Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Jim Manley via cctalk]

Just to be clear, it wasn't that the CGA hadn't been designed and put
into production by the launch of the PC, the demand for the CGA was
simply overwhelming compared with the much lower demand and relatively
greater supply of the MDA.  Plus, IBM had no experience selling into
retail, let alone non-business consumer channels, which had come to
expect "high-resolution" color graphics built into a system (e.g., on
the Apple ][ motherboard).  There were all sorts of distribution
mismatches for the PC where various package combinations were offered
through various channels that had no relation to reality, demand-wise.
They offered employee discounts thinking that the PC would need to be
promoted from as many directions as possible, not realizing what kind
of tiger they had by the tail.  Its suppliers suddenly had to start a
world-wide scramble just to meet the sudden increased demand for
resistors, let alone color graphics video ICs.

IBM wasn't even aware of the penetration of dial-up among consumers
and very small businesses, or they would have initially offered
modems, at least as options, if not in package combos.  Retailers who
understood the consumer and very small business markets quickly began
offering modems in response to the vacuum that IBM had created.
Another sign that IBM wasn't confident about the longevity of the PC
is that they outsourced the development of its OS to Microsoft,
believing that Microsoft owned CP/M because of an Apple ][ compatible
product described in the next paragraph.

A small business to IBM was much larger than the sizes of businesses
that Apple was typically serving at that time.  Many are unaware that
the largest fraction of CP/M licenses ever sold were for the Microsoft
Softcard for the Apple ][ (about 300,000 sold, all told), not S-100
systems (somewhere around 150,000 systems built by hobbyists, or sold
by small manufacturers).  The Softcard was a Z-80 based single-board
computer that plugged into an Apple ][ slot, equipped with its own
80x24 character x line black-and-white video output, RAM, etc., and
that shared Apple ][  electrical power and floppy disk drives.  The
Softcard was Microsoft's first really successful product, responsible
for its first tens of millions of dollars in revenue and profits.

The Softcard was developed by Seattle Computer Products, the same
two-man company in a Seattle garage that later sold its prototype
8086/8088 OS to Microsoft for $50,000.  Microsoft turned around within
a day and sold it to IBM via a _non-exclusive_ license (a critical
factor that allowed them to field MS-DOS, their self-branded version
of IBM's PC-DOS), for $3 million _plus_ about $50 per computer sold
with PC-DOS.  That model, updated for Windows, is the cash cow that's
still printing profits for Microsoft to this day.

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Yvan Janssens via cctalk]

So, I have built a USB adapter for my 5150’s keyboard. The experience is
actually quite bad, as stated earlier. The main reason why I still use it
is because I took it with me from Belgium - it’s a French keyboard, and
having access to all the special characters makes typing in eg. French,
German or Spanish so much easier in the odd cases I have to.

For my main daily driver I just use a Unicomp PC5250. Like others said, new
keyboards based on the original mechanisms perform so much better. I spend
a lot of my work in 5250 sessions, and I also play MMOs, so having a
keyboard which doesn’t have to do almost-matching translations make sense.

Some people just have too much money.
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 at 17:20, Bill Degnan via cctalk 
wrote:

> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > They are just PS/2 keyboards, right? Or AT? The USB adapters for that
> are a
> > dime a dozen. I have 4 in my basement (the real PS/2 to USB, not the faux
> > ones that allowed dual-mode mice to connect to USB).
> >
> > Warner
> >
>
> The 3101 is not PS/2, pre-dates the IBM PC.  If someone made an adapter
> it'd be unique to this class of terminal.  May be like a DisplayWriter
> perhaps.
>

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Doc Shipley via cctalk]

On 10/19/18 12:18 PM, Daniel Seagraves via cctalk wrote:



On Oct 19, 2018, at 10:34 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk  
wrote:

Here is a great example of why the keyboards and terminals are getting
separated



Keyboard fetishists are vermin; They are destructive and have no redeeming 
qualities, and should be treated as such.

I had one of them spend the better part of an hour going on about how I had achieved 
“the holy grail of collecting” by having more than one “Space Cadet” keyboard, 
fawning about how superlatively perfect they’re supposed to be and everything else 
pales in comparison. They’re a status symbol in keyboard fetishist circles. 
According to him they auction north of $5000 for even non-working examples. I have 
no idea why. GNU Emacs can't use most of the “special” keys - The Lisp Machine 
itself doesn't even use most of them - and control is in the same relative place as 
modern keyboards instead of being where the caps lock key is which was the 
"mostest hacker-est” thing last I heard. I think it’s just conspicuous 
consumption - Having one proves you’ve got the dosh to waste things other people 
must work hard for a chance to get.



