Again, I have to agree about the "waste-of-trees" nature of most "technical"
documents these days. Nevertheless, I find it easier to understand the
result of a SPICE simulation when displayed graphically, e.g. with PROBE as
supplied with PSpice, as opposed to a 2-page long list of raw values. It's
true, SOME terminals, more recently than when I last bought one, but
nevertheless SOME terminals, were capable of graphic display. They just
weren't up to what a PC could do unless you paid more than what a PC would
cost.
I already stated that the "old" machines did the "old" and in many instances
quite persistent tasks well, and still would, given a chance. People have
learned, however, that it's not as beneficial to have OLD hardware as to
have new, not because of what it will do, but what it won't. I don't mean
that it won't break. Any hardware can fail. It's a statistical reality.
However, if you try to repair that old, fine, terminal you bought in the
'80's you'll find you can't get it fixed for less than the cost of a PC.
If, however, you break your PC, there's really nothing you can't repair or
replace for much less than the cost of the original.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard_at_p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, April 04, 1999 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: homemade computer for fun and experience...
>> What's happened over the years, however, is that people, having seen what
a
>> computer CAN do as shown in games, etc, have actually found ways to make
>> data easier to interpret, and perhaps to add meaning and emphasis to a
>> presentation, making it more persuasive, if not more informative, by
using
>> the graphical capabilities of a computer.
>
>Odd... I much prefer text to graphics for just about everything. Sure I
>like circuit diagrams. And graphs, of course. But I find the typical '4
>colour glossy' that passes for a technical document these days to be a
>waste of trees. I'd much rather sit down with an informative piece of text.
>
>> If you use a terminal, that's what you've got. There were, for a time,
>> attempts made at graphic terminals. These failed, however, because there
>
>AFAIK X-terminals are still in use....
>
>> weren't standards on which they could base their usage. Consequently, if
>> one didn't have certain hardware, there were limitations on the software
he
>> could use. Today, that's not the case, as EVERYONE has a PC clone with
at
>> least 1Kx768 pixels in 256 or more colors. EVERYONE has fairly ample
>
>Do they? I don't. My PC has Hercules and CGA graphics only. I don't own a
>VGA card (I might have an EGA card somewhere, but I don't use it).
>
>> Today, no one would normally consider a CP/M box for "useful" and
essential
>
>Depends on the 'useful work'. I've done seriously useful work on a Z80
>machine in the last year or so (admittedly running LS-DOS and not CP/M). It
>depends on what you class as 'useful work'. My old 8-bitters can still
>talk to the special interfaces I've designed to (e.g.) test cabling, dump
>ROMs, etc. Sure, I could use a PC. But have you tried getting the same
>level of docs for a PC-clone as I have for my TRS-80 Model 4? The latter
>is much easier to repair and keep running
>
>-tony
>
>
Received on Sun Apr 04 1999 - 19:47:12 BST