Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967)
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
"I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331293] Thu, 03 November 2016 15:59 Go to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
The link below is to a detailed article in P/S about the author's
experiences in using a time sharing system, run by a GE Datanet 30
front-end and a GE-235. The author discusses some applications he
ran on it. This article is more technical than the one mentioned
in LIFE magazine about the doctor and his family.

https://books.google.com/books?id=kCEDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA92& amp;dq=%22popular%20science%22%20%22teletype%22&pg=PA90# v=onepage&q=%22popular%20science%22%20%22teletype%22& ;f=false
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331315 is a reply to message #331293] Thu, 03 November 2016 22:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Black is currently offline  Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> The link below is to a detailed article in P/S about the author's
> experiences in using a time sharing system, run by a GE Datanet 30
> front-end and a GE-235. The author discusses some applications he
> ran on it. This article is more technical than the one mentioned
> in LIFE magazine about the doctor and his family.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=kCEDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA92& amp;dq=%22popular%20science%22%20%22teletype%22&pg=PA90# v=onepage&q=%22popular%20science%22%20%22teletype%22& ;f=false
>
I'm pretty sure I saw that one as a kid. Maybe not in 1967, but within a
few years after that. The older issues could be taken out, and I'd
routinely get a pile and bring them home to read.

There was one in a ham magazine a few years later where they'd arranged to
do something, like a satellite orbit but I don't think it was that, for a
small fee. The article described the program, and this was before home
computers, and then the offer. At the time, it was a way to get whatever
was offered, when few had access to computers.

Michael
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331707 is a reply to message #331293] Tue, 08 November 2016 03:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:59:13 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> The link below is to a detailed article in P/S about the author's
> experiences in using a time sharing system, run by a GE Datanet 30
> front-end and a GE-235. The author discusses some applications he
> ran on it. This article is more technical than the one mentioned
> in LIFE magazine about the doctor and his family.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=kCEDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA92& amp;dq=%22popular%20science%22%20%22teletype%22&pg=PA90# v=onepage&q=%22popular%20science%22%20%22teletype%22& ;f=false


"When we're all hooked into the time-sharing system, and the various
time-sharing computers are hooked together so they can exchange
information as needed, 'Everyone will have better access to the
Library of Congress than the librarian himself now has,' writes Dr. John
McCarthy [of Stanford University]. 'Any page will be immediately
accessible.'"


"Time sharing, most experts agree, is the key to the computer's future,
at least for general use. A few years ago, when people thought about
household computers at all, they thought of some small, inexpensive,
individual unit that would keep track of the family checking account and
automatically type out the Christmas-card labels. Now we know it won't
be like that at all.

"The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper
it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build
one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked
to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."


One of the photos is of the "bank of special dataphones" that allow one to
communicate with the computer over telephone lines -- i.e., a modem bank.
Each appears to have a complete telephone unit, including a handset.
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331745 is a reply to message #331293] Tue, 08 November 2016 10:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
osmium is currently offline  osmium
Messages: 749
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"Huge" wrote:

> On 2016-11-08, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>
> [24 lines snipped]
>
>> "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper
>> it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build
>> one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked
>> to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."
>
> Cyclically true.

Cycle means more than once, right? Does that mean you expect there will
come a time when time sharing will be cheaper than having personal
computers? Or what?
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331747 is a reply to message #331293] Tue, 08 November 2016 10:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Reistad is currently offline  Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <e8e9pcFljtaU1@mid.individual.net>,
Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
> On 2016-11-08, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>
> [24 lines snipped]
>
>> "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper
>> it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build
>> one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked
>> to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."
>
> Cyclically true.

Nowadays we make > 10 computers per person on the planet every year,
around 1 of which is a "real computer" (memory management, can run a
"real OS").

So the argument about cantralising processing and memory costs are pretty moot.

But operations remain, and the data centers care for a lot of the
collective memory of humanity. Hidden in some basement or in some
inaccessible field in a boonies somewhere.

-- mrr
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331749 is a reply to message #331745] Tue, 08 November 2016 11:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 09:57:11 -0600
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Huge" wrote:
>
>> On 2016-11-08, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>
>> [24 lines snipped]
>>
>>> "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the
>>> cheaper it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far
>>> cheaper to build one monster computer with thousands or even millions
>>> of customers hooked to it than to have small, individual machines in
>>> individual homes."
>>
>> Cyclically true.
>
> Cycle means more than once, right? Does that mean you expect there will
> come a time when time sharing will be cheaper than having personal
> computers? Or what?

They call it things like "the cloud" and "software as a service"
this time round.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331750 is a reply to message #331747] Tue, 08 November 2016 11:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes:
> In article <e8e9pcFljtaU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 2016-11-08, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>
>> [24 lines snipped]
>>
>>> "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper
>>> it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build
>>> one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked
>>> to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."
>>
>> Cyclically true.
>
> Nowadays we make > 10 computers per person on the planet every year,
> around 1 of which is a "real computer" (memory management, can run a
> "real OS").
>
> So the argument about cantralising processing and memory costs are pretty moot.

cantra for your thoughts? (see Lee & Miller's Liaden universe).
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331763 is a reply to message #331745] Tue, 08 November 2016 17:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Huge" wrote:
>
>> On 2016-11-08, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>
>> [24 lines snipped]
>>
>>> "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper
>>> it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build
>>> one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked
>>> to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."
>>
>> Cyclically true.
>
> Cycle means more than once, right? Does that mean you expect there will
> come a time when time sharing will be cheaper than having personal
> computers? Or what?
>
>

What's this "cloud" thing I keep hearing about?