  That's just nasty.  Your invective, that is.  There are idiots in any 
enthusiast group, and predators.  Including this group, if we're honest. 
 You want to talk conspicuous consumption?  How many on this list, 
myself included, have spent a fortune on old computer hardware, and then 
another fortune housing it?


  I'm one of those "fetishists" - I do love me a nice clackety 
keyboard.  And not for nothing, but my experience with '80s- and 
'90s-era mechanical keyboards is precisely why I do.  I build my 
keyboards from new parts, and I think paying $5/switch for parts from 
the old Apple Extended Keyboard II is just silly, but I have a hard time 
blaming anybody for pursuing what's important to them.


  You guys want people to stop scavenging those irreplaceable 
treasures?  Ante up, pure and simple.  I've seen the same thing over and 
over in the vintage computer circles - guys wailing and wringing their 
hands about classic machines going to keyboard scavengers, or gold 
recovery, or whatever the Demon du Jour happens to be.  And then they 
won't pay the price of shipping to keep the thing out of the scrap pile.


  I have a 5140 Convertible that I tried to sell awhile back in the 
vcfed community.  I got a lot of lowball offers and a lot of rants 
veiled as warnings about those godless scavengers.  From the same 
cheapskates of course.  In the end, that system is worth twice as much 
as desoldered parts as the best offer I got.  Survey sez all that 
wailing and teeth-gnashing is bullshit.

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Adam Sampson via cctalk]

Jim Manley via cctalk  writes:

> Many are unaware that the largest fraction of CP/M licenses ever sold
> were for the Microsoft Softcard for the Apple ][ (about 300,000 sold,
> all told),

Do you mean sold up to that point? Amstrad went on to sell several
million PCWs with CP/M later in the 1980s. (They say 8 million on
http://www.amstrad.com/products/archive/, but that includes the
much less popular PCW16 which wasn't a CP/M machine.)

-- 
Adam Sampson  

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[John Foust via cctalk]

At 05:55 AM 10/20/2018, Adam Sampson via cctalk wrote:
>Jim Manley via cctalk  writes:
>
>> Many are unaware that the largest fraction of CP/M licenses ever sold
>> were for the Microsoft Softcard for the Apple ][ (about 300,000 sold,
>> all told),
>
>Do you mean sold up to that point? Amstrad went on to sell several
>million PCWs with CP/M later in the 1980s. (They say 8 million on
>http://www.amstrad.com/products/archive/, but that includes the
>much less popular PCW16 which wasn't a CP/M machine.)

Thw Wikipedia page fot the Softcard has more numbers and dates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-80_SoftCard

- John

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Al Kossow

> The quality of modern keycaps is poor.
> These guys are after mechanical boards with double-shot keytops.

There's something I'm still not quite grasping.

I can see two reasons for people liking the old keyboards:

- i) Higher quality construction
- ii) Connection, through a historial artifact, to an earlier age

Am I missing any?

I can definitely see the first (I myself find many modern keyboards to be
complete crap), but if that's _all_ it is, I'd think there'd be a market for
modern production of quality keyboards - not a large market, true, but I'd
think it would be large enough to be worth servicing? (Unless the cost to
produce such would be so high that there wouldn't be any buyers - but that
seems at odd with some of the prices being mentioned.) 

So maybe people _only_ want keyboards that have both i) and ii)?

Noel

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 9:42 AM Noel Chiappa via cctalk 
wrote:

> > From: Al Kossow
>
> > The quality of modern keycaps is poor.
> > These guys are after mechanical boards with double-shot keytops.
>
> There's something I'm still not quite grasping.
>
> I can see two reasons for people liking the old keyboards:
>
> - i) Higher quality construction
> - ii) Connection, through a historial artifact, to an earlier age
>
> Am I missing any?
>
> I can definitely see the first (I myself find many modern keyboards to be
> complete crap), but if that's _all_ it is, I'd think there'd be a market
> for
> modern production of quality keyboards - not a large market, true, but I'd
> think it would be large enough to be worth servicing? (Unless the cost to
> produce such would be so high that there wouldn't be any buyers - but that
> seems at odd with some of the prices being mentioned.)
>
> So maybe people _only_ want keyboards that have both i) and ii)?
>

I recently got a decent gamers keyboard for $60. Nnice rocker switches.
Loud as hell, like the old model M battleships. Works great and has the
same feel as the old ones. Even fing glows in the dark. Has just the right
touch. No clue why you'd need a retro one to get the retro feel.

