[retrochallenge] Re: Compressed Rules...
- From: MJMahon@xxxxxxx
- To: retrochallenge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 03:16:05 EDT
In a message dated 6/21/2006 6:51:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
byron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 03:32:31PM -0400, MJMahon@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >This message brings up an interesting and important point: what is the
> >purpose of the "retrochallenge".
>
> There were several reasons why I wanted to run the retrochallenge
> last year. But I think the most important three points were:
>
> - To encourage the use of and discussion about vintage computers.
> - To demonstrate that older computers can be used for everyday tasks.
> - To demonstrate that you can create interesting things with
> retrocomputers.
>
> >Even reading newsgroups is much easier when saving and printing
> >at high speed and near-infinite capacity is at hand, and I doubt
> >that any enthusiast intent on getting the greatest use of the net
> >would give that up--even after they know that they can.
>
> This sort of comment is where I differ with most people. I am a
> firm believe that the computer industry creates an artificial desire
> to upgrade. And they do this because it is cheaper for them to
> neglect optimising their code, particularly since it will not
> diminish the size of their market or the retail price.
I think I understand where you're coming from, but it's a hard
argument to make from a practical point of view.
Computers are more than twice as capable (speed, space) as they
were just three years ago, and they cost less than half as much.
It's hard to argue that that's a rip-off.
I store many gigabytes worth of media data on my machine, and
a modern computer is the only sensible way to store, manage, and
use this data.
I'm a digital photographer, and being able to do a noise reduction
computation on a 4MP picture in a few seconds is a big win. (And
I guarantee that image manipulation code is *very* competitively
optimized, using all the latest SIMD and SMP parallelism available.)
When I'm using the web, it's not just to surf. I use it to research
obscure hardware and software, and frequently download 30MB .pdf
files of obscure manual scans. That would be completely impossible
with older systems, for multiple reasons.
I have 500GB online, and I use it.
On my Apple //e, I have 256MB on-line, and I use that too, but for
entirely different purposes. ;-)
> You only have to look into the past to see that old computers were
> frequently doing new and very useful things. Look at AppleWorks
> on the Apple II. No developer would have thought about developing
> a complete and user friendly suite of office productivity applications
> in 1977, even though AppleWorks ended up running on the vary same
> hardware (albeit, with much more RAM than was typical for the day)
You don't have to sell me--I can probably make this argument more
passionately than you! I'm the guy who designed and implemented
AppleCrate and CrateSynth. ;-)
But I know what systems are good for and I use them for that--and
an Apple II is not a practical way to use the web today. The fact
that it can be done is not surprising to me, but neither is the fact that
it can hardly be considered to be done well.
> Or take a look at web browsers on 68040 and 80486 based computers.
> Yes, there were web browsers prior to the Pentium and PowerPC; yet
> most web browsers were developed after the new generation of CPUs
> were in the market. Many of those web browsers will happily run
> on computers that were a decade older. (The main reasons why web
> browsers are so slow on relatively modern computers is because web
> site developers use incredibly complex markup to represent simple
> content on current websites.)
I used all those machines and web browsers. I started with Mosaic!
And the fact that people exploit the resources available to most users
should not be surprising--you'd do it too if it meant you could sell more
widgets. ;-)
But what on earth does that have to do with the love of older machines
and the creation of new, *fun* capablilties for them?
There is a lot to love about a Ford Model T, but I would never use it
to pull a boat.
> And that last example represents mainstream products. There are
> also niche products that try to address the needs of people with
> much older computers than the example represents.
And they will always be niche products, because only "wierd" people
would give up a wonderful $500 modern machine to use a $150 old
machine that has 1/1000 the compute power and capacity.
When I want to use modern tools, I use a modern computer; and
when I want to have fun with my Apple II's, I use them--isn't that
a reasonable approach?
> Then there is stuff like your usenet example. There is no particular
> reason why newsreaders, email clients, IRC clients, or FTP clients
> need to run on newer hardware to be easier to use. Many of the
> problems that we run into are based upon assumptions that were
> relevant when the software was originally developed. Email clients
> tend to have trouble with authentication, but there is no reason
> why a new client cannot use new authentication schemes. Newsreaders
> may have trouble loading the group or message list simply because
> it loads the list directly into memory. That may be okay on a new
> computer with globs of memory, and it may have been okay back then
> when the volume was much lower, but the assumption does not work
> today. A modern client on an older machine may (for example) store
> the list on disk and keep a smaller index of the list on memory
> (to improve seek times). Things like IRC and FTP clients have not
> evolved so much because of the protocols, but because we are
> accustomed to different user interfaces.
>
> Yes there are practical limits as to what these older computers
> can do. You cannot, for example, use streamed video on a 486.
> But is that feature even relevant if the video stream is just
> entertainment. There are, after all, many other sources of
> entertainment and the point of entertainment is that we enjoy it
> (rather than it being a specific thing).
OK, so I enjoy programming in the constrained environment of my
Apples, because it is fun and challenging to me.
But I also enjoy being able to download, view, and print a 125-page
manual scanned in by someone on the other side of the planet--and
it would be stupid to attempt that with an Apple II.
Surely you agree?
> >So it really can't be about getting people to "give up" their modern
> >machines--that's a silly thing to do in real life, like walking
> >backwards all day "because you can".
>
> In that case, why use older computers? We do it because we can,
> and because we (presumably) enjoy it. Similarly, a young child
> may enjoy walking backwards all day. (If only I could get enjoyment
> out of an activity so simple!
No, it's not about one or the other--it's about using *both* in
appropriate ways for appropriate things.
> Anyway. I'm sure all of us have different opinions of what the
> retrochallenge should be about and why we are doing it. I tried
> butting out of the discussion for a while because I wanted to see
> other people's opinions. I have, so I have butted back in with
> mine. If anyone else has anything to add, feel free. I'm still
> listening.
>
> What is important is that we agree upon the rules in short order,
> or we will never have an opportunity to enjoy the retrochallenge.
I'd like to finish by reviewing your stated purposes:
> - To encourage the use of and discussion about vintage computers.
A great goal--and an easy one to support. But aren't the likely
participants *already* using and discussing them? And aren't
there more specific forums for discussing specific older machines
and their programming and applications?
So it seems to me that this purpose is best served only if it draws
*new* folks into the discussion and isn't just a club for the ones who
already have the word...and I don't see how the retrochallenge as
currently constituted does that.
*How can new people discover and unleash their enthusiasm for
older computers?*
> - To demonstrate that older computers can be used for everyday tasks.
Possibly useful, for newbies who don't realize that word processing worked
just fine before you could pick fonts. But the source of a real backlash
if you come on like an Atari 800 is a good substitute for a modern machine
when doing your on-line banking!
Most everyday tasks are not "fun", and so these tasks make a poor example
of how it is fun to use an older machine. It's like trying to get someone
involved
in classic cars by using one to drive to the grocery store. ;-)
*This is a possible "hook" to get people's interest, but it must be quickly
followed up with something fun and creative.*
> - To demonstrate that you can create interesting things with
> retrocomputers.
A laudable purpose--but one best served by actual creation, not by mere
activity.
*Write some code. Solve a problem. Distribute your solution.*
Being able to say "I spent x hours reading crap at crap.com" doesn't seem
to me to be a very creative or productive use of time. It reminds me of what
amateur radio became--a bunch of guys sitting around talking to their
counterparts around the globe about their rigs--and little else. (And look
where amateur radio is today... )
-michael
Other related posts:
