Classic Computers vs. Classic Computing

From: Bob Shannon <bshannon_at_tiac.net>
Date: Thu Sep 13 19:02:41 2001

I diagree.

We need both the emulation-simulation fans, AND the hardware fans.

Simulators will never recover data from physical media, and the hardware
should be preserved for the future.

But in time, the last examples of the hardware will cease to run, and
parts will
be long gone. As some (distant point) the torch must pass to emulation,
but this
should be delayed as long as practical.

As for the computing experiuance being computing, I also disagree.

Building devices and interfacing them to the hardware has always been
a major attraction to computing, and this is nearly all the original
personal computers were able to do.

Douglas Quebbeman wrote:

> Ok,
>
> We all need a topic to take our minds of the WTC attack. Here's
> one I've been meaning to bring up, surely it will generate a lot
> of discussion.
>
> In a recent thread, Tony Duell expressed a lack of interest in the
> emulators and simulators of old iron that are now circulating. His
> reasons centered around his love of hardware. From my perspective,
> it appears that for Tony, the experience of computing cannot be
> separated from the experiencing of the computer.
>
> My reading of this mailinglist's charter leads me to conclude that
> the group is here for the benefit of the Tonys (BTW, Tony, I'm *not*
> picking on you) in the world, those for whom the hardware *is* the
> end-all be-all of the Classic _Computer_ experience.
>
> I confess I don't like that- the Classic Computers for which I
> lust the most will forever remain inaccessible (and few examples
> will even continue to exist). However, as both an RJE operator and
> as a mainframe user, I found the experience to be more about the
> _computing_ and less about the _computer_.
>
> Exceptions included (back in the 70s) of building an IMSAI, a SOL,
> hacking a KIM-1, etc. But after we got the hardware running, the
> fun part was in creating the _computing environment_.
>
> So, I think the formal name and the charter of this group should
> change to reflect an interest in Class Computing. The only real
> change would be that discussions about the eumlators and simulators
> would no longer be OT unless they drift into details of programming
> the emu/simulators themselves. Additionally, more detailed discussions
> of the Classic Operating Systems would be similarly on-topic.
>
> I'm not sure how many of you have ever thought about this; but
> now that I've broached the subject, whaddy'all think?
>
> Regards,
> -doug quebbeman
Received on Thu Sep 13 2001 - 19:02:41 BST