[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Adrian Godwin via cctalk]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 4:45 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk 
wrote:

>
> Another problem with very old core is that its physical integrity is
> often an issue.   Cores can crack, being essentially ceramics.  I'm
> reminded of the CE fishing around in the oil bath of a 7090 with what
> amounted to a magnet on a broomstick to grab loose bits of core.
>
>
True 'bit rot' !

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 2/2/23 23:07, Tom Hunter via cctalk wrote:
> Chuck, the CDC 7600 duty cycle integrator is really a work-around against
> overheating and has nothing to do with core reliability and/or endurance.
> 
> Core and the data stored in it lives "forever" if the operating constraints
> of the medium are adhered to (temperature being one of the constraints).
> The 7600 was able to push core access past these constraints, hence needed
> the duty cycle integrator. Different physical design and/or better cooling
> could have been alternatives, but the duty cycle integrator was an easy fix
> once the machine was out in the field and core memory started failing due
> to overheating.

Tom, I know all of that, having programmed a 7600.  As a matter of fact,
what's not mentioned in the manual is that a tight loop in a PPU (which
did not have a duty cycle integrator) could throw parity errors.

Just taking issue with your statement that "core memory is forever".

Another problem with very old core is that its physical integrity is
often an issue.   Cores can crack, being essentially ceramics.  I'm
reminded of the CE fishing around in the oil bath of a 7090 with what
amounted to a magnet on a broomstick to grab loose bits of core.

--Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 2/3/23 08:25, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:


It's puzzling that temperature would matter.  Obviously, when you hit the Curie 
temperature the data goes away, but for typical magnetic materials that is in 
the hundreds of degrees.  Does the hysteresis curve shift enough at moderate 
temperatures (a bit over room temperature) to matter?


Yes, it does.  Maybe on earlier memories it was worse, but 
most later core systems had a thermistor in the core plane, 
and it adjusted the half-select current to put it right in 
the middle of the range of susceptance (is that the right 
term?) for that temperature.


My recollection is the 1620 had the core planes in a tank of 
oil, and the 360/50 had a heater in the air stream flowing 
past the local store core stack.


Jon

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Tony Duell via cctalk]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 2:41 PM Will Cooke via cctalk
 wrote:

> Yes.  The thresholds shift with temperature.  Some companines (DEC?) used 
> temperature-compensated amplifiers to address the issue.  IBM, on some models 
> like the 1620, kept the cores at a constant (elevated) temperature.


Most of the core memories that I've worked on, including quite small
ones like the HP9100B, have a thermistor physically next to the core
array to control the threshold.

I also seem to remember there were MAINDECs for various PDP8 and PDP!1
core units that did the worst case sequence for heating the cores and
checked the memory was sill operational.

-tony

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Will Cooke via cctalk]

> On 02/03/2023 8:25 AM CST Paul Koning via cctalk  
> wrote:


> It's puzzling that temperature would matter. Obviously, when you hit the 
> Curie temperature the data goes away, but for typical magnetic materials that 
> is in the hundreds of degrees. Does the hysteresis curve shift enough at 
> moderate temperatures (a bit over room temperature) to matter?
> 
> paul


Yes.  The thresholds shift with temperature.  Some companines (DEC?) used 
temperature-compensated amplifiers to address the issue.  IBM, on some models 
like the 1620, kept the cores at a constant (elevated) temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic-core_memory#Physical_characteristics

Will

I do not think you can name many great inventions that have been made by 
married men. Nikola Tesla

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Feb 3, 2023, at 1:12 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On 2/2/23 21:23, Tom Hunter via cctalk wrote:
>> The actual ferrite core doughnuts do not break down with continued use, BUT
>> moisture or mechanical impact or vibration will damage or degrade the
>> ferrite cores. Otherwise the ferrite doughnut will live and maintain its
>> properties "forever".
> 
> Well, I don't know about that.  The CDC 7600 had issues with core
> overheating and included a "Duty Cycle Integrator" on core.  See PDF
> page 51, page 2-24:
> 
> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/cdc/cyber/cyber_70/60367200D_Cyber70-76_Jul75.pdf
> 
> --Chuvk

That reminds me of a PDP-11 diagnostic -- not usually run -- called the "core 
heating test".  The way I remember the description is that it would do rapid 
memory accesses in a set of addresses that are physically close in the core 
memory (obviously this is model-dependent). The idea was to find marginal 
memories.  One reason for not running that test is that it was very slow.

From the same era I recall that our IBM 1620 mod 2 had a heating system for the 
memory cabinet, and that after power up you had to wait 10 minutes or so for 
the memory to be warmed up to its normal operating temperature.  I don't think 
I ever saw an explanation why this was done.

It's puzzling that temperature would matter.  Obviously, when you hit the Curie 
temperature the data goes away, but for typical magnetic materials that is in 
the hundreds of degrees.  Does the hysteresis curve shift enough at moderate 
temperatures (a bit over room temperature) to matter?

paul

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Tom Hunter via cctalk]

Chuck, the CDC 7600 duty cycle integrator is really a work-around against
overheating and has nothing to do with core reliability and/or endurance.

Core and the data stored in it lives "forever" if the operating constraints
of the medium are adhered to (temperature being one of the constraints).
The 7600 was able to push core access past these constraints, hence needed
the duty cycle integrator. Different physical design and/or better cooling
could have been alternatives, but the duty cycle integrator was an easy fix
once the machine was out in the field and core memory started failing due
to overheating.

Core written in the 60s would read just fine today unless something
external to it destroyed the data.

Tom

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 2:12 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk 
wrote:

> On 2/2/23 21:23, Tom Hunter via cctalk wrote:
> > The actual ferrite core doughnuts do not break down with continued use,
> BUT
> > moisture or mechanical impact or vibration will damage or degrade the
> > ferrite cores. Otherwise the ferrite doughnut will live and maintain its
> > properties "forever".
>
> Well, I don't know about that.  The CDC 7600 had issues with core
> overheating and included a "Duty Cycle Integrator" on core.  See PDF
> page 51, page 2-24:
>
>
> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/cdc/cyber/cyber_70/60367200D_Cyber70-76_Jul75.pdf
>
> --Chuvk
>
>
>

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 2/2/23 21:23, Tom Hunter via cctalk wrote:
> The actual ferrite core doughnuts do not break down with continued use, BUT
> moisture or mechanical impact or vibration will damage or degrade the
> ferrite cores. Otherwise the ferrite doughnut will live and maintain its
> properties "forever".

Well, I don't know about that.  The CDC 7600 had issues with core
overheating and included a "Duty Cycle Integrator" on core.  See PDF
page 51, page 2-24:

http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/cdc/cyber/cyber_70/60367200D_Cyber70-76_Jul75.pdf

--Chuvk

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Tom Hunter via cctalk]

The actual ferrite core doughnuts do not break down with continued use, BUT
moisture or mechanical impact or vibration will damage or degrade the
ferrite cores. Otherwise the ferrite doughnut will live and maintain its
properties "forever".

The main cause of core memory mat faults is mechanical strain on the X/Y,
sense and inhibit wires.
This mechanical strain is caused by use and can be made worse by particular
usage patterns causing the core memory mat to vibrate producing an audible
ring. CDC's Extended Core Storage (ECS) cabinets had a characteristic sound
when you opened the doors.

Early on CDC 6000 series machines had a lot of reliability problems with
core memory, but eventually there was an ECO where the core memory modules
were immersed in potting compound to make the core mat rigid to prevent any
vibration. This made the once fragile core perform perfectly for the
remaining life of the machine.

The core memory in my PDP-8/e machines (H212 board) has the ferrite donuts
glued to the PCB via some white adhesive presumably to reduce vibrations.
Encasing the core mat in potting resin would have been the better solution
as it binds the wires to the ferrite doughnuts.

Tom

On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 11:17 PM Jon Elson via cctalk 
wrote:

> On 2/1/23 22:10, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/01/2023 3:51 PM CST Paul Koning via cctalk 
> wrote:
> >>
> > ot sure about that. What sort of numbers are we talking about?
> >> If all else fails there's core memory, which as far as I remember is
> pretty much unlimited for both read and write.
> >>
> >> paul
> > I don't know for sure and can't find any references, but I strongly
> suspect that core memory would wear out over time, as well.  My reasoning
> for this is the because in principle it works the same as FRAM.  I usually
> refer to FRAM as "core on a chip."  Over time, the magnetic domains in FRAM
> tend to stay in one polarization or another.  I see no reason why the
> magnetic domains in core wouldn't do the same.  However, a single core is
> probably bigger than the entire FRAM chip so there are a LOT more domains.
> That means it would take a proportional amount of writes to wear out --
> let's just say a million times.  In addition, core access was in
> microseconds, whereas FRAM and other modern memories are in nanoseconds.
> So it takes something like 1000 times longer on the clock on the wall to
> perform the same number of writes.  So in the end something like a billion
> times longer on the calendar to wear it out.
> >
> > I would be very interested if anyone actually knows and especially if
> there are references available.
>
> I have extreme doubts that this is true.  Memory cores are
> just tiny versions of pulse transformers, and similar square
> loop transformer core materials are used in switching power
> supplies that run for decades at high switching
> frequencies.  Really, FRAM does not work much similarly to
> core.  The ferroelectric material is usually lead zirconate
> titanate, not an actual ferromagnetic material.  It is
> written by an electric field, not magnetic, and the electric
> field is sensed by a field effect transistor.  I have NEVER
> heard of core wear-out in magnetic core memories.  The
> flipping of the magnetic polarization in ferrite materials
> does not break down the crystal structure.
>
> Jon
>
> Jon
>
>

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[ben via cctalk]

On 2023-02-02 8:25 a.m., Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:


As Will pointed out, cores are fairly large storage elements, and their 
switching speeds are more modest.  Not necessarily quite so modest, though -- 
the CDC 6600 mainframes in 1964 had memory cycling at 1 MHz rate, which means 
the basic operation (read and restore) takes only a few hundred nanoseconds.  I 
think the main limitation in that case wasn't so much the cores as rather the 
difficulty of driving pulses 100 or so ns wide through a higly inductive load.  
There are some unusual circuit tricks in those memories to reduce that problem 
compared to the more common 4-wire designs.

paul


I suspect heating effects, from the current could lead to more problems 
on wire and solder, than the core switching.

