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

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » Mannix "computer in a briefcase"
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
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347671 is a reply to message #347670] Fri, 07 July 2017 02:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:13:24 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 11:22:12 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> The famous Bowmar 901B moved into large scale production in
>> September 1971, and thus when they looked at their TV sets in
>> January 1972, members of the general public would have been well
>> aware that large-scale integration existed, even if they weren't
>> familiar with the technical term LSI.
>
> There was a consumer product with LSI in it before the Bowmar.
>
> The Sharp QT-8B, or Sharp Micro Compet, was a four-function
> calculator implemented on four LSI chips, with a vacuum fluorescent
> display.
>
> It was a bit too large to be a pocket calculator, but it did run on
> batteries.
>
> It was introduced in December, 1969.
>
> So you did *not* need to be an electronics engineer to know in 1970
> or 1971 that digital electronics was starting to be capable of
> amazing things.

And there was also the SANYO ICC-82D.

John Savard
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347686 is a reply to message #347667] Fri, 07 July 2017 08:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:22:12 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:


> Integrated circuits had been around since the mid-1960s, and the
> general public knew they existed, just as they knew that transistors
> existed.
>
> The HP 9100A scientific programmable calculator was a compact unit
> that sat on a desk available in 1968 and made from discrete
> transistors; in 1948, a machine with such capabilities would have
> been called a computer without hesitation, but given its limited
> capacity and lack of alphanumeric output, it is what would normally
> be called a "programmable calculator" instead.
>
> The famous Bowmar 901B moved into large scale production in
> September 1971, and thus when they looked at their TV sets in
> January 1972, members of the general public would have been well
> aware that large-scale integration existed, even if they weren't
> familiar with the technical term LSI.
>
> But a point has been made that going from script to production in TV
> involves delays.
>
> Still, it was noted in coverage of the 1969 Apollo moon shot that there was a small computer on board the Apollo spacecraft. There was plenty of mention in the general press of how the U.S. military had compact (and very expensive) computers in their missiles, submarines, and aircraft.
>
> IBM publicized and advertised their mainframe systems enough that
> you didn't need to be a programmer or a DP manager to have heard of
> the System/360 using integrated circuits, or the System/370
> switching to monolithic chips.
>
> As an example of what the uninitiated had seen, the National
> Geographic magazine for November 1970 had an article titled "Behold
> the Computer Revolution", but that one didn't discuss the innards of
> computers.
>
> The November 1966 issue of Popular Mechanics had an article about
> (small-scale) integrated circuits.
>
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=2NMDAAAAMBAJ


I have to respectfully disagree that the general public knew about
"integrated circuits" in 1972. Yes, they knew about the _existence_
of transistors because (1) new radios were called "transistor
radios" and (2) transistors offered a huge improvement over tubes
in such devices that impacted consumers personally (transistors
didn't burn out like tubes did and the radios were much lighter.)

But outside of people who actually dealt with electronics or computers,
I would say people did not know about integrated circuits. They weren't
utilized in consumer products or in ways that would touch the typical
consumer.

I don't know the percentage of people who worked with electronics or
computers, but I dare say it was relatively low compared to the general
population. In 1972, much of the world operated with typewriters,
pen and pencil, and index cards. Heck, I discovered that some schools
gave tests on op-scan forms (fill in the bubble), but graded them by
HAND, using a punched-out master key!

The general public had heard of "IBM computers", but they knew nothing
about them beyond that they were a whiz-bang super calculator. A lay
person seeing the phrases "monolithic", "chips", or "large scale
integration would have absolutely no idea what those words meant in
1972.

As to reports that NASA and the military "used onboard computers", that
too was meaningless. The lay person didn't know what a computer was
nor what it was used for. To the lay person, it was just "fancy high
technology", but they didn't really understand it at all.

Let's remember that in those years, when someone was first introduced
to a terminal or keypunch, it took some training just to get them to
understand what a "field" was and that it had to be in specific columns
in a specific format. This was totally alien to what people did on a
typewriter. They also had to be taught and get used to hitting RETURN
at the end of the line.

This all was a reason that many colleges required all freshman to take
an entry programming course. Undoubtedly hated by a lot of non-technical
students and never utilized again, it at least took out some of the mystery..

