigned body panels, referred to as each of those.


In the special case of the Mustang, it depends on when you ask the question.

The Mustang was literally originally marketed, I kid you not, as a car 
for secretaries.  As you suggest, it started life as a generation-two 
Falcon with a body kit (this isn't strictly true, the original 1962 T-5 
Mustang was a two seat, mid-engine thing of which I believe two were 
built).  As initially designed, it was never intended to be a high 
performance vehicle, although the Falcon chassis actually handled 
remarkably well for the time.   It was for all intents essentially a 
parts bin car, using interior, chassis, suspension, and drivetrain 
components from the Falcon and the Fairlane -- enough so that people 
trained to build or maintain either of those vehicles could find their 
way around a Mustang without any real additional training.




I think that the Mustang came stock with one of the wimpiest six 
cylinder engines that Ford had.  If you special ordered the optional 
four cylinder engine, would it still be a "muscle car"?


The original six rocked in at 2.8L making a whopping 101 HP, this was 
almost immediately replaced by a 3.3L pumping out 120HP; the other 
option was a 4.3L V8 making a miserable 164HP, followed in the same 1964 
1/2 upgrade by a 4.7L grinding out 210HP.  Pretty awful numbers for 
today, but by the standards of the time, not terribly bad given the use 
of dizzies and one (for the six) and two barrel carbs; for comparison, 
the 3.7L I6 in the first generation Camaro made 140HP. Ford wasn't 
uniquely bad at extracting power from gasoline, but it wasn't until the 
Mustang-spawned horsepower wars of the later 1960's and very early 
1970's that they started to make semi-respectable power.




Handling seemed to be pretty much unchanged from the Foulcon.  Did you 
need the dealer-option racing stripe to be a "sports car"?
The Series I Mustang is very much a Falcon with a body kit, but despite 
being sedans, Falcons handled quite well, and with the lighter body of 
the Mustang was quite respectable.  By the commonly used terms, the 
series one Mustang was a reasonable sports car, but decidedly not a 
muscle car.  Move to 1969, the Mustang gets larger and heavier, but the 
4.9L V8 is making a more respectable 290HP while the insane 7.0L is 
cranking out 375 while not materially affecting weight or weight 
distribution.  The Mustang in now both a muscle car and a sports car.  
Of course it was all downhill after that, until emissions regulations 
required manufacturers to make things run properly and computing power 
evolved to make it possible.


We can at least all agree that the Ford Mustang was not a "personal 
computer", nor "Personal Computer", although almost any Personal 
Computer could fit in the back seat or the trunk, but probably not in 
the glove compartment.  A mini-computer, disunirregardless of whether 
it was "Personal", would require the convertible model, with the top 
down.


Not sure about that.  We stuck a Nova 840, a couple of Diablo 30's, and 
assorted other bits and bobs in a 1960's Mustang, and I once dragged an 
Eclipse S/130, Diablo model 30, and a Hazeltine 2000 home in a early 
1970's Toyota Corolla.  All sans racks, of course...


--
Christian Kennedy, Ph.D.
ch...@mainecoon.com AF6AP | DB0692 | PG00029419
http://www.mainecoon.comPGP KeyID 108DAB97
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
"Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration…"

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Murray McCullough via cctalk]

Wow! How truly interesting. Back then I guess one could call it a
personal/micro-computer -Simon 1949. This was early digital age where
mechanical devices ruled. Not my idea of a modern PC.

Nonetheless, the quiz gives more information than what is found in books on
the subject.

Happy computing - modern fashion!

Murray 

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:29 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Still valid?
>  Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the
> question: "What was the first PC?"
> http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:24 AM Tony Duell via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 5:10 AM Sellam Abraham via cctalk
> >  wrote:
> > > The opposite of
> > > personal is multi-user.  There is your dichotomy.  It is either
> personal,
> > > or multiuser, and never the twain shall meet, and neither anything
> > betwixt.
> >
> > By that definition the TRS-80 Color Computer is not a personal
> > computer (it could run OS-9)
> >
> > Neither is the IBM 5150 'Personal Computer' as it could run Minix
> >
> > -tony
> >
>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

Still valid?
 Personal Computer Milestones - Fun page that attempts to answer the
question: "What was the first PC?"
http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:24 AM Tony Duell via cctalk 
wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 5:10 AM Sellam Abraham via cctalk
>  wrote:
> > The opposite of
> > personal is multi-user.  There is your dichotomy.  It is either personal,
> > or multiuser, and never the twain shall meet, and neither anything
> betwixt.
>
> By that definition the TRS-80 Color Computer is not a personal
> computer (it could run OS-9)
>
> Neither is the IBM 5150 'Personal Computer' as it could run Minix
>
> -tony
>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Tony Duell via cctalk]

On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 5:10 AM Sellam Abraham via cctalk
 wrote:
> The opposite of
> personal is multi-user.  There is your dichotomy.  It is either personal,
> or multiuser, and never the twain shall meet, and neither anything betwixt.

By that definition the TRS-80 Color Computer is not a personal
computer (it could run OS-9)

Neither is the IBM 5150 'Personal Computer' as it could run Minix

-tony

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Tony Duell via cctalk]

On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 1:38 PM Liam Proven via cctalk
 wrote:

> If you buy a bus and start driving it yourself everywhere, for your
> own exclusive use, it doesn't somehow magically stop being a bus. It's
> still a bus, just a bus being used for personal transport.

I am not so sure...

After all 'bus' is a contraction of 'omnibus' which, according to
Flanders and Swann means 'To or for, by with or from everybody'. More
seriosly, a bus is a vehicle that anyone may travel on.

I know a couple of people who own old London buses. They tell me that
you need a different driving licence (and probably insurance) if you
carry fare-paying passengers. They can drive their vehcles to classic
car shows etc. They can carry people for free (at said person's own
risk). But they can't charge fares. Said vehicles remain Routemasters,
Regents,etc but may well legally not be buses.

Incidentally, a neighbour asked me for comments on a question which
had appeared on the 'Reader's Questions' page of a UK national
newspaper :

'Which was the first handheld computer?'

My thoughts are :

Balancing a PDP11/05 on one hand and operating the front panel with
the other doesn't count :-)

It has to be able to run a user program. So non-programmable
calculators, Curtas, slide rules, etc don't count.

If it has to run what is normally accepted as a computer programming
language and handle text then something like the Sharp PC1210 or
PC1211 would seem t be a reasonable answer.

If machines that only handle numbers count, then a reasonable answer
is the Sumlock 324, which pre-dates the HP65 by a couple of weeks.

-tony

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Before we do any more automotive analogies of the "personal 
computer" definitions, . . .

Could somebody explain to me
What is a "muscle car"?
What is a "sports car"

I have heard the Ford Mustang, which seems like a Foulcon with 
cosmetically redesigned body panels, referred to as each of those.


I think that the Mustang came stock with one of the wimpiest six cylinder 
engines that Ford had.  If you special ordered the optional four cylinder 
engine, would it still be a "muscle car"?


Handling seemed to be pretty much unchanged from the Foulcon.  Did you 
need the dealer-option racing stripe to be a "sports car"?


We can at least all agree that the Ford Mustang was not a "personal 
computer", nor "Personal Computer", although almost any Personal Computer 
could fit in the back seat or the trunk, but probably not in the glove 
compartment.  A mini-computer, disunirregardless of whether it was 
"Personal", would require the convertible model, with the top down.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Thu, Jun 6, 2024, 6:19 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk 
wrote:

>
> > Ok, now you're back to cost.  Your criteria keep changing.   You cannot
> > give something meaning when the "something" keeps changing.  This is why
> > you are refuted.
> >
> > I refute you, sir!
> >
> > Sellam


There's "personal computing" as a verb and "personal computer" as an object
> classification.  These are distinct terms.   Using a UNIVAC 1 for personal
> computing purposes does not make the UNIVAC 1 a personal computer in so far
> as the UNIVAC 1 was not originally classified (such as with the patent
> office) as a device intended for the express purpose of personal computing,
> as defined as blah blah blah.
>

There were no classifications of computers when the UNIVAC was built. They
were just "computers" (spoken in the old-timey news voice).  Personal use
did not and could not have even been considered until there was 30 more
years of development to bring costs and size down to make them ubiquitous,
for comparisons to begin to be made so categories could be invented by
marketers, and computers categorized into various classifications.  But
none of that matters because it comes down to how they're used.

One could argue that the manufacturer as the right to declare what is and
> is not the intended personal use of the thing they're manufacturing, as
> represented by the manuals, promotions and marketing, training, etc.
>

And it is the right of the buyer to use that product in any way they want,
including personally.

