From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:35:58 +0000 (UTC), pausch@saaf.se (Paul
Schlyter) wrote:

In article <3f002b4d.813040@news.netnitco.net>,
vairxpert <vairxpert@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 07:28:56 +0000 (UTC), pausch@saaf.se (Paul
Schlyter) wrote:

In article <3eff7fb0.35967984@news.netnitco.net>,
vairxpert <vairxpert@hotmail.com> wrote:

Have you ever owned a one piece computer system?

Only some laptops with LED or LCD screens, where this problem with
magnetic fields doesn't exist. I always thought 1-piece computers
systems with CRT displays either were too bulky or had a screen
too small.

Full blown laptop computers with LCD screens didn't exist back in the
late 70's/early 80's.

I know..... there was only the Osbourne, with a small CRT display....

And don't forget about the TRS-80 Model 4P. The P standing for
"portable" since it only weighed about 25 lbs : )

If you were around and able to use a computer back then you had
no choice.

Sure I had a choice! My choice was to use only desktop computes... :-)

Those systems were
designed to work that way so there is no reason people shouldn't have
bought one. Just about every high end serious business computer was
all one piece with either 5.25" or 8" floppy drives back in the early
80's.

...I don't think so. CP/M machines were the most common micros used
by businesses back, and they usually had a separate terminal. And
minis and mainframes (which were the most serious computers back
then) _definitely_ had separate terminals !!!!

We're not talking about terminals, mini's and mainframes.

You were talking about "systems" -- they include mini's and mainframes,
which back then was dominant among serious computer users, who often
regarded micros as just toys....

I guess system can mean a bunch of different things...I consider my
Emachine that I'm typing this message on to be a system. An no wise
cracks about the E...out of the dozens of computers I've owned it's
been the most reliable : )

I can give you a mile long list of popular systems (most CPM
compatible) that were all in one, including every TRS-80 (model II,
III, 4, 4P, 12, 16), Kaypro's, Osbornes, macs, ect.

What business systems from 1982

Was Trash-80 really a _business_ system?

All except the CoCo's. The model I was more of a ground breaking
hobbiest system. The III's popped up everywhere from homes, schools
and businesses (I still laugh everytime I watch Airport and see the
III's at the terminal). The 2, 12, 16 were very expensive heavy duty
office type systems not designed for home use. They used the big ol'
8" floppies and were available early on with hard drives. I think a
few of those depending on options hit well over $10 grand.

I owned a very basic 16K cassette based model III. It was $1,000 plus
the cost of the cassette recorder. Fully loaded with dual floppies,
48K, RS232 board and Orchestra 90 sound board brought the price up
towards $3,000.00. I eventually got there but only after all the
parts were heavily discounted. I know the original price of the Drive
0 kit was $1,000.00 alone.

and earlier do you recall that used a separate CPU, keyboard and
monitor? Something that you would walk into a persons office and
see sitting on a desk?

The Altair, IMSAI 8080 and most S-100 computers, including brands
advertised specifically as business computers, such as the North Star >Horizon. And, of course, the Apple II which got used as a business
system too........ and the Apple ///....

I'll give ya that...I'll say there's a fair share of both.

Later the VIC-20, Commodore-64, Sinclair ZX-80, ZX-81 and Spectru,
the Jupiter Ace and many more appeared, which had separate displays.
But they were not business systems.

Considering when they were released I never understood why the C64 and
Atari 800's never made it as real business machines? I would say
either one was able to hold it own against the first 4.77 mhz XT's and
they cost a fraction of the price.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

In article <3f00cbfd.3788766@news.netnitco.net>,
vairxpert <vairxpert@hotmail.com> wrote:

Later the VIC-20, Commodore-64, Sinclair ZX-80, ZX-81 and Spectru,
the Jupiter Ace and many more appeared, which had separate displays.
But they were not business systems.

Considering when they were released I never understood why the C64 and
Atari 800's never made it as real business machines? I would say
either one was able to hold it own against the first 4.77 mhz XT's and
they cost a fraction of the price.

At the very beginning, IBM considered the PC to be a game machine for
home use.....

BTW the XT had a hard disk (10 MBytes -- tiny by today's standards but
enormous back then), which probably partly explains why the XT was so
expensive (the other reason it was so expensive was of course the
brand name "IBM". Otoh, when Apple released the Lisa, and later the
first Macs, they did the same thing: these were _not_ cheap machines!).




