Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My desk(s)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • My desk(s)

    I took this this morning. Click image for larger version  Name:	ejp_desk_1985-2017.png Views:	1 Size:	788.9 KB ID:	756646




    On the center monitor is a photo of my very first computer desk in 1986. That's a single-floppy zero-hard Apple ][e, MDA screen, daisy wheel printer...

  • #2
    Oh daisy wheel printers and Multi-mate word processing software - What memories! One of the reasons to move to WordPerfect was the incredible printer support they had.

    Comment


    • #3
      Although this is is not an image of MY system, this is an image of my first UBER PC... a ZEOS Pantera 90...

      Check out these massive specs

      24mb (yes MB!) of RAM
      2 GB hard drive
      2x speed CD
      Windows 3.11

      This was cutting edge when I bought it :-)










      Going back even further in time (~1986), here is one of my very first UBER workstations (actual image of the system). The two guys pictured I was making an indie movie with, the PC was being used for the titling and credits. My first PC was a Coco1 (~1981) of which I have no pics.

      Tandy Coco3 (128K memory)
      A 12" black and White TV as a monitor (huh!?!?) I did have an RGB monitor as well, just not sure why it was not connected in this image.
      Running OS9
      Multi-cartidge adapter
      Disk Cart connected to a whopping 15mb hard drive (the drive was the size of a modern PC)





      Here is a slightly better view of the hard drive... unbelievable, that was just the hard drive, not the PC the drive was in, it was the hard drive itself.









      I'll have to do a modern workstation image, if and when I clean my desk enough not to be embarrassed :-)
      Last edited by George Bleck; 12 Jan 2017, 08:59 AM.
      <b>George W. Bleck</b>
      <img src='http://www.blecktech.com/myemail.gif'>

      Comment


      • #4
        Sheesh. With all that stuff you must have one....so "beam me up, Eric. "

        Michael Mattias
        Tal Systems Inc.
        Racine WI USA
        mmattias@talsystems.com
        http://www.talsystems.com

        Comment


        • #5
          > 24mb (yes MB!) of RAM
          > 2 GB hard drive
          > 2x speed CD
          > Windows 3.11

          At least one of those numbers must be incorrect by a factor of 1000.

          Comment


          • #6
            Unless you are referring to MB v. mb or GB v. gb, no... those were the actual specs.

            Check out the Package 4 / Pentium 90 - https://books.google.com/books?id=jT...2024mb&f=false

            In my case I was able to get it with 2GB HD but only 2x CD. Also, I believe mine was closer to $4,000 when I got it.
            I actually took a loan out for it.
            Last edited by George Bleck; 9 Jan 2017, 01:07 PM.
            <b>George W. Bleck</b>
            <img src='http://www.blecktech.com/myemail.gif'>

            Comment


            • #7
              I'd forgotten that 3.11 could use that much RAM. I went straight from DOS to NT.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'd forgotten that 3.11 could use that much RAM. I went straight from DOS to NT.
                Well, it could "kind of" use that much. ( IIRC: MS-DOS = 20 bit (1 M ) addresses. Win/3 24 bits (16 M), Win/32 32 bits 4 GB with 2 GB n/a to user programs)....

                ..but the way the Win/3 VM worked (selector + offset), it was not "all virtual" as is Win/32 which is why you had the phenomenon that if a Win/3 program 'crashed' it refused to go alone and always took more programs with it. Except "clock".. that was the only program still running whenever I had a 'crash' with Win 3.11 (WFWG) and completed terminating all the programs which went down along with the real culprit.

                MCM
                Michael Mattias
                Tal Systems Inc.
                Racine WI USA
                mmattias@talsystems.com
                http://www.talsystems.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  Pretty nice compared to a Commodore =64 with a tape drive, though.
                  The world is strange and wonderful.*
                  I reserve the right to be horrifically wrong.
                  Please maintain a safe following distance.
                  *wonderful sold separately.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I remember Win 3.? being a bit fragile, even when your own software was reliable. Co-operative multitasking was technically clever stuff to get that much to run on such limited hardware but it left you vulnerable to some dork with some piece of junk that GP faulted taking out the whole OS. My first serious computer was a DX 486 with 4 meg of memory and a 300 meg full height hard disk that cost me $2700.00 AU but I used it for about 5 years so I did OK with it. The ESDI controller card eventually clapped out and there were no replacements for it.

                    With Win9x a serious blunder gave you the black screen of death with no warning and no explanation as to why, a blue screen was at least gracious enough to tell you why.
                    hutch at movsd dot com
                    The MASM Forum

                    www.masm32.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Since Win/3 was not truly 'each process has its own virtual addresses' and also shared GDI objects, it's perfectly understandable - although not desirable - that a programming error in one process could pooch up another process' memory.

