B WELL OUR MODEM DID NOT WRECK EVERY ONES PC

----------- You are a bit off as to size/time. and I recall a late '50's version computer (McBee ) which was desk size and had a wonderful 4KB drum memory and 500ms multiply time. This was followed by an IBM (1600? name lost in antiquity) which was more powerful and still desk sized so the development of smaller computers was definitely there- the concept of desktop units was there- the technology wasn't. Many mainframe IBM's at that time would occupy part of a large room - the bulk of the dedicated room being used by periperals and people-hardly a building floor in most cases-admittedly air conditioning and power supplies took up about as much space. By the later

60's there were definitely remote terminals and, in the 70's remote desktop terminals with monitors and keyboards were appearing -first step towards desktop computers.

-- Don Kelly snipped-for-privacy@peeshaw.ca remove the urine to answer

Reply to
Don Kelly
Loading thread data ...

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:36:41 GMT, "Ross Mac" Gave us:

You obviously didn't even bother to look at the link I provided, and the one he provided is obviously incorrect when the two are compared, and further proven wrong by merely searching up a few more references. I'll bet those military sites much really be a bite in the ass for him. They state the same thing that I and Mr. Davidson has.

If one must really pick on it, we would find that there were concepts drawn up as early as 1957.

Reply to
DarkMatter

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:55:38 GMT, "Ross Mac" Gave us:

I generally start with "Please refrain from top posting."

If I hit you with an insult, I obviously thought that you were one of the twits that I had already mentioned it to.

Then again, you could just be a twit that responded after I told some other twit about.

Your twittedness remains, nonetheless, twit.

So, yeah... it IS funny. Funny that you persist in being a retarded Usenet poster, based simply on the fact that you got pissed at me. You are a joke, at best. You stink as well. It is hard to wash off retardedness when you go hog wild, and dip yourself in it.

Reply to
DarkMatter

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:18:35 -0900, Floyd Davidson Gave us:

Yes. I found a bit more on the same site. It mentions his precious AOL.

Quoted from:

formatting link
"ARPANET was replaced over time in the 1980's by a separate new military network, the Defense Data Network, and NSFNet, a network of scientific and academic computers funded by the National Science Foundation. In 1995, NSFNet in turn began a phased withdrawal to turn what has become the backbone of the Internet (called vBNS) over to a consortium of commercial backbone providers (PSINet, UUNET,ANS/AOL, Sprint, MCI, and AGIS-Net99)."

End quote

AOL WAS ANS. It still wasn't around in the 80's as anything more than a backbone provider, and then, it was NOT called AOL.

What ever happened to INET II? Is that where NSFNet and the AGIS stuff went? I think hospitals get access on that train too now.

We do not.

Reply to
DarkMatter

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:01:22 GMT, "Don Kelly" Gave us:

These were both either dumb or smart terminals that HAD to be hooked in to a mainframe IIRC.

If the McBee was a standalone, it was a mere oversized pocket calculator. Hardly a computer. Even compared to the ENIAC. I could almost call out the ones and zeros that fast verbally.

The IBM was a terminal, not a standalone. There own archive state that their first desktop computer wasn't until the 80's.

The reference was regarding REAL computers that could perform REAL tasks. The history of the network given regarded only those computers that were hooked in to it. Any others are of no consequence to the world, or the discussion. It started with four machines, moved to 37, and from there, it climbed higher. Pretty simple.

Reply to
DarkMatter

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:01:22 GMT, "Don Kelly" Gave us:

Terminals are not computers.

Reply to
DarkMatter

Yawn......same stuff!

Reply to
Ross Mac

Yawn again...same tired stuff....

Reply to
Ross Mac

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:49:48 GMT, "Ross Mac" Gave us:

Major yawn... Same, retarded, belligerent posting style.

Reply to
DarkMatter

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:49:48 GMT, "Ross Mac" Gave us:

You already answered that post once, dipshit. Yet another reason that top posting is lame. You obviously do not know much about UUnet, or how people read... Chronologically. DOH!

Reply to
DarkMatter

Who knows...maybe that blubber eatin, bear humpin turd burglar, Floyd will join you for a f**k fest....but me ....I have tired of both of you and your tirades...so have fun...I be gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to
Ross Mac

development

--------- Sure it was slow but by the standards of the day (prior to 1960), it was still a compute and a stand alone unit. Sure- by today''s standards it was equivalent to a cheap pocket calculator except that it could be programmed. Please note that I said multiply times, not just the rate at which it could call out ones and zeros. I should hope that you could verbally call out a sequence of 1's and o's "almost that fast".

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

---------- Sorry - it was classified as, sold as, and installed as, a stand alone unit and could do real computing tasks and even the McBee was applied to problems in Physics. In the mid 60's I also ran across a Burroughs. machine of about the same capability and still in use in a lab.

I did not say it was a desktop - I said it was the size of a desk-ditto for the McBee. I didn't program the McBee but did write Fortran programs for the IBM unit.

------

---------- Both were REAL standalone units which could perform REAL tasks and were, in fact, used for that. The fact that they are toys by today's standards means nothing. The mainframe units of the day were also pretty feeble and slow by present standards.

The reference of the general thread was to the net. However, your reference as quoted in my reply simply was a a statement as to the size of the computers available in the '69-71 period. That particular statement of yours had nothing to do with the net nor was it factual. Very Simple.

-- Don Kelly snipped-for-privacy@peeshaw.ca remove the urine to answer

Reply to
Don Kelly

-------- I did not say they were. The point is that they were part of the evolutionary process.

-- Don Kelly snipped-for-privacy@peeshaw.ca remove the urine to answer

Reply to
Don Kelly

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:20:34 GMT, "Don Kelly" Gave us:

I have been to Burroughs facility in Cincinnati, in 1976. I again was exposed to them in 1986 in a database capacity as an engineering assistant.

They were terminals.

Reply to
DarkMatter

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:24:42 GMT, "Don Kelly" Gave us:

Hey... Ok, Don.

Reply to
DarkMatter

1620 perhaps (announced in 1959)? There was also the 1130 in 1965.
formatting link
which was more powerful and still desk sized so the development

The 5100 (a desktop personal computer) came out in 1975.

formatting link

Reply to
Keith R. Williams

Horse hockey. The 5100 came out in 1975. It was most certainly a desktop "personal" computer. It ran APL or BASIC as it's "OS". I used them for instrumentation in the '70s.

formatting link
The 1130 was a "desk computer" in 1965. It was used often for much the same thing as the 5100 a decade later.

Please tell me how the 5100 wasn't a "real" computer.

Reply to
Keith R. Williams

-------- This wasn't a terminal - punched paper tape input -delay line memory as I recall- definitely a dead end side branch in the evolutionary tree of computers. By '76 they would have been quietly forgotten.

-- Don Kelly snipped-for-privacy@peeshaw.ca remove the urine to answer

Reply to
Don Kelly

Thank you - that was it.

-- Don Kelly snipped-for-privacy@peeshaw.ca remove the urine to answer

>
Reply to
Don Kelly

Amazingly, IBM has hired a historian/archivist (at a rather high level, so I understand) to preserve much of this information. The ibm.com web site search field links to a huge amount of information. Though I remember pieces of IBM's history, I'm always amazed what is there.

Reply to
Keith R. Williams

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.