--
----------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN

e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se

WWW: http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/

http://home.tiscali.se/pausch/

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

"Sam Gillett" <samgillett@msn.com> wrote in news:As8Ma.5581$Fl5.190@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:

Good thing you aren't an engineer with the computer makers. If you
were, it would require a hoist to install a new computer system, just
to get the shielding in place! :-)

Best regards,

Sam Gillett aka Mars Probe @ Starship Intrepid 1-972-221-4088
Last 8-bit BBS in the Dallas area. Commodore lives!

Use Aluminum, not a Iron Boilerplate. Ok, 1/8th inch plate should do but
hey, you may need to build muscles like Arnold. Anyway. ever heard of
wheels. :-)

You can say, you'll never have to worry about it breaking. Not to mention,
it is built like a tank. Anyway, if you want Iron Boilerplate then use it
for the outside casing. Just to make it very hard to break.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote:

In article <o9ctfvc6143n8sqi01f6lpode89p5stnki@4ax.com>,
Peter Thomas <see-my-sig@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:01:20 -0500, Exegete <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote:

I loved it. It was slow - compared to an IBM disk drive. From what I've
seen of Commodore disk drives, well.... I never had ANY problem with
mine. But all the ADAM's I've ever seen had the warning not to leave the >> tapes on top of a color TV, or it would be erased. Perhaps, or perhaps
that was a "cover" for tapes that did go bad.

Leaving *any* kind of magnetic storage on top of a television is never
a good thing. I'm not sure why Coleco specified a colour television
either. All TVs, to my knowledge, play around with magnetic fields,
and can damage magnetic media.

Which is why you should never get some models of the Apple Macintosh:
a CRT display as well as a floppy and a harddisk inside the same
cover..... *shudder*.....

Never thought of that... is it an actual issue, or just a percieved one?
I can't see it being that much different than say a DuoDisk with a
monitor stacked on top...


--
=LUDDITE ENTERPRISES=
http://www.luddite.ca
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

Leaving *any* kind of magnetic storage on top of a television is never
a good thing. I'm not sure why Coleco specified a colour television either. All TVs, to my knowledge, play around with magnetic fields,
and can damage magnetic media.

Which is why you should never get some models of the Apple Macintosh:
a CRT display as well as a floppy and a harddisk inside the same
cover..... *shudder*.....

Never thought of that... is it an actual issue, or just a percieved one?
I can't see it being that much different than say a DuoDisk with a
monitor stacked on top...

Actually it isn't. Most floppy drives are shielded anyway, plus they
add shielding between the components that are susceptible to the
magnetic fields inside the case. If you are concerned, simply remove
the cover and if the drive is not encased in itself, then it probably has
a piece of coated paper between it and the CRT.

Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprises };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - willy46pa@comcast.net



---
This email ain't infected, dude!

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.495 / Virus Database: 294 - Release Date: 6/30/03


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm


wildstar wrote ...

"Sam Gillett" <samgillett@msn.com> wrote in >news:As8Ma.5581$Fl5.190@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:

Good thing you aren't an engineer with the computer makers. If you
were, it would require a hoist to install a new computer system, just
to get the shielding in place! :-)

Use Aluminum, not a Iron Boilerplate. Ok, 1/8th inch plate should do but
hey, you may need to build muscles like Arnold. Anyway. ever heard of
wheels. :-)

You don't understand magnetic shielding. 22 gauge steel is reasonably lightweight, yet provides better shielding than aluminum over an inch thick. Aluminum provides good shielding against EMF (ElectroMotive Force) fields
such as RF (Radio Frequency) energy. But, as it is a non-magnetic material, provides little or no shielding against magnetic energy, or fields.

Steel is a magnetic material, and as such, provides good magnetic shielding.
As it is also a good conductor it also provides good RF shielding.

You can say, you'll never have to worry about it breaking. Not to mention,
it is built like a tank. Anyway, if you want Iron Boilerplate then use it
for the outside casing. Just to make it very hard to break.

What about the material used in bullet-proof vests? Kelvar isn't it? That would have the advantage of making your computer both lightweight _and_ bulletproof! ;-)

Best regards,

Sam Gillett aka Mars Probe @ Starship Intrepid 1-972-221-4088
Last 8-bit BBS in the Dallas area. Commodore lives!





--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm


Paul Schlyter wrote ...

BTW the XT had a hard disk (10 MBytes -- tiny by today's standards but >enormous back then), which probably partly explains why the XT was so >expensive (the other reason it was so expensive was of course the
brand name "IBM". Otoh, when Apple released the Lisa, and later the
first Macs, they did the same thing: these were _not_ cheap machines!).