--
Pete
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331767 is a reply to message #331707] Tue, 08 November 2016 19:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 3:14:31 AM UTC-5, Questor wrote:


> "When we're all hooked into the time-sharing system, and the various
> time-sharing computers are hooked together so they can exchange
> information as needed, 'Everyone will have better access to the
> Library of Congress than the librarian himself now has,' writes Dr. John
> McCarthy [of Stanford University]. 'Any page will be immediately
> accessible.'"

I wish I could've been there when Dr. McCarthy made that grandiose
claim to ask him exactly how--in then 1960s technology--was how all that
material gonna be keypunched and how it would be stored in randomly
accessible storage.


> "Time sharing, most experts agree, is the key to the computer's future,
> at least for general use. A few years ago, when people thought about
> household computers at all, they thought of some small, inexpensive,
> individual unit that would keep track of the family checking account and
> automatically type out the Christmas-card labels. Now we know it won't
> be like that at all.

> "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper
> it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build
> one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked
> to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."

Well, in 1967, it took about _thirty_ years for the price of technology
to come down enough where it was cost effective for _most_ homes to
own a computer for _everyday_ tasks. (_Today_, what percentage of
homes have a computer? I don't think it's as high as people think.)

Further, beyond driving GUI on the screen and playing games, our _home_
computers mostly function at a very low "computing" level. Most people
use them as a terminal to the Internet, where some distant computer is
actually doing the work of airline reservations or catalog sales, or
routing emails.

While some of the technology has changed, much of what we do at home
is indeed what was prophesized 50 years ago.

I do know some people who use their home computer for Christmas card
labels and their checking account. Even at a modern price of only
$500, it still seems a lot of money for a fairly trivial low volume
function for a typical family.




> One of the photos is of the "bank of special dataphones" that allow one to
> communicate with the computer over telephone lines -- i.e., a modem bank.
> Each appears to have a complete telephone unit, including a handset.
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331770 is a reply to message #331707] Tue, 08 November 2016 23:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
isw is currently offline  isw
Messages: 19
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
In article <582187d5.7861584@nntp2.rawbw.com>,
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:59:13 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> The link below is to a detailed article in P/S about the author's
>> experiences in using a time sharing system, run by a GE Datanet 30
>> front-end and a GE-235. The author discusses some applications he
>> ran on it. This article is more technical than the one mentioned
>> in LIFE magazine about the doctor and his family.
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=kCEDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA92& amp;dq=%22popular%20scien
>> ce%22%20%22teletype%22&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q=%22popula r%20science%22%20%22telet
>> ype%22&f=false
>
>
> "When we're all hooked into the time-sharing system, and the various
> time-sharing computers are hooked together so they can exchange
> information as needed, 'Everyone will have better access to the
> Library of Congress than the librarian himself now has,' writes Dr. John
> McCarthy [of Stanford University]. 'Any page will be immediately
> accessible.'"
>
>
> "Time sharing, most experts agree, is the key to the computer's future,
> at least for general use. A few years ago, when people thought about
> household computers at all, they thought of some small, inexpensive,
> individual unit that would keep track of the family checking account and
> automatically type out the Christmas-card labels. Now we know it won't
> be like that at all.
>
> "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper
> it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build
> one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked
> to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."
>
>
> One of the photos is of the "bank of special dataphones" that allow one to
> communicate with the computer over telephone lines -- i.e., a modem bank.
> Each appears to have a complete telephone unit, including a handset.

Via a regular phone, acoustically, was essentially the only way one was
permitted to connect to the PSTN at that time.

Isaac
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331771 is a reply to message #331767] Tue, 08 November 2016 23:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Black is currently offline  Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 3:14:31 AM UTC-5, Questor wrote:
>
>
>> "When we're all hooked into the time-sharing system, and the various
>> time-sharing computers are hooked together so they can exchange
>> information as needed, 'Everyone will have better access to the
>> Library of Congress than the librarian himself now has,' writes Dr. John
>> McCarthy [of Stanford University]. 'Any page will be immediately
>> accessible.'"
>
> I wish I could've been there when Dr. McCarthy made that grandiose
> claim to ask him exactly how--in then 1960s technology--was how all that
> material gonna be keypunched and how it would be stored in randomly
> accessible storage.
>
I found a book by John Kemeny, I think it was, about the computers in the
future. It was written in the sixties, I think early like around when
Dartmouth BASIC hit.

I've yet to read it, but it had that same optimism about the future, and
where computers would fit into that future. I think when I glanced at it
I was surprised how prophetic it was, even if it was wrong in
implementation, considering how early it was written.

>
>> "Time sharing, most experts agree, is the key to the computer's future,
>> at least for general use. A few years ago, when people thought about
>> household computers at all, they thought of some small, inexpensive,
>> individual unit that would keep track of the family checking account and
>> automatically type out the Christmas-card labels. Now we know it won't
>> be like that at all.
>
>> "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper
>> it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build
>> one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked
>> to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."
>
> Well, in 1967, it took about _thirty_ years for the price of technology
> to come down enough where it was cost effective for _most_ homes to
> own a computer for _everyday_ tasks. (_Today_, what percentage of
> homes have a computer? I don't think it's as high as people think.)
>
> Further, beyond driving GUI on the screen and playing games, our _home_
> computers mostly function at a very low "computing" level. Most people
> use them as a terminal to the Internet, where some distant computer is
> actually doing the work of airline reservations or catalog sales, or
> routing emails.
>
> While some of the technology has changed, much of what we do at home
> is indeed what was prophesized 50 years ago.
>
> I do know some people who use their home computer for Christmas card
> labels and their checking account. Even at a modern price of only
> $500, it still seems a lot of money for a fairly trivial low volume
> function for a typical family.
>
But something would be needed, and most people wouldn't want a huge and
clunky TTY machine in their house.