So there's something else. Some people are judgemental about it, others are
less judgmental. It's the separation from original context that I object
to.

Warner

>

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Doc Shipley

> You guys want people to stop scavenging those irreplaceable treasures?
> Ante up, pure and simple. 

That works for keeping stuff out of the hands of scrappers (who are, after
all, business-people) - but not for fetishists who will pay totally
mind-blowing sums for them.

Sorry, I'm not paying $5K for _any_ keyboard. You can buy (for example) a
complete PDP-11/70 for that much money.


> In the end, that system is worth twice as much as desoldered parts as
> the best offer I got. 

But will _all_ of the constituent parts sell, or just some of them - the rest
being destined to sit on a shelf, un-sold, until they are pitched?

There's a similar debate in other areas of collection - e.g. antique Japanese
woodblock-printed books. One can usually make more money by taking them
apart, and selling them a page at a time, as opposed to selling them as
complete books. (At least all the pages do tend to sell.) Some people
consider this vandalism - destroying a 200-year old artifact to maximize $$.
I can't say they're wrong...

Noel

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[ED SHARPE via cctalk]

I am Definitely  not a gamer!  but my hands are 
poor at typing and the benifit of hearing the key click helps the accuracy a 
little..  my xps Dell has pretty loaded games but I have never played one 
yet use it for video editing and internet. 
l also like keyboard  letters do not wear off of

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

On Saturday, October 20, 2018 Warner Losh via cctalk  wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 9:42 AM Noel Chiappa via cctalk 
wrote:

> > From: Al Kossow
>
> > The quality of modern keycaps is poor.
> > These guys are after mechanical boards with double-shot keytops.
>
> There's something I'm still not quite grasping.
>
> I can see two reasons for people liking the old keyboards:
>
> - i) Higher quality construction
> - ii) Connection, through a historial artifact, to an earlier age
>
> Am I missing any?
>
> I can definitely see the first (I myself find many modern keyboards to be
> complete crap), but if that's _all_ it is, I'd think there'd be a market
> for
> modern production of quality keyboards - not a large market, true, but I'd
> think it would be large enough to be worth servicing? (Unless the cost to
> produce such would be so high that there wouldn't be any buyers - but that
> seems at odd with some of the prices being mentioned.)
>
> So maybe people _only_ want keyboards that have both i) and ii)?
>

I recently got a decent gamers keyboard for $60. Nnice rocker switches.
Loud as hell, like the old model M battleships. Works great and has the
same feel as the old ones. Even fing glows in the dark. Has just the right
touch. No clue why you'd need a retro one to get the retro feel.

So there's something else. Some people are judgemental about it, others are
less judgmental. It's the separation from original context that I object
to.

Warner

>

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Daniel Seagraves via cctalk]

> On Oct 20, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Doc Shipley via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
>  That's just nasty.  Your invective, that is.  There are idiots in any 
> enthusiast group, and predators.  Including this group, if we're honest.  You 
> want to talk conspicuous consumption?  How many on this list, myself 
> included, have spent a fortune on old computer hardware, and then another 
> fortune housing it?

That’s not consumption. The items involved are not “consumed” - they are not 
destroyed or used up. Taking a piece of equipment and turning it into a 
keyboard plus N pounds of scrap is consumption. The equipment is destroyed.

>  You guys want people to stop scavenging those irreplaceable treasures?  Ante 
> up, pure and simple.

Right, because availability of cash is the sole determining factor in a 
person’s worth. I guess someone should come pick up all this stuff then, I 
clearly don’t deserve any of it. I only spent ten years plus searching, called 
in major favors to get it here, and wrote two successful public projects to 
share the experience with other people - but very little money. What was I 
thinking? I’m sure whoever is able to shell out $8K from their trust fund to 
turn 1500 pounds of potentially working machines into a couple el33t h4x0r 
g4ming keyboards will be far more deserving than a filthy poor like me.

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[ED SHARPE via cctalk]

all this   keyboard jewelry reminds me of people ripping keys off old vintage 
typewriters  that had the celluloid tops to make woman's jewelry  of 
very sad..  saw this happening in the  places that sold  this kid of stuff..
 
.


In a message dated 10/20/2018 9:31:33 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:

 


> On Oct 20, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Doc Shipley via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> That's just nasty. Your invective, that is. There are idiots in any 
> enthusiast group, and predators. Including this group, if we're honest. You 
> want to talk conspicuous consumption? How many on this list, myself included, 
> have spent a fortune on old computer hardware, and then another fortune 
> housing it?

