Replicas - was Re: *** Ideas needed for developing interactive

From: Tony Duell <ard_at_p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri Sep 10 17:48:42 2004

>
> Tony Duell wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but I object to technical museums that present replicas (and
> > emulators hidden inside the case of an older machine, and...) as the real
> > thing. You would not accept an art gallery that showed copies of the
> > famous paintings, you shouldn't accept it for computers either.
> >
> > If I go to a museum it's because I want to see the real machine -- one I
> > don't happen to already have. I don't want to see a fake.
>
> I agree with you that the representation of a replica as an original is
> reprehensible. But, if the choice is a replica or nothing?
>
> I am thinking of Sellams PDP-1 replica in Tokyo, by all accounts they

I don't think I'd call that a replica. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
thought it was based on a PC running an emulator. To me a replica of a
PDP1 would be a machine built as far as possible to the original
schematics (using more modern components if appropriate, like more common
tranasistors). But IMHO even the PSU should be built to the original design.

I have no problem with true replicas _provided they're identified as
such_. But I don't think I really approve of museums showing emulators
running on PCs (mainly because I could run those if I wanted to at home,
I guess).

-tony
Received on Fri Sep 10 2004 - 17:48:42 BST