But this is the split, lots of people had home computers relatively early,
but a way larger mass came later, because there were things they could use
them for, such as the internet. Then some time later, a lot of that later
group is using cellphones and at best a tablet for that same work. It's
way more capable than anything fifty years ago, but now it's doing other
things rather than the real work.

I just got a refurbished HP yesterday for $350, a quad INtel processor
running at 3.4GHz, with 8gigs of RAM and a 500gig hard drive, it even
drives two monitors. I could even put in a second hard drive, if I really
needed it, or an external one using the eSATA interface.

And it's only from five years in the past.

And that was overkill, but I decided to splurge. Oddly enough, it's even
in a relatively small package, aiming at the people who still want a
desktop but not so blatant. I debated for a few years, always findiing
some excuse, including thinking about buying new, getting cutting edge but
losing things like serial and parallel ports, or buying old and getting
them, do I buy something with lots of expansion or not? So this is
physically smaller than I'd planned but the built in graphics are probably
way more than I need, and with the serial and parallel ports built in, I
don't need a large expansion bus for things that may not be so good with
USB.

So it's 37 years after my first computer, which had all of 1K of RAM, the
CPU ran at 1MHz, used a cassette interface for storage and had a
calculator keyboard and readout. But I can splurge for this, so I might as
well run it way underused.


Michael
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331776 is a reply to message #331293] Wed, 09 November 2016 05:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 8 Nov 2016 16:08:00 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-11-08, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Huge" wrote:
>>> On 2016-11-08, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>>
>>> [24 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>> "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper
>>>> it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build
>>>> one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked
>>>> to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."
>>>
>>> Cyclically true.
>>
>> Cycle means more than once, right? Does that mean you expect there will
>> come a time when time sharing will be cheaper than having personal
>> computers? Or what?
>
> Well, I was (as usual) being slightly tongue in cheek, but in my 41 years
> in IT I have seen the "centralise/decentralise" cycle go past several
> of times. This time round it's called "the cloud". Last time it was
> "timesharing", and before that "the mainframe".

You forgot "thin client," "client-server," and the "network computer." There
may be others that I've missed.
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331777 is a reply to message #331770] Wed, 09 November 2016 05:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 20:28:57 -0800, isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
> In article <582187d5.7861584@nntp2.rawbw.com>,
> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>> One of the photos is of the "bank of special dataphones" that allow one to
>> communicate with the computer over telephone lines -- i.e., a modem bank.
>> Each appears to have a complete telephone unit, including a handset.
>
> Via a regular phone, acoustically, was essentially the only way one was
> permitted to connect to the PSTN at that time.

The modem bank was at the computer site; presumably they work just as modems
do today. They did not use an acoustic coupler, so having a telephone with a
handset for each incoming line would have been superfluous.
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331781 is a reply to message #331767] Wed, 09 November 2016 07:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 3:14:31 AM UTC-5, Questor wrote:
>
>
>> "When we're all hooked into the time-sharing system, and the various
>> time-sharing computers are hooked together so they can exchange
>> information as needed, 'Everyone will have better access to the
>> Library of Congress than the librarian himself now has,' writes Dr. John
>> McCarthy [of Stanford University]. 'Any page will be immediately
>> accessible.'"
>
> I wish I could've been there when Dr. McCarthy made that grandiose
> claim to ask him exactly how--in then 1960s technology--was how all that
> material gonna be keypunched and how it would be stored in randomly
> accessible storage.
>

Visionaries looked ahead, not at current technology. I don't think he was
thinking of photos, videos, or music, although even text would have been a
major problem. I'm reading _Dealers of Lightning_ about Xerox PARC, and
they started looking ahead ten years or more and then developing the
technology to get there. Wher will be be ten years from now?


>
>> "Time sharing, most experts agree, is the key to the computer's future,
>> at least for general use. A few years ago, when people thought about
>> household computers at all, they thought of some small, inexpensive,
>> individual unit that would keep track of the family checking account and
>> automatically type out the Christmas-card labels. Now we know it won't
>> be like that at all.
>
>> "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper
>> it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build
>> one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked
>> to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."
>
> Well, in 1967, it took about _thirty_ years for the price of technology
> to come down enough where it was cost effective for _most_ homes to
> own a computer for _everyday_ tasks. (_Today_, what percentage of
> homes have a computer? I don't think it's as high as people think.)

Everyone I know has at least one computer including my 85-year-old
neighbor. We have two desktops, two laptops, a Kindle, an iPad, and two
smartphones, and IME this is not over the top. (I'm working on getting rid
of my XP desktop, but I still need to take the time to copy files, etc.)

>
> Further, beyond driving GUI on the screen and playing games, our _home_
> computers mostly function at a very low "computing" level.

I would think games require a _lot_ ofcomputing.

> Most people
> use them as a terminal to the Internet, where some distant computer is
> actually doing the work of airline reservations or catalog sales, or
> routing emails.
>
> While some of the technology has changed, much of what we do at home
> is indeed what was prophesized 50 years ago.
>
> I do know some people who use their home computer for Christmas card
> labels and their checking account. Even at a modern price of only
> $500, it still seems a lot of money for a fairly trivial low volume
> function for a typical family.
>

Most people rely on google today. Telephone books are rare and useless.
People probably use computers as typewriters when they have to write actual
letters. If you have kids a computer is a must for schoolwork, my
granddaughter was doing research and getting stuff for presentations in
third grade. The value of a computer is the potential of what you can do
with it as much as what you actually do currently.