So, I think really it's possible to declare anything a personal computer or
> not a personal computer if you have some sort of base definitions for these
> things.  I think that's the problem we're having, the terms "personal
> computer" and personal computing are not really dictionary words.
>
> Bill
>

Go back to what I said about the context in which the term was used: at the
time, "computers" were primarily a multi-user, time-sharing affair.  To
have a computer for one's own exclusive use is what made it personal, and
that's what Ed Roberts had in mind when he implemented the term.

So you are also refuted.  I refute you!

Anyone else, before I clear the board of all the pieces, declare myself
winner, and go home?

Sellam

>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

>
>
>
>
> Ok, now you're back to cost.  Your criteria keep changing.   You cannot
> give something meaning when the "something" keeps changing.  This is why
> you are refuted.
>
> I refute you, sir!
>
>
>
Sellam,
There's "personal computing" as a verb and "personal computer" as an object
classification.  These are distinct terms.   Using a UNIVAC 1 for personal
computing purposes does not make the UNIVAC 1 a personal computer in so far
as the UNIVAC 1 was not originally classified (such as with the patent
office) as a device intended for the express purpose of personal computing,
as defined as blah blah blah.

One could argue that the manufacturer as the right to declare what is and
is not the intended personal use of the thing they're manufacturing, as
represented by the manuals, promotions and marketing, training, etc.

So, I think really it's possible to declare anything a personal computer or
not a personal computer if you have some sort of base definitions for these
things.  I think that's the problem we're having, the terms "personal
computer" and personal computing are not really dictionary words.

Bill

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

I refute your refutations thusly:

On Thu, Jun 6, 2024, 5:38 AM Liam Proven via cctalk 
wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 at 05:10, Sellam Abraham via cctalk
>  wrote:
>
> >  If you ride a bus, where multiple random people get
> > on and off at various stops, it's not a "personal" conveyance.
>
> I refute your argument thus:
>
> If you buy a bus and start driving it yourself everywhere, for your
> own exclusive use, it doesn't somehow magically stop being a bus. It's
> still a bus, just a bus being used for personal transport.
>

Ah! You said it: "personal".  So, agreed.

Stephen Fry, the actor and writer, is quite tall. 6'5". He drives a
> London black cab as his personal car.
>

There it is again: "personal".

It's his car, but it's not _a_ car. It's still a taxi cab: a purpose-built
> 6-seat vehicle.


Agreed, and still used...personally.

(I am 6'2" but I get why. I can't see out of the windscreen of a
> Citroen 2CV: its top is lower than my chin. I have ridden NYC yellow
> cabs, huge saloon cars with a partition shoved in behind the front
> seats. I don't fit in the back. It's really painful. This is why
> purpose-built vehicles for lots of people and a driver in their own
> compartment exist, and it's very American to ignore them and try to
> crowbar some other, unsuitable tool into the role because the better
> device was Not Invented Here.)
>

Your height advantage does not an argument make.

A personal computer is not any random computer used by a single
> person. It's a product category, like "car" as opposed to "train" or
> "bus".
>

Now you're back in the marketing camp, where booze, coke, and sales are the
controlling factors.  Marketers make good slogans but bad engineers.

Some rich people can buy their own helicopter and use them to go where
> they want. (Flown by a professional because flying a helicopter is
> like rubbing your stomach and patting your head while walking a
> tightrope.) That does not make that helicopter into a car.
>

Who is trying to argue a helicopter is a car?  You are.

If I own a computer that I use personally and invite my friend over to play
a game on it, does that cease to make it personal?  If I buy it for my
secretary to use on my behalf, does that cease to make it personal (since
it is still just one person--her--using it)?

If I let you drive or fly me around in my personal car or helicopter
(respectively), I'm just letting you use it when I'm not.  If I
occasionally use my personal bus that I drive myself around in for roving
parties involving a group of my friends (or even random strangers I invite
on, why not) then it doesn't cease to become personal, same as Stephen Fry
can occasionally take on a passenger in his taxi cab if he feels like it,
just like I can occasionally use my personal computer to perform tasks for
others.

In all cases, the primary use is still personal: one person is
driving/flying at one time. Two people trying to simultaneously drive a car
or fly a helicopter would be awkward, to say the least, especially when one
person wants to go left and the other wants to fly higher.

A workstation was, essentially, a minicomputer built to be a
> single-user device, but cost as much as a room full of terminals or
> micros. It's not the same thing.
>

Ok, now you're back to cost.  Your criteria keep changing.   You cannot
give something meaning when the "something" keeps changing.  This is why
you are refuted.

I refute you, sir!

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 at 05:10, Sellam Abraham via cctalk
 wrote:

>  If you ride a bus, where multiple random people get
> on and off at various stops, it's not a "personal" conveyance.

I refute your argument thus:

If you buy a bus and start driving it yourself everywhere, for your
own exclusive use, it doesn't somehow magically stop being a bus. It's
still a bus, just a bus being used for personal transport.

Stephen Fry, the actor and writer, is quite tall. 6'5". He drives a
London black cab as his personal car.

It's his car, but it's not _a_ car. It's still a taxi cab: a
purpose-built 6-seat vehicle.

(I am 6'2" but I get why. I can't see out of the windscreen of a
Citroen 2CV: its top is lower than my chin. I have ridden NYC yellow
cabs, huge saloon cars with a partition shoved in behind the front
seats. I don't fit in the back. It's really painful. This is why
purpose-built vehicles for lots of people and a driver in their own
compartment exist, and it's very American to ignore them and try to
crowbar some other, unsuitable tool into the role because the better
device was Not Invented Here.)

A personal computer is not any random computer used by a single
person. It's a product category, like "car" as opposed to "train" or
"bus".

Some rich people can buy their own helicopter and use them to go where
they want. (Flown by a professional because flying a helicopter is
like rubbing your stomach and patting your head while walking a
tightrope.) That does not make that helicopter into a car.

A workstation was, essentially, a minicomputer built to be a
single-user device, but cost as much as a room full of terminals or
micros. It's not the same thing.

-- 
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 3:25 PM Liam Proven via cctalk 
wrote:

>
> If a device is not a microcomputer, it then must be either a
> minicomputer or a mainframe. Early on many mainframes didn't even
> support interactive sessions so they more or less disqualified
> themselves from being "personal" in any commonly-understood sense.
>

Disagree.  Someone has to give it input to get output, and that can be one
person using the mainframe by themselves.  So again, this kind of "
description" still does not cut it.

Which leaves minicomputers.
>
> A single-user desktop (or deskside) minicomputer isn't a personal
> computer, because it's not a microcomputer. (And it costs as much as a
> car.) Then what is it? What do you call a single-user minicomputer?
>

Where has it been established/agreed/decreed that "personal computer" =
"microcomputer" + some other traits?  The attempt to frame the term in
economic respects just does not work.  People in the 70s could and did buy
refurbished minicomputers for their personal use, and in a timeframe in
which they were still be considered contemporary and not "obsolete".

The other, often overlooked category: it's a workstation.
>
> Workstations, for as long as they existed, were personal computer
> _like_ devices but typically an order of magnitude more powerful and
> an order of magnitude more expensive. They also generally ran what ben
> mononym calls a proper OS.
>
> Workstations existed before microcomputers and before personal
> computers, and continued happily existing for about 30 more years, but
> by the time of 32-bit high-performance PCs with grown-up OSs, they
> were teetering, and by the time of commodity _64-bit_ PCs, or
> multiprocessor/multicore PCs with OSes that could use that, or of
> course both (64-bit multi-core), they were dead.
>
...

>
> --
> Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven


Why don't we just use the term "workstation" to describe all microcomputers
used personally then, which is all of them?  The difference in scale of
performance, memory, disk storage, etc. isn't much of a distinction, since
they're both used in a "personal" sense.

But don't worry, I am here to finally solve this riddle:

Consider: if you share a bathroom with the public where other people can
walk in while you're doing your business and do theirs, it's not your
*personal* bathroom.  If you ride a bus, where multiple random people get
on and off at various stops, it's not a "personal" conveyance.  If you use
a computer that simultaneously is or can be used by other people via
multiple concurrent user sessions across whatever signal path, whatever the
setting, it is *not* "personal".  If you own and use a computer by
yourself, and use it singularly (or others do so when you are not), then in
fact, by definition, it is *personal*.  Do you see?  The opposite of
personal is multi-user.  There is your dichotomy.  It is either personal,
or multiuser, and never the twain shall meet, and neither anything betwixt.

I submit that this is the actual historical context of the original meaning
of the term "personal computer".

I REST MY CASE.

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

"Workstation"??!?