That’s not consumption. The items involved are not “consumed” - they are not 
destroyed or used up. Taking a piece of equipment and turning it into a 
keyboard plus N pounds of scrap is consumption. The equipment is destroyed.

> You guys want people to stop scavenging those irreplaceable treasures? Ante 
> up, pure and simple.

Right, because availability of cash is the sole determining factor in a 
person’s worth. I guess someone should come pick up all this stuff then, I 
clearly don’t deserve any of it. I only spent ten years plus searching, called 
in major favors to get it here, and wrote two successful public projects to 
share the experience with other people - but very little money. What was I 
thinking? I’m sure whoever is able to shell out $8K from their trust fund to 
turn 1500 pounds of potentially working machines into a couple el33t h4x0r 
g4ming keyboards will be far more deserving than a filthy poor like me.

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Tomasz Rola via cctalk]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 01:50:20AM -0600, Jim Manley via cctalk wrote:
> I thought it was just hilarious that Microsoft chose The Rolling
> Stones' "Start Me Up" for the theme song at the launch of Windows 95,
> unaware of the later lyrics in the song (not played during the launch,
> oddly enough), "You make a grown man cry-y-y ... You make a grown man
> cry-y-y ... You make a grown man cry-y-y ... "
[...]

Oooh. My personal recollection about w95 is that there was a lot of
touting before the premiere day, how advanced it was because "object
oriented operating system". The premiere came, the toutings quickly
faded away, never heard any kind of objection about this aspect. I,
for quite long time, had been thinking W95 was a scam because for the
life of me I could not spot any sign of its object-orientedness (and
there was nothing else interesting enough to make me want to tinker
with this... something). It was only years later that it finally came
to me: I might have been one of the very few people who not only
understood some of the buzzwords but also was duped into believing
there should be some substance behind them (which maybe makes me
exceptional, just not in a good way).

Nowadays, I consider W95 as very interesting subject of study - a
technical product of non-technical genius(es) (ok, if there were tech
geniuses involved in its making, I would say it does not show up). It
took a lot of manipulation and wind sniffing to make it such a big
success, and plenty of intellectual indolence from rivals and
customers.

:-)

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Jim Manley via cctalk wrote:

IBM wasn't even aware of the penetration of dial-up among consumers
and very small businesses, or they would have initially offered
modems, at least as options, if not in package combos.  Retailers who
understood the consumer and very small business markets quickly began
offering modems in response to the vacuum that IBM had created.


They DID offer the Async Card  (Serial RS-232, AND 20mA) for using modems, 
serial printers, etc.



Similarly, although they sold a joystick board, they didn't sell 
joysticks.  DA15 connector for two joysticks.
In some of the documentation, the sketch of a joystick was clearly the 
Radio Shack Coco joystick (which needed a different connector)


LATER, they sold a joystick when the PCJr came out.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Tony Duell via cctalk]

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 6:52 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk
 wrote:

> Similarly, although they sold a joystick board, they didn't sell
> joysticks.  DA15 connector for two joysticks.
> In some of the documentation, the sketch of a joystick was clearly the
> Radio Shack Coco joystick (which needed a different connector)

And is electrically different.

The CoCo Joystick is a potential divider across the 5V rail. Moving the
joystick varies the output voltage (2 voltages per joystick, X and Y). This
is fed into a 6 bit ADC (actually a 6 bit DAC, a comparator and some
firmware).

The IBM PC Joystick (like the Apple ][ ones) is a pair of variable
resistors. This are the timing resistors in monostable circuits, acutally
an NE558 chip (Think of it as being 4 555 timers always connected as
monostables in one package). The software triggers the monostables
then sees how long they take to flip back again.

I assume the PCjr Joystick is like the PC one, electrically, but I don't
feel like going upstairs to check the TechRef.

-tony

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Jim Manley via cctalk wrote:

IBM wasn't even aware of the penetration of dial-up among consumers
and very small businesses, . . . 
Another sign that IBM wasn't confident about the longevity of the PC

is that they outsourced the development of its OS to Microsoft,
believing that Microsoft owned CP/M because of an Apple ][ compatible
product described in the next paragraph.


Very True.
Although to be fair, Microsoft IMMEDIATELY corrected the misperception, 
and sent IBM to DRI.
There was a bit of "culture clash" between IBM and DRI, and IBM CHOSE to 
go back to Microsoft, and get them to do the OS.


There are many conflicting "histories" of the encounter.
The most egregiously lacking in any reality at all was "Pirates Of The 
Valley", which portrayed Steve Jobs and Bill gates as being the computer 
industry, and had Bill Gates going to Florida and COLD CALLING IBM to sell 
them on the idea of having an OS!