IMHO, the general public's understanding of computer technology came about
_after_ the home PC was widespread, AND, became trendy. Today, it's cool
to be computer literate. Back in 1972 not so much.
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347690 is a reply to message #347670] Fri, 07 July 2017 08:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 2:13:24 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 11:22:12 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> The famous Bowmar 901B moved into large scale production in
>> September 1971, and thus when they looked at their TV sets in
>> January 1972, members of the general public would have been well
>> aware that large-scale integration existed, even if they weren't
>> familiar with the technical term LSI.
>
> There was a consumer product with LSI in it before the Bowmar.
>
> The Sharp QT-8B, or Sharp Micro Compet, was a four-function
> calculator implemented on four LSI chips, with a vacuum fluorescent
> display.
>
> It was a bit too large to be a pocket calculator, but it did run on
> batteries.
>
> It was introduced in December, 1969.
>
> So you did *not* need to be an electronics engineer to know in 1970
> or 1971 that digital electronics was starting to be capable of
> amazing things.

I would dare say the typical office worker in 1970 (and I was one of
them) had little contact with such electronic devices. I do know some
insurance companies used desktop electronic calculators, but the
typical device was an electro-mechanical adding machine. Indeed
(I'd have to double check), even in 1970 they were still making such
machines. For heavy duty work, there were the Friden/Marchant
calculators.

Yes, some advanced prosperous industries had fancy electronics (someone
mentioned Boeing's designers with fancy machines). But I still submit
that was a rare exception.

I think back to supermarkets and department stores--all had the
standard NCR electro-mechanical cash register. I'm sure those places
would've welcomed electronics had they been available at an affordable
price, but that just wasn't the case in 1972. (I believe basic
non-scanning electronic registers got into service around 1985.)

I think back to my employers in 1972: There were two Xerox machines
serving an entire building--they were expensive and use was rationed--
we were supposed to use carbon paper. They had one or two IBM Mag
Card typewriters in the executive office; most of the building used
_manual_ typewriters, with a few Selectrics here and there.

The Bell System had implemented its first production electronic
switching office in 1965. It took a full year to debug, and I suspect
this was much longer than expected. By 1970, they were _slowly_
rolling them out. However, in 1970, they were still expanding
existing electro-mechanical exchanges, indeed, the ancient step-by-
step switchgear was growing and would peak in lines served in 1974.
Crossbar would peak in 1976. The point is that despite all the
advances in electronics, they were initially extremely expensive
and it took a long time before they displaced relay technology.

Everyday people did know the world of electronics and technology in
general was moving ahead rapidly. But they didn't understand most
of it and weren't sure how it would impact them at home and at work.
Some were afraid it would cost them their job.
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347698 is a reply to message #347686] Fri, 07 July 2017 08:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 6:21:26 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> Let's remember that in those years, when someone was first introduced
> to a terminal or keypunch, it took some training just to get them to
> understand what a "field" was and that it had to be in specific columns
> in a specific format. This was totally alien to what people did on a
> typewriter. They also had to be taught and get used to hitting RETURN
> at the end of the line.

Oh, I'm aware of this.

I know when first introduced to a mouse on the PC, I had to find
out which button was the primary button (the one on the left, of
course).

I once had to explain to a secretary that the reason ctrl-alt-del
wasn't working for her was because she needed to treat "ctrl" and
"alt" like the shift key; hold them down first while pressing
"del". I understood perfectly that if nobody told her that, how
could she have known it.

Integrated circuits _were_ mentioned in magazine articles seen by
the general public, however: I did provide an example from the
October, 1967 issue of LIFE magazine that proved that.

That doesn't show that _every_ member of the general public would
promptly remember what an integrated circuit was after that issue
went out in the trash. But it does show that a scriptwriter who
wasn't also an electrical engineer could have known that
"microelectronics" was a real thing - and, even in 1970,
electronic calculators were advertised and sold, even if they
didn't fit in your pocket: the SHARP QT-8B.

So it is entirely plausible that the writer of the script for the Mannix episode in question could have known, from a layperson's acquaintance with news stories and advertisements in popular publications, that integrated circuits existed, and were getting more advanced...

enough so that a "briefcase-sized computer" might be something to
reasonably expect in the near future, rather than Buck Rogers
science fiction.

Even sometime in early 1971.

John Savard
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347699 is a reply to message #347690] Fri, 07 July 2017 08:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 6:40:10 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> Everyday people did know the world of electronics and technology in
> general was moving ahead rapidly. But they didn't understand most
> of it and weren't sure how it would impact them at home and at work.
> Some were afraid it would cost them their job.

For the question at issue: could a mere scriptwriter have realized that a "briefcase-sized computer" wasn't Buck Rogers science-fiction, but something plausible enough to be presented as a near future thing in the real world, that level of knowledge is just about enough.

And I've found another data point here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/91591049@N00/33185449322

The Sharp Compet electronic calculator - at a price of $395,
rather too much for an ordinary person to want to spend on a
four-function calculator - was advertised in TIME Magazine for
January 11, 1971.

