On 06/08/2016 12:18 PM, Dan Roganti via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
I think the term "resource-poor" for describing the 60s, 70s or maybe the 80s is inaccurate It is relative, depending on your viewpoint - if you keep looking from the 21st century viewpoint But if you were there in the thick of it back then, it was actually the norm. So you were expected to design with those constraints Constraints are a fact of life in engineering
Dave McGuire:
I agree 100%. Many of us were there (myself for the 70s and 80s at least), we never thought of our computers as resource-poor. It was more like "Wow, this system has 64K of RAM! SOOO much more than the last one, look at how much more I can do!"
I disagree 57.25%. ;) This is a marginal argument not either-or. In your own statement, you are looking retrospectively at a time of less resource. As am I. But I was there too in the 1970's. Of course we did not think of ourselves as entirely "resource poor". But we knew that in months or a year, the high-integration parts were were using - memory, RAM, etc. - would be cheaper and have "more". We were not blind to the future. Proof? The common catchphrase of that time, about buying more memory or a card or chips for your microcomputer was "you have to decide when you are going to waste your money". Because the NEXT product would have those chips or features. But we had to get things done, waiting would not get things done; so we bought and did good work with what we had; and upgraded later if we could. And of course, in retrospect, with more resources in hand we look back at past microcomputing as limited in part by the resources of the time. Looking at the past is retrospective by definition. Looking back and comparing is not for me, an exercise in "what sucked back then". I work hard to show what and how things worked - because I and others are making them work AGAIN, now. But it can be hard for others to get this today. This is not easy, Dave reported one failure - not his fault of course, it's an instance. And that suggests why we as vintage computerists are challenged, as we explain our past, today. I'm trying to show some support, for Dave McGuire's position, from the vintage perspective - scarcer resources required more discipline, less slop, more effort, etc.. If Dave wants to argue for those qualities from first principles, more power to him. These are allied but different arguments; this is Dave's thread not mine. Herb Johnson -- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net preservation of 1970's computing email: hjohnson AAT retrotechnology DOTT com alternate: herbjohnson ATT retrotechnology DOTT info