What actually happened was that Gary Kildall flew his plane up to Oakland 
to visit Bill Godbout.  (a few reports said that he was off SAILING).
He left the business (in a house in Pacific Grove) in the capable hands of 
his wife.
One report says that he said, "They just want to sign papers for a 
license, let them come to the front desk, like any other customer."


IBM was miffed that Gary Kildall wasn't there for their meeting.
Some reports say that they were also offended by the "California culture", 
with workers barefoot, shirtless, in shorts, women without bras, 
surfboards and bicycles in the hallways, food, plants, cats, and dogs in 
offices, etc.

AND, DRI balked at signing IBMs NDA.
IBM still had at least an unofficial dress code, and wore identical suits.
One report even says that a worker looking out the upstairs window (it is 
a lovely view) when IBM approached, thought that it was a drug raid.




(In 2012, I was in Pacific Grove for a day, so I sought out the house.  I 
met a fellow who had bought it in a foreclosure sale, and found out later 
that it had a history.  He freely let me walk through and see the place.)




A small business to IBM was much larger than the sizes of businesses
that Apple was typically serving at that time.  Many are unaware that
the largest fraction of CP/M licenses ever sold were for the Microsoft
Softcard for the Apple ][ (about 300,000 sold, all told), not S-100
systems (somewhere around 150,000 systems built by hobbyists, or sold
by small manufacturers).  The Softcard was a Z-80 based single-board
computer that plugged into an Apple ][ slot, equipped with its own
80x24 character x line black-and-white video output, RAM, etc., and
that shared Apple ][  electrical power and floppy disk drives.  The
Softcard was Microsoft's first really successful product, responsible
for its first tens of millions of dollars in revenue and profits.

The Softcard was developed by Seattle Computer Products, the same
two-man company in a Seattle garage that later sold its prototype
8086/8088 OS to Microsoft for $50,000.  Microsoft turned around within
a day and sold it to IBM via a _non-exclusive_ license (a critical
factor that allowed them to field MS-DOS, their self-branded version
of IBM's PC-DOS), for $3 million _plus_ about $50 per computer sold
with PC-DOS.  That model, updated for Windows, is the cash cow that's
still printing profits for Microsoft to this day.


I'm really not sure about the "within a day".  Although, it certainly 
didn't take LONG.


Also, although I can't name anybody in SCP other than Tim Paterson and Rod 
Brock, I think that there were a few others there.  (And some high school 
kids they hired to assemble boards)


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Doc Shipley via cctalk]

On 10/20/18 10:41 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:

 > From: Al Kossow

 > The quality of modern keycaps is poor.
 > These guys are after mechanical boards with double-shot keytops.

There's something I'm still not quite grasping.

I can see two reasons for people liking the old keyboards:

- i) Higher quality construction
- ii) Connection, through a historial artifact, to an earlier age

Am I missing any?

I can definitely see the first (I myself find many modern keyboards to be
complete crap), but if that's _all_ it is, I'd think there'd be a market for
modern production of quality keyboards - not a large market, true, but I'd
think it would be large enough to be worth servicing? (Unless the cost to
produce such would be so high that there wouldn't be any buyers - but that
seems at odd with some of the prices being mentioned.)

So maybe people _only_ want keyboards that have both i) and ii)?



i)  There is certainly a very active market in good quality, 
current-production keyboards, keyboard kits and keyboard parts.  That 
market is not just being serviced, it's moving past the niche category. 
The level of ongoing development and the vendors' response to customer 
input are phenomenal.


  The level of "discernment" in the higher tiers of keyboard gear 
reminds me a lot of the high-end audiophile market  I'm mostly deaf 
and my hands are scarred, arthritic, and desensitized and I don't play 
video games, so I have no useful opinion about either one.


ii)  My observation, by no means authoritative, is that the folk who 
used those '80s keyboards in the '80s aren't the ones paying top dollar 
for them.  My grandson dreams of owning a '67 Dodge Charger.  A 440cid 
'68 was my daily driver for a couple of years, and I don't want one at 
all.  Same-same.



Doc

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Similarly, although they sold a joystick board, they didn't sell
joysticks.  DA15 connector for two joysticks.
In some of the documentation, the sketch of a joystick was clearly the
Radio Shack Coco joystick (which needed a different connector)


On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Tony Duell wrote:

And is electrically different.
The CoCo Joystick is a potential divider across the 5V rail. Moving the
joystick varies the output voltage (2 voltages per joystick, X and Y). This
is fed into a 6 bit ADC (actually a 6 bit DAC, a comparator and some
firmware).
The IBM PC Joystick (like the Apple ][ ones) is a pair of variable
resistors. This are the timing resistors in monostable circuits, acutally
an NE558 chip (Think of it as being 4 555 timers always connected as
monostables in one package). The software triggers the monostables
then sees how long they take to flip back again.