>
>
>
>> One of the photos is of the "bank of special dataphones" that allow one to
>> communicate with the computer over telephone lines -- i.e., a modem bank.
>> Each appears to have a complete telephone unit, including a handset.
>
>



--
Pete
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331782 is a reply to message #331767] Wed, 09 November 2016 08:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 3:14:31 AM UTC-5, Questor wrote:
>
>
>> "When we're all hooked into the time-sharing system, and the various
>> time-sharing computers are hooked together so they can exchange
>> information as needed, 'Everyone will have better access to the
>> Library of Congress than the librarian himself now has,' writes Dr. John
>> McCarthy [of Stanford University]. 'Any page will be immediately
>> accessible.'"
>
> I wish I could've been there when Dr. McCarthy made that grandiose
> claim to ask him exactly how--in then 1960s technology--was how all that
> material gonna be keypunched and how it would be stored in randomly
> accessible storage.

The same way the insurance companies did it.
<snip>

/BAH
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331783 is a reply to message #331293] Wed, 09 November 2016 08:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Huge wrote:
> On 2016-11-09, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2016 16:08:00 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2016-11-08, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> "Huge" wrote:
>>>> > On 2016-11-08, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > [24 lines snipped]
>>>> >
>>>> >> "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the
cheaper
>>>> >> it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to
build
>>>> >> one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers
hooked
>>>> >> to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."
>>>> >
>>>> > Cyclically true.
>>>>
>>>> Cycle means more than once, right? Does that mean you expect there will
>>>> come a time when time sharing will be cheaper than having personal
>>>> computers? Or what?
>>>
>>> Well, I was (as usual) being slightly tongue in cheek, but in my 41 years
>>> in IT I have seen the "centralise/decentralise" cycle go past several
>>> of times. This time round it's called "the cloud". Last time it was
>>> "timesharing", and before that "the mainframe".
>>
>> You forgot "thin client," "client-server," and the "network computer."
>
> Indeed. And thank you for pointing that out. Perhaps there have been
> more cycles than I remember.

Distributed processings was another.

/BAH

>
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331784 is a reply to message #331293] Wed, 09 November 2016 08:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Huge wrote:
> On 2016-11-08, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Huge" wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-11-08, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>>
>>> [24 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>> "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper
>>>> it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build
>>>> one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked
>>>> to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."
>>>
>>> Cyclically true.
>>
>> Cycle means more than once, right? Does that mean you expect there will
>> come a time when time sharing will be cheaper than having personal
>> computers? Or what?
>
> Well, I was (as usual) being slightly tongue in cheek, but in my 41 years
> in IT I have seen the "centralise/decentralise" cycle go past several
> of times. This time round it's called "the cloud". Last time it was
> "timesharing", and before that "the mainframe".

The cycle also happens within a company. They go from owning and
managing their own computing services to contracting them out and
then back again.

/BAH
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331785 is a reply to message #331745] Wed, 09 November 2016 08:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Osmium wrote:
> "Huge" wrote:
>
>> On 2016-11-08, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>
>> [24 lines snipped]
>>
>>> "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper
>>> it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build
>>> one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked
>>> to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."
>>
>> Cyclically true.
>
> Cycle means more than once, right? Does that mean you expect there will
> come a time when time sharing will be cheaper than having personal
> computers? Or what?
>
Timesharing is already done on PCs. There are background tasks which have
to be running for anyone to use the hardware and access the internet.

/BAH
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331794 is a reply to message #331784] Wed, 09 November 2016 11:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Reistad is currently offline  Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <PM000540DE4C281416@aca46cc4.ipt.aol.com>,
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Huge wrote:
>> On 2016-11-08, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> "Huge" wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-11-08, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [24 lines snipped]
>>>>
>>>> > "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper
>>>> > it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build
>>>> > one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked
>>>> > to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."
>>>>
>>>> Cyclically true.
>>>
>>> Cycle means more than once, right? Does that mean you expect there will
>>> come a time when time sharing will be cheaper than having personal
>>> computers? Or what?
>>
>> Well, I was (as usual) being slightly tongue in cheek, but in my 41 years
>> in IT I have seen the "centralise/decentralise" cycle go past several
>> of times. This time round it's called "the cloud". Last time it was
>> "timesharing", and before that "the mainframe".
>
> The cycle also happens within a company. They go from owning and
> managing their own computing services to contracting them out and
> then back again.

It has picked up a lot of layers since the mainframe days.

Now I see at least 6 distinct ones to handle for out/insourcing.

1) The building infrastructure (not trivial when you deal with dense IT)
2) The feeding of electricity, UPS/genset, fiber routes, cold air/water
3) The actual operation of a datacenter, with the racks, coolers,
network privisioning etc.
4) The actual operations of the machines, firewalls, VPNs etc.
5) The management of virtual machines and similar.
6) The services and applications.

It is rare for any IT organisation to do 1, this is for property
organisations to do, but you need to specify the product you need
in pretty good detail.

2 is for utilities, ISPs and generator/UPS service people to do,
but you want to monitor stuff closely.

3 is where you can sanely take inhouse control. Still, it is also
a good candidate to purchase from someone else.

4-6 is usually done by a plethora of consultants, if they are
employed or hired is up to the application and OS environment
you run.

So, it is not quite so simple as in/outsource anymore.

-- mrr
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331795 is a reply to message #331777] Wed, 09 November 2016 12:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alfred Falk is currently offline  Alfred Falk
Messages: 195
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote in news:5822fad9.3140706@nntp2.rawbw.com:

> On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 20:28:57 -0800, isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
>> In article <582187d5.7861584@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx
>> (Questor) wrote:
>>> One of the photos is of the "bank of special dataphones" that allow
>>> one to communicate with the computer over telephone lines -- i.e., a
>>> modem bank. Each appears to have a complete telephone unit, including
>>> a handset.
>>
>> Via a regular phone, acoustically, was essentially the only way one was
>> permitted to connect to the PSTN at that time.
>
> The modem bank was at the computer site; presumably they work just as
> modems do today. They did not use an acoustic coupler, so having a
> telephone with a handset for each incoming line would have been
> superfluous.