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Feb 2, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On 2/1/23 22:10, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:
>> 
>>> On 02/01/2023 3:51 PM CST Paul Koning via cctalk  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>> ot sure about that. What sort of numbers are we talking about?
>>> If all else fails there's core memory, which as far as I remember is pretty 
>>> much unlimited for both read and write.
>>> 
>>> paul
>> I don't know for sure and can't find any references, but I strongly suspect 
>> that core memory would wear out over time, as well.  My reasoning for this 
>> is the because in principle it works the same as FRAM.  I usually refer to 
>> FRAM as "core on a chip."  Over time, the magnetic domains in FRAM tend to 
>> stay in one polarization or another.  I see no reason why the magnetic 
>> domains in core wouldn't do the same.  However, a single core is probably 
>> bigger than the entire FRAM chip so there are a LOT more domains.  That 
>> means it would take a proportional amount of writes to wear out -- let's 
>> just say a million times.  In addition, core access was in microseconds, 
>> whereas FRAM and other modern memories are in nanoseconds.  So it takes 
>> something like 1000 times longer on the clock on the wall to perform the 
>> same number of writes.  So in the end something like a billion times longer 
>> on the calendar to wear it out.
>> 
>> I would be very interested if anyone actually knows and especially if there 
>> are references available.
> 
> I have extreme doubts that this is true.  Memory cores are just tiny versions 
> of pulse transformers, and similar square loop transformer core materials are 
> used in switching power supplies that run for decades at high switching 
> frequencies.

I don't know of core wear either, but I don't think your analogy is correct.  
Memory cores are not just pulse transformers, they are magnetic logic and 
storage elements.  And yes, they have a square hysteresis loop to do so, while 
power supply transformers do not (hysteresis is not wanted in that application).

As Will pointed out, cores are fairly large storage elements, and their 
switching speeds are more modest.  Not necessarily quite so modest, though -- 
the CDC 6600 mainframes in 1964 had memory cycling at 1 MHz rate, which means 
the basic operation (read and restore) takes only a few hundred nanoseconds.  I 
think the main limitation in that case wasn't so much the cores as rather the 
difficulty of driving pulses 100 or so ns wide through a higly inductive load.  
There are some unusual circuit tricks in those memories to reduce that problem 
compared to the more common 4-wire designs.

paul

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 2/1/23 22:10, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:



On 02/01/2023 3:51 PM CST Paul Koning via cctalk  wrote:


ot sure about that. What sort of numbers are we talking about?

If all else fails there's core memory, which as far as I remember is pretty 
much unlimited for both read and write.

paul

I don't know for sure and can't find any references, but I strongly suspect that core 
memory would wear out over time, as well.  My reasoning for this is the because in 
principle it works the same as FRAM.  I usually refer to FRAM as "core on a 
chip."  Over time, the magnetic domains in FRAM tend to stay in one polarization or 
another.  I see no reason why the magnetic domains in core wouldn't do the same.  
However, a single core is probably bigger than the entire FRAM chip so there are a LOT 
more domains.  That means it would take a proportional amount of writes to wear out -- 
let's just say a million times.  In addition, core access was in microseconds, whereas 
FRAM and other modern memories are in nanoseconds.  So it takes something like 1000 times 
longer on the clock on the wall to perform the same number of writes.  So in the end 
something like a billion times longer on the calendar to wear it out.

I would be very interested if anyone actually knows and especially if there are 
references available.


I have extreme doubts that this is true.  Memory cores are 
just tiny versions of pulse transformers, and similar square 
loop transformer core materials are used in switching power 
supplies that run for decades at high switching 
frequencies.  Really, FRAM does not work much similarly to 
core.  The ferroelectric material is usually lead zirconate 
titanate, not an actual ferromagnetic material.  It is 
written by an electric field, not magnetic, and the electric 
field is sensed by a field effect transistor.  I have NEVER 
heard of core wear-out in magnetic core memories.  The 
flipping of the magnetic polarization in ferrite materials 
does not break down the crystal structure.


Jon

Jon

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[David Brownlee via cctalk]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 at 17:13, emanuel stiebler via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> On 2023-02-01 10:56, Warner Losh wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 1:41 AM emanuel stiebler via cctalk
> > mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote:
>
> > retension in case of power off.
> > If the power is applied all the time, the internal controller "can"
> > check the quality of the cells automatically (but this really
> > depends on
> > the controller, controller version, and the OS has to chose the right
> > strategy. And the controllers improved a lot lately)
> >
> >
> > The OS might not have a choice. All the SSDs that I've used in the
> > past decade at $WORK have not exposed any of this to the host, not
> > even enough stats to know when it's going on in real time... let alone
> > the ability to pause these operations for a little while until we're off
> > peak for the day...
>
> But you should be able to choose (at least on controllers I know) if you
> like to go for automatic or manual refresh.
>
> If you go for the automatic, it could happen that the drive decides to
> scan the drive, when your're busy and going nuts waiting for the drive
> (you can also define on newer drives how many block to check per run)
>
> If you're going for the manual refresh, just make sure you really run it
> one day. But, you should be the one who knows, when your computer isn't
> busy ...

That reminds me (looks at 43.5T of zfs pool that has not had a scrub
since 2021).

It can be nice to have a filesystem which handles redundancy and also
the option to occasionally read all the data, check end to end
checksums (in the unlikely case a device returns a successful read
with bad data), and fixup everything. Does not eliminate the need for
remote copies, but gives a little extra confidence that the master
copy is still what it should be :)

Its currently all on spinning rust, but I imagine zfs scrub should map
nicely onto refreshing SSDs with "read everything you care about,
write only on fixing up data" (in the unlikely event I can ever afford
sufficient SSD storage)

David

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Will Cooke via cctalk]

> On 02/01/2023 3:51 PM CST Paul Koning via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
ot sure about that. What sort of numbers are we talking about?
> 
> If all else fails there's core memory, which as far as I remember is pretty 
> much unlimited for both read and write.
> 
> paul

I don't know for sure and can't find any references, but I strongly suspect 
that core memory would wear out over time, as well.  My reasoning for this is 
the because in principle it works the same as FRAM.  I usually refer to FRAM as 
"core on a chip."  Over time, the magnetic domains in FRAM tend to stay in one 
polarization or another.  I see no reason why the magnetic domains in core 
wouldn't do the same.  However, a single core is probably bigger than the 
entire FRAM chip so there are a LOT more domains.  That means it would take a 
proportional amount of writes to wear out -- let's just say a million times.  
In addition, core access was in microseconds, whereas FRAM and other modern 
memories are in nanoseconds.  So it takes something like 1000 times longer on 
the clock on the wall to perform the same number of writes.  So in the end 
something like a billion times longer on the calendar to wear it out.

I would be very interested if anyone actually knows and especially if there are 
references available.

Will

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2023, 2:52 PM Paul Koning via cctalk 
wrote:

>
>
> > On Feb 1, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, Ali via cctalk wrote:
> >> But does that matter? If the main purpose is to be able to refresh the
> data so it is readable does it matter that the data is not in the same
> block as long as it is readable?
> >
> > Ah, but most of that sort of memory has a finite number of cycles, and
> wears out due to use.
> > Testing it is heavy usage, and brings about an even earlier end of life.
> > Could we call that a "nosocomial" ("not so comical") deterioratoin :-?
>
> It's well known that flash memory (and NVRAM generally) has write limits.
> I don't know of any read limits.  Some other memories have write limits as
> well though they are far larger and generally far less known.  I think some
> of the phase change non-volatile memory types that seem to emerge from time
> to time -- FRAM for example -- have write limits.  Modern high density HDAs
> also do, I believe, because the heads actually come closer to the surface
> during write and as a result are more likely to touch the platter.
>
> But read limits?  I'm not sure about that.  What sort of numbers are we
> talking about?
>

Read disturb in NAND is a thing. However, it kicks in after millions or
hundreds of millions of page reads in a single EB. Most FTLs I've seen will
treat this like any other "too many bits in error" read when it happens.
Some drives keep track and do things with voltage thresholds to compensate.
A few try to proactively garbage collect, though the benefits of that are
slim to nil for most workloads.

Warner

P.S. some QLC NAND has worse read disturb, but it's only 100x worse. It can
come up for high volume applications but not for simple archival reading.

If all else fails there's core memory, which as far as I remember is pretty
> much unlimited for both read and write.
>
> paul
>
>

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Feb 1, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, Ali via cctalk wrote:
>> But does that matter? If the main purpose is to be able to refresh the data 
>> so it is readable does it matter that the data is not in the same block as 
>> long as it is readable?
> 
> Ah, but most of that sort of memory has a finite number of cycles, and wears 
> out due to use.
> Testing it is heavy usage, and brings about an even earlier end of life.
> Could we call that a "nosocomial" ("not so comical") deterioratoin :-?

It's well known that flash memory (and NVRAM generally) has write limits.  I 
don't know of any read limits.  Some other memories have write limits as well 
though they are far larger and generally far less known.  I think some of the 
phase change non-volatile memory types that seem to emerge from time to time -- 
FRAM for example -- have write limits.  Modern high density HDAs also do, I 
believe, because the heads actually come closer to the surface during write and 
as a result are more likely to touch the platter.

But read limits?  I'm not sure about that.  What sort of numbers are we talking 
about?

If all else fails there's core memory, which as far as I remember is pretty 
much unlimited for both read and write.

paul

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, Ali via cctalk wrote:
But does that matter? If the main purpose is to be able to refresh the 
data so it is readable does it matter that the data is not in the same 
block as long as it is readable?


Ah, but most of that sort of memory has a finite number of cycles, and 
wears out due to use.

Testing it is heavy usage, and brings about an even earlier end of life.
Could we call that a "nosocomial" ("not so comical") deterioratoin :-?


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

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 10:13 AM emanuel stiebler  wrote:

> On 2023-02-01 10:56, Warner Losh wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 1:41 AM emanuel stiebler via cctalk
> > mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote:
>
> > retension in case of power off.
> > If the power is applied all the time, the internal controller "can"
> > check the quality of the cells automatically (but this really
> > depends on
> > the controller, controller version, and the OS has to chose the right
> > strategy. And the controllers improved a lot lately)
> >
> >
> > The OS might not have a choice. All the SSDs that I've used in the
> > past decade at $WORK have not exposed any of this to the host, not
> > even enough stats to know when it's going on in real time... let alone
> > the ability to pause these operations for a little while until we're off
> > peak for the day...
>
> But you should be able to choose (at least on controllers I know) if you
> like to go for automatic or manual refresh.
>

That's selectable at the controller level... But there's no standard way for
the OS to turn that from one to the other... Unless you go all in and do all
the management which some NVMe drives support (not the ones we buy,
mind you, since this is an 'enterprise' feature and we buy in the 'consumer'
space).


> If you go for the automatic, it could happen that the drive decides to
> scan the drive, when your're busy and going nuts waiting for the drive
> (you can also define on newer drives how many block to check per run)
>
> If you're going for the manual refresh, just make sure you really run it
> one day. But, you should be the one who knows, when your computer isn't
> busy ...
>

We'd like to be able to do that, but the drives we buy don't expose those
knobs, despite buying many different models over the years from the same
vendors and developing a close relationship with them in which we ask for
it every chance we get...