Could you provide some remedial tutoring on what I am misunderstanding?

All of that circuitry is in the "controller".
The joystick itself consists of pushbuttons and two potentiometers.  NO 
other active circuitry.
Moving the joystick does not itself vary the output voltage, when it is 
not so connected.  Moving the joystick varies the wiper position along a 
resistive element.   (admittedly, if the ends of the resistive element are 
connected to voltage and ground, then the wiper connection provides 
a variable output voltage)


If the resistance is compatible, then what modifications need to be made 
to convert a "voltage divider" potentiometer to a "rheostat"/"variable 
resistor"? 
(wire to wiper and one end of the resistive element (already present), 
disconnect the connection at the other end of the resistive element)


YES, it was "intended" to be used differently.

If one KNOWS that it is impossible to make it work, then it makes it more 
difficult.



Could one safely ignore the "No user serviceable components inside" 
sticker on the bottom of the joystick?  :-)

And, of course, there is the difficulty of locating a DA-15 connector!
There are some on eBay, but the seller says that they are DB-15  :-)

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Eric Smith via cctalk]

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 01:46 Jim Manley via cctalk 
wrote:

> The Softcard was a Z-80 based single-board
> computer


It wasn't. It was only a processor card.

that plugged into an Apple ][ slot, equipped with its own
> 80x24 character x line black-and-white video output,


No version of the Softcard had it's own video output. It used normal Apple
video  output. If you wanted 80x24, you had to use a separate third-party
80-column card, or (later) and Apple IIe, IIc, IIc+, or IIgs.

RAM, etc.,
>

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "etc.", but the vast majority of
Softcards and their clones did not have their own RAM, and used that of the
Apple II.

The PCPI Applicard and it's clones had their own RAM. Some very late models
of the Softcard had their own RAM.

Softcard (Was: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

The Softcard was a Z-80 based single-board
computer


On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:

It wasn't. It was only a processor card.
No version of the Softcard had it's own video output. It used normal Apple
video  output. If you wanted 80x24, you had to use a separate third-party
80-column card, or (later) and Apple IIe, IIc, IIc+, or IIgs.
I'm not sure what you're referring to by "etc.", but the vast majority of
Softcards and their clones did not have their own RAM, and used that of the
Apple II.
The PCPI Applicard and it's clones had their own RAM. Some very late models
of the Softcard had their own RAM.


I remember hearing, at one point, a statement (not necessarily reliable), 
that said that 20% of Apple computers had a Softcard.
What was the approximate percentage in 1980/1981, when IBM contacted 
Microsoft?
(or number that had been sold, which would include ones not actually in 
use)


What was the PEAK percentage?
(or number that had been sold, which would include ones not actually in 
use)


Were there other brands, or imitations, available then (1980/1981)?

Later, what percentage were imitations?

Speculatively, how much were they used V use of the machine in non-Z80 
ways?  (How many people bought it just ot have the capability, without 
necessarily being active CP/M users?)



This is definitely not the first time that I have heard that IBM had 
assumed that CP/M was a Microsoft product.

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Ian Primus via cctalk]

Ugh - this is super frustrating to see. Especially since I have a 3101
here with no keyboard. And the reason *why* it has no keyboard? It got
bought out from under me. I bought this terminal, complete, on eBay.
It arrives... with no keyboard. I complained to the seller, he
refunded all my money and just said, basically "Sorry, someone gave me
a whole lot of money for the keyboard alone, you can keep the
terminal" Great. So, now I have a useless terminal on my shelf
waiting for me to get extremely lucky and find the missing keyboard.

What's even worse is this wasn't even the first time this happened to
me. I have an Infoton here that's missing it's keyboard for the exact
same reason.

Collecting computer terminals has gotten horribly frustrating, and
really, these keyboard scalpers have sucked a lot of the fun out of
the hobby for me.

-Ian
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:34 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> Here is a great example of why the keyboards and terminals are getting
> separated
>
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/IBM-3101-beam-spring-keyboard-purchased-new-in-1982/123422383512?hash=item1cbc8c1d98:g:sCkAAOSwfbhbwQvU
>
> Note the price $2000 so far.  How could one blame the seller.  I wonder if
> this is the terminal I sold to a buyer in California years ago when I sold
> my Series/1 computer.  All he wanted was the terminal, I donated the rest
> to what was the MARCH museum.  At the time I remember having a few words
> with the buyer who would not also take the Series/1 system (2 racks) or the
> manuals.
>
> There is a naked terminal up for grabs if you're out his way.
>
> Bill

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

I'm surprised there aren't a boatload of arduino projects to create a PC
keyboard to each of the classics...