Several decades ago, out department chairPERSON, who was a recent UC 
Berkeley PhD graduate, came running into the lab, shouting, "I think 
that we're getting SUN computers!"  (we had a few dozen cheap PCs).
She had heard from the loading dock that they had a couple of boxes 
labeled "Computer Workstation" arriving for us.
She was so disappointed, when the "Computer Workstations" turned out to be 
work tables on casters for holding a computer, to provide a fancier stand 
for holding the computer that the instructor uses in the classroom.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:


On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 13:30, Bill Degnan via cctalk
 wrote:


that's an important distinction, affordability.  You define personal
computers to contain microprocessors, which made them affordable.  The
demand was always there, it's the point in the demand curve that allowed x%
of the population of an affluent country to afford them.Above the
point, not personal past it, personal.

Is that what you're saying?


Yep, pretty much.

This is one way of _describing_ it. There are others.

Another way of looking at it is this: a personal computer is a type of
microcomputer. This is using the old classification of microcomputer,
minicomputer and mainframe.

If a device is not a microcomputer, it then must be either a
minicomputer or a mainframe. Early on many mainframes didn't even
support interactive sessions so they more or less disqualified
themselves from being "personal" in any commonly-understood sense.
Which leaves minicomputers.

A single-user desktop (or deskside) minicomputer isn't a personal
computer, because it's not a microcomputer. (And it costs as much as a
car.) Then what is it? What do you call a single-user minicomputer?

The other, often overlooked category: it's a workstation.

Workstations, for as long as they existed, were personal computer
_like_ devices but typically an order of magnitude more powerful and
an order of magnitude more expensive. They also generally ran what ben
mononym calls a proper OS.

Workstations existed before microcomputers and before personal
computers, and continued happily existing for about 30 more years, but
by the time of 32-bit high-performance PCs with grown-up OSs, they
were teetering, and by the time of commodity _64-bit_ PCs, or
multiprocessor/multicore PCs with OSes that could use that, or of
course both (64-bit multi-core), they were dead.

A workstation wasn't really a type of PC. They exceeded PCs in
specification, in performance, in price, and in sophistication of the
OS... and when PCs caught up, they obliterated workstations because
workstations also exceeded PCs in price by, as I said, at least an
additional zero.

--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 13:30, Bill Degnan via cctalk
 wrote:

> that's an important distinction, affordability.  You define personal
> computers to contain microprocessors, which made them affordable.  The
> demand was always there, it's the point in the demand curve that allowed x%
> of the population of an affluent country to afford them.Above the
> point, not personal past it, personal.
>
> Is that what you're saying?

Yep, pretty much.

This is one way of _describing_ it. There are others.

Another way of looking at it is this: a personal computer is a type of
microcomputer. This is using the old classification of microcomputer,
minicomputer and mainframe.

If a device is not a microcomputer, it then must be either a
minicomputer or a mainframe. Early on many mainframes didn't even
support interactive sessions so they more or less disqualified
themselves from being "personal" in any commonly-understood sense.
Which leaves minicomputers.

A single-user desktop (or deskside) minicomputer isn't a personal
computer, because it's not a microcomputer. (And it costs as much as a
car.) Then what is it? What do you call a single-user minicomputer?

The other, often overlooked category: it's a workstation.

Workstations, for as long as they existed, were personal computer
_like_ devices but typically an order of magnitude more powerful and
an order of magnitude more expensive. They also generally ran what ben
mononym calls a proper OS.

Workstations existed before microcomputers and before personal
computers, and continued happily existing for about 30 more years, but
by the time of 32-bit high-performance PCs with grown-up OSs, they
were teetering, and by the time of commodity _64-bit_ PCs, or
multiprocessor/multicore PCs with OSes that could use that, or of
course both (64-bit multi-core), they were dead.

A workstation wasn't really a type of PC. They exceeded PCs in
specification, in performance, in price, and in sophistication of the
OS... and when PCs caught up, they obliterated workstations because
workstations also exceeded PCs in price by, as I said, at least an
additional zero.

-- 
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[brianb1224 via cctalk]



[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

Come on by my warehouse, I'll hook you up to where you make Adrian look
like a rank amateur ;)

Sellam

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:12 AM brianb1224 via cctalk 
wrote:

> If I had his digital basement I would never come out.
>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:03 AM Joshua Rice via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> As someone once said "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and
> they all stink."
>
> Josh Rice
>

Nothing but opinions and assholes around here ;)

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[brianb1224 via cctalk]

If I had his digital basement I would never come out. 

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Joshua Rice via cctalk]

On 05/06/2024 16:37, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:


*snip*
You mentioned that an Altair 8800 and even a subscription to Popular
Electronics was too much for your 9 year old self, but the TRS-80 wasn't?
Perhaps I misinterpreted.

At any rate, it matters not: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERSONAL COMPUTER.

There, I've done it.

You can all move on with living again. You Are Welcome.

Sellam



To quote a popular Australian childrens show, "It's just monkeys singing 
songs, mate", meaning "There's no reason to over think it"


The argument as to what defines a personal computer is as nuanced and 
varied as "what defines a retro computer". No-one will ever agree, 
because no-one has exactly the same opinions on what defines such a 
thing. There is literally no way for everyone to nail down a precise 
definition, because everyone's definitions are different. Attempting to 
justify your position is ultimately pointless, because you will never 
get a majority to agree with your position.


To spin things round to a personal opinion of mine (not related to the 
"Personal Computer" argument here), i'm of the opinion that the 
"minicomputer" never died. Modern multicore x86 servers with attached 
iSCSI SANs and ultra high speed connectivity are topologically similar 
to a PDP-11 with a bunch of RL02's serving a room full of VT220's. But 
then there's a lot of people who would scoff at the comparison. But 
that's my opinion.


As someone once said "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and 
they all stink."


Josh Rice

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:25 AM Joshua Rice via cctalk 
wrote:

> Sellam,
>
> Adrian Black of Adrian's Digital Basement has a series on the Plexus
> machines ongoing at the moment.
>
> I'd highly suggest contacting him, as i'm sure he'd be very interested
> in adding to his collection.
>
> Josh Rice
>

Maybe, but I doubt it.  Before his video came out I had no idea there was a
small tower model of the Plexus.  This one is quite larger than anything
he's ever worked on, and I'm guessing it would be a great feat to get this
thing down into his basement.

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 8:39 AM Will Cooke via cctalk 
wrote:

>
> One simple question.
> If this "discussion" bothers you so much, why do you continue to drag it
> out?
>
> Thanks for making it all clear for me, though.
>
> Will
>

Perhaps you haven't noticed but I've actually been trying to end it for a
while.  It's the "If you can't beat'em, join'em (then subvert them from
within)" gambit.

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Will Cooke via cctalk]

> On 06/05/2024 10:37 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 8:33 AM Will Cooke via cctalk 
> wrote:
> 
> > no
> > > On 06/05/2024 10:28 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
> > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > So, now we're adding the age of the buyer as an element of what defines a
> > > "personal" computer?
> > > Sellam
> > > > 
> > No. Not sure where I said that. But, no.
> 
> You mentioned that an Altair 8800 and even a subscription to Popular
> Electronics was too much for your 9 year old self, but the TRS-80 wasn't?
> Perhaps I misinterpreted.
> 
> At any rate, it matters not: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERSONAL COMPUTER.
> 
> There, I've done it.
> 
> You can all move on with living again. You Are Welcome.
> 
> Sellam
> 
> >

One simple question.
If this "discussion" bothers you so much, why do you continue to drag it out?  

Thanks for making it all clear for me, though.

Will

Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for 
children to be always and forever explaining things to them,

Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 8:33 AM Will Cooke via cctalk 
wrote:

> no
>
> > On 06/05/2024 10:28 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > So, now we're adding the age of the buyer as an element of what defines a
> > "personal" computer?
> >
> > Sellam
> >
> > >
>
> No.  Not sure where I said that.  But, no.
>

You mentioned that an Altair 8800 and even a subscription to Popular
Electronics was too much for your 9 year old self, but the TRS-80 wasn't?
Perhaps I misinterpreted.

At any rate, it matters not: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERSONAL COMPUTER.

There, I've done it.

You can all move on with living again. You Are Welcome.

Sellam

>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 11:30 AM Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> What I have taken away from this whole now weeks-long debate is this:
>
> Everything is a personal computer; and nothing is.
>
> Sellam
>

Then there is the question of personnel computing.  Is this computer used
by an HR department?

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Will Cooke via cctalk]

no

> On 06/05/2024 10:28 AM CDT Sellam Abraham via cctalk  
> wrote:

>
> So, now we're adding the age of the buyer as an element of what defines a
> "personal" computer?
>
> Sellam
>
> >

No.  Not sure where I said that.  But, no.

Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for 
children to be always and forever explaining things to them,

Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

What I have taken away from this whole now weeks-long debate is this:

Everything is a personal computer; and nothing is.

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 6:03 AM Will Cooke via cctalk 
wrote:

>
> When the Jan 75 issue of Popular Electronics came out I was 9 years old.
> I didn't know the magazine existed, nor could I have afforded a
> subscription if I did.  But I knew what computers were, and I knew I wanted
> one.  But they were untouchable to me.  I had seen one at my dad's office,
> and even seen some programmers (up near the same category as seeing an
> astronaut to me.)  But having a computer was a dream, like owning an F-4
> Phantom.
>
> A couple of years later I saw the TRS-80 in a Radio Shack catalog.  That
> was my first sight of a "personal" computer.  The price ($599?) was WELL
> outside what I could afford, but it was achievable.  AND... it was marketed
> toward "average" people!
>

So, now we're adding the age of the buyer as an element of what defines a
"personal" computer?

Sellam

>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 5:30 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk 
wrote:

> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.
> >
> >
> >
> that's an important distinction, affordability.  You define personal
> computers to contain microprocessors, which made them affordable.  The
> demand was always there, it's the point in the demand curve that allowed x%
> of the population of an affluent country to afford them.Above the
> point, not personal past it, personal.
>
> Is that what you're saying?
>

The DigiComp 1 affordable for basically everyone.

Sellam

>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, 10:21 AM Will Cooke via cctalk 
wrote:

>
>
> > On 06/05/2024 8:33 AM CDT Bill Degnan via cctalk 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03 AM Will Cooke via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general
> > purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the
> > masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine
> > was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing,
> > it's not a "personal computer"?
>
> Yes.
> For my own definition.  I have no real interest if anyone agrees or
> disagrees.  As I said, "to my mind" and "my 1/2 cent worth."  I think there
> is a difference between a personal computer and a "Personal Computer."  I
> only offer it in case it is useful to someone else.
>

Fair enough.
B

>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Will Cooke via cctalk]

> On 06/05/2024 8:33 AM CDT Bill Degnan via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03 AM Will Cooke via cctalk 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general
> purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the
> masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine
> was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing,
> it's not a "personal computer"?

Yes.
For my own definition.  I have no real interest if anyone agrees or disagrees.  
As I said, "to my mind" and "my 1/2 cent worth."  I think there is a difference 
between a personal computer and a "Personal Computer."  I only offer it in case 
it is useful to someone else.

Will


Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for 
children to be always and forever explaining things to them,

Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

On 6/5/2024 9:33 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03 AM Will Cooke via cctalk 
wrote:





On 06/05/2024 7:17 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk 

wrote:



It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.



That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means
ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only
personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe.



To my mind, there are two things that define a computer as a personal
computer.  The first is what you say above, affordable by the masses.  The
second is "intended for" the masses.




So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general
purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the
masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine
was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing,
it's not a "personal computer"?


I think the term "personal computer" is impossible to define.  Its
meaning will mean something different to just about anybody.  Kinda
like "intelligence".  Some accept IQ as a measurement.  Some accept
membership in Mensa as a measure of very high IQ.  I, on the other
hand, I see membership in Mensa a a factor requiring the subtraction
of at least 50 points from IQ because they were stupid enough to pay
someone for it.  :-)

bill

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:03 AM Will Cooke via cctalk 
wrote:

>
>
> > On 06/05/2024 7:17 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.
> >
> >
> >
> > That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means
> > ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only
> > personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe.
> >
>
> To my mind, there are two things that define a computer as a personal
> computer.  The first is what you say above, affordable by the masses.  The
> second is "intended for" the masses.
>
>
>
So if a computer was built to be used by a single operator for general
purpose use, open to any application development but cost more than the
masses could afford, even if it was clear in the manual that the machine
was manufactured and intended to be used for general purpose computing,
it's not a "personal computer"?

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Will Cooke via cctalk]

> On 06/05/2024 7:17 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk  
> wrote:

>
> It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.
>
>
>
> That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means
> ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only
> personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe.
>

To my mind, there are two things that define a computer as a personal computer. 
 The first is what you say above, affordable by the masses.  The second is 
"intended for" the masses.

When the Jan 75 issue of Popular Electronics came out I was 9 years old.  I 
didn't know the magazine existed, nor could I have afforded a subscription if I 
did.  But I knew what computers were, and I knew I wanted one.  But they were 
untouchable to me.  I had seen one at my dad's office, and even seen some 
programmers (up near the same category as seeing an astronaut to me.)  But 
having a computer was a dream, like owning an F-4 Phantom.

A couple of years later I saw the TRS-80 in a Radio Shack catalog.  That was my 
first sight of a "personal" computer.  The price ($599?) was WELL outside what 
I could afford, but it was achievable.  AND... it was marketed toward "average" 
people!

Until I saw the TRS-80, owning a computer was a dream.  After, it was a goal.  
I strongly suspect that many people felt much the same way when they saw their 
own first personal computer, whether it was a TRS-80 or an Altair or whatever.  
But very few had that reaction to, say, A 9830.  And the masses didn't get a 
flyer in the mail advertising a 5100 to them.

Just my 1/2 cent worth.

Will


Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for 
children to be always and forever explaining things to them,

Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

>
>
>
>
> It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.
>
>
>
that's an important distinction, affordability.  You define personal
computers to contain microprocessors, which made them affordable.  The
demand was always there, it's the point in the demand curve that allowed x%
of the population of an affluent country to afford them.Above the
point, not personal past it, personal.

Is that what you're saying?

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 at 14:32, Joshua Rice via cctalk
 wrote:

> That's a terrible analogy. The first cars were indeed ludicrously
> expensive and owned almost exclusively by the wealthy and upper classes.
> It took a good 20 years for the car to become affordable to the masses,
> in the shape of the Ford Model T. And even then, the Model T wasn't
> driven in any way similar to a modern car, it would take the Austin 7,
> first built 15 years after the Model T, to truly standardize driving
> controls.

You are missing the point of the analogy.

Here is the argument I parody:  "look, cars were not the first motor
vehicles, because there were trains. Trains are motor vehicles that
move people and therefore you are wrong when you say cars were the
first motor vehicles."

I was comparing this with computers. Yes, there were standalone
single-user desktop computers before the microprocessor. But the point
is that _because_ they did not have microprocessors, they cost many
thousands of dollars (HP, IBM)  to tens of thousands of dollars
(Tektronix) at that time, meaning tens to hundreds of thousands today.

It isn't personal if an ordinary person can't afford it.

You can't say "but home plumbing isn't new -- the Romans had running
water and people had inside toilets in the 18th century!"  when the
"people" who had indoor toilets were only the monarchs.

That isn't _the people_. The People means hoi polloi. It means
ordinary people. It means the masses. A personal computer is only
personal if the person in question is an ordinary Joe.

Not kings and emperors and captains of industry.

It's like saying "by the early 21st century, everyone had their own
private jet". It is not true: the 0.001% of the richest of the rich
have private jets. They exist as private transport but we do not all
have personal jets.

-- 
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[John via cctalk]

On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 12:00:08 -0500
cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org wrote:

> > It's like John Conway's "game of life," but more prone to cause
> > uncontrollable fits of laughter.  
> 
> You owe me a new keyboard (and another glass of milk).

Even in death, his power remains ;)

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 at 21:11, Lawrence Wilkinson via cctalk
 wrote:

> Yes, I can confirm that I am real.

:-D

And better still, extant.

-- 
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Cameron Kaiser via cctalk]

>> I used 1620s, and 360/30s, a 360/40, and others as a personal
>> computer at times, for things like writing a Tim Conway game of life,
>> keeping track of my vinyl records, etc.
>
> It's like John Conway's "game of life," but more prone to cause
> uncontrollable fits of laughter.

You owe me a new keyboard (and another glass of milk).

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- If ignorance is bliss, shouldn't I be happier? -

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[John Ames via cctalk]

From: CAREY SCHUG 

> I used 1620s, and 360/30s, a 360/40, and others as a personal
> computer at times, for things like writing a Tim Conway game of life,
> keeping track of my vinyl records, etc.

It's like John Conway's "game of life," but more prone to cause
uncontrollable fits of laughter.

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Lawrence Wilkinson via cctalk]

On 1/06/24 14:20, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:

https://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360/Saga.html

That one? Lawrence is on this list and posts occasionally. He's real:
I've met him. He was kind enough to give me some boxed copies of OS/2.
:-)


Yes, I can confirm that I am real.

Incidentally, I found some of the documents from the time, including 
templates I made to sort out the room layout.


The templates have a basic version, and one that includes the doors and 
logic 'gates' which swing out for servicing.


