Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why use old computers and operating systems?

john.ankarstrom.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: Why use old computers and operating systems?

#131

Post by emteycz »

Veen wrote: post #123
HenryBemis wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we give everyone a $1000 laptop, we will create the following pitfalls: -people don't know how to use them (and I mean even all the people living in the EU know how to use a desktop/laptop - and I don't mean just the old) -people that are not educated will start clicking left right and center, their computers will be infested/compromised in one day, good luck supporting them. If you don't support them, you ju…

Plus, if you give them a $1000 laptop, they'll sell it, buy a cheap phone, and use the remainder to buy something that serves a more pressing need.

That means somebody bought it - presumably someone who doesn't have any other computing device and wasn't awarded one.

Also, $1000 is way too much, I was thinking in terms of $150.

Re: Why use old computers and operating systems?

#132

Post by lproven »

pjmlp wrote: post #118
brudgers wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone need more than one 5.25" floppy disk? It's got 160KB!

Well, compared with 3" microdrive it is a lot! :)

Ha! 3" or Microdrive? They were different things.

The ZX Microdrive was the Sinclair stringy-floppy, released 1983, giving approx. 85-95 kB per cartridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Microdrive

But 3" was a true floppy disk, used in e.g. the Amstrad Spectrum +3, released 1987, where it gave 180 kB per side: https://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=222

I love that people are still making enhancements for these ancient machines. For example, Amstrad promised an add-on disk interface for the cassette-based Spectrum +2, but never shipped one. Now, the nonexistent hardware has been cloned and you can buy a new one!

https://www.8bits4ever.net/product-page/sdi-1

There's an SD-card based replacement mechanism for the original Microdrive:

https://vdrivezx.com/vdrivezx/

Re: Why use old computers and operating systems?

#133

Post by lproven »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #39

> imagine if spreadsheet programs like Microsoft Excel stopped being developed and eventually just disappeared – that’s the level of significance that HyperCard had. I often hear similar claims about the significance of HyperCard. But if HyperCard was so significant to so many people, wouldn’t it have been ported and/or rewritten over the years to still be available today? Even if not by Apple, then by someone else?…

This is the best explanation I know:

http://www.loper-os.org/?p=568

In brief: in the early 1980s, home computers were designed with the primary purpose of owners programming the machines themselves. They came with BASIC interpreters and how-to-program manuals. (Examples: ZX Spectrum, Oric-1, BBC Micro.)

But in fact, what happened was that most owners just played 3rd party videogames on them, which they bought ready-made on pre-recorded media.

So late-1980s home computers mostly had much better graphics and sound for better games, and some didn't have a BASIC at all, or only limited ones (examples: Amiga, ST) and better BASICs were left to the 3rd-party market (e.g. STOS, AMOS, GFA BASIC, BlitzBASIC.)

The Mac was on the crux between these generations, with one foot on both sides. Fairly poor graphics and sound, but it did have a (limited) BASIC. It focused on delivering a radically better UI, and this briefly included a radically better end-user programming environment, HyperCard.

But that isn't where the market went, and it wasn't where Steve Jobs was so focussed, which was on the UI and improving it, not user programmability.

Cynical interpretation: making it easier for owners to write their own polished, professional-looking graphical applications would potentially reduce the lucrative aftermarket for additional applications software, so Apple killed off this line of evolution.

Re: Why use old computers and operating systems?

#134

Post by jrockway »

bombcar wrote: post #74
jrockway wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if you require users to bring their own computer, you can be insulated enough from hardware costs to not really care about memory usage, and that's mostly fine. I have worked on set top boxes at an ISP. We designed and manufactured the hardware; if we could get away with 512MB of RAM instead of 1GB of RAM, that was basically pure profit for us. So some attention was paid to memory use, because it had a real d…

I’ve found that when working on things like this it’s better to make the engineering samples half HALF the RAM instead of double - it encourages minimalism.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned it. It is hard to commit to cost reduction. The hardware engineers don't want to do a bunch of work, just to have their project fail over 512MB of RAM. The software engineers and PMs will always want more features.