Warner

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 6:00 PM Ian Primus via cctalk 
wrote:

> Ugh - this is super frustrating to see. Especially since I have a 3101
> here with no keyboard. And the reason *why* it has no keyboard? It got
> bought out from under me. I bought this terminal, complete, on eBay.
> It arrives... with no keyboard. I complained to the seller, he
> refunded all my money and just said, basically "Sorry, someone gave me
> a whole lot of money for the keyboard alone, you can keep the
> terminal" Great. So, now I have a useless terminal on my shelf
> waiting for me to get extremely lucky and find the missing keyboard.
>
> What's even worse is this wasn't even the first time this happened to
> me. I have an Infoton here that's missing it's keyboard for the exact
> same reason.
>
> Collecting computer terminals has gotten horribly frustrating, and
> really, these keyboard scalpers have sucked a lot of the fun out of
> the hobby for me.
>
> -Ian
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:34 AM Bill Degnan via cctalk
>  wrote:
> >
> > Here is a great example of why the keyboards and terminals are getting
> > separated
> >
> >
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/IBM-3101-beam-spring-keyboard-purchased-new-in-1982/123422383512?hash=item1cbc8c1d98:g:sCkAAOSwfbhbwQvU
> >
> > Note the price $2000 so far.  How could one blame the seller.  I wonder
> if
> > this is the terminal I sold to a buyer in California years ago when I
> sold
> > my Series/1 computer.  All he wanted was the terminal, I donated the rest
> > to what was the MARCH museum.  At the time I remember having a few words
> > with the buyer who would not also take the Series/1 system (2 racks) or
> the
> > manuals.
> >
> > There is a naked terminal up for grabs if you're out his way.
> >
> > Bill
>

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 10/20/18 5:16 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
> I'm surprised there aren't a boatload of arduino projects to create a PC
> keyboard to each of the classics...

If things continue as they are, people will be forced to do that, or create 
replicas.

In the past, the kb collectors would build adapters for the logic in the 
keyboards,
so there was some reverse-engineering occurring

http://www.kbdbabel.org/

but now, the trend is to gut the electronics and replace it, using just the key 
matrix

I've been working a lot with MAME developers doing emulations of terminals. A 
side effect
of that is documenting the keyboard protocols and key maps for valued and 
not-so-valued but
rare terminal keyboards like the ones on Qumes.

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 7:56 PM Al Kossow via cctalk 
wrote:

>
>
> On 10/20/18 5:16 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
> > I'm surprised there aren't a boatload of arduino projects to create a PC
> > keyboard to each of the classics...
>
> If things continue as they are, people will be forced to do that, or
> create replicas.
>
> In the past, the kb collectors would build adapters for the logic in the
> keyboards,
> so there was some reverse-engineering occurring
>
> http://www.kbdbabel.org/
>
> but now, the trend is to gut the electronics and replace it, using just
> the key matrix
>
> I've been working a lot with MAME developers doing emulations of
> terminals. A side effect
> of that is documenting the keyboard protocols and key maps for valued and
> not-so-valued but
> rare terminal keyboards like the ones on Qumes.
>

that's awesome.  I've been working to flesh out the final details of the
Rainbow with a gentleman who has more of a knack for that stuff than I...

It's awesome you've done similar with these keyboards...

Warner

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 9:05 PM Warner Losh  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 7:56 PM Al Kossow via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 10/20/18 5:16 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
>> > I'm surprised there aren't a boatload of arduino projects to create a PC
>> > keyboard to each of the classics...
>>
>> If things continue as they are, people will be forced to do that, or
>> create replicas.
>>
>> In the past, the kb collectors would build adapters for the logic in the
>> keyboards,
>> so there was some reverse-engineering occurring
>>
>> http://www.kbdbabel.org/
>>
>> but now, the trend is to gut the electronics and replace it, using just
>> the key matrix
>>
>> I've been working a lot with MAME developers doing emulations of
>> terminals. A side effect
>> of that is documenting the keyboard protocols and key maps for valued and
>> not-so-valued but
>> rare terminal keyboards like the ones on Qumes.
>>
>
> that's awesome.  I've been working to flesh out the final details of the
> Rainbow with a gentleman who has more of a knack for that stuff than I...
>
> It's awesome you've done similar with these keyboards...
>

I have an old Apple Newton keyboard... would that be useful? It's just a
simple serial protocol with a table that at one point I write a program
that used the xtest extension to allow me to use it as my main keyboard
while in X11 Would that be helpful / useful here at all?