Warner

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 10:02 AM Ali via cctalk 
wrote:

> > However, it may well be that writing is the only way to refresh cells,
> > as reading won't, if I understand flash operation correctly.  But
> > rewriting a sector or block of a file doesn't usually write back to the
> > original, because of the write-leveling firmware in the drive.
>
> Chuck,
>
> But does that matter? If the main purpose is to be able to refresh the
> data so it is readable does it matter that the data is not in the same
> block as long as it is readable?
>

What's more, you don't always WANT to refresh the cells. Erase blocks
can only be erased and programmed a limited number of times. By writing
them every time, you are wearing out the NAND and making it less reliable
and able to hold the data with time. The first few program / erase cycles of
new NAND have the best retention for the unit. Once you get into the dozens
somewhere, the retention of the cells drops somewhat. Normally, this isn't
an issue, because dropping from decades to years for retention isn't a huge
deal for most applications. But when you want the data to last a long time,
you are better off just reading it and having those few (if any) cells that
have
decayed into the 'danger zone' refreshed, leading to likely 100x (or
better) less
wear on the part. The 'danger zone' is the error rate at which the firmware
will
decide the data is at risk in the future so it will rewrite the active
parts of the
erase block to ensure they are all readable in the future.

So by forcing a re-write every time, and doing that force rewrite often,
you are
actually making the device less capable of storing data for the long term.

Warner

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[emanuel stiebler via cctalk]

On 2023-02-01 10:56, Warner Losh wrote:


On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 1:41 AM emanuel stiebler via cctalk 
mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote:



retension in case of power off.
If the power is applied all the time, the internal controller "can"
check the quality of the cells automatically (but this really
depends on
the controller, controller version, and the OS has to chose the right
strategy. And the controllers improved a lot lately)


The OS might not have a choice. All the SSDs that I've used in the
past decade at $WORK have not exposed any of this to the host, not
even enough stats to know when it's going on in real time... let alone
the ability to pause these operations for a little while until we're off
peak for the day...


But you should be able to choose (at least on controllers I know) if you 
like to go for automatic or manual refresh.


If you go for the automatic, it could happen that the drive decides to
scan the drive, when your're busy and going nuts waiting for the drive
(you can also define on newer drives how many block to check per run)

If you're going for the manual refresh, just make sure you really run it 
one day. But, you should be the one who knows, when your computer isn't 
busy ...

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Ali via cctalk]

> However, it may well be that writing is the only way to refresh cells,
> as reading won't, if I understand flash operation correctly.  But
> rewriting a sector or block of a file doesn't usually write back to the
> original, because of the write-leveling firmware in the drive.

Chuck,

But does that matter? If the main purpose is to be able to refresh the data so 
it is readable does it matter that the data is not in the same block as long as 
it is readable?

-Ali

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 1:41 AM emanuel stiebler via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On 2023-02-01 00:00, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> > On 1/31/23 20:16, Ali via cctalk wrote:
>
> > If you look at the specs for SSDs or any flash medium for that matter,
> > they're rated in terms of *write* cycles, which is why you don't want to
> > abuse that.
> right
> But, in most OS you can check the SMART data, to get an idea
>
> > However, it may well be that writing is the only way to refresh cells,
> > as reading won't, if I understand flash operation correctly.
>
> Reading ensures, that the cells are checked. if they fall below specific
> thresholds, they will be copied to another block
>

Indeed. It triggers the usual reliability engine in the drive. All data in
NAND is
stored with a number of redundant bits so that up to N errors can happen
and the data can be recovered. All NAND has a read error signal that
triggers well below N so that the data is all read and reconstructed (this
is normal on all reads), so it can then be written directly to the new
space.
Also, this isn't usually done on a PAGE pasis inside the NAND, but on an
entire erase block basis, because it's a leading indicator of problems to
come. Writing this data to a freshly erased block will mena it can be
read for some time into the future.


> > But
> > rewriting a sector or block of a file doesn't usually write back to the
> > original, because of the write-leveling firmware in the drive.
>
> right
>

Right.


> > JEDEC requires data retention of a consumer drive for at least 1 year,
> > which doesn't sound like much; real retention is probably much longer.
>
> retension in case of power off.
> If the power is applied all the time, the internal controller "can"
> check the quality of the cells automatically (but this really depends on
> the controller, controller version, and the OS has to chose the right
> strategy. And the controllers improved a lot lately)
>

The OS might not have a choice. All the SSDs that I've used in the
past decade at $WORK have not exposed any of this to the host, not
even enough stats to know when it's going on in real time... let alone
the ability to pause these operations for a little while until we're off
peak for the day...

And JEDEC retention is also at 20C, when the NAND is maximally
worn, with certain data access / write patterns leading up to that
wear. Most other wear patterns, especially archival ones, can
lead one to expect a much longer retention in all but the tiniest
processes storing 3 or 4 bits per cell.


> > You can write a script that write-refreshes every file on the drive.
>
> Please don't :)
> Just tell the controller to run a refresh ...
>

It would be even worse: since it could also trigger additional writes
as the new LBAs are written because the old erase blocks they
are in are now almost empty and new erase blocks will be needed
to write the new LBAs that are flooding the drive. The writes, and the
amplification writes will cause way more wear and tear on the drive
than doing a read scan of the whole drive (assuming you are impatient
about leaving the drive powered for the internal refresh...)


> > The easiest thing is to buy a second drive and ping-pong the data
> > between them periodically.   That way, if one fails, you still have the
> > other for backup.
>
> Disagree here, just run a compare between the two drives.
> a.) it will read all files, and the controller checks them in the
> background (will move them, if necessary)
> b.) you know, that after the compare you still have the data twice, on
> independent drives
>

c) You have less wear on both drives.

While a read could trigger a move due to read disturb, but that's only after
tens of thousands (or more) reads.

Warner

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[emanuel stiebler via cctalk]

On 2023-02-01 00:00, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

On 1/31/23 20:16, Ali via cctalk wrote:



If you look at the specs for SSDs or any flash medium for that matter,
they're rated in terms of *write* cycles, which is why you don't want to
abuse that.

right
But, in most OS you can check the SMART data, to get an idea


However, it may well be that writing is the only way to refresh cells,
as reading won't, if I understand flash operation correctly.


Reading ensures, that the cells are checked. if they fall below specific 
thresholds, they will be copied to another block



But
rewriting a sector or block of a file doesn't usually write back to the
original, because of the write-leveling firmware in the drive.


right


JEDEC requires data retention of a consumer drive for at least 1 year,
which doesn't sound like much; real retention is probably much longer.


retension in case of power off.
If the power is applied all the time, the internal controller "can" 
check the quality of the cells automatically (but this really depends on 
the controller, controller version, and the OS has to chose the right 
strategy. And the controllers improved a lot lately)



You can write a script that write-refreshes every file on the drive.


Please don't :)
Just tell the controller to run a refresh ...


The easiest thing is to buy a second drive and ping-pong the data
between them periodically.   That way, if one fails, you still have the
other for backup.


Disagree here, just run a compare between the two drives.
a.) it will read all files, and the controller checks them in the 
background (will move them, if necessary)
b.) you know, that after the compare you still have the data twice, on 
independent drives


cheers

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 1/31/23 20:16, Ali via cctalk wrote:

> If I remember Spinrite would read and write each sector back in Level I or
> II and gave you a constant update I still have a license from long
> ago I think the last version came out in early 2000s...

If you look at the specs for SSDs or any flash medium for that matter,
they're rated in terms of *write* cycles, which is why you don't want to
abuse that.

However, it may well be that writing is the only way to refresh cells,
as reading won't, if I understand flash operation correctly.  But
rewriting a sector or block of a file doesn't usually write back to the
original, because of the write-leveling firmware in the drive.

JEDEC requires data retention of a consumer drive for at least 1 year,
which doesn't sound like much; real retention is probably much longer.

You can write a script that write-refreshes every file on the drive.

The easiest thing is to buy a second drive and ping-pong the data
between them periodically.   That way, if one fails, you still have the
other for backup.

FWIW,
Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:22 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> I just checked and I can still read without error some 8" disks that I
> wrote, what, 45 years ago.  They were FM 3740-type format and good
> quality, so there's that.
>

In all my days of doing data conversion professionally (throughout the
2000-aughts), it was rare that I got an 8" disk that had any problems
reading.  Or any other format for that matter.  Magnetic media in my
experience seems to hold up well if stored properly.


> Which is why I wasn't joking about using 9 track 1/2" tape.   Many
> millions of reels of the stuff were in use right up into the 1980s.
> The drives are not unobtanium and the medium is pretty rugged. Had I
> used 7-track tape, I would still not be out of luck, but only because I
> have a 7 track drive, which is far less common these days.


I rarely had any issues reading 9-track tapes either.

I believe I might still have a 7-track drive.

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Ali via cctalk]

> If you just need READ, and not WRITE, howzbout COPY *.* NUL
> actually
> XCOPY *.* NUL /S/E
> to include subdirectories

But would a red suffice to refresh or do you need to also write?

Also, this solution, and Chuck's, while workable for reads would leave you
with a blank screen for a long time (e.g. xcopying to NUL a 512GB or bigger
SSD). 

If I remember Spinrite would read and write each sector back in Level I or
II and gave you a constant update I still have a license from long
ago I think the last version came out in early 2000s...

-Ali

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 1/31/23 18:27, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023, Ali via cctalk wrote:
>> Hmmm.. I wonder if there is a program akin to Spinrite that will do
>> that on SSDs (i.e. reread and rewrite every byte). I know Steve Gibson
>> is working on a new version of Spinrite that will work with SSDs so
>> that could be the solution when it comes out...
> 
> If you just need READ, and not WRITE, howzbout COPY *.* NUL
> actually
> XCOPY *.* NUL /S/E
> to include subdirectories

On Linux, that would be:

cp -r / /dev/null

I think that you really don't want to rewrite SSDs.  As I understand the
wear-leveling technology, it's unlikely that you'll write the same
sector/block that you read.   Basically Heraclitus and rivers.

--CHuck

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023, Ali via cctalk wrote:
Hmmm.. I wonder if there is a program akin to Spinrite that will do that 
on SSDs (i.e. reread and rewrite every byte). I know Steve Gibson is 
working on a new version of Spinrite that will work with SSDs so that 
could be the solution when it comes out...


If you just need READ, and not WRITE, howzbout COPY *.* NUL
actually
XCOPY *.* NUL /S/E
to include subdirectories

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

I just checked and I can still read without error some 8" disks that I
wrote, what, 45 years ago.  They were FM 3740-type format and good
quality, so there's that.

As to the value of the 8080 code that I wrote, not so much.

This was only possible because I wrote the disks in a commonly-used
format on a relatively common medium.  Had I opted to use Memorex 651
media, it might well be gone forever.   I haven't seen a 651 drive in years.