Yes, but phone companies often required a handset for each line, needed or
not.
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331799 is a reply to message #331784] Wed, 09 November 2016 14:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: jfehlinger

On 2016-11-09, Questor wrote:

> On 8 Nov 2016 16:08:00 GMT, Huge wrote:

>> [I]n my 41 years in IT I have seen the "centralise/decentralise"
>> cycle go past several of times. This time round it's called "the cloud".
>> Last time it was "timesharing", and before that "the mainframe".
>
> You forgot "thin client," "client-server," and the "network computer."
>
> Indeed. And thank you for pointing that out. Perhaps there have been
> more cycles than I remember.


> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:51:25 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:

> The cycle also happens within a company. They go from owning and
> managing their own computing services to contracting them out and
> then back again.

There were so-called Application Service Providers in the 90's
(ASP, before that meant "Active Server Pages"), which
has now evolved into Software as a Service (SaaS).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331800 is a reply to message #331781] Wed, 09 November 2016 14:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Black is currently offline  Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, Peter Flass wrote:

> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 3:14:31 AM UTC-5, Questor wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "When we're all hooked into the time-sharing system, and the various
>>> time-sharing computers are hooked together so they can exchange
>>> information as needed, 'Everyone will have better access to the
>>> Library of Congress than the librarian himself now has,' writes Dr. John
>>> McCarthy [of Stanford University]. 'Any page will be immediately
>>> accessible.'"
>>
>> I wish I could've been there when Dr. McCarthy made that grandiose
>> claim to ask him exactly how--in then 1960s technology--was how all that
>> material gonna be keypunched and how it would be stored in randomly
>> accessible storage.
>>
>
> Visionaries looked ahead, not at current technology. I don't think he was
> thinking of photos, videos, or music, although even text would have been a
> major problem. I'm reading _Dealers of Lightning_ about Xerox PARC, and
> they started looking ahead ten years or more and then developing the
> technology to get there. Wher will be be ten years from now?
>
Yes, from reading about PARC they were assuming the raw hardware would get
better, so what might be done with it. So it didn't matter than an Alto
wsa too expensive and big to be a "home computer" for more than a handful
of people, the expectation was that it would get smaller and cheaper, so
where would things go? The "revolutionary" thought was to leap ahead,
rather than be making incremental changes for the "now".

Michael
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331801 is a reply to message #331293] Wed, 09 November 2016 14:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Black is currently offline  Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, Huge wrote:

> On 2016-11-09, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> Osmium wrote:
>>> "Huge" wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-11-08, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [24 lines snipped]
>>>>
>>>> > "The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper
>>>> > it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build
>>>> > one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked
>>>> > to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."
>>>>
>>>> Cyclically true.
>>>
>>> Cycle means more than once, right? Does that mean you expect there will
>>> come a time when time sharing will be cheaper than having personal
>>> computers? Or what?
>>>
>> Timesharing is already done on PCs. There are background tasks which have
>> to be running for anyone to use the hardware and access the internet.
>
> That isn't really what "timesharing" means in this context. I would argue
> that despite the fact that my PC is running;
>
> [huge@amun ~/Desktop]: ps -eaf | wc -l
> 184
>
> 184 processes, it isn't "timesharing" because I'm the only one using it.
>
It's multitasking. So you don't have to wait for the program to finish
printing, it can move to the background.

But, I could certainly timeshare on this computer, if I connect a
terminal, and the quad core I got on Monday is an even more massive
system, and it even has two serial ports. I guess I shouldn't have gotten
rid of the Mac Classic, but I have a couple of Mac laptops waiting around.

Michael
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331807 is a reply to message #331781] Wed, 09 November 2016 16:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:35:36 -0500, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Most people rely on google today. Telephone books are rare and useless.

I disagree. When I am looking for a business or service, I find the ads in the
Yellow Pages [traditionally the business listings section in the phone book, for
those outside the U.S.] convey a lot of useful information, albeit much of it is
gleaned intuitively rather than analytically. Yelp replaces some but not all of
that.

As with Clifford Stoll's example of library card catalogs, my experience is that
there are trade-offs with every technological advancement. While some
advantages are gained, other good features get lost. Everything new is not
necessarily better.
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331808 is a reply to message #331795] Wed, 09 November 2016 16:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:45:33 -0000 (UTC), Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> wrote:
> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote in news:5822fad9.3140706@nntp2.rawbw.com:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 20:28:57 -0800, isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
>>> In article <582187d5.7861584@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx
>>> (Questor) wrote:
>>>> One of the photos is of the "bank of special dataphones" that allow
>>>> one to communicate with the computer over telephone lines -- i.e., a
>>>> modem bank. Each appears to have a complete telephone unit, including
>>>> a handset.
>>>
>>> Via a regular phone, acoustically, was essentially the only way one was
>>> permitted to connect to the PSTN at that time.
>>
>> The modem bank was at the computer site; presumably they work just as
>> modems do today. They did not use an acoustic coupler, so having a
>> telephone with a handset for each incoming line would have been
>> superfluous.
>
> Yes, but phone companies often required a handset for each line, needed or
> not.

No doubt; I was simply posting some bits from the article I thought were
interesting in light of where computing is today. The wall of dataphones
certainly looks a lot cooler than a row of modem cards in a rack.
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331809 is a reply to message #331770] Wed, 09 November 2016 16:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 11:29:02 PM UTC-5, isw wrote:

> Via a regular phone, acoustically, was essentially the only way one was
> permitted to connect to the PSTN at that time.