Warner

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Tony Duell via cctalk]

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 8:28 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> >> Similarly, although they sold a joystick board, they didn't sell
> >> joysticks.  DA15 connector for two joysticks.
> >> In some of the documentation, the sketch of a joystick was clearly the
> >> Radio Shack Coco joystick (which needed a different connector)
>
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Tony Duell wrote:
> > And is electrically different.
> > The CoCo Joystick is a potential divider across the 5V rail. Moving the
> > joystick varies the output voltage (2 voltages per joystick, X and Y). This
> > is fed into a 6 bit ADC (actually a 6 bit DAC, a comparator and some
> > firmware).
> > The IBM PC Joystick (like the Apple ][ ones) is a pair of variable
> > resistors. This are the timing resistors in monostable circuits, acutally
> > an NE558 chip (Think of it as being 4 555 timers always connected as
> > monostables in one package). The software triggers the monostables
> > then sees how long they take to flip back again.
>
> Could you provide some remedial tutoring on what I am misunderstanding?
>
> All of that circuitry is in the "controller".
> The joystick itself consists of pushbuttons and two potentiometers.  NO
> other active circuitry.
> Moving the joystick does not itself vary the output voltage, when it is
> not so connected.  Moving the joystick varies the wiper position along a
> resistive element.   (admittedly, if the ends of the resistive element are
> connected to voltage and ground, then the wiper connection provides
> a variable output voltage)

That last is basically what I am getting at.

The variable resistor consists of a resistive track with a wiper on it. It
has a total of 3 connections -- the 2 ends of the track and the wiper.

Now you can use it in essentally two ways :

1) As a 'potentiometer' [1] . All 3 connections are used. The ends of
the track are connected across a power supply (in the case of the
CoCo Joystick to +5V and logic ground). The wiper thus has a voltage
that depends on the postion of the wiper.

2) As a variable resistor. Only one end of the track and the wiper are
used [2]. This is the case of the PC Joystick. Here one side goes to
+5V, the other to the timing resistor input on the monostable.

Now because the CoCo Joystick's 2 axes use the same power supply,
corresponding ends of the 2 resistive tracks are linked inside. Which is
a minor problem if you want to use it with the PC as the 'unused' ends of
the 2 tracks should not be connected. You have to change the wiring
slightly.

[1] So called because originally it was used to measure 'potential'
(voltage). The ends of the track were connected to a stable voltage
supply, the wiper to one side of a sensitve current detector (galvanometer).
The unknown input voltage was connected between the other side of
the galvanometer and the 'bottom' end of the track. When no current
flowed through the galvanometer, the 2 connections to it were at the
same voltage, meaning the unknown voltage could be determeined
as a fraction (the fractional position of the wiper on the track) of
the stable voltage supply across the whole track.

[2] Although just to be confusing it is conventional to connect the
unused end of the resistive track to the wiper. Then if there is a
bad contact at the wiper you get the whole track resistance in the
circuit rather than infinite resisitance

>
> If the resistance is compatible, then what modifications need to be made
> to convert a "voltage divider" potentiometer to a "rheostat"/"variable
> resistor"?
> (wire to wiper and one end of the resistive element (already present),
> disconnect the connection at the other end of the resistive element)

That's it. You have to disconnect one end of the resistive element.

>
> YES, it was "intended" to be used differently.
>
> If one KNOWS that it is impossible to make it work, then it makes it more
> difficult.
>
>
> Could one safely ignore the "No user serviceable components inside"
> sticker on the bottom of the joystick?  :-)

Well, technically it's true. If I am servicing something I can't be using it
at the same time so I am not a user

> And, of course, there is the difficulty of locating a DA-15 connector!
> There are some on eBay, but the seller says that they are DB-15  :-)

I would think most of the large component suppliers (RS components
(who are not Radio Shack), Farnell/Newark, Mouser, Digikey, etc)
would have them but no idea what they are called...

-tony

Re: Selling keyboards without the terminal

[William Donzelli via cctalk]

It's Beanie Babies all over again, people. Give it a year or two and the
keyboard market will likely crash. Pick them up on the slide down. I bet
most will not be gutted, simply due to the general lack of activity of
computer people. Just like we are.

--
Will (who paid attention to all those IBM terminals and keyboards years ago
when everyone else was ignoring them. No, I will not sell you any.)