Which is why I wasn't joking about using 9 track 1/2" tape.   Many
millions of reels of the stuff were in use right up into the 1980s.
The drives are not unobtanium and the medium is pretty rugged. Had I
used 7-track tape, I would still not be out of luck, but only because I
have a 7 track drive, which is far less common these days.

Just some food for thought.

--Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Ali via cctalk]

>It depends on the drive's firmware. Some do background scans of blocks while 
>idle. Others do not. Since you >have no way of knowing which is which (or even 
>when the backgroundscan is done), the safest way to force a >scan is to read 
>the whole drive... any blocks whose raw error count is too high will be 
>rewritten to fresh >blocks. If it's a good SSD you'll likely not notice this 
>happening.  If it's a crappy thumb drive... you may >be better off copying to 
>some other media..


Hmmm.. I wonder if there is a program akin to Spinrite that will do that on 
SSDs (i.e. reread and rewrite every byte). I know Steve Gibson is working on a 
new version of Spinrite that will work with SSDs so that could be the solution 
when it comes out...

-Ali

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:44 PM Paul Koning  wrote:

>
>
> > On Jan 31, 2023, at 8:38 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:03 PM Ali via cctalk 
> wrote:
> >
> >>> I thought Flash could only hold the data in them X amount of years
> >>> until
> >>> the junctions discharge or whatever? It's less permanent than decent
> >>> quality optical or pro magnetic media?
> >>>
> >>> You have to plug them in every so often to refresh I believe.
> >>
> >> Does REFRESHING mean reread and rewrite or just keep power to it? If
> it's
> >> the latter it should be trivial to setup a system with backup battery
> just
> >> to supply voltage to a bunch of SSD drives.
> >>
> >
> > It depends on the drive's firmware. Some do background scans of blocks
> > while idle. Others do not. Since you have no way of knowing which is
> which
> > (or even when the backgroundscan is done), the safest way to force a scan
> > is to read the whole drive... any blocks whose raw error count is too
> high
> > will be rewritten to fresh blocks. If it's a good SSD you'll likely not
> > notice this happening.  If it's a crappy thumb drive... you may be better
> > off copying to some other media..
> >
> > Warner
>
> Do you know what the likely answer is for "memory sticks", SD or MicroSD
> cards, things like that?  I assume their firmware is tiny, so are they
> likely to need active refreshing?
>

They are on the "copy it every so often" end of things. Especially if they
were slow when released.

Warner

>

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Jan 31, 2023, at 8:38 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:03 PM Ali via cctalk  wrote:
> 
>>> I thought Flash could only hold the data in them X amount of years
>>> until
>>> the junctions discharge or whatever? It's less permanent than decent
>>> quality optical or pro magnetic media?
>>> 
>>> You have to plug them in every so often to refresh I believe.
>> 
>> Does REFRESHING mean reread and rewrite or just keep power to it? If it's
>> the latter it should be trivial to setup a system with backup battery just
>> to supply voltage to a bunch of SSD drives.
>> 
> 
> It depends on the drive's firmware. Some do background scans of blocks
> while idle. Others do not. Since you have no way of knowing which is which
> (or even when the backgroundscan is done), the safest way to force a scan
> is to read the whole drive... any blocks whose raw error count is too high
> will be rewritten to fresh blocks. If it's a good SSD you'll likely not
> notice this happening.  If it's a crappy thumb drive... you may be better
> off copying to some other media..
> 
> Warner

Do you know what the likely answer is for "memory sticks", SD or MicroSD cards, 
things like that?  I assume their firmware is tiny, so are they likely to need 
active refreshing?

paul

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:03 PM Ali via cctalk  wrote:

> > I thought Flash could only hold the data in them X amount of years
> > until
> > the junctions discharge or whatever? It's less permanent than decent
> > quality optical or pro magnetic media?
> >
> > You have to plug them in every so often to refresh I believe.
>
> Does REFRESHING mean reread and rewrite or just keep power to it? If it's
> the latter it should be trivial to setup a system with backup battery just
> to supply voltage to a bunch of SSD drives.
>

It depends on the drive's firmware. Some do background scans of blocks
while idle. Others do not. Since you have no way of knowing which is which
(or even when the backgroundscan is done), the safest way to force a scan
is to read the whole drive... any blocks whose raw error count is too high
will be rewritten to fresh blocks. If it's a good SSD you'll likely not
notice this happening.  If it's a crappy thumb drive... you may be better
off copying to some other media..

Warner

-Ali
>
>

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Ali via cctalk]

> I thought Flash could only hold the data in them X amount of years
> until
> the junctions discharge or whatever? It's less permanent than decent
> quality optical or pro magnetic media?
> 
> You have to plug them in every so often to refresh I believe.

Does REFRESHING mean reread and rewrite or just keep power to it? If it's
the latter it should be trivial to setup a system with backup battery just
to supply voltage to a bunch of SSD drives.

-Ali

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 11:37 AM Ethan O'Toole via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> > What do you guys think of the "archive-ness" of current solid state
> > devices?  M.2, NVMe, SSD, or even USB thumb sticks?   A friend proposed
> > that when one of those starts to go bad, any kind of partial data
> recovery
> > becomes difficult - but any more difficult than the old traditional
> > magnetic media?
>
> I thought Flash could only hold the data in them X amount of years until
> the junctions discharge or whatever? It's less permanent than decent
> quality optical or pro magnetic media?
>

Spec is 1 or 3 years retention at end of life. At start of life it can be a
decade for QLC parts or 30 years for SLC parts though those latter
numbers aren't guaranteed.

You have to plug them in every so often to refresh I believe.
>

Yes. And access all the used block for some firmware (some won't do
proactive scans).

Warner



>
> - Ethan
>
> --
> : Ethan O'Toole
>
>
>

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Ethan O'Toole via cctalk]

What do you guys think of the "archive-ness" of current solid state
devices?  M.2, NVMe, SSD, or even USB thumb sticks?   A friend proposed
that when one of those starts to go bad, any kind of partial data recovery
becomes difficult - but any more difficult than the old traditional
magnetic media?


I thought Flash could only hold the data in them X amount of years until 
the junctions discharge or whatever? It's less permanent than decent 
quality optical or pro magnetic media?


You have to plug them in every so often to refresh I believe.



- Ethan

--
: Ethan O'Toole

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 1/31/23 10:22, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
> Regarding the recent GreaseWeazle story in Maryland:

> I know the first generation CD/DVD disc are known to "go bad" - the
> material itself somehow degrades and becomes unreadable by modern drives.
> I'm not sure if that's still the case with newer or more modern CD/DVD disc
> (not just that they're newer, but are they a more durable material or
> casing?)

Half-inch open-reel 9 track tape seems to withstand the test of time as
well as anything.

The problem with the high-capacity tape used for server backup will be
finding drives and controllers compatible with it in years to come.  I
don't know how many people, for example, squirrel away LTO drives of
various types, but you're not going to read that LTO-2 tape on your
LTO-9 drive.  Then there's the matter of finding the apppropriate
controller.

8mm and DDS drives are starting to become uncommon.  And we all know the
fate of QIC/Travan tapes.

The rule seems to be that if you want to hang onto something, keep
migrating it to newer storage.

--Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Steve Lewis via cctalk]

Regarding the recent GreaseWeazle story in Maryland:

What do you guys think of the "archive-ness" of current solid state
devices?  M.2, NVMe, SSD, or even USB thumb sticks?   A friend proposed
that when one of those starts to go bad, any kind of partial data recovery
becomes difficult - but any more difficult than the old traditional
magnetic media?

I noticed IBM still sells high speed large capacity tape backup.  Large
capacity as in gigabytes if not terabytes (think maybe a 17TB tape was
offered).  But for high speed, I think they are still "SATA-speeds"
(300-600 MB/s)?

Over the past decade or so, I've had a few SSD go bad.  In fact just a few
months ago, I had a main boot drive of a laptop (using an SSD) start to
develop bad sectors and gradually got worse and worse performance - I
mirrored it to a new SSD while the system was still bootable and that
worked out.  But I've never had to really do "data recovery" on any solid
state device.   I do recall once in awhile, "just pulling" a USB thumb
drive corrupted the data - this was more in the early days of USB (maybe
it's still an issue, just modern faster machines are quicker at closing
files and flushing caches, so it's less probable of an issue - but I see
kids at school yanking thumb drives all the time these days).

So I was just curious on other peoples thoughts on that.   Maybe we just
haven't had enough time to really tell yet.

I know the first generation CD/DVD disc are known to "go bad" - the
material itself somehow degrades and becomes unreadable by modern drives.
I'm not sure if that's still the case with newer or more modern CD/DVD disc
(not just that they're newer, but are they a more durable material or
casing?)


-Steve




On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 3:33 PM rar via cctalk 
wrote:

> Museum Staff Helps Exonerate David Veney
>
> January 19, 2023, Hunt Valley, MD — Staff members of the System Source
> Computer Museum recently completed a project that helped exonerate David
> Veney, wrongly convicted of rape in 1997. In 2005, after Mr. Veney sought a
> new trial, the state found irregularities in the prosecution, released Mr.
> Veney from prison, and declined to re-prosecute.
>
>
>

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Sean Conner via cctalk]

It was thus said that the Great Steve Lewis via cctalk once stated:
> Regarding the 1940s high school yearbook article I mentioned:   I think it
> was 1942 - so the war was still hot.  The two boys dropped the typing class
> since they had signed up for the Service and had other training
> commitments.  

  My grandfather, who served in WWII [1], knew I had an interest in
computers, so he got me a portable typewriter (which I still have) and a
typing book (first published in 1923) so that I may learn how to type.  He
said that not only would it serve me well with computers, but also in the
military. [2].

  I do recall there being typing classes, both in middle and high school,
but never took it as a class.

  -spc

[1] He served in the Navy, on a sub, in the Pacific.  He never did talk
much about his service, although I do know that at least one sub he
served on was sunk by Japan.

[2] He probably felt that knowing how to type would keep me from the
front lines and most likely safe.  Can't blame him on that logic.

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Will Cooke via cctalk]

> That was a common practice in those days. I remember seeing news stories 
> about it. I "think" a law was passed in late 80s forbidding that. A lot of 
> products now say "this box was (proudly) made in the USA.
> Will
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/complying-made-usa-standard#qualified

Third example under. U.S. origin claims for specific processes or parts

Apparently passed in 1997.

Will

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Will Cooke via cctalk]

> On 01/27/2023 3:00 PM CST Bill Gunshannon via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/27/2023 3:53 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> >>> and IBM sold what seems to be a re-badged Epson MX-80,
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
> > > Yes, I always got a kick out of these. Came in an IBM box labeled
> > > "Made in
> > > USA". The only thing "Made in USA" was the box.
> > So, it was honest to label the box, "Made in USA"?
> 
> Apparently. They did it for years until Epson started manufacturing
> over here.
> 
> 
> bill

That was a common practice in those days.  I remember seeing news stories about 
it.  I "think" a law was passed in late 80s forbidding that.  A lot of products 
now say "this box was (proudly) made in the USA.
Will

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

On 1/27/2023 3:53 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

 and IBM sold what seems to be a re-badged Epson MX-80,


On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
Yes, I always got a kick out of these. Came in an IBM box labeled 
"Made in

USA".  The only thing "Made in USA" was the box.