The hard drive was an option on most of the XT clones. Not sure if the IBM
was available without it or not. Back in the mid 1980's a lot of home users bought a bare bones machine and added a hard drive later. By buying an RLL drive controller card instead of an MFM card, you could end up with 35 megabytes of drive space for the price of a 20 megabyte drive. :-)

Best regards,

Sam Gillett aka Mars Probe @ Starship Intrepid 1-972-221-4088
Last 8-bit BBS in the Dallas area. Commodore lives!







--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

"Sam Gillett" <samgillett@msn.com> wrote in news:gwqMa.198$aD6.128@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:

You don't understand magnetic shielding. 22 gauge steel is reasonably lightweight, yet provides better shielding than aluminum over an inch
thick. Aluminum provides good shielding against EMF (ElectroMotive
Force) fields such as RF (Radio Frequency) energy. But, as it is a non-magnetic material, provides little or no shielding against
magnetic energy, or fields.

Hehehe, your right. What the heck was I thinking. I must have been up too late. Anyway, an 1/8 inch Steel Plate would do just fine. Anyway, if
placed just below the CRT and on the sides. Then you would do just fine.
Then you place the Aluminum shielding just underneath the Steel plate inbetween the Steel plate and the electronics/drives. This way, you block
the magnetics and have very good RF Double Shielding.

Steel is a magnetic material, and as such, provides good magnetic
shielding. As it is also a good conductor it also provides good RF
shielding.

What about the material used in bullet-proof vests? Kelvar isn't it?
That would have the advantage of making your computer both lightweight
_and_ bulletproof! ;-)

Only if Kevlar wasn't a flexible material. Spider-web anyone. Hehehe... Anyway, I wouldn't mind using heavy-duty material but hey, make sure the bottom has wheels. Not the cheap-ass plastic shit but the stong metal
wheels. Anyway, whoever said weight matters. Maybe one can have strong muscles. Hey, if Arnold can throw a barbarian sword with one arm (as used
in Conan) and lift 300 lbs then what stops you roll this around. ;-)

Anyway, I thought we can have some good comedy around here.



--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

In article <1fxbkku.ve14pc6tpffoN%email@luddite.ca>,
Simon Williams <email@luddite.ca> wrote:

Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote:

Which is why you should never get some models of the Apple Macintosh:
a CRT display as well as a floppy and a harddisk inside the same
cover..... *shudder*.....

Never thought of that... is it an actual issue, or just a percieved one?
I can't see it being that much different than say a DuoDisk with a
monitor stacked on top...

Percieved.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm


vairxpert wrote ...

I did the RLL thing...it worked great with certain drives. I was able
to squeeze 32 megs out of an MFM drive that way. Sleazgates just
wouldn't fly with that trick though.

I used a 20 meg MFM Seagate with a Western Digital RLL card. I did have to
do a low-level format to get it to work though. This was after Seagate
started including install software on a 5 1/4" disk in the box with their drives. The software made low-level formatting easy.

I loved the BBS's back then and how each would brag in the opening
screen about the amount of online space they had. I remember being
blown away when "Last Chance" upped his to 85 megs!

I remember one BBS using five 286's networked together. With two 50 meg
drives in each box. He had five phone lines and a modem in each computer
for a 5 node system. One line was free (and _always_ busy). It was worth
ten bucks a year to become a subscriber and be able to connect on the other four lines.

Best regards,

Sam Gillett aka Mars Probe @ Starship Intrepid 1-972-221-4088
Last 8-bit BBS in the Dallas area. Commodore lives!







--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

In <8TydnVmUt7nuY5-iXTWc-w@speakeasy.net> Matthew Russotto wrote:

In article <1fxbkku.ve14pc6tpffoN%email@luddite.ca>,
Simon Williams <email@luddite.ca> wrote:

Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote:

Which is why you should never get some models of the Apple Macintosh:
a CRT display as well as a floppy and a harddisk inside the same
cover..... *shudder*.....

Never thought of that... is it an actual issue, or just a percieved
one? I can't see it being that much different than say a DuoDisk with
a monitor stacked on top...

Percieved.

Perceived.

The old toaster Macs did have a warning about placing an external floppy
drive on top of the computer, or on a stand beside it at the same level
as the monitor. The internal drives were never a problem of course,
since the designers _knew_ where they would be.

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand

Apple II - FutureCop:LAPD - iMac Game Wizard http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rojaws/ ________________________________________________________________________
"So we went to Atari and said, 'We've got this amazing thing, even built
with some of your parts and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll
give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work
for you.' They said 'No'. Then we went to Hewlett-Packard; they said,
'We don't need you. You haven't got through college yet'."

