>
> I guess I don't collect so much as use. I'm getting into "trailing edge"
I wonder how many others on this list don't even own a non-classic
computer? I think all the machines I use would count, even the much-hacked
AT I use for most general computing these days still has the original IBM
motherboard (although with a 486 kludge-board in place of the 80286) and
I/O cards built from row upon row of TTL chips
My IBM XT (true-blue) runs my EPROM programmer, GAL programmer, cable
tester, I2C tester, etc. My PC/AT runs my PIC programmer, and does a bit
of word processing. For real programming I have a PDP8 on my desk (:-)), a
PDP11 in a 6' rack in the corner, and a PERQ alongside it. Then there are
plenty of other machines (CP/M, OS9, etc) that I can get out and set up in
a couple of minutes when I want to use them.
If I was given the latest Pentium PC, with all the current options (I'm so
old-fashioned, I have no idea what is current in the PC line any more
;-)), I'd probably sell it and take the money to the next radio rally
(Hamfest) and buy all the classic computers, test equipments and
boatanchor radios that I could find. Modern PCs are so badly built and
documented that quite simply I don't want one.
The older machines are still quite capable of doing useful work, and I see
no reason not to use them.
> It also does warm the cockles of my heart that some brilliant hack that someone
> came up with a decade ago to work within the hardware constraints of the day
> and do something insanely useful - will STILL be useful to me. Moreso because
> if it's a DOS thing I can carry the computer in my pocket.
When I look at the software (and hardware) of 10-15 years ago, I realise
how far _down_ we've gone since then.
> Jim Strickland
--
-tony
ard12_at_eng.cam.ac.uk
The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill
Received on Thu Apr 10 1997 - 21:04:59 BST