So, it was honest to label the box, "Made in USA"?



Apparently.  They did it for years until Epson started manufacturing 
over here.



bill

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

 and IBM sold what seems to be a re-badged Epson MX-80,


On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:

Yes, I always got a kick out of these.  Came in an IBM box labeled "Made in
USA".  The only thing "Made in USA" was the box.


So, it was honest to label the box, "Made in USA"?

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

On 1/27/2023 3:46 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

 and IBM sold what seems to be a re-badged Epson MX-80,



Yes, I always got a kick out of these.  Came in an IBM box labeled "Made in

USA".  The only thing "Made in USA" was the box.


bill

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

There were a couple of outfits (one in Walnut Creek), who made kits to 
convert Selectrics into computer printers!


On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Chris via cctalk wrote:

@ Fred - " ...in Walnut Creek..."
C: any affiation to WC CD-ROM? Wiki says they were around in ms-dos says.


No, not related.
The Escon typewriter conversion kits were long gone before CD-ROMs, 
possibly before 5150!And, by that time, Tandy offered more affordable 
printers, and IBM sold what seems to be a re-badged Epson MX-80, so there 
was no longer need desperate enough to convert Selectrics.

https://vintagecomputer.ca/escon-selectric-kit/
https://vintagecomputer.ca/files/Escon/
It is unlikely, but not impossible, that there could be overlap of people 
involved.
The company official address (and corporation) was listed as San Ramon, 
but warranty service was in Pleasant Hill, and there were retail sales 
out of Walnut Creek.



Walnut Creek CD-ROM started in 1991

The first official MS-DOS support of CD-ROMs was 1984? in DOS 3.10 (that 
is "three point ten", not "three point one" (Int 21, function 30h returns 
3 in AL and 0Ah in AH))


It included MSCDEX and used redirection; since MS-DOS did not support 
drives larger than 32MB until 3.31, the "redirector" made the CD-ROM look 
like a remote drive "on the network".  Try doing a CHKDSK of a CD-ROM.
MSCDEX was supported on 3.10 on, but was not included in MS-DOS 
distribution until 6.x, and/or Win3.11

(Win setup/install for 3.00 and 3.10 were eventually available on CD-ROM!)


MSCDEX aparently uses the [undocumented] Int 2Fh network redirestor.

It can be patched to work with DOS 3.00, and a few people did claim to 
have created programs to access CD-ROMs in DOS from 2.00 on!


In addition to MSCDEX, DOS also needed drivers to access the CD-ROM drive. 
Those were specific to the controller card.  ASPI simplified SCSI access.


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

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chris via cctalk]

 @ Fred - " ...in Walnut Creek..."

C: any affiation to WC CD-ROM? Wiki says they were around in ms-dos says.  

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

On 1/27/2023 2:22 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:


Computer printers for early microcomputers were hideously expensive.
There were a couple of outfits (one in Walnut Creek), who made kits to 
convert Selectrics into computer printers!
There were also the Rochester DynaTyper and the KGS-80 that consisted 
of a box of solenoids to set on top of the keyboard!




My first computer printer for use on my TRS-80 was a Lorenz LO15.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49329523523_61d7a79b55_b.jpg


bill

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

THIS!  I took a typing class
my freshman year of HS.  I was the only guy 
in a room full of girls and IBM Selectrics. :D



On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:
... my freshman year 

of HS. I was the only guy

in a room full of girls ...



And the downside of this was...?


When quoting, you left off his big grin!
and the Selectrics.


Computer printers for early microcomputers were hideously expensive.
There were a couple of outfits (one in Walnut Creek), who made kits to 
convert Selectrics into computer printers!
There were also the Rochester DynaTyper and the KGS-80 that consisted of a 
box of solenoids to set on top of the keyboard!


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

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Jan 27, 2023, at 11:23 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On 1/26/23 19:13, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jan 26, 2023, at 6:29 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I take that back about Versatec, CHM has a document from 1970 on their
>>> electrostatic printer:
>>> 
>>> https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/X163.83A
>>> 
>>> I know that Lawrence Livermore had one and used it quite a bit back in
>>> the day.
>>> 
>>> --Chuck
>> I worked with one of those on the PLATO system in 1976, where it was used in 
>> bitmap graphics mode to print music scores.  That at first worked very badly 
>> because the paper transport was chain driven, with enough slack in the  
>> drive that if you'd stop and start it, you'd get irregular paper feeding 
>> with as a result gaps in the graphics.  I fixed this by writing a new driver 
>> that was designed to stream, so it would never stop in mid-job.
> Interesting.  I maintained a bunch of Versatec 1200A printers at work, and 
> ended up with a couple of them at home.  horrible paper, like a dirty 
> chalkboard, smelly toner, if the paper was handled before it dried the toner 
> could come off on your hands, etc.  But, I had never seen the issue with gaps 
> in graphics, and our drivers, especially on the Nat Semi 16032 system was 
> VERY slow in graphics mode.

Perhaps it was misalignment, or maybe a different model.  I definitely remember 
the chain drive, and the play it had, and the defective printout.  The solution 
was to run in "streaming mode" -- non-stop data.  Hard to do given that the 
mainframe ran a bunch of high priority real time jobs: the PLATO components.  
Solution: do the entire job in a peripheral processor, using the CPU only to 
provide an I/O buffer area for reading the file being printed.

I remember the funny paper, not so much the smelly toner.  It wasn't as bad as 
the screen capture printer we had one floor down, made (I think) by Varian -- 
it somehow captured the image on the orange dot plasma panel display using 
strange paper and nasty liquid toner.  The process used is a mystery to me; it 
had to be some optical magic because you can't, as far as I know, read out the 
state of a PLATO terminal plasma panel electronically.  Those panels are 
bistable, the pixels are actual memory cells, but I can't think of a way to 
sense electrically whether one is on or off.

> When laser printers came out, I was VERRRY glad to move into the future!
> 
> Jon

Definitely.

paul

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

On 1/26/2023 11:15 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

It seems as though MOST of us chose the typing class elective.
Disproportionately more than the general population.


We also probably don't have very many athletes here.  Although lugging 
this shit around does build up some strength.




I fit into both categories.  Took typing in 1967/1968.

Was an athlete, but not in high school.  Us poor kids weren't allowed in 
that


clique.  But I did become an athlete in later years and still do 
CrossFit today.



bill

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 1/26/23 19:13, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:



On Jan 26, 2023, at 6:29 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk  
wrote:

I take that back about Versatec, CHM has a document from 1970 on their
electrostatic printer:

https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/X163.83A

I know that Lawrence Livermore had one and used it quite a bit back in
the day.

--Chuck

I worked with one of those on the PLATO system in 1976, where it was used in 
bitmap graphics mode to print music scores.  That at first worked very badly 
because the paper transport was chain driven, with enough slack in the  drive 
that if you'd stop and start it, you'd get irregular paper feeding with as a 
result gaps in the graphics.  I fixed this by writing a new driver that was 
designed to stream, so it would never stop in mid-job.
Interesting.  I maintained a bunch of Versatec 1200A 
printers at work, and ended up with a couple of them at 
home.  horrible paper, like a dirty chalkboard, smelly 
toner, if the paper was handled before it dried the toner 
could come off on your hands, etc.  But, I had never seen 
the issue with gaps in graphics, and our drivers, especially 
on the Nat Semi 16032 system was VERY slow in graphics mode.


When laser printers came out, I was VERRRY glad to move into 
the future!


Jon

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[ben via cctalk]

On 2023-01-27 8:19 a.m., Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:

On 01/27/2023 8:41 AM CST geneb via cctalk  wrote:




... my freshman year of HS. I was the only guy
in a room full of girls ...

g.



And the downside of this was...?

Will

no TIME OF COURSE. :)

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[geneb via cctalk]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:


On 01/27/2023 8:41 AM CST geneb via cctalk  wrote:




... my freshman year of HS. I was the only guy
in a room full of girls ...

g.



And the downside of this was...?



They never shut up.  EVER.  It was like trying to read in the middle of a 
car accident.


g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Will Cooke via cctalk]

> On 01/27/2023 8:41 AM CST geneb via cctalk  wrote:
> 
> > 
> ... my freshman year of HS. I was the only guy
> in a room full of girls ...
> 
> g.
> 

And the downside of this was...?

Will

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 6:56 AM Chris Zach via cctalk 
wrote:

> Hm. I took typing in 7th grade and was able to type at a solid 70 words
> per minute. And it's the only class I flunked in.
>
> Reason: We had selectrics with all the letters wiped off the keyboards
> to encourage us to type properly. I couldn't do it, so instead I simply
> memorized the keyboard layout, then did 3 finger+2 thumb hunt and peck
> through the class.
>

Roughly similar with me. But in my case, I found the "proper" finger and
wrist posture that was enforced to be extremely unnatural and uncomfortable
(and probably why Carpal Tunnel Syndrome became a thing). So I developed my
own style that involves basically 2-3 fingers on the left hand, 1-2 fingers
on the right, plus thumbs (usually the left one) for space. When I'm in the
zone I can easily achieve around 80WPM with high accuracy.

Sellam

>

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chris Zach via cctalk]

C: i took typing as a senior in 1985. The lady was a former military officer, 
in her 60s or later. Everyone was scared shirtless of her. 1 puerto rican girl 
who sat up front could do 90wpm. Me, I sat in the back. I'm still a very flawed 
typist. Iow I suck.
   


Hm. I took typing in 7th grade and was able to type at a solid 70 words 
per minute. And it's the only class I flunked in.


Reason: We had selectrics with all the letters wiped off the keyboards 
to encourage us to type properly. I couldn't do it, so instead I simply 
memorized the keyboard layout, then did 3 finger+2 thumb hunt and peck 
through the class.


When the teacher realized this she was furious. Zero.

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[D. Resor via cctalk]

Sophomore year of high school for me in 1978.  

My mother thought it would be a good idea.  She was right!

Standard size Olympia manual typewriters.


Donald R. Resor Jr. T. W. & T. C. Svc. Co.
http://hammondorganservice.com
Hammond USA warranty service
"Most people don’t have a sense of humor. They think they do, but they don’t." 
--Jonathan Winters



 

-Original Message-
From: geneb via cctalk  
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 6:41 AM
To: Chuck Guzis via cctalk 
Cc: geneb 
Subject: [cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate 
Maryland Man

THIS!  I took a typing class my freshman year of HS.  I was the only guy in a 
room full of girls and IBM Selectrics. :D

g.