2030 is the CPU with the 1051/1052 typewriter, 2841 is the Storage 
Control (Disk Controller, if you like.)


The small things are the three 2311 disk drives and the disk pack rack.

Room layout: https://flic.kr/p/2pDGdZc

Templates: https://flic.kr/p/2pDFyZi

--
Lawrence Wilkinson  lawrence at ljw.me.uk
The IBM 360/30 pagehttp://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Rick Bensene via cctalk]

Liam Proven wrote:

> Microprocessors are what created the PC. No µP = not a PC.

So, if I get this right, the term "PC" to means something like the "personal 
computer" of today (children of IBM PC or Apple Macintosh) or at least perhaps 
something as old as an Apple II, a Commodore PET.

Perhaps even an Altair or IMSAI, though these are a bit different than an Apple 
II or a PET or TRS-80 because they required additional "stuff" to make them 
comparable the Apple, Commodore, or Radio Shack machines.  You'd have to add 
some sort of display and a controller card for the display, a keyboard of some 
sort, and at least an output port for an external printer, and perhaps a serial 
port to make it roughly equivalent to an Apple II or a TRS-80.

I find it had to make distinctions in some cases, because some machines tend to 
bend the rules a bit.

How about the Hewlett Packard 9830 "calculator"?  It had BASIC in ROM, and came 
up in BASIC when powered-on. No microprocessor, though.  Instead, it had a TTL 
implementation of a somewhat scaled down version of HP's 2100 minicomputer CPU. 
  It had a 40-character LED dot matrix display, a digital cassette tape drive, 
and you could sit a fast thermal printer on top of it and plug it right into a 
connector on the back of the machine.   It had ROMpack slots for additional 
functionality, and I/O expansion slots that could provide connections to 
external hard disk subsystems (that could be shared among multiple 9830's), a 
plotter, a punched paper tape reader, and a punched card reader, among others.  
 It was expensive.  But, it was intended as a single-user computer.   For the 
most part, this sounds like some early personal computers. 

Some HP 9830s were bought new by people with the means for their home use as a 
"personal computer, and for the time, a quite capable one at that.   This one 
is a little tricky because of its lack of a microprocessor.  But, it still 
seems to be pretty PC-ish to me.

I assume by the definition that since a Tektronix 4051 has a Motorola 6800 
inside, it's a PC, right?  The 4051 had no multi-user capabilities, and was 
fully intended for one person to sit down in front of it and do whatever it was 
they wanted to do, be it playing a game (there were a lot of games for the 
machine), or do some data acquisition, visualization and manipulation, or even 
mundane stuff like inventory, payroll, receivables, payables...you get the 
picture.  It was a truly general-purpose computer.

That said, what about a Tektronix 4052(1978)?   

It doesn't have a microprocessor in it, but it was definitely designed as a 
personal computing device with a graphics display and built-in mass storage 
(cartridge tape), just like the 4051. In fact, looking at a 4052, if you ignore 
the "4052" badge on the machine, you can't tell it apart from a 4051, and from 
a BASIC programming standpoint, they are the same.  

While the 4051 was very successful, and absolutely did end up in the homes of 
individual buyers (base price of $5,995, but there were individuals that had 
the means to buy one as their own personal computer for at home).  The 4051's 
intended markets were engineering, scientific, and data acquisition/data 
reduction work. 

One criticism of the 4051 was that it was a bit too slow on number crunching 
and drawing graphics, requiring some patience if you are doing some serious 
numerical processing/graphics.   

To respond to those critics saying that the 4051 being too slow, Tektronix 
designed a bit-slice implementation of the 6800 (using the 2901 bit-slice 
devices, fast bipolar ROM for microcode storage, and a 16-bit wide bus versus 8 
bits of the 6800 to speed up double-byte operations), added a few tweaks to the 
instruction set to address more memory than the 6800 could natively 
address(separate RAM and ROM space, so RAM could be 64K, and ROM could be 64K, 
but banking of the ROM made even more space available), and hooked in the rest 
of the 4051 (storage tube graphical display, cartridge tape unit, keyboard, 
GPIB, and  ROMPACK slot) such that it was for all intents and purposes, a 
faster 4051.  With no microprocessor.   Of course, it cost more than the 4051.  
 However, like the 4051, some 4052's did sell to individuals to get themselves 
a powerful personal computer at home.  The 4052 was much more powerful than any 
Apple II, Atari 400/800, TRS-80, or Commodore PET/VIC-20/64.   Yes, most of 
those machines could do graphics, and they were raster bitmapped or tricky 
equivalents thereof(Atari), but their graphics were primitiS1281ve in 
comparison to the 4051/4052's 1024x780 point vector storage display.

What about a Three Rivers/ICL PERQ 1(1980)?  It had a microprocessor in it, a 
Z-80. However, the Z-80 was relegated to being used as an I/O processor for the 
hard disk, floppy disk, speech synthesizer, IEEE-488, and RS232-serial port. 
The main CPU was a bipolar custom CPU

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 6/1/24 07:20, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2024 at 19:32, Jon Elson via cctalk
  wrote:


There's a story about a guy in Australia that found an
abandoned IBM 360/30 in a storage/shipper's warehouse and
dragged it to a rented office space that had no elevator. He
carefully dismantled it, dragged the pieces up to at least
the 2nd or 3rd floor, put it back together and got it running!

QUITE a story!

https://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360/Saga.html

That one? Lawrence is on this list and posts occasionally. He's real:
I've met him. He was kind enough to give me some boxed copies of OS/2.
:-)

Yes, this is exactly they guy and story I was referring to.  
Unfortunately, I've never been to NZ (I got the location 
slightly wrong) but I'm sure meeting him would result in the 
exchange of many great war stories.


Jon

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Joshua Rice via cctalk]

On 01/06/2024 13:44, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:

d they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal computer of 
~10 years later.

I had some of those in mind -- I mentioned the IBM 5100 in passing.

I don't think any qualify, no, myself. Only if one looks backwards
from a world with PCs in it and looks for earlier similar devices.

It's like saying that steam trains were early cars. They weren't.
Motor vehicles, yes. Self-contained, move under their own power... but
not wherever you want to go, not steerable by the driver, and most of
all,  too big for private ownership for all but royalty.


That's a terrible analogy. The first cars were indeed ludicrously 
expensive and owned almost exclusively by the wealthy and upper classes. 
It took a good 20 years for the car to become affordable to the masses, 
in the shape of the Ford Model T. And even then, the Model T wasn't 
driven in any way similar to a modern car, it would take the Austin 7, 
first built 15 years after the Model T, to truly standardize driving 
controls. So given the whole "car" analogy, the first "personal 
computer" could well date back much further than you claim. Whether it 
is affordable to the masses does not dictate whether it is "personal" or 
not. It's the same argument many use for the Alto being the first 
computer with a GUI. We don't define it by how accessible by regular 
consumers it is, we define it as the first, because it was the first. 
The fact no-one could buy one is irrelevant. I don't see how the 
definition of a "personal" computer is any different. A PDP-8 could be 
defined as a personal computer. It's single user, interactive, it sits 
on a desk, and it doesn't require a team of trained professionals to 
operate it. This argument has been made time and time again. I don't 
think any solid definition could ever be made, because it's so 
subjective. it's the same as asking what is the cutoff for "retro" or 
"vintage" computers. There's no point discussing it because no-one will 
agree on an exact definition. And you can hate me, but in my opinion 
Pentium 4's are definitely retro. Thanks, Josh Rice

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

> With no expectation of changing the opinion of anyone who thinks they have 
> the definitive definition of ‘first’ or ‘personal’, I will just mention that:
>
> • the HP9830 (1972),
> • Wang 2200 (1973),
> • IBM 5100 (1975)
> were all:
> • single-user,
> • desktop (2200 with CPU and PS in pedestal)
> • fully integrated (CPU, memory, storage, keyboard and display),
> • boot-to-BASIC (or APL for the 5100)
> machines.
>
> None of them used a microprocessor.
>
> And they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal computer 
> of ~10 years later.

I had some of those in mind -- I mentioned the IBM 5100 in passing.

I don't think any qualify, no, myself. Only if one looks backwards
from a world with PCs in it and looks for earlier similar devices.

It's like saying that steam trains were early cars. They weren't.
Motor vehicles, yes. Self-contained, move under their own power... but
not wherever you want to go, not steerable by the driver, and most of
all,  too big for private ownership for all but royalty.

The thing with the handful of very-late-1960s/very-early-1970s
all-in-one desktops is that they were _vastly_ expensive, mostly only
ran one program (possibly a programming language) and only did one
task. Most did not let you go and buy 3rd party software and run it on
your machine.