I think the devices are still in the field and being issued to new customers 5+ years later, so maybe it was the right decision.

Re: Why use old computers and operating systems?

#135

Post by heavyset_go »

theodric wrote: post #110
heavyset_go wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've still got some SandyBridge-era computers running.

Likewise. A dual C2Q Mac Pro, Nehalem and Westmere Xeons, and a Sandy Bridge NAS. Newest non-embedded x86 in the house is probably my 2017 MacBook Air. I did buy an M1 Mac, but why would I replace our perfectly performant desktops that we only need occasionally for e.g. CAD or video editing or whatever when they still work absolutely fine? It's not a lack of money, it's a question of priorities. I have yet to find th…

You just reminded me that I've also got a Core 2 Duo Mac running, as well. That thing can run games better than my Mac that came out a decade later. Might have something to do with the enormous caches on the Core 2 series versus later Intel Core releases.

I also agree with your reasoning. These computers have been serving their purposes for a while, and I see no reason to take the time to replace them.

Re: Why use old computers and operating systems?

#136

Post by kalleboo »

lproven wrote: post #133
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #39

> imagine if spreadsheet programs like Microsoft Excel stopped being developed and eventually just disappeared – that’s the level of significance that HyperCard had. I often hear similar claims about the significance of HyperCard. But if HyperCard was so significant to so many people, wouldn’t it have been ported and/or rewritten over the years to still be available today? Even if not by Apple, then by someone else?…

This is the best explanation I know: http://www.loper-os.org/?p=568 In brief: in the early 1980s, home computers were designed with the primary purpose of owners programming the machines themselves. They came with BASIC interpreters and how-to-program manuals. (Examples: ZX Spectrum, Oric-1, BBC Micro.) But in fact, what happened was that most owners just played 3rd party videogames on them, which they bought ready-m…

It died within Claris/Apple because nobody knew how to describe it and sell it. Was it a programming environment? You didn't need to be a programmer to use it. Was it a database? Claris also sold FileMaker so it couldn't be that. It could have been a "multimedia authoring suite" but it was black-and-white and to get color images or video you needed janky XCMDs.

So it languished in Claris and ended up so out-of-date it would need a complete overhaul. The best chance it has was when they attempted to integrate it into QuickTime as an interactivity layer, but that was still when Apple was in internal management chaos and someone quit and the project died. It made sense Apple abandoned it, they had bigger fish to fry.

The question GP asked was why didn't someone else create a clone and sweep the floor? And that's a good question! There was SuperCard, and a bunch of clones on Windows. But despite expanding on HyperCard and fixing its issues none of them caught on. Why?

Re: Why use old computers and operating systems?

#137

Post by lproven »

kalleboo wrote: post #136
lproven wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the best explanation I know: http://www.loper-os.org/?p=568 In brief: in the early 1980s, home computers were designed with the primary purpose of owners programming the machines themselves. They came with BASIC interpreters and how-to-program manuals. (Examples: ZX Spectrum, Oric-1, BBC Micro.) But in fact, what happened was that most owners just played 3rd party videogames on them, which they bought ready-m…

It died within Claris/Apple because nobody knew how to describe it and sell it. Was it a programming environment? You didn't need to be a programmer to use it. Was it a database? Claris also sold FileMaker so it couldn't be that. It could have been a "multimedia authoring suite" but it was black-and-white and to get color images or video you needed janky XCMDs. So it languished in Claris and ended up so out-of-date i…

Fair.

It wasn't sold, was it? I think it was given away free with every Mac.

There _were_ multiple clones, as you say.

I think in part it made sense in the context of the Mac as the first mass-market GUI computer, with strict HCI guidelines, a small screen with no colour and limited sound... As computers got more multimedia abilities, including later Macs, Hypercard got left behind.