Apple Computer founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and
H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

Well,
the crash took place from 1983 to 1985. Read how many millions Atari
lost in 1983 and 1984 (until the Tramiels took over; the losses were
smaller then and somewhere in 1985 Atari was on the plus side again).
Some companies already got busted in 1983, some survived until 1984.
think, after 1985 the great homecomputer crash was over...
-Andreas.



Robert J Baker schrieb:

Exegete <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message news:<3EFC75C0.3030706@noneofyourbusiness.com>...

That's because of the great computer/video market crash of 1983, when alot of companies went under!

Actually, the crash was the following year, 1984.

Actually, it was the year after that -- 1985. I remember because of
Live Aid. :p

(One computer magazine cartoon postulated the rescue of a certain
company by way of a "Clive Aid" event...)

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

If it has anything to

do with display, the VIC (Video Interface Chip) in the C64 was the most advanced display processor available in a low cost home computer in 1983.

Yeah - those 16 colours really were advanced in 1983. All the Atari
computer owners are probably laughing their asses off at this statement.

The C64 was one of my favorite systems. Best developers, best games,
terrific sound. But your statement above is SILLY.











--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm


Mark Rathwell wrote ...

If it has anything to

do with display, the VIC (Video Interface Chip) in the C64 was the most
advanced display processor available in a low cost home computer in 1983.

Yeah - those 16 colours really were advanced in 1983. All the Atari
computer owners are probably laughing their asses off at this statement.

The C64 was one of my favorite systems. Best developers, best games,
terrific sound. But your statement above is SILLY.

You seem to be forgetting that sprites were implemented in hardware, as well
as collision detection in hardware, and other nifty features. All of which explains your statement above about the C64 having good games. :-)

Best regards,

Sam Gillett aka Mars Probe @ Starship Intrepid 1-972-221-4088
Last 8-bit BBS in the Dallas area. Commodore lives!







--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm



Sam Gillett wrote:

Mark Rathwell wrote ...

If it has anything to

do with display, the VIC (Video Interface Chip) in the C64 was the most >>>advanced display processor available in a low cost home computer in 1983.

Yeah - those 16 colours really were advanced in 1983. All the Atari >>computer owners are probably laughing their asses off at this statement.

The C64 was one of my favorite systems. Best developers, best games, >>terrific sound. But your statement above is SILLY.

You seem to be forgetting that sprites were implemented in hardware, as well as collision detection in hardware, and other nifty features. All of which explains your statement above about the C64 having good games. :-)

The 9918/28 had 32 hardware sprites and 16 colors. Long before 1983

Roy

Best regards,

Sam Gillett aka Mars Probe @ Starship Intrepid 1-972-221-4088
Last 8-bit BBS in the Dallas area. Commodore lives!

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

In comp.sys.atari.8bit Sam Gillett <samgillett@msn.com> wrote:

You seem to be forgetting that sprites were implemented in hardware, as well as collision detection in hardware, and other nifty features. All of which explains your statement above about the C64 having good games. :-)

Sprites and collision detection were done in hardware on the Atari 8-bits, too!

C=64 sprites seemed to be more versatile 'out-of-the-box', but there were some pretty damned
cool tricks you could do with those screen-length (e.g., ~200 pixel tall) 'players' and 'missiles'
on the Atari, too. ;)

-bill!

--
bill@newbreedsoftware.com Got kids? Get Tux Paint! http://newbreedsoftware.com/bill/ http://newbreedsoftware.com/tuxpaint/ --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.cbm

it'd be nice to "combine" the best features of both world's wouldn't it?


"William Kendrick" <bill@newbreedsoftware.com> wrote in message news:IPHOa.64$dk4.3239@typhoon.sonic.net...

In comp.sys.atari.8bit Sam Gillett <samgillett@msn.com> wrote:

You seem to be forgetting that sprites were implemented in hardware, as

well

as collision detection in hardware, and other nifty features. All of

which

explains your statement above about the C64 having good games. :-)

Sprites and collision detection were done in hardware on the Atari 8-bits,

too!

C=64 sprites seemed to be more versatile 'out-of-the-box', but there were

some pretty damned

cool tricks you could do with those screen-length (e.g., ~200 pixel tall)

'players' and 'missiles'

on the Atari, too. ;)

-bill!

--
bill@newbreedsoftware.com Got kids? Get Tux

Paint!

http://newbreedsoftware.com/bill/

http://newbreedsoftware.com/tuxpaint/


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113