There's a line here, and it is somewhere around being ownable by an
individual for their own use, usable for multiple tasks via
pre-existing software that can be loaded and used by a non-expert, and
which is usable and useful without programming skills.

A dedicated word processor isn't a PC. An IBM Displaywriter has a lot
in common with the IBM PC but it's not a PC. An IBM System 9000 isn't
really a PC. A desktop machine that can run APL, one of the most
inscrutable and opaque programming languages ever designed this side
of INTERCAL, isn't a PC. It's not even a calculator. What APL can do
can't even be *described* to the average person who might productively
use a spreadsheet. "Matrix arithmetic" is of even less relevance to
everyday life than algebra.

-- 
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Fri, 31 May 2024 at 18:57, Harald Arnesen via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> Liam Proven via cctalk [31/05/2024 18.07]:
>
> > My first fiancée's dad had what he reckoned was the first mainframe in
> > Norway.
>
> Was it this:
>
>  - in Norwegian, machine translation work ok.

Thanks for the link -- an interesting read!

(I used to speak basic Norwegian but that was too much for me.)

No, this would have been later, I think. Terje Thunem was the man, and
I think he worked for Statoil. I only met him after he had retired.

-- 
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Tue, 28 May 2024 at 19:32, Jon Elson via cctalk
 wrote:

> There's a story about a guy in Australia that found an
> abandoned IBM 360/30 in a storage/shipper's warehouse and
> dragged it to a rented office space that had no elevator. He
> carefully dismantled it, dragged the pieces up to at least
> the 2nd or 3rd floor, put it back together and got it running!
>
> QUITE a story!

https://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360/Saga.html

That one? Lawrence is on this list and posts occasionally. He's real:
I've met him. He was kind enough to give me some boxed copies of OS/2.
:-)

-- 
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Murray McCullough via cctalk]

It appears that one can determine what is a personal and/or a microcomputer
that satisfies only the author.  If one states that and believes it then
that is all that’s necessary. I wrote a book based on this line of thinking
and if a reader disagrees with me that is fine. I’m not declaring the true
and only way as the means to change anyone’s view. I wrote it to give a
background on the history of the microcomputer that may or may not be the
whole truth.

Happy computing,

Murray :-)

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 9:36 PM Will Cooke via cctalk 
wrote:

>
>
> > On 05/31/2024 8:11 PM CDT CAREY SCHUG via cctalk 
> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, WRONG.
> >
> > --Carey
> >
>
> Why do I feel like I'm observing a first grade classroom where the boys
> are arguing about whose dad can beat up the others?
>
> Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for
> children to be always and forever explaining things to them,
>
> Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince
>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Will Cooke via cctalk]

> On 05/31/2024 8:11 PM CDT CAREY SCHUG via cctalk  
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, WRONG.
>
> --Carey
>

Why do I feel like I'm observing a first grade classroom where the boys are 
arguing about whose dad can beat up the others?

Grownups never understand anything by themselves and it is tiresome for 
children to be always and forever explaining things to them,

Antoine de Saint-Exupery in The Little Prince

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Murray McCullough via cctalk]

It appears that  I am  in error. I see that micro-electronics or something
similar can be used in a computer or computer-like device. If a non-uP
machine accomplishes the same result then I bow to being corrected. I
want/wish to learn new things.
Happy computing,
Murray 

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 8:54 PM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> I would accept a bit-slice.  as I understand that, you take 8 of them and
> daisychain them to act on a byte of data.  Many early minis used them afaik.
>
> --Carey
>
> > On 05/31/2024 7:29 PM CDT Brent Hilpert via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2024May 31,, at 4:37 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:02 PM Dave Dunfield via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > >> Liam Proven wrote:
> > >>> It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify.
> > >>> ... No µP = not a PC.
> > >>
> > >> Not entirely sure   ...
> > >>  http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv
> > >>
> > >> Dave
> > >>
> >
> > > I quite agree. I do believe that a *u*P is the minimum that can be
> accepted
> > > to call a PC a microcomputer. Another is that it must be usable, i.e.,
> > > non-programmable, for the average PC owner. Like a car one doesn't
> need to
> > > know how it works in order to drive/use a car to get from one place to
> > > another. One can use a computer to solve a spreadsheet problem in an
> > > efficient manner without learning the inner-workings of such
> spreadsheet.
> > > Happy computing,
> > > Murray 
> >
> >
> > With no expectation of changing the opinion of anyone who thinks they
> have the definitive definition of ‘first’ or ‘personal’, I will just
> mention that:
> >
> >   • the HP9830 (1972),
> >   • Wang 2200 (1973),
> >   • IBM 5100 (1975)
> > were all:
> >   • single-user,
> >   • desktop (2200 with CPU and PS in pedestal)
> >   • fully integrated (CPU, memory, storage, keyboard and display),
> >   • boot-to-BASIC (or APL for the 5100)
> > machines.
> >
> > None of them used a microprocessor.
> >
> > And they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal
> computer of ~10 years later.
>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[CAREY SCHUG via cctalk]

Sorry, WRONG.

A computer type is "Personal" (capital P as a NAME for a class of computers) 
not based upon how ONE instance of it is used, but based upon the intent of its 
design and how many in practice.  Musk could buy the lastest Frontier 
supercomputer and ONLY use it to play chess with himself, that does NOT make 
every single instance of them into Personal computers (capitalized).  That ONE 
SINGLE instance might be a personal computer (not capitalized), but not the 
class of ALL Frontier computers.

if One person using one computer made it "personal" then probably every single 
D*mn computer ever made is, since at some point, somebody came in on down time 
and used it as a "personal computer" (not capitalized).  I used 1620s, and 
360/30s, a 360/40, and others as a personal computer at times, for things like 
writing a Tim Conway game of life, keeping track of my vinyl records, etc.

So if you want to say "personal computer" (not capitalized), I will stipulate 
that EVERY computer is a "personal computer" and the term becomes meaningless.  
Hence we toss that usage, and do away with the need to capitalize the term.

--Carey

> On 05/31/2024 11:07 AM CDT Liam Proven via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
>  

> 
> Any computer can be "personal" if only one person uses it for their
> own private purposes, right?
>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[CAREY SCHUG via cctalk]

I would accept a bit-slice.  as I understand that, you take 8 of them and 
daisychain them to act on a byte of data.  Many early minis used them afaik.

--Carey

> On 05/31/2024 7:29 PM CDT Brent Hilpert via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
>  
> On 2024May 31,, at 4:37 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:02 PM Dave Dunfield via cctalk 
> >  wrote:
> >> Liam Proven wrote:
> >>> It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify.
> >>> ... No µP = not a PC.
> >> 
> >> Not entirely sure   ...
> >>  http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv
> >> 
> >> Dave
> >> 
> 
> > I quite agree. I do believe that a *u*P is the minimum that can be accepted
> > to call a PC a microcomputer. Another is that it must be usable, i.e.,
> > non-programmable, for the average PC owner. Like a car one doesn't need to
> > know how it works in order to drive/use a car to get from one place to
> > another. One can use a computer to solve a spreadsheet problem in an
> > efficient manner without learning the inner-workings of such spreadsheet.
> > Happy computing,
> > Murray 
> 
> 
> With no expectation of changing the opinion of anyone who thinks they have 
> the definitive definition of ‘first’ or ‘personal’, I will just mention that:
> 
>   • the HP9830 (1972),
>   • Wang 2200 (1973),
>   • IBM 5100 (1975)
> were all:
>   • single-user,
>   • desktop (2200 with CPU and PS in pedestal) 
>   • fully integrated (CPU, memory, storage, keyboard and display),
>   • boot-to-BASIC (or APL for the 5100)
> machines.
> 
> None of them used a microprocessor.
> 
> And they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal computer 
> of ~10 years later.

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Brent Hilpert via cctalk]

On 2024May 31,, at 4:37 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk 
 wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:02 PM Dave Dunfield via cctalk 
>  wrote:
>> Liam Proven wrote:
>>> It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify.
>>> ... No µP = not a PC.
>> 
>> Not entirely sure   ...
>>  http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv
>> 
>> Dave
>> 

> I quite agree. I do believe that a *u*P is the minimum that can be accepted
> to call a PC a microcomputer. Another is that it must be usable, i.e.,
> non-programmable, for the average PC owner. Like a car one doesn't need to
> know how it works in order to drive/use a car to get from one place to
> another. One can use a computer to solve a spreadsheet problem in an
> efficient manner without learning the inner-workings of such spreadsheet.
> Happy computing,
> Murray 


With no expectation of changing the opinion of anyone who thinks they have the 
definitive definition of ‘first’ or ‘personal’, I will just mention that:

• the HP9830 (1972),
• Wang 2200 (1973),
• IBM 5100 (1975)
were all:
• single-user,
• desktop (2200 with CPU and PS in pedestal) 
• fully integrated (CPU, memory, storage, keyboard and display),
• boot-to-BASIC (or APL for the 5100)
machines.