Re: Why use old computers and operating systems?

#138

Post by kalleboo »

lproven wrote: post #137
kalleboo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It died within Claris/Apple because nobody knew how to describe it and sell it. Was it a programming environment? You didn't need to be a programmer to use it. Was it a database? Claris also sold FileMaker so it couldn't be that. It could have been a "multimedia authoring suite" but it was black-and-white and to get color images or video you needed janky XCMDs. So it languished in Claris and ended up so out-of-date i…

Fair. It wasn't sold, was it? I think it was given away free with every Mac. There _were_ multiple clones, as you say. I think in part it made sense in the context of the Mac as the first mass-market GUI computer, with strict HCI guidelines, a small screen with no colour and limited sound... As computers got more multimedia abilities, including later Macs, Hypercard got left behind.

HyperCard 1 was free and included with every Mac but HyperCard 2 came out after Claris was spun off from Apple and was a paid product and Macs only came with a "HyperCard Player" version.

Edit: i just saw this in Wikipedia, apparently Atkinson commented on the death of HyperCard 3 in an interview " Steve Jobs disliked the software because Atkinson had chosen to stay at Apple to finish it instead of joining Jobs at NeXT, and (according to Atkinson) "it had Sculley's stink all over it".[9]"

Re: Why use old computers and operating systems?

#139

Post by pjmlp »

lproven wrote: post #132
pjmlp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, compared with 3" microdrive it is a lot! :)

Ha! 3" or Microdrive? They were different things. The ZX Microdrive was the Sinclair stringy-floppy, released 1983, giving approx. 85-95 kB per cartridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Microdrive But 3" was a true floppy disk, used in e.g. the Amstrad Spectrum +3, released 1987, where it gave 180 kB per side: https://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=222 I love that people are still making enhancements f…

I meant the Amstrad Spectrum +3 one.

I was envy of a friend that had one due to CP/M support.

Re: Why use old computers and operating systems?

#140

Post by lproven »

pjmlp wrote: post #139
lproven wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha! 3" or Microdrive? They were different things. The ZX Microdrive was the Sinclair stringy-floppy, released 1983, giving approx. 85-95 kB per cartridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Microdrive But 3" was a true floppy disk, used in e.g. the Amstrad Spectrum +3, released 1987, where it gave 180 kB per side: https://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=222 I love that people are still making enhancements f…

I meant the Amstrad Spectrum +3 one. I was envy of a friend that had one due to CP/M support.

OK. The Spectrum +3 had true floppy disk drives -- Hitachi 3" units. They are not Microdrives, are not compatible with Microdrives, and Microdrives cannot be attached to a +3.

Sinclair's system was much older (4 years, a long time then), and had its own external controller, the Interface 1. Microdrives were like tiny 8-track cassette tapes: an endless loop of tape on a single tiny reel, feeding out from the centre and wound back on the outside via a twist. They cannot be rewound or run backwards, only fast-forwarded, so access was slow.

So, no: not even similar. Different size, technology, OS extensions, interface, capacity, speed... different everything.

I had a Microdrive setup in the early 1980s. Like much Sinclair technology, it was radically cheaper than the competition. 90 kB of storage isn't much but it was twice the total RAM capacity of the host computer, and was 10x or more faster than cassette tapes. A microdrive cartridge could hold dozens of BASIC programs or machine-code snippets.

The Sinclair QL semi-16-bit computer also used Microdrives, with 2 built in, but with a different, incompatible format that got slightly more data storage (maybe 100 kB up to 105-110 kB if you were very lucky).

There were multiple officially-licensed derivatives of the QL, mostly running different incompatible OSes, and they mostly used Microdrives too: the Merlin Tonto, ICL One-Per-Desk, Telecom Australia ComputerPhone and more.

3rd party clones such as the CST Thor replaced the microdrives with floppy disk drives -- more expensive, but much faster and much more reliable.

Post reply on HN