Tony Duell skrev:
>> I don't really understand why people care about originality. Isn't that
>> mainly a metaphysical matter? Or am I being too post-modern?
>It depends on what you mean by 'originality'.
I'm sorry, I can't find the right word...
>Suppose you took the PDP8/e CPU and built an exact copy using modern TTL
>chips, etc (I'll neglect for the moment that Compaq's lawyers would
>probably object to this :-)). To me, that would be as useful, and as
>interesting as the oriignal PDP8/e that's on my desk. I could get the
>tech manuals off the shelf, clip the logicdart onto various IC pins, run
>programs, and see what happened.
Sooner or later, you'd probably have to replace chips anyway.
>Now, suppose you built a PDP8/e compatible CPU in an FPGA. That's a
>perfectly reasonable thing to do, but to me it would not be as 'useful'
>or 'interesting' as the real PDP8/e or a chipwise clone of it. I couldn't
>do the sort of things that I wanted to do to it. Other people -- those
>that are primarily software hackers, presumably could use a
>PDP8/e-in-an-FPGA instead of the real PDP8/e.
Naturally, I assumed an exact replica, or at least exact in every sense which
would matter. Selling an FPGA-based Imsai to you would be silly, but
apparently this Imsai is built in the very same way as they were in the 70s.
OTOH, I can't help but think that the manufacturer is being a bit dishonest,
since he's deliberately using (if I've been following this correctly) chips
with datestamps from the 70s. That would mean that he actually thinks of age
as something important, instead of just using whatever chip he most easily
could get.
OTOH, if you're choosing an old Imsai over a new one, you're essentially
collecting dust.
>> Really, asd long as the reproduction is identical in every sense, why would
>> it matter when it was built? I wouldn't really mind replacing my 1992 Amiga
>> 4000 with a freshly built replica. As long as it looked and behaved like my
>> current A4000, but didn't consist of eight-year-old hardware, the new model
>> would be superior.
>Why? Old chips (meaning those made in the last 30 years or so) seem to be
>pretty reliable most of the time...
I agree that there has occured some kind natural selection WRT those chips,
but...
Eventually things become worn out, even solder points, traces and joints in
electronics.
>> Likewise, why would it matter whether your issue of X-men was printed in
>> 1996 instead of 1963? Is it the actual reading material or 30-year old
>> paper you're looking for?
>True, which is why I spend far too much money on Lindsay Publications
>reprints of old books on radio, electical stuff, engineering, etc. The
>_information_ is what matters to me.
>But, I would not be happy paying a high price for a 'rare book' and then
>finding out it was a Lindsay reprint that is still 'in print'. Because I
>have then not got what I paid for.
OTOH, why would it be rare in the first place if it's still "in print"?
>> OTOH, packaging is important to me, and so is the condition of the
>> equipment I get. I find aesthetic pleasure in the design of the computer
>> and its
>I get my 'aesthetic pleasure' at a somewhat lower level :-). Looking at
>the _beautiful_ electronic designs in some of these old machines. And to
>do that doesn't depend on a perfect case.
I'm sorry that I can't make out such things. I'm a software brute. =)
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
I dunno, I dream in Perl sometimes...
--Larry Wall in <8538_at_jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Received on Thu May 10 2001 - 19:02:28 BST