Electronics. Doing calculations. Isn't that what a computer is?
Some of these scriptwriters are fairly intelligent guys, and
could have seen that. That the main technical obstacle was the
high price of memory - yes, you probably would have almost had
to be an engineer in the field to know _that_ sort of stuff
then.

John Savard
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347700 is a reply to message #347670] Fri, 07 July 2017 09:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:13:24 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> The Sharp QT-8B, or Sharp Micro Compet, was a four-function
> calculator implemented on four LSI chips, with a vacuum fluorescent
> display.
>
> It was a bit too large to be a pocket calculator, but it did run on
> batteries.
>
> It was introduced in December, 1969.

And shortly thereafter, they took the same calculator circuitry,
but reduced power consumption so that they could shrink the
battery pack,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_EL-8

and came out with

http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/sharpel-8.html

the ELSI-8, which was available from the start of 1971.

John Savard
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347701 is a reply to message #347670] Fri, 07 July 2017 09:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Here's another one from 1970:

http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/cas121a.html

John Savard
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347711 is a reply to message #347690] Fri, 07 July 2017 11:32 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 Friday, July 7, 2017 at 2:13:24 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 11:22:12 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> The famous Bowmar 901B moved into large scale production in
>>> September 1971, and thus when they looked at their TV sets in
>>> January 1972, members of the general public would have been well
>>> aware that large-scale integration existed, even if they weren't
>>> familiar with the technical term LSI.
>>
>> There was a consumer product with LSI in it before the Bowmar.
>>
>> The Sharp QT-8B, or Sharp Micro Compet, was a four-function
>> calculator implemented on four LSI chips, with a vacuum fluorescent
>> display.
>>
>> It was a bit too large to be a pocket calculator, but it did run on
>> batteries.
>>
>> It was introduced in December, 1969.
>>
>> So you did *not* need to be an electronics engineer to know in 1970
>> or 1971 that digital electronics was starting to be capable of
>> amazing things.
>
> I would dare say the typical office worker in 1970 (and I was one of
> them) had little contact with such electronic devices. I do know some
> insurance companies used desktop electronic calculators, but the
> typical device was an electro-mechanical adding machine. Indeed
> (I'd have to double check), even in 1970 they were still making such
> machines. For heavy duty work, there were the Friden/Marchant
> calculators.
>
> Yes, some advanced prosperous industries had fancy electronics (someone
> mentioned Boeing's designers with fancy machines). But I still submit
> that was a rare exception.
>
> I think back to supermarkets and department stores--all had the
> standard NCR electro-mechanical cash register. I'm sure those places
> would've welcomed electronics had they been available at an affordable
> price, but that just wasn't the case in 1972. (I believe basic
> non-scanning electronic registers got into service around 1985.)
>
> I think back to my employers in 1972: There were two Xerox machines
> serving an entire building--they were expensive and use was rationed--
> we were supposed to use carbon paper. They had one or two IBM Mag
> Card typewriters in the executive office; most of the building used
> _manual_ typewriters, with a few Selectrics here and there.
>
> The Bell System had implemented its first production electronic
> switching office in 1965. It took a full year to debug, and I suspect
> this was much longer than expected. By 1970, they were _slowly_
> rolling them out. However, in 1970, they were still expanding
> existing electro-mechanical exchanges, indeed, the ancient step-by-
> step switchgear was growing and would peak in lines served in 1974.
> Crossbar would peak in 1976. The point is that despite all the
> advances in electronics, they were initially extremely expensive
> and it took a long time before they displaced relay technology.
>
> Everyday people did know the world of electronics and technology in
> general was moving ahead rapidly. But they didn't understand most
> of it and weren't sure how it would impact them at home and at work.
> Some were afraid it would cost them their job.
>
>

It's hard to look back - heck, I can barely remember how we got along
without google and gps. It would be interesting to be the person or people
who checks this sort of stuff for movies and tv: "let's see, they had THIS,
but they didn't have THAT", etc.

--
Pete
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347712 is a reply to message #347690] Fri, 07 July 2017 12:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anne &amp; Lynn Wheel is currently offline  Anne &amp; Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Yes, some advanced prosperous industries had fancy electronics (someone
> mentioned Boeing's designers with fancy machines). But I still submit
> that was a rare exception.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017.html#18 TV show Mannix observations

as undergraduate, univ. hired me fulltime to support ibm mainframe
production systems. then Boeing hired me fulltime to help with the
formation of Boeing Computer Services (consolidate all dataprocessing in
an independent business unit to better monetize the investment), i was
one of first half dozen BCS employees.