None of them used a microprocessor.

And they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal computer of 
~10 years later.

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Murray McCullough via cctalk]

I quite agree. I do believe that a *u*P is the minimum that can be accepted
to call a PC a microcomputer. Another is that it must be usable, i.e.,
non-programmable, for the average PC owner. Like a car one doesn't need to
know how it works in order to drive/use a car to get from one place to
another. One can use a computer to solve a spreadsheet problem in an
efficient manner without learning the inner-workings of such spreadsheet.
Happy computing,
Murray 


On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:02 PM Dave Dunfield via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Liam Proven wrote:
> > It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify.
> > ... No µP = not a PC.
>
> Not entirely sure   ...
>   http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv
>
> Dave
>

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Dave Dunfield via cctalk]

Liam Proven wrote: 
> It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify.
> ... No µP = not a PC.

Not entirely sure   ...
  http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv

Dave

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Harald Arnesen via cctalk]

Liam Proven via cctalk [31/05/2024 18.07]:


My first fiancée's dad had what he reckoned was the first mainframe in
Norway.


Was it this:

 - in Norwegian, machine translation work ok.


--
Hilsen Harald

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Tue, 28 May 2024 at 22:21, Fred Cisin via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> We can never agree on the definition.  The blind men are fixxated on
> individual features of the elephant.

You have a point. You usually do, Fred.

I am surprised one thing hasn't been mentioned yet.

Any computer can be "personal" if only one person uses it for their
own private purposes, right?

My first fiancée's dad had what he reckoned was the first mainframe in
Norway. (And Norway was, I believe, the first country outside North
America on the internet.) He worked for the state oil company and
persuaded them that having _a computer_ for modelling and so on was
worth it. So they bought one and gave it to him. It took the whole
floor of the building below his office. He had some serious clout.

But they didn't have a plan for what to do with it, so for its first
year or so, he was the sole user, learning what it could do, what
languages it supported, etc.

He died about 20Y ago now so I can't ask him, but IIRC, by the time he
did his feasibility report, it was largely obsolete so it was never
really used and they bought another, newer one for actual production.

He thought it was hilarious that this multi-million-krone machine was
his personal computer.

It would probably fit the earlier poster's definition of a "real OS"
which I thought was so spurious.

But OTOH I would concur that things like that IBM APL machine that the
legendary time traveller John Titor wanted wasn't a "PC" -- not a
"real OS" but in the sense that it was a sort of glorified
programmable calculator, not able to be used for general purpose use.
If you can't write a letter on it, is it a PC?

I suggest a somewhat arbirtrary rule: not merely needing a general
purpose OS, able to be programmed but able to run applications for
multiple uses including text editing, but simple games and things

But intended for a single user. Not a departmental machine with 1
user. Not a multiuser box that happens to only have 1.

And also not a brilliant inspired but ultra-limited thing like a
Kenbak or some hexadecimal trainer.

It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify.

Microprocessors are what created the PC. No µP = not a PC.


-- 
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053

[cctalk] Re: PRIVATE: Re: STUPID THREAD NEEDS TO DIE Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

SORRY!

That was not intended to go to the list.


On Wed, 29 May 2024, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:


I apologize for my active participation in the offensive thread.

[cctalk] PRIVATE: Re: STUPID THREAD NEEDS TO DIE Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

I apologize for my active participation in the offensive thread.
Yeah, I just couldn't get past his insistence that method of purchase was 
more important than use.



Yes, CHATGPT could probably give a definitive answer to "When did Steve 
Jobs invent the personal computer?"



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

On Wed, 29 May 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:


On Wed, May 29, 2024, 6:49 AM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk 
wrote:


something can be BOTH a "personal computer" *AND* "industrial computer"
(or whatever term you want to use)



So now you've incorporated "industrial" into the mix in order to extend
this stupid debate out even beyond the ridiculous place it is now.

You are conflating and making dichotomous terms that aren't: "personal" vs.
"business" is not a valid comparison here.

"Personal Computer" is in fact a careless marketing term with no fixed
and/or coherent meaning.

I recommend you move this debate to ChatGPT.  It has endless patience for
this nonsense.  I don't.

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 5/28/24 13:34, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
  


On 05/28/2024 1:05 PM CDT Sellam Abraham  wrote:
  
What if a corporation in 1970 purchased an IBM 360 for each of their employees for their individual personal use?  Now what?
  
Sellam



1. I don't believe ANYBODY could purchase a 360. You had to lease them.
In the early 1960's, that was quite true. Then, the US 
government's General Services Administration got mad about 
IBM's pricing and sued IBM.  It ended up with the "Consent 
Decree" that required IBM to sell anything they made, 
unbundle support and hardware, and also help competitors 
make plug-compatible hardware.  There was a strong move 
afoot to break up IBM, like the later Bell system breakup, 
but it would have been more complicated and would have 
wrecked a national resource.

2. do you know of such a company? (with a significant number of employees, not 
a lone entrepreneur).  I figure asking means that maybe you do.  and since I 
believe no 360 but maybe the model 20 (not a real 360) or the model 22 would 
plug into household power it seems unlikely unless a tax dodge.
  
3. if it was one purchase order, it sounds like ONE for the personal computer tally, vs thousands for the not-personal tally.  Remember we still need to have enough computers to be 10% (or negotiated percentage) of the total produced.  One exception does not change everything.


I seriously doubt any individual bought a NEW IBM 360, but 
there are stories about people who bought off-lease or 
retired 360's. If I had lived in the Boston area, I would 
likely have bought a National Advanced Systems 360 clone.  
When NAS closed, there was a broker's warehouse full of 
those systems that went for peanuts.


Jon

[cctalk] Re: STUPID THREAD NEEDS TO DIE Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Wed, May 29, 2024, 6:49 AM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk 
wrote:

> something can be BOTH a "personal computer" *AND* "industrial computer"
> (or whatever term you want to use)
>

So now you've incorporated "industrial" into the mix in order to extend
this stupid debate out even beyond the ridiculous place it is now.

You are conflating and making dichotomous terms that aren't: "personal" vs.
"business" is not a valid comparison here.

"Personal Computer" is in fact a careless marketing term with no fixed
and/or coherent meaning.

I recommend you move this debate to ChatGPT.  It has endless patience for
this nonsense.  I don't.

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[CAREY SCHUG via cctalk]

something can be BOTH a "personal computer" *AND* "industrial computer" (or 
whatever term you want to use)

I use cooking oil to start my charcoal grill, that does not make it NOT be 
food. 

I use vinegar and baking soda (separately) to kill weeds, that does not stop 
them from being food.

Old (purchased used) items are likely to be "collectors items".

I have a pendulum time clock that prints up to 3 in and out times per day on 
time cards for up to a week.  When new they where not purchased by individuals 
just to keep time in their homes, so that is an industrial collector's item.

I have electrical insulators from old power poles.  Nobody bought them new 
except maybe someone extending power deep onto their private property, and 
probably then they still hired a contractor who made the actual purchase, 
unless they were a current or retired power company power installer.

So any collectors items, whether IBM 360 mainframes, early tube based 
computers, or recent super computers, purchased when made surplus by their 
industrial users, do NOT become redefined as "personal computers".

Also, any hand made items, not produced, advertised, and sold are "specialized 
computers", not "personal computers" or "industrial computers".  I think this 
includes the ESS switching computers produced by the Bell Telephone system 
(though I don't know the specs, if they were switching only, and did not handle 
directories with alpha data, that disqualifies them.  if they didn't do 
directories, each central office must have had some kind of computer for that, 
i doubt they would have done anything but build their own, again, not sold to 
public in quantities, so a "specialized computer".

aside: AFAIK, nobody has talked about having telephone network switching 
computers in their basementany volunteers?  I mean computers, not the 
circular relays, somebody had those in my college dorm and they used them to 
make a "time tunnel" of sequential blinking lights down the hallway.

A computer, such as the original IBM PC can be BOTH a "personal computer" AND 
an "industrial computer".  I remember that many said, when it came out, that 
the IBM PC was the first personal computer, because IBM's entry into the market 
made it legitimate, before that they were just nerd toys.  I am surprised 
nobody here has promoted that.  Probably IBM hatred?

So, to set a line between a "industrial computer" and a "both kinds", I 
suggested a limit that 5% (or 10%) had to be sold to individuals out of 
household funds.  And since companies purchased them by the truckload, I said 
each ORDER counts as one, so if 19 companies each order a lot of 1000 computers 
and 1 individual buys one, that makes the 5% threshold. But PDP/1s & PDP/8s 
were were at most purchased by the 10s, and far probably only by a handful of 
individuals so I doubt they would make the threshhold.