No.

You could connect via a telco provided device, such as a dataphone
or Teletype, or use a DAA interface.

It should be noted that back then regulators strongly supported this
policy, one to protect the network from bad devices (a real risk),
and one to protect cross-subsidies for basic telephone users. Back
then, lots of individuals had basic telephone service at $3/month,
supported by premium product users and long distance. Today the
subsidy for low income users is explicit.
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331810 is a reply to message #331794] Wed, 09 November 2016 16:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:32:30 +0100
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:

> It has picked up a lot of layers since the mainframe days.

The first two weren't much better for mainframes than they are for
modern datacentres, some places had several floors dedicated to mainframes
with high power demands, water cooling and air conditioning. The second two
were a bit simpler I think, but perhaps not too much so considering how much
operator intervention mainframes tended to need.

> Now I see at least 6 distinct ones to handle for out/insourcing.
>
> 1) The building infrastructure (not trivial when you deal with dense IT)
> 2) The feeding of electricity, UPS/genset, fiber routes, cold air/water
> 3) The actual operation of a datacenter, with the racks, coolers,
> network privisioning etc.
> 4) The actual operations of the machines, firewalls, VPNs etc.
> 5) The management of virtual machines and similar.
> 6) The services and applications.
>
> So, it is not quite so simple as in/outsource anymore.

Even when an organisation has sites where all six layers are done
in house on a large scale there are likely to be a good many services they
outsource as well as sites where some layers are outsourced. Sometimes the
outsourcing decisions seem bizarre.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331811 is a reply to message #331771] Wed, 09 November 2016 16:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 11:49:22 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:


> I found a book by John Kemeny, I think it was, about the computers in the
> future. It was written in the sixties, I think early like around when
> Dartmouth BASIC hit.

> I've yet to read it, but it had that same optimism about the future, and
> where computers would fit into that future. I think when I glanced at it
> I was surprised how prophetic it was, even if it was wrong in
> implementation, considering how early it was written.


A lot of the 50 year old prophecies came true in terms of functionality;
it's just the details the varied.


> But something would be needed, and most people wouldn't want a huge and
> clunky TTY machine in their house.

One variation was shopping by phone. Back then it was envisioned that
people would have a printed catalog to use for selecting items via
their Touch Tone phone keypad. So, the inexpensive TT phone was
envisioned as the cheap terminal.

However, surprisingly, there doesn't seem to be too much research back
then in a cheaper Teletype. Indeed, the Teletype 33 _was_ the "cheap"
version, being specifically designed as the 'budget' light duty unit
as compared to other Teletypes. But at $700, it was too expensive
for home use.






> But this is the split, lots of people had home computers relatively early,
> but a way larger mass came later, because there were things they could use
> them for, such as the internet. Then some time later, a lot of that later
> group is using cellphones and at best a tablet for that same work. It's
> way more capable than anything fifty years ago, but now it's doing other
> things rather than the real work.

Also, later on computers became more powerful and usable, and easier
to use. Doing even basic word processing or spreadsheets on an XT
grade machine was cumbersome.
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331812 is a reply to message #331777] Wed, 09 November 2016 16:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:38:51 AM UTC-5, Questor wrote:

> The modem bank was at the computer site; presumably they work just as modems
> do today. They did not use an acoustic coupler, so having a telephone with a
> handset for each incoming line would have been superfluous.

The dataphones of that era were designed for voice or data use,
as well as manual or automatic use. Thus the need for the handset.

Some dataphones did not have a handset.
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331813 is a reply to message #331781] Wed, 09 November 2016 16:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 7:35:37 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:

> Visionaries looked ahead, not at current technology. I don't think he was
> thinking of photos, videos, or music, although even text would have been a
> major problem. I'm reading _Dealers of Lightning_ about Xerox PARC, and
> they started looking ahead ten years or more and then developing the
> technology to get there. Wher will be be ten years from now?

Back then there was a brick wall between computing and communications.
Part of that was because of regulatory policy--communications were
provided by the common carriers (Bell and Western Union and the
Independents), but that was allow they were allowed to do. Computing
was separate.

Western Union early on was trying to breach the wall and provide
computer services and enhanced communications, such as store and
forward.

Bell certainly considered video and pictures via its PicturePhone.
That also was intended to serve as a computer terminal. I think
at that time Picturephone was way too expensive for home use, indeed,
it was too expensive to justify office use.

I believe one big difference between then and now was the use
of computers for entertainment--back then it wasn't considered.
Back then, the best they could and would do was play Tictactoe
or Nim on the terminal, otherwise, the equipment was just too
expensive to justify gaming.

Today, at the library, a lot of users are watching TV shows or
gaming via computer.



> Most people rely on google today. Telephone books are rare and useless.
> People probably use computers as typewriters when they have to write actual
> letters. If you have kids a computer is a must for schoolwork, my
> granddaughter was doing research and getting stuff for presentations in
> third grade. The value of a computer is the potential of what you can do
> with it as much as what you actually do currently.

Yes.

What would happen to us if Google suddenly decided to charge users
for access to its various services?
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331814 is a reply to message #331782] Wed, 09 November 2016 16:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:51:25 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:

>> I wish I could've been there when Dr. McCarthy made that grandiose
>> claim to ask him exactly how--in then 1960s technology--was how all that
>> material gonna be keypunched and how it would be stored in randomly
>> accessible storage.
>
> The same way the insurance companies did it.

1960s technology was simply not up to the task. Nor was 1970s or
1980s technology. Optical scanning just wasn't accurate enough,
and high volume disk storage was expensive. To fulfill his prediction
required substantial cost reductions in electronics that took decades
(so that it would be affordable), as well as inventions such as better
optical scanning logic and disk storage compression.

