On Wed, 26 May 1999 allisonp_at_world.std.com wrote:
> > A stock computer is generally more representative of the original. However,
> > there are definitely some cases where a modification was required to the
> > original to fix a bug that came from the factory and was pretty much
> > mandatory if that machine was to be useful.
>
> The question was clearly not understood. The CT1042 is a 16line by 32
> character terminal board that can drive a TV or monitor. the single most
> desireable mod for it was to get 64characters per line. That mod was
> widely done and improved the usefulness.
Ok, let me clear this up. I must admit I had to go back to the rule (8b)
myself to read it over again. The intent of this rule was not to disallow
any modifications to the computer, although it can certainly be
interpreted that way. The intent was to penalize entries that did not
have all the original (stock) parts. So say a computer suffered through a
lightning strike and had to have half its chips replaced. That machine
would not get full points because it would have been considerably rebuilt.
The specific question of whether to penalize modifications made to a
computer that were reasonable and desirable for the time was not (I don't
think) discussed. I will bring it up in committee and then report back
what our conclusion is, with a modification to rule 8b.
> > used with the computer to make it a whole system would make for a better
> > exhibit. An Altair with an Altair VCT or Comter terminal would probably
>
> That would be anything but typical as the average Altair in 1976 didn't
> have mass storage. The rules for the machine in the gap between the
> mark-8 and the trs80 (~1974 ->late 1977) really dont fit that pattern.
> it was the days of a TTY was 1000$ and a used VT05 terminal easily 500$.
> Software was typically casette tape or paper tape. Someone in 1978 that
> showed upat a club with non-tty terminal and a disk system was usually the
> subject of the entire meeting! That tended to persist through 1980 as
> TRS80s an apples were off in their own groups.
Yes, anything but typical but the presence of those particular terminals
would therefore make the exhibit extraordinary and would make it a
candidate for some of the special award categories in section 4 of the
rules (specifically, "Best Preservation - Obscurity").
However, as the rules in section 8b imply, a "typical" setup would be
likely to score higher in the judging. This needs to be made more
implicit, probably in the form of an additional subsection, which will be
discussed and a determination made by the committee.
> Also what about those that were using systems like the KIM-1, IMP48, EVK68
> and a bunch of other SBCs that were so typical before the advent of the
> cheap single peice systems like the trs80s.
I don't see any particular points of conflict in the rules with regards to
single-boards. They would do fine in competition. Is there anything in
particular that you see in the rules that would go against single-board
entrants?
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar_at_siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
See
http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 04/03/99]
Received on Thu May 27 1999 - 02:41:08 BST