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[geneb via cctalk]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:


On 1/26/23 16:10, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:



In college, for a while, I did some temp work keypunching.  I was not a
fast typist, but I managed to outperform many of the other keypunchers
simply becaause the first thing that I did was to look at the card
format, and punch a drum card.  For some reason many keypunchers think
that drum cards are too technical for them to do!


One of the things from high school that has proved to be of immense
value was the summer I took a typing class.   Legendless keys Underwood
standard office typewriter.

THIS!  I took a typing class my freshman year of HS.  I was the only guy 
in a room full of girls and IBM Selectrics. :D


g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Tony Duell via cctalk]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:53 AM Chris via cctalk  wrote:

> C: there never was a person worse at sports then me.

You have not met me!

If I manage to kick or throw a ball, it will go about +/- 1 radian of
where I would like it to go. I can run 100m in about 10 minutes.

Get the idea?

I''ll stick to getting my exercise by putting minicomputers into racks
and carrying so-called portable computers on public transport. The
only 'exercisers' in use here are the ones for disk drives and the
like.

-tony

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chris via cctalk]

 On Friday, January 27, 2023, 12:42:46 AM EST, Sellam Abraham via cctalk 
 wrote:


On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 8:15 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk 
wrote:

> We also probably don't have very many athletes here. Although lugging
> this shit around does build up some strength.
>

Ahem. I was league champion in shotput in 10th grade (43+ feet with an 8lb
shot).

But yes, mongering vintage computers builds core strength.


Sellam

C: there never was a person worse at sports then me. Despite my height I was 
the worst at basketball. Can't stand the game anyway. I suppose I could whack a 
softball pretty far if I managed to hit it. My shining moment was in 3rd grade 
when me and another kid won the blue ribbon in the 3 legged race. And won it 
handily I might add. Whooped everyone else on the field. I won a lot of cred 
that day also.  

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chris via cctalk]

 




On Thursday, January 26, 2023, 11:10:42 PM EST, Sellam Abraham via cctalk 
 wrote:


On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 5:15 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

>
> And, yes, even as a male I had typing in high school.
>

I had typing as an elective class in 7th grade in 1984. It gave me the
ability to type in programs faster.

Sellam

C: i took typing as a senior in 1985. The lady was a former military officer, 
in her 60s or later. Everyone was scared shirtless of her. 1 puerto rican girl 
who sat up front could do 90wpm. Me, I sat in the back. I'm still a very flawed 
typist. Iow I suck.
  

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Steve Lewis via cctalk]

Regarding the 1940s high school yearbook article I mentioned:   I think it
was 1942 - so the war was still hot.  The two boys dropped the typing class
since they had signed up for the Service and had other training
commitments.  On the next page was a list of those who had recently signed
up, along with a list of recent graduates who had already been KIA (and on
which front it was - Pacific vs Eastern).


I'll try to remember next time I'm back home, to get a photocopy of that
article - maybe post it at the CHM forum as an interesting reminder about
the past.   I remember chuckling that the 20wpm wasn't too much to be proud
of.  But, do have to consider the context: they probably didn't have
typewriters at home, not sure how the requested content to type was
presented (projected onto a wall or on a lettersheet next to them?), and
what equipment they had.

And just had a thought:  if we could find 20-30 working condition type
writers today, I wonder how modern high school students would do in a
"typing contest" in that equipment -- would they type too fast and jam the
things up, ruining both their accuracy and wpm average? :) Hmmm!




On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:15 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> It seems as though MOST of us chose the typing class elective.
> Disproportionately more than the general population.
>
>
> We also probably don't have very many athletes here.  Although lugging
> this shit around does build up some strength.
>
> --
> Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
>
>
>

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 1/26/23 17:20, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:

> I remember the same from banging on an ASR 33.  And if you watch videos of 
> Linotype machine operators, the same thing is very clear: they show a nice 
> smooth cadence, not incredibly fast but very steady.  The mechanical 
> structure of those machines is very complex, with many more moving parts 
> traveling far greater distances than typewriters have, so it's easy to 
> imagine things jamming up if you try to go too fast.  And in some cases, jams 
> would be seriously unpleasant, with molten lead spraying out onto the floor 
> and perhaps the hapless operator.

To this day, I have a memory of spending an entire class session working
on rhythm on the home keys.  "Class, let's begin.  A S D F J K L sem, A
S D F J K L sem..."   The old office manual typewriters could easily jam
if your rhythm was off.

I didn't have the legs for shorthand.

--Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 8:15 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk 
wrote:

> We also probably don't have very many athletes here.  Although lugging
> this shit around does build up some strength.
>

Ahem.  I was league champion in shotput in 10th grade (43+ feet with an 8lb
shot).

But yes, mongering vintage computers builds core strength.

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Tony Duell via cctalk]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 4:15 AM Fred Cisin via cctalk
 wrote:

>
> We also probably don't have very many athletes here.

Not unless you class 'electronics' as a sport. I managed to do so at
school many years ago, meaning that while other boys were chassis
spheres and prolate spheroids about I was soldering up a Z80-based
computer, experimenting with vacuum systems, teaching myself how to
use machine tools and other useful stuff.

-tony

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

It seems as though MOST of us chose the typing class elective.
Disproportionately more than the general population.


We also probably don't have very many athletes here.  Although lugging 
this shit around does build up some strength.


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


On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:


On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 5:15 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:



And, yes, even as a male I had typing in high school.



I had typing as an elective class in 7th grade in 1984.  It gave me the
ability to type in programs faster.

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 5:15 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

>
> And, yes, even as a male I had typing in high school.
>

I had typing as an elective class in 7th grade in 1984.  It gave me the
ability to type in programs faster.

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Jan 26, 2023, at 8:15 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/26/2023 4:23 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>>> I submit that the Selectric was not the optimum platform with which to
>>> set speed records.
>> 
>> Of course not!
>> Even a daisy wheel is easily capable of twice that.
>> But, we didn't have convenient access to anything better half a century ago.
> 
> 
> A half century a go I regularly typed 60WPM on my Kleinschmidt at work and my 
> Lorenz LO50
> 
> at home.  That was as fast as they went and rhythm rather than speed was the 
> desired objective.

I remember the same from banging on an ASR 33.  And if you watch videos of 
Linotype machine operators, the same thing is very clear: they show a nice 
smooth cadence, not incredibly fast but very steady.  The mechanical structure 
of those machines is very complex, with many more moving parts traveling far 
greater distances than typewriters have, so it's easy to imagine things jamming 
up if you try to go too fast.  And in some cases, jams would be seriously 
unpleasant, with molten lead spraying out onto the floor and perhaps the 
hapless operator.

paul

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

On 1/26/2023 5:19 PM, Chris via cctalk wrote:

  There were printers in the 80s, used by the IRS and such, that spit out paper 
so fast it wasn't safe to be near. This is what I've heard.



We had a XEROX at West Point in the 80's that you had to stay out of the 
room when it was printing and binding


reports.  It would staple them and then throw them across the room into 
a small pile.  Usually with enough force


to do bodily harm.


bill

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

On 1/26/2023 4:23 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

I submit that the Selectric was not the optimum platform with which to
set speed records.


Of course not!
Even a daisy wheel is easily capable of twice that.
But, we didn't have convenient access to anything better half a 
century ago.



A half century a go I regularly typed 60WPM on my Kleinschmidt at work 
and my Lorenz LO50


at home.  That was as fast as they went and rhythm rather than speed was 
the desired objective.



And, yes, even as a male I had typing in high school.


bill

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Jan 26, 2023, at 6:29 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> I take that back about Versatec, CHM has a document from 1970 on their
> electrostatic printer:
> 
> https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/X163.83A
> 
> I know that Lawrence Livermore had one and used it quite a bit back in
> the day.
> 
> --Chuck

I worked with one of those on the PLATO system in 1976, where it was used in 
bitmap graphics mode to print music scores.  That at first worked very badly 
because the paper transport was chain driven, with enough slack in the  drive 
that if you'd stop and start it, you'd get irregular paper feeding with as a 
result gaps in the graphics.  I fixed this by writing a new driver that was 
designed to stream, so it would never stop in mid-job.

The discussion about fast typing reminded me of a related and in some ways more 
amazing record: the one set by Ted McElroy around 1938 for fastest Morse code 
copying.  That record is 75 wpm, so obviously he had to type that fast.  In 
1938, would that have been on a manual typewriter?  I suspect so.  Either way, 
it's impressive to recognize the audio patterns of Morse code sent at blinding 
speed, and type what's received -- with some lag most likely because Morse code 
is variable length so the letters don't arrive in a steady cadence.

paul

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 1/26/23 16:10, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

> In college, for a while, I did some temp work keypunching.  I was not a
> fast typist, but I managed to outperform many of the other keypunchers
> simply becaause the first thing that I did was to look at the card
> format, and punch a drum card.  For some reason many keypunchers think
> that drum cards are too technical for them to do!

One of the things from high school that has proved to be of immense
value was the summer I took a typing class.   Legendless keys Underwood
standard office typewriter.

--Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

Trying to restrict the discussion to KSR type units; i.e. ones that came
with a keyboard and might be used as a typewriter if operated in local mode.


Well. that certainly helps define fastest typewriter.

But, is that we would be most interested in?

What's the fastest of data input?

Many factors come into play.

And it doesn't have to be much faster than a Selectric before printer 
speed ceases to be a limiting factor.



When typewriting, I am constantly looking at the keys ("where is that 
character?"), looking at the paper, etc.  All of which should be 
eliminated for fast typewriting.  I was barely even a "touch typist".


In college, for a while, I did some temp work keypunching.  I was not a 
fast typist, but I managed to outperform many of the other keypunchers 
simply becaause the first thing that I did was to look at the card format, 
and punch a drum card.  For some reason many keypunchers think that drum 
cards are too technical for them to do!


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

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Mike Katz via cctalk]

The GE Terminet line of printers used a band of letters and multiple 
hammers to hit the band at just the right time.  I believe they ran at a 
maximum speed of 1200 Baud or 120 characters per second.


Also, many line printers used this method.  Sometimes the band would 
have multiple copies of each letter on them to make things go faster.


On 1/26/2023 3:56 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

On 1/26/23 13:23, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

Even a daisy wheel is easily capable of twice that.
But, we didn't have convenient access to anything better half a century
ago.

A couple of years ago, that would have been true.  But the
Diablo Daisy-wheels date from at least 1972. You're also forgetting the
thermal printers, like the TI Silent 70, which could sail along at 30
cps (1971).   There were other variations.  I recall a Singer terminal
that used a spinning typewheel  (One always ended with a page eject
because the damned thing would leave a vertical smear of black ink if
left unattended).  Carriage was unidirectional via wormscrew rod; return
was via a spring that was stretched as the carriage advanced.   I
couldn't find anything on bitsavers about this creature, but I used one
in the early 70s.

--Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 1/26/23 16:07, Don R via cctalk wrote:

What about the SCM Kleinschmidt spin printer.


Yup, I think those did 30 CPS.

Jon

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 1/26/23 14:52, Mike Katz via cctalk wrote:
> NEC also made "Thimble" printers.  These uses something similar to a
> daisy wheel but were more shaped like a thimble with the letters coming
> out up out of the center and the thimble rotated horizontally instead of
> vertically like the daisy wheel.

I own a NEC Spinwriter, but I believe it came after the Hitype.

--Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

I take that back about Versatec, CHM has a document from 1970 on their
electrostatic printer:

https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/X163.83A

I know that Lawrence Livermore had one and used it quite a bit back in
the day.

--Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 1/26/23 14:19, Chris via cctalk wrote:
>  There were printers in the 80s, used by the IRS and such, that spit out 
> paper so fast it wasn't safe to be near. This is what I've heard.  

Trying to restrict the discussion to KSR type units; i.e. ones that came
with a keyboard and might be used as a typewriter if operated in local mode.

Non-impact printers, were of course, by far the fastest (e.g. Versatec),
but were a bit later than 1973.

--Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 1/26/23 14:07, Don R wrote:
> What about the SCM Kleinschmidt spin printer.

The 311?  Yes, at 40 cps that would certainly qualify--came in a KSR
model as well.

--Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[ben via cctalk]

On 2023-01-26 3:19 p.m., Chris via cctalk wrote:

  There were printers in the 80s, used by the IRS and such, that spit out paper 
so fast it wasn't safe to be near. This is what I've heard.

Are you sure that was not that green stuff. :)
Ben.

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Mike Katz via cctalk]

NEC also made "Thimble" printers.  These uses something similar to a 
daisy wheel but were more shaped like a thimble with the letters coming 
out up out of the center and the thimble rotated horizontally instead of 
vertically like the daisy wheel.


On 1/26/2023 4:19 PM, Chris via cctalk wrote:

  There were printers in the 80s, used by the IRS and such, that spit out paper 
so fast it wasn't safe to be near. This is what I've heard.

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chris via cctalk]

 There were printers in the 80s, used by the IRS and such, that spit out paper 
so fast it wasn't safe to be near. This is what I've heard.  

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Adrian Godwin via cctalk]

Wikipedia claims line printers had achieved 600 lpm by the '50s and have
reached 2500 lpm


On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 9:56 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On 1/26/23 13:23, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> >
> > Even a daisy wheel is easily capable of twice that.
> > But, we didn't have convenient access to anything better half a century
> > ago.
>
> A couple of years ago, that would have been true.  But the
> Diablo Daisy-wheels date from at least 1972. You're also forgetting the
> thermal printers, like the TI Silent 70, which could sail along at 30
> cps (1971).   There were other variations.  I recall a Singer terminal
> that used a spinning typewheel  (One always ended with a page eject
> because the damned thing would leave a vertical smear of black ink if
> left unattended).  Carriage was unidirectional via wormscrew rod; return
> was via a spring that was stretched as the carriage advanced.   I
> couldn't find anything on bitsavers about this creature, but I used one
> in the early 70s.
>
> --Chuck
>

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Don R via cctalk]

What about the SCM Kleinschmidt spin printer.

Don Resor

Sent from someone's iPhone

> On Jan 26, 2023, at 1:56 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On 1/26/23 13:23, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>> 
>> Even a daisy wheel is easily capable of twice that.
>> But, we didn't have convenient access to anything better half a century
>> ago.
> 
> A couple of years ago, that would have been true.  But the
> Diablo Daisy-wheels date from at least 1972. You're also forgetting the
> thermal printers, like the TI Silent 70, which could sail along at 30
> cps (1971).   There were other variations.  I recall a Singer terminal
> that used a spinning typewheel  (One always ended with a page eject
> because the damned thing would leave a vertical smear of black ink if
> left unattended).  Carriage was unidirectional via wormscrew rod; return
> was via a spring that was stretched as the carriage advanced.   I
> couldn't find anything on bitsavers about this creature, but I used one
> in the early 70s.
> 
> --Chuck
> 

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 1/26/23 13:23, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>
> Even a daisy wheel is easily capable of twice that.
> But, we didn't have convenient access to anything better half a century
> ago.

A couple of years ago, that would have been true.  But the
Diablo Daisy-wheels date from at least 1972. You're also forgetting the
thermal printers, like the TI Silent 70, which could sail along at 30
cps (1971).   There were other variations.  I recall a Singer terminal
that used a spinning typewheel  (One always ended with a page eject
because the damned thing would leave a vertical smear of black ink if
left unattended).  Carriage was unidirectional via wormscrew rod; return
was via a spring that was stretched as the carriage advanced.   I
couldn't find anything on bitsavers about this creature, but I used one
in the early 70s.

--Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Jan 26, 2023, at 4:23 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>> I submit that the Selectric was not the optimum platform with which to
>> set speed records.
> 
> Of course not!
> Even a daisy wheel is easily capable of twice that.
> But, we didn't have convenient access to anything better half a century ago.

The Selectric was a really nice mechanism for swappable typeface work.  And 
versions of it could do proportional spacing, well enough for some commercial 
typesetting work (like magazines).  Of course, they weren't the first design 
for swappable typefaces; that would be the Hammond typewriters from around 
1900.  Which, by the way, came with two choices of keyboard: a QWERTY keyboard, 
and their "ideal" keyboard which is semicircular and has two levels of shift 
(one for capital letters and the other for punctuation, corresponding to the 
three rows of characters on the rotating type shuttle that carries the 
characters to be imprinted).  Come to think of it, a version of the Hammond 
("Varityper") could do proportional spacing too, many decades before the IBM 
"Composer".

> I don't know what would be the fastest mechanism.
> Maybe a good keyboard input to a computer with a laser printer output?

Fastest, perhaps, but that doesn't permit immediate feedback -- you can't see 
what you typed.  Not unless you have a display in between.  For fingers to page 
in real time, the best answer is probably the dot matrix printer -- LA120 could 
do 120 characters/second as the name indicates, and chances are that could be 
beaten with some effort if it mattered.

That "fastest typist" article says the pre-computer record was done with an IBM 
Electric typewriter -- that would be a machine with conventional type arms, 
propelled by a mechanism involving a rotating rubber roller.  Interesting that 
those were faster than the Selectric.  And they could be hooked to computers; 
the IBM 1620 model 1 had such a setup (in the Model 2 it became a Selectric), 
and other computers of that era used things like the similar and very sturdy 
Friden Flexowriter.

paul

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

I submit that the Selectric was not the optimum platform with which to
set speed records.


Of course not!
Even a daisy wheel is easily capable of twice that.
But, we didn't have convenient access to anything better half a century 
ago.


I don't know what would be the fastest mechanism.
Maybe a good keyboard input to a computer with a laser printer output?

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 1/26/23 12:34, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> 

> 
> I believe professionals routinely achieved that speed, certainly on electric 
> typewriters; non-electric ones would be a bit harder.

This may surprise some:

https://www.academyoflearning.com/blog/the-fastest-typists-in-the-world-past-and-present/

>> The IBM selectric mechanism could handle 14.8 characters per second, about 
>> 150 WPM.  At GSFC, one guy managed to get a selectric terminal up to about 
>> twice that (300 baud?), but soon, the [APL] typeball flew off across the 
>> room.  There was some discussion of competing for distance.

I submit that the Selectric was not the optimum platform with which to
set speed records.

As an aside, one nice thing about old FORTRAN 66 and predecessors, is
the use of what amounts to a 46 character set, which amounts to letters,
numbers and -+=()/.,* and space.  It makes for very fast program entry.

--Chuck

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[emanuel stiebler via cctalk]

On 2023-01-26 14:15, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:


A somewhat similar but more primitive thing is found in the DEC VT71/t typesetting 
terminal, which has a row of 16 "User Defined Keys" at the top.  These have 
double keycaps, an outer transparent plastic shell that snaps over a smaller ordinary 
keycap with no label.  The idea is that you could make your own labels and insert them 
under the clear shell.  Then again, a lot of users simply laid a cardboard strip with 
legends just above the top row: http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal/vt71t/vt71t.jpg


And on the lk201 they finally made a strip for that :)

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Jan 26, 2023, at 2:39 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk  > wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
>> I recently came across the old H.S. yearbook of my grandmother from 1940s,
>> and it had a report/atrticle of a typing-class (all female; it mentioned
>> there were two males but they dropped out of the class), and the young
>> ladies had won a regional contest at a blazing speed of ~20 wpm.I
>> recall actually using a typewriter long ago, and I recall there being an
>> implicit speed limit because if you went too fast, the metal hammers would
>> bind up -- so I imagine in the 1940s the mechanical design of consumer/H.S.
>> grade typewriters maybe wasn't the best (so 20wpm then maybe was
>> reasonable).
> 
> Half a century ago, professional typists would strive for, and maybe succeed 
> at 100 WPM.

I believe professionals routinely achieved that speed, certainly on electric 
typewriters; non-electric ones would be a bit harder.

> The IBM selectric mechanism could handle 14.8 characters per second, about 
> 150 WPM.  At GSFC, one guy managed to get a selectric terminal up to about 
> twice that (300 baud?), but soon, the [APL] typeball flew off across the 
> room.  There was some discussion of competing for distance.
> 
> I knew a professional typist, working for my book publisher, who, on the 
> right machines (Linoterm) could average 150 WPM for an 8 hour day.  At the 
> end of the day, she had little or no remembrance of what she had typed.
> On conventional consumer Selectrics, she would wear one out in weeks.

Wow.

Data point: the PLATO system (University of Illinois) had a typing speed test 
program with a challenging wrinkle: if you mistyped any letter it would erase 
the current word entirely so you'd have to start over.  And since it was a 
competitive game, it kept records.  Those still exist; there are a couple of 
entries that seem to be robots, but the highest that seems real is 122 wpm and 
a dozen or so are over 100.  (Mine is 75.8).

paul

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:

I recently came across the old H.S. yearbook of my grandmother from 1940s,
and it had a report/atrticle of a typing-class (all female; it mentioned
there were two males but they dropped out of the class), and the young
ladies had won a regional contest at a blazing speed of ~20 wpm.I
recall actually using a typewriter long ago, and I recall there being an
implicit speed limit because if you went too fast, the metal hammers would
bind up -- so I imagine in the 1940s the mechanical design of consumer/H.S.
grade typewriters maybe wasn't the best (so 20wpm then maybe was
reasonable).


Half a century ago, professional typists would strive for, and maybe 
succeed at 100 WPM.


The IBM selectric mechanism could handle 14.8 characters per second, about 
150 WPM.  At GSFC, one guy managed to get a selectric terminal up to 
about twice that (300 baud?), but soon, the [APL] typeball flew off 
across the room.  There was some discussion of competing for distance.