I also suggested that another way would be to say if it was depreciated or 
expensed (counted off against income) it was industrial.  Yes, some people 
played star wars AND used it in a home business for which they took it off 
their income.  I wouldn't think that many, but could well be wrong.

--Carey

> On 05/29/2024 2:59 AM CDT Christian Corti via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
>  
> On Tue, 28 May 2024, Sellam Abraham wrote:
> > if a computer is being purchased by a non-human, i.e. corporation, to be 
> > used to benefit the corporation, it is NOT a personal computer.
> 
> So then, that excludes the IBM PC / XT etc... At that time they were 
> mostly bought by corporations.
> 
> Christian

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Dave Dunfield via cctalk]

Always good to spark an "interesting discussion"

"Personal computer" - Generic enough that it can have multiple interpretations:

While technically somebody could have put a Cray1 in his (big :-) basement
and used it for his own enjoyment (ie: a "personal" computer) ... I don't
think I have ever seem such an arrangement promoter in a "marketing term".

I tend to think along the lines of places where I've seen the term actually
used in the industry:

The most obvious is IBM - the "IBM Personal Computer" (5150)
Perhaps there were others, but AFAIK this was a huge change in the way
the most prominent company I was aware of at the time in the industry
did business!

Prior to the PC, IBM rented large mainframes which came with a whole
support contract -- The first computer I ever saw was an IBM 360 at
"University of New Brunswick" ** and I got to know the people to ran
it and some of the IBM engineers who supported it quite well **

With the PC - IBM created a system that they could actually sell (and
could be afforded by) most anyone who wanted a computer. Yes, MANY of
there sales were to companies who wanted dozens of them, but they were
offered in electronics stores, or could be ordered.


Mits claimed to be the first to use term "Personal computer" which they
used to reference their Altair - but most people are much more aware of
the "IBM PC".


And "along the way" I "personally" had a a few full-rack systems in my
own basement (actually - Dining room - at least till I got married :-)
These induced a couple "Data General Novas", a few "DEC PDP-8's and
PDP-11's" and a few others - but I never really though of these as
my "personal systems" - to me at the time, they were "lucky finds of
industrial computers" that I had managed to acquire!

Dave ::: https://dunfield.themindfactory.com ::: "Daves Old Computers"->Personal


** When I first "met" the universitys IBM 360, the only way for students
to use it was with "punch cards", and a dedicates self serve room with a
card reader and massive chain line printer.

Then they got a room of Selectric 2741 printing terminals, after that
one with serial CRT terminals and finally a row of five IBM 3270 page-
mode CRT terminals across the end.

I of course was the guy who was in there constantly, late at night,
early mornings and weekends - learning about and putting the system
through as many "tricky things" as I could!

At one point I became friends with a couple of the operators, who told
me than whenever the system went down, the first thing they asked was
 "Where's Dave"?

And I had the pleasure (significant to me at the time) of seeing one of
the 3270s being used by an IBM engineer who was running disgnostics and
other system test/monitor programs (the kind of stuff I really wanted to
see) - while the other four were being used by IBM engineers running a
multi-user "tank game" that I had written (which really excercised page-
mode updates to the terminals that had proven to be fairly upsetting to
the stability of the system). I do recall one of the players of my game
saying something like "I've never seem them used this way - quite cool!"

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Christian Corti via cctalk]

On Tue, 28 May 2024, Sellam Abraham wrote:
if a computer is being purchased by a non-human, i.e. corporation, to be 
used to benefit the corporation, it is NOT a personal computer.


So then, that excludes the IBM PC / XT etc... At that time they were 
mostly bought by corporations.


Christian

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Christian Corti via cctalk]

On Tue, 28 May 2024, CAREY SCHUG wrote:
Unless at least 5% (see quibbling below) of new purchases were by 
private individuals, not required for their gainful employment, they are 
"single user computers", not "personal computers".  "Personal" is how 
they are used, not how they could be used.


In my opinion, the essential difference between "single user" and 
"personal" is the kind of physical access to the computer.
A "single user" computer may run unattended in a lab, as part of a larger 
system, or as a special processor for data processing, whatever.


In contrast to this, a "personal" computer is a machine where by design, 
you actually work in front of it and interact with it personally - not in 
the style of a systems' operator, but for all the tasks the computer 
should do for _you_.


Christian

[cctalk] Re: TVs [was: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[CAREY SCHUG via cctalk]

EDI?  just before the RR underpas, south of Foster?

or, come to think of it, that long ago, the place sort of across from Allied 
Radio at 100 N western Ave?

back then, American science center was on Northwest Highway, south of Devon.

--Carey

> On 05/28/2024 8:54 PM CDT Mike Katz via cctalk  wrote:
> 
>  
> I believe that place on Elston was either Joseph Electronics or The 
> American Science Center depending on whether is was in Chicago or Niles.
> 
> On 5/28/2024 8:06 PM, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
> > We spent 64-65 in japan, bought a TV, brought it back, channels were 
> > different, so i bought a surplus tv tuner at that place on elston in 
> > Chicago an replaced it.  These were tubes.
> >
> > I started in electronics taking apart the 8" tv we were given, which had 
> > two complete chassis, each with a hefty power supply, mostly full size 
> > tubes, IIRC.
> >
> > --Carey

[cctalk] Re: TVs [was: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

What/when was the first personal TV?  :-)


On Tue, 28 May 2024, Christian Kennedy via cctalk wrote:
When someone slapped a handle on the top of a console and called it 
"portable"?


My Philco from about 1960 had a handle, and was portable,
But, I gave my parents their first COLOR TV (a used one) in the late 
1970s.  It was a large heavy box, but it had a handle on each end.
So, "portable" might mean a loop on the top to attach the crane, or riser 
blocks to give the forklift clearance?


"personal" may be orthogonal to "portable".
My "personal residence" is certainly not portable, . . .

Despite the fact that Fred was being cheeky, a serious contender is probably 
this tricorder-llike thing from the end of the '50s: 
https://www.earlytelevision.org/philco_safari.html


My grandfather had one of those!
My cousin (David Unger) ended up with it.

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: TVs [was: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Christian Kennedy via cctalk]

On 5/28/24 19:12, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

What/when was the first personal TV?  :-)


When someone slapped a handle on the top of a console and called it 
"portable"?


Despite the fact that Fred was being cheeky, a serious contender is 
probably this tricorder-llike thing from the end of the '50s: 
https://www.earlytelevision.org/philco_safari.html


--
Christian Kennedy, Ph.D.
ch...@mainecoon.com AF6AP | DB0692 | PG00029419
http://www.mainecoon.comPGP KeyID 108DAB97
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
"Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration…"

[cctalk] Re: TVs [was: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

What/when was the first personal TV?  :-)

[cctalk] Re: TVs [was: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Mike Katz via cctalk]

I believe that place on Elston was either Joseph Electronics or The 
American Science Center depending on whether is was in Chicago or Niles.


On 5/28/2024 8:06 PM, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:

We spent 64-65 in japan, bought a TV, brought it back, channels were different, 
so i bought a surplus tv tuner at that place on elston in Chicago an replaced 
it.  These were tubes.

I started in electronics taking apart the 8" tv we were given, which had two 
complete chassis, each with a hefty power supply, mostly full size tubes, IIRC.

--Carey

[cctalk] TVs [was: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[CAREY SCHUG via cctalk]

We spent 64-65 in japan, bought a TV, brought it back, channels were different, 
so i bought a surplus tv tuner at that place on elston in Chicago an replaced 
it.  These were tubes.

I started in electronics taking apart the 8" tv we were given, which had two 
complete chassis, each with a hefty power supply, mostly full size tubes, IIRC.

--Carey

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[js--- via cctalk]

On 5/28/2024 6:16 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2024, Adrian Godwin wrote:
As a child. my parents weren't sufficiently enamoured of televisions 
to buy

one, but I was given some old ones.
The one on the bottom had working sound and the one on the top had 
working

video.


When the TV wasn't working, and seemingly unrepariable (drugstore tube 
testers), my father would buy another cheap old working TV from 
Goodwill, etc.


A significant part of the time, that meant not having a working one.

So, my brother and I pooled our money to buy a 19" "portable" Philco.  
My father chipped in the balance for the UHF option ("educational" TV 
was UHF in those days).


I remember watching the "Cuban Missile Crisis" on it.
I also remember going down Massachusetts avenue in the middle of the 
night, and all embassies had all of their lights on all night.

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com



Not sure it's the same model you had, but I have several of those 19" 
Philcos, at least one is still working.  The others, I'll repair.