Anyway, how much of the Library of Congress is available on-line?
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331822 is a reply to message #331808] Wed, 09 November 2016 17:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Reistad is currently offline  Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <58239272.1341839@nntp2.rawbw.com>, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:45:33 -0000 (UTC), Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> wrote:
>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote in news:5822fad9.3140706@nntp2.rawbw.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 20:28:57 -0800, isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <582187d5.7861584@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx
>>>> (Questor) wrote:
>>>> > One of the photos is of the "bank of special dataphones" that allow
>>>> > one to communicate with the computer over telephone lines -- i.e., a
>>>> > modem bank. Each appears to have a complete telephone unit, including
>>>> > a handset.
>>>>
>>>> Via a regular phone, acoustically, was essentially the only way one was
>>>> permitted to connect to the PSTN at that time.
>>>
>>> The modem bank was at the computer site; presumably they work just as
>>> modems do today. They did not use an acoustic coupler, so having a
>>> telephone with a handset for each incoming line would have been
>>> superfluous.
>>
>> Yes, but phone companies often required a handset for each line, needed or
>> not.
>
> No doubt; I was simply posting some bits from the article I thought were
> interesting in light of where computing is today. The wall of dataphones
> certainly looks a lot cooler than a row of modem cards in a rack.

But they are a nightmare to operate. MTBFs of barely two-digit
weeks, and MTTR of a week or more.

BTDT. Ran a total of ~200 physical modems in the early ISP days,
in 40 different locations. It quickly lost it's charm.

It was a godsend when we could run 40 modems in 3U over E1 lines.
Just a little LED, monitoring of the lines in all directions, and
failover to other infrastructure instead of having to mark modems
busy, several times a day.

I still miss the Livingston PM3.

-- mrr
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331823 is a reply to message #331807] Wed, 09 November 2016 17:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:35:36 -0500, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Most people rely on google today. Telephone books are rare and useless.
>
> I disagree. When I am looking for a business or service, I find the ads in the
> Yellow Pages [traditionally the business listings section in the phone book, for
> those outside the U.S.] convey a lot of useful information, albeit much of it is
> gleaned intuitively rather than analytically. Yelp replaces some but not all of
> that.

YMMV. We have ...hmmm... four phone books of descending uselessness. The
yellow pages contain many different listing among them all. Sometime I have
to look in two books to find a listing for something or someone specific.
By the end of the year the listings are a bit out of date. Much easier to
google "computer repair, Podunk NY."

>
> As with Clifford Stoll's example of library card catalogs, my experience is that
> there are trade-offs with every technological advancement. While some
> advantages are gained, other good features get lost. Everything new is not
> necessarily better.
>
>



--
Pete
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331824 is a reply to message #331809] Wed, 09 November 2016 17:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 11:29:02 PM UTC-5, isw wrote:
>
>> Via a regular phone, acoustically, was essentially the only way one was
>> permitted to connect to the PSTN at that time.
>
> No.
>
> You could connect via a telco provided device, such as a dataphone
> or Teletype, or use a DAA interface.
>
> It should be noted that back then regulators strongly supported this
> policy, one to protect the network from bad devices (a real risk),
> and one to protect cross-subsidies for basic telephone users. Back
> then, lots of individuals had basic telephone service at $3/month,
> supported by premium product users and long distance. Today the
> subsidy for low income users is explicit.
>

Like the "Al Gore tax" to subsidize internet service.

--
Pete
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331825 is a reply to message #331814] Wed, 09 November 2016 17:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:51:25 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>>> I wish I could've been there when Dr. McCarthy made that grandiose
>>> claim to ask him exactly how--in then 1960s technology--was how all that
>>> material gonna be keypunched and how it would be stored in randomly
>>> accessible storage.
>>
>> The same way the insurance companies did it.
>
> 1960s technology was simply not up to the task. Nor was 1970s or
> 1980s technology. Optical scanning just wasn't accurate enough,

I'm still not impressed. Google books or the Internet Archive seem to have
a pretty high error rate.

> and high volume disk storage was expensive. To fulfill his prediction
> required substantial cost reductions in electronics that took decades
> (so that it would be affordable), as well as inventions such as better
> optical scanning logic and disk storage compression.
>
> Anyway, how much of the Library of Congress is available on-line?
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
Pete
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331827 is a reply to message #331823] Wed, 09 November 2016 18:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
osmium is currently offline  osmium
Messages: 749
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:35:36 -0500, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Most people rely on google today. Telephone books are rare and useless.
>>
>> I disagree. When I am looking for a business or service, I find the ads
>> in the
>> Yellow Pages [traditionally the business listings section in the phone
>> book, for
>> those outside the U.S.] convey a lot of useful information, albeit much
>> of it is
>> gleaned intuitively rather than analytically. Yelp replaces some but not
>> all of
>> that.
>
> YMMV. We have ...hmmm... four phone books of descending uselessness. The
> yellow pages contain many different listing among them all. Sometime I
> have
> to look in two books to find a listing for something or someone specific.
> By the end of the year the listings are a bit out of date. Much easier to
> google "computer repair, Podunk NY."