I knew a professional typist, working for my book publisher, who, on the 
right machines (Linoterm) could average 150 WPM for an 8 hour day.  At the 
end of the day, she had little or no remembrance of what she had typed.

On conventional consumer Selectrics, she would wear one out in weeks.


I recall looking up the origin of the QWERTY keyboard - a rough beginning
in 1874 but rather refined by 1878, and having essentially the same layout
we have today.


The QWERTY keyboard deliberately limits speed, to avoid lever jams.


I'm not sure if any alternative can really give any
orders-of-magnitude improvement to the average user (in speed or
accuracy).  BUT, it's really hard to think outside the box on a 150+ year
old design that's so well accepted by the general public -- like the
pen/pencil, it's still a good intuitive design.


Various arrangements, such as Dvorak, have claimed speed improvements.
But, to use it one needs to first unlearn existing touch-typing skill.
Some chording keyboards show promise.  The "Right Hander" from 40 years 
ago, was slow.  So were the eight buttons on the handlebars of Steve 
Robert's bicycle.  Five buttons and tilt switches in a handgrip was even 
slower.  Raw ASCII is not an efficient input mode.


Currently, the fastest is stenographer keyboards, but that requires post 
input processing, usually with the original stenographer, to convert from 
"shorthand" to words.


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

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Sounds like what Apple came up with for its laptops a while ago, though 
in the most recent generation they dumped the idea.


A somewhat similar but more primitive thing is found in the DEC VT71/t 
typesetting terminal, which has a row of 16 "User Defined Keys" at the 
top.  These have double keycaps, an outer transparent plastic shell that 
snaps over a smaller ordinary keycap with no label.  The idea is that 
you could make your own labels and insert them under the clear shell. 
Then again, a lot of users simply laid a cardboard strip with legends 
just above the top row: 
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal/vt71t/vt71t.jpg


Some PC software, such as WordPervert, made heavy use of the "function 
keys".  There were cardboard templates to put around the function keys to 
label their use.


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

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Jan 26, 2023, at 1:34 PM, Steve Lewis via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
>> Changing keys would be rather hard on a touch typist, don't you think?
> 
> As for what I said of morphing shape of keycaps:  I think I recall a
> MacBook circa 2018 having something like this - at least one special row
> near the top? It had programmatically controlled colorized symbols, and was
> a small touch screen.  

Sounds like what Apple came up with for its laptops a while ago,  though in the 
most recent generation they dumped the idea.

A somewhat similar but more primitive thing is found in the DEC VT71/t 
typesetting terminal, which has a row of 16 "User Defined Keys" at the top.  
These have double keycaps, an outer transparent plastic shell that snaps over a 
smaller ordinary keycap with no label.  The idea is that you could make your 
own labels and insert them under the clear shell.  Then again, a lot of users 
simply laid a cardboard strip with legends just above the top row: 
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal/vt71t/vt71t.jpg

paul

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Steve Lewis via cctalk]

> Changing keys would be rather hard on a touch typist, don't you think?

As for what I said of morphing shape of keycaps:  I think I recall a
MacBook circa 2018 having something like this - at least one special row
near the top? It had programmatically controlled colorized symbols, and was
a small touch screen.There's also been anime depiction of "projected
keyboards" -- the keys are projected onto a surface, and some AI-assisted
camera monitors your finger motions and is able to compute/interpret what
projected keys are being pressed (and those projections of course can be of
any symbol shape).


I recently came across the old H.S. yearbook of my grandmother from 1940s,
and it had a report/atrticle of a typing-class (all female; it mentioned
there were two males but they dropped out of the class), and the young
ladies had won a regional contest at a blazing speed of ~20 wpm.I
recall actually using a typewriter long ago, and I recall there being an
implicit speed limit because if you went too fast, the metal hammers would
bind up -- so I imagine in the 1940s the mechanical design of consumer/H.S.
grade typewriters maybe wasn't the best (so 20wpm then maybe was
reasonable).

I remember even by the late 1980s, "most" people still didn't know how to
type very efficiently (as "most" people still didn't even have a computer
at home).  If I had to guess, I'd say in the 1980s the average WPM was
still ~20, while today I suspect it's over 100 wpm (be it either thumbing
text messages or actual typing) -- that's just a guess, no research.   But
now-a-days, I don't ever see any "Typing Class" specific classes at H.S. or
college.   Collectively or in aggregate, we've "all" learned that skill at
a sufficient speed and accuracy.   It's like the width of roads -- or the
width of lanes within a road -- we're forever stuck making those about the
width of two horses pulling a carriage.

But if your keyboard was some kind rubix-cube type device (which I think I
had once seen such a thing, as a keyboard) -- maybe some specialized
training would be needed again.  But I guess to be worth it, it would have
to show trained operators can get some kind of orders-of-magnitude
improvement (300+ wpm), and maybe with the "speed of human thought" that's
still not necessary, because we're still going to pause and think in
between typing.   Good point in stock brokers using some special keyboard
-- I wonder if perhaps not just for speed, but perhaps also security?   I
wonder if a kind of "morphing organic" keycap keyboard might help in
password/identity verification?  (sort of like private keys -- instead of
typing a password, what if a few keys are configured to show your chosen
codewords mingled in with a few random words, and you just press the key
with your codewords in the right sequence -- afterwhich the keys revert to
their normal purpose?  not sure if that really helps, since the keyboard is
then showing portions of your password -- maybe the keycaps could be angled
or polarized to be less visible from side angles {like screen privacy
things}).


I recall looking up the origin of the QWERTY keyboard - a rough beginning
in 1874 but rather refined by 1878, and having essentially the same layout
we have today.So it's neat to me that for all the advances in computing
processors and memory -- but we're still basically using a typewriter as
our primary input :DI'm not sure if any alternative can really give any
orders-of-magnitude improvement to the average user (in speed or
accuracy).  BUT, it's really hard to think outside the box on a 150+ year
old design that's so well accepted by the general public -- like the
pen/pencil, it's still a good intuitive design.


-SL











On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 2:53 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

>
> On 1/25/2023 3:22 PM, John-Paul Stewart via cctalk wrote:
> > On 1/25/23 11:53, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
> >> And back on the stenography-keyboard like thing -- what about morphing
> >> keys?  If a keyboard had actual screens on the keys, and the keys change
> >> (the actual symbol) based on the context of whatever you're doing.  I
> know
> >> we have macros and reprogrammable keyboards, but morphing the actual
> symbol
> >> on the keys might be neat.
> > A keyboard using small 48x48 pixel OLED screens on each of the keys has
> > been done.  It was many years ago and they were super expensive at the
> > time.  As a result they were not commercially successful.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Maximus_keyboard
>
> Changing keys would be rather hard on a touch typist, don't you think?
>
>
> bill
>
>
>

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Jan 25, 2023, at 3:52 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/25/2023 3:22 PM, John-Paul Stewart via cctalk wrote:
>> On 1/25/23 11:53, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
>>> And back on the stenography-keyboard like thing -- what about morphing
>>> keys?  If a keyboard had actual screens on the keys, and the keys change
>>> (the actual symbol) based on the context of whatever you're doing.  I know
>>> we have macros and reprogrammable keyboards, but morphing the actual symbol
>>> on the keys might be neat.
>> A keyboard using small 48x48 pixel OLED screens on each of the keys has
>> been done.  It was many years ago and they were super expensive at the
>> time.  As a result they were not commercially successful.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Maximus_keyboard
> 
> Changing keys would be rather hard on a touch typist, don't you think?
> 
> 
> bill

A touch typist probably won't notice in the first place.  But anyone who isn't 
quite that skilled might benefit.  An obvious application is when you're 
dealing with multiple scripts.  Two can be handled with custom keycaps, but 
more than two would be problematic.

paul

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 12:53 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> > A keyboard using small 48x48 pixel OLED screens on each of the keys has
> > been done.  It was many years ago and they were super expensive at the
> > time.  As a result they were not commercially successful.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Maximus_keyboard
>
> Changing keys would be rather hard on a touch typist, don't you think?
>

If I remember correctly, one of the applications for these was for stock
traders.  Keys that changed according to context were apparently useful in
that regard.

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

On 1/25/2023 3:22 PM, John-Paul Stewart via cctalk wrote:

On 1/25/23 11:53, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:

And back on the stenography-keyboard like thing -- what about morphing
keys?  If a keyboard had actual screens on the keys, and the keys change
(the actual symbol) based on the context of whatever you're doing.  I know
we have macros and reprogrammable keyboards, but morphing the actual symbol
on the keys might be neat.

A keyboard using small 48x48 pixel OLED screens on each of the keys has
been done.  It was many years ago and they were super expensive at the
time.  As a result they were not commercially successful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Maximus_keyboard


Changing keys would be rather hard on a touch typist, don't you think?


bill

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 12:23 PM John-Paul Stewart via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On 1/25/23 11:53, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
> >
> > And back on the stenography-keyboard like thing -- what about morphing
> > keys?  If a keyboard had actual screens on the keys, and the keys change
> > (the actual symbol) based on the context of whatever you're doing.  I
> know
> > we have macros and reprogrammable keyboards, but morphing the actual
> symbol
> > on the keys might be neat.
>
> A keyboard using small 48x48 pixel OLED screens on each of the keys has
> been done.  It was many years ago and they were super expensive at the
> time.  As a result they were not commercially successful.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Maximus_keyboard


I remember these.  Very cool.

But Steve's original query reminded me of videos I came across a few days
ago of the (very rare) Con Brio Synthesizer, which has a panel with a
myriad of buttons that light up/go dark depending on the context of the
mode, facilitating the operator in highlighting only those buttons
applicable in the current mode.  Here's a video that explains its operation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-tr9FUGlr0

I had a hand in restoring that synth.

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[John-Paul Stewart via cctalk]

On 1/25/23 11:53, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
> 
> And back on the stenography-keyboard like thing -- what about morphing
> keys?  If a keyboard had actual screens on the keys, and the keys change
> (the actual symbol) based on the context of whatever you're doing.  I know
> we have macros and reprogrammable keyboards, but morphing the actual symbol
> on the keys might be neat.

A keyboard using small 48x48 pixel OLED screens on each of the keys has
been done.  It was many years ago and they were super expensive at the
time.  As a result they were not commercially successful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Maximus_keyboard

[cctalk] Re: Computer Museum uses GreaseWeazle to help exonerate Maryland Man

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 1/25/23 09:46, ben via cctalk wrote:

> Where is is the IMPLES logic function? EQV?
> Lets get updated from 1960's algol, bfore even talking about new stuff,
> like lower case latin letters.
> That includes the keyboard and display.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_display_code

It was part of the 6-bit CDC display code ca.1963.  It did make FORTRAN
programs "interesting" to read, however.

--Chuck