                      Ergo, developers were always the loudest whiners because by the time software was delivered to 'Fictional User' the errors made during development had been eliminated.

                      Mostly.

                      MCM
                      Michael Mattias
                      Tal Systems Inc.
                      Racine WI USA
                      mmattias@talsystems.com
                      http://www.talsystems.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Eric Pearson View Post
                        I'd forgotten that 3.11 could use that much RAM. I went straight from DOS to NT.
                        I was doubting the GB for the HD, let alone that Win 3.11 could handle it. But the ad tells otherwise ...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          That's why, ridiculous as it sounds, that PC was so "UBER" at the time. It literally was state of the art, maxed out. Although the PC was capable of support 384mb (wow). I'm assuming the other 128K in the 512K space was reserved for video memory access.

                          Win 3.1 (assumed 3.11 as well) RAM limitations: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/84388
                          Hard drive size in DOS at the time was limited by FAT16 at the partition level, which was 2GB: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/118335

                          Looking back, it's amazing how technology has changed. Machines that are orders of magnitude more powerful costs a tenth of the amount.
                          Last edited by George Bleck; 10 Jan 2017, 12:56 PM.
                          <b>George W. Bleck</b>
                          <img src='http://www.blecktech.com/myemail.gif'>

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by George Bleck View Post
                            That's why, ridiculous as it sounds, that PC was so "UBER" at the time.
                            Here, let me lend you an Ü so that you could spell "Über" properly.

                            Looking back, it's amazing how technology has changed. Machines that are orders of magnitude more powerful costs a tenth of the amount.
                            Even each damned home router/TV set/web cam etc. has more power these days ...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Actually, before the advent of the IBM PC the computing hardware was much more impressive, at least in terms of peripherals.

                              I have started my IT career creating software for the UNIVAC-1050 II.




                              Full size video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkobjQKx19A&


                              The UBS (Union Bank of Switzerland) has bought a bunch of those used machines, for use in their regional headquarters.

                              Last edited by Albert Richheimer; 11 Jan 2017, 06:54 AM.
                              „Let the machine do the dirty work.“
                              The Elements of Programming Style, Brian W. Kernighan, P. J. Plauger 1978

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                I would have to agree with Albert here, my first sighting of a computer was an IBM System 360 when I worked at Readers Digest in my youth and the 6 foot wide printer was so fast it pelted the paper out the top and the catcher had trouble keeping up with it. 64k of core storage, a panel of flashing lights, no monitor and massive 8 foot high hard disks that were fed with reel to reel tape. They used to use it for their mail out and invoicing system.

                                I confess at the time I was far more interested in the punch card operators but the hardware was impressive, much more than the bunch of "suits" that used to run it.
                                hutch at movsd dot com
                                The MASM Forum

                                www.masm32.com

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Technically, my very first computer was also a mainframe. High school FORTRAN class in 1973. One stack of punchcards per day, sneaker-netted to the local college's computer. My school actually bought a desk-sized punch machine. "Load, Register..."

                                  > it pelted the paper out the top

                                  I remember how loud some big printers were. Page-sized dot-matrix print-heads, impact-printing full pages at a time, on multi-layer paper, bam, bam, bam...

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    This printer was a weird gadget, it had what looked like rotating chain of characters that used to stop in the right place on the page(s) and impact print each character. It was pretty noisy but the print speed was genuinely impressive. It had a "machine gun" sound to it.
                                    hutch at movsd dot com
                                    The MASM Forum

                                    www.masm32.com

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by Steve Hutchesson View Post
                                      This printer was a weird gadget, it had what looked like rotating chain of characters that used to stop in the right place on the page(s) and impact print each character. It was pretty noisy but the print speed was genuinely impressive. It had a "machine gun" sound to it.
                                      I don't think the chain actually stopped. The chain printers run the chain at full speed, and the paper is hit by a print hammer from behind. Taken the really short blow by the hammer, to the paper it appears as if the chain is stalled. Exactly the same is true for the drum printers, where a drum is rotating in front of the ink fabric and the paper. The hammer is actuated in the right moment, when the proper character is in position.

                                      Once I have had a small model of such a drum printer. I have equipped this Dataproducts printer with a parallel interface and a fluorescent light. After I didn't have any use anymore in 2006 I donated it to a collector of old DP hardware, where it is still in use:



                                      I think the printer was able to print some 300 lines per minute.

                                      Here's another image when the printer was installed in my data processing room:



                                      Frédéric the Tomcat liked it a lot.
                                      Last edited by Albert Richheimer; 12 Jan 2017, 11:55 AM. Reason: Added another image...
                                      „Let the machine do the dirty work.“
                                      The Elements of Programming Style, Brian W. Kernighan, P. J. Plauger 1978

                                      Comment

                                      Working...
                                      X