One of the problems with the web is ancient data which just accumulates year
after year. People who have retired from practice, addresses of where a
business used to be, and so on. In the good old days one solved that
problem by discarding the old phone book. I have personally experienced
both of those problems.
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331828 is a reply to message #331827] Wed, 09 November 2016 18:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:

> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:35:36 -0500, Peter Flass
>>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Most people rely on google today. Telephone books are rare and useless.
>>>
>>> I disagree. When I am looking for a business or service, I find
>>> the ads in the
>>> Yellow Pages [traditionally the business listings section in the
>>> phone book, for
>>> those outside the U.S.] convey a lot of useful information, albeit
>>> much of it is
>>> gleaned intuitively rather than analytically. Yelp replaces some
>>> but not all of
>>> that.
>>
>> YMMV. We have ...hmmm... four phone books of descending uselessness. The
>> yellow pages contain many different listing among them all. Sometime
>> I have
>> to look in two books to find a listing for something or someone specific.
>> By the end of the year the listings are a bit out of date. Much easier to
>> google "computer repair, Podunk NY."
>
> One of the problems with the web is ancient data which just
> accumulates year after year. People who have retired from practice,
> addresses of where a business used to be, and so on. In the good old
> days one solved that problem by discarding the old phone book. I
> have personally experienced both of those problems.

I personally experienced wanting to go to a specific restaurant.
Dialed it into my smart phone GPS and it gave me directions with
the warning that the place was permanently closed.

I've been throwing out those phone books for years.
Haven't seen one in a while now, I think the phone book
printers know the score.

--
Dan Espen
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331829 is a reply to message #331813] Wed, 09 November 2016 19:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Black is currently offline  Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:


>> Most people rely on google today. Telephone books are rare and useless.
>> People probably use computers as typewriters when they have to write actual
>> letters. If you have kids a computer is a must for schoolwork, my
>> granddaughter was doing research and getting stuff for presentations in
>> third grade. The value of a computer is the potential of what you can do
>> with it as much as what you actually do currently.
>
> Yes.
>
> What would happen to us if Google suddenly decided to charge users
> for access to its various services?
>
In effect, they do. Google's business is selling advertising, the
functions they offer "free" to the public is a means of bringing people to
where they'll see the ads.

Everything on the internet used to be "free", in that people put in the
effort and paid the cost of the server space and traffic. At best, some
might get a local advertiser to put up a simple ad, to offset the cost.

But not much later, it became about making money. So it was no longer
about making bringing in a few dollars to offset the cost of the website,
but about making money first, the content secondary. So there was "free"
email, there were "free" website hosts (like Geocities), there was "free"
just about anything. For a while, one could even get "free" dialup email,
Juno, a lot of people worked that well to get further access in some way.
But it was about making money, give the product away to raise money by
ads.

People used to talk about things on usenet, and then someone would
consolidate it into a FAQ or a listing of bookstores in a given region or
whatever, complete with user comments about the stores. But now there is
"yelp!", that portrays itself as something good, but is just making money
off the internet, and covering it by using the right buzzwords.

Michael
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331830 is a reply to message #331825] Wed, 09 November 2016 19:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Black is currently offline  Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, Peter Flass wrote:

> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:51:25 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>>> I wish I could've been there when Dr. McCarthy made that grandiose
>>>> claim to ask him exactly how--in then 1960s technology--was how all that
>>>> material gonna be keypunched and how it would be stored in randomly
>>>> accessible storage.
>>>
>>> The same way the insurance companies did it.
>>
>> 1960s technology was simply not up to the task. Nor was 1970s or
>> 1980s technology. Optical scanning just wasn't accurate enough,
>
> I'm still not impressed. Google books or the Internet Archive seem to have
> a pretty high error rate.
>
But Project Gutenberg started in 1971, so maybe some of it was before
techniques had improved.

But yes, I tried to read a book from there and put it aside since there
were odd characters in the text. I wasn't sure if it was my ebook reader
or in the actual file. I'd gladly proofread that book, but I don't have a
copy of the original.

Michael
Re: "I used a real computer at home...and so will you" (Popular Science May 1967) [message #331838 is a reply to message #331827] Wed, 09 November 2016 19:36 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Michael Black is currently offline  Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, Osmium wrote:

> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:35:36 -0500, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Most people rely on google today. Telephone books are rare and useless.
>>>
>>> I disagree. When I am looking for a business or service, I find the ads
>>> in the
>>> Yellow Pages [traditionally the business listings section in the phone
>>> book, for
>>> those outside the U.S.] convey a lot of useful information, albeit much of
>>> it is
>>> gleaned intuitively rather than analytically. Yelp replaces some but not
>>> all of
>>> that.
>>
>> YMMV. We have ...hmmm... four phone books of descending uselessness. The
>> yellow pages contain many different listing among them all. Sometime I have
>> to look in two books to find a listing for something or someone specific.
>> By the end of the year the listings are a bit out of date. Much easier to
>> google "computer repair, Podunk NY."
>
> One of the problems with the web is ancient data which just accumulates year
> after year. People who have retired from practice, addresses of where a
> business used to be, and so on. In the good old days one solved that
> problem by discarding the old phone book. I have personally experienced
> both of those problems.
>
Yes. It's not a single source that can be tracked back to that source,
it's multiple listings. That's probably commerce in operation to some
extent, everyone wanting to be The One, so they want to scoop the
competition, and then later few don't keep it up, so all the leftover bits
that are dated.

I"ve been posting about local used book sales since 1997, first to the
local usenet newsgroup, then as a webpage. And even when I know a book
sale should be coming up, it's not always easy to find information. At
best, one has to wade through pages of old listings. If you include the
year in a search, that doesn't help, since the page may have something
with a current copyright. And I'm torn, some of it's useful for archival
purposes, but a lot of it is just useless out of date things that had no
value after the event.

I just update one file, so there is no "old material" except two or three
times I erase and start again so the most recent book sales remain for a
few months on the page. Then gone. I even sometimes throw up topical
stuff related to books, and I don't treat it like it deserves to be kept
forever, I toss it out the next time I restart the page from scratch.

Michael
Pages (40): [1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Honeywell 6180 Control Panel in Operation
Next Topic: 60 Minutes interview with Grace Hopper
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 02:54:56 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.12754 seconds