I though renton datacenter was possibly largest in the world ... and
growing ($200M-$300M in ibm mainframes). Summer of 1969, 360/65s were
arriving faster than they could be installed ... boxes constantly staged
in the halls around the machine room. There was also plans to replicated
Renton datacenter up at the new 747 plant in Everett. Disaster scenario
where Mt. Rainer heats up and the resulting mud slide takes out Renton
datacenter ... analysis that Boeing being w/o the renton datacenter
would cost more than the cost of the renton datacenter.

Summer of 1969, 747#3 was flying skies of Seattle getting FAA flt
certification. Also tour of 747 passenger mockup claimed that 747 would
never be served with fewer than four jetways (because the number of
people on board).

Later at IBM, I would sponsor Boyd's briefings at IBM. He would comment
about being vocal about opposition to electronic sensor program across
trails in SE Asia ... possibly as punishment he was made commander of
"spook base" (he would say it had the largest air conditioned bldg in
that part of the world) about the same time I was at Boeing. One of
Boyd's biographies says that "spook base" was $2.5B windfall for IBM
(ten times Renton, both late 60s dollars, nearly ten times that in
current dollars). spook base reference gone 404, but lives on at wayback
machine
http://web.archive.org/web/20030212092342/http://home.att.ne t/~c.jeppeson/igloo_white.html

posts & URLs referencing Boyd and/or OODA-loops
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html

ACS-END includes some computer data from 1968
https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/acs_end.html

Of the 26,000 IBM computer systems in use, 16,000 were S/360 models
(that is, over 60%). [Fig. 1.311.2]

Of the general-purpose systems having the largest fraction of total
installed value, the IBM S/360 Model 30 was ranked first with 12%
(rising to 17% in 1969). The S/360 Model 40 was ranked second with 11%
(rising to almost 15% in 1970). [Figs. 2.10.4 and 2.10.5]

Of the number of operations per second in use, the IBM S/360 Model 65
ranked first with 23%. The Univac 1108 ranked second with slightly over
14%, and the CDC 6600 ranked third with 10%. [Figs. 2.10.6 and 2.10.7]

..... snip ...

recent posts mentioning Boeing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017.html#21 History of Mainframe Cloud
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017.html#28 {wtf} Tymshare SuperBasic Source Code
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017.html#46 Hidden Figures and the IBM 7090 computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017.html#87 The ICL 2900
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017c.html#14 Check out Massive Amazon cloud service outage disrupts sites
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017d.html#14 Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017d.html#75 Mainframe operating systems?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017d.html#90 Old hardware
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017e.html#19 MVT doesn't boot in 16mbytes
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017e.html#58 A flaw in the design; The Internet's founders saw its promise but didn't foresee users attacking one another
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017f.html#51 [CM] What was your first home computer?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017f.html#95 Early use of word "computer", 1944
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017g.html#11 Mainframe Networking problems

--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347714 is a reply to message #347686] Fri, 07 July 2017 12:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Black is currently offline  Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:22:12 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>
>> Integrated circuits had been around since the mid-1960s, and the
>> general public knew they existed, just as they knew that transistors
>> existed.
>>
>> The HP 9100A scientific programmable calculator was a compact unit
>> that sat on a desk available in 1968 and made from discrete
>> transistors; in 1948, a machine with such capabilities would have
>> been called a computer without hesitation, but given its limited
>> capacity and lack of alphanumeric output, it is what would normally
>> be called a "programmable calculator" instead.
>>
>> The famous Bowmar 901B moved into large scale production in
>> September 1971, and thus when they looked at their TV sets in
>> January 1972, members of the general public would have been well
>> aware that large-scale integration existed, even if they weren't
>> familiar with the technical term LSI.
>>
>> But a point has been made that going from script to production in TV
>> involves delays.
>>
>> Still, it was noted in coverage of the 1969 Apollo moon shot that there was a small computer on board the Apollo spacecraft. There was plenty of mention in the general press of how the U.S. military had compact (and very expensive) computers in their missiles, submarines, and aircraft.
>>
>> IBM publicized and advertised their mainframe systems enough that
>> you didn't need to be a programmer or a DP manager to have heard of
>> the System/360 using integrated circuits, or the System/370
>> switching to monolithic chips.
>>
>> As an example of what the uninitiated had seen, the National
>> Geographic magazine for November 1970 had an article titled "Behold
>> the Computer Revolution", but that one didn't discuss the innards of
>> computers.
>>
>> The November 1966 issue of Popular Mechanics had an article about
>> (small-scale) integrated circuits.
>>
>> https://books.google.ca/books?id=2NMDAAAAMBAJ
>
>
> I have to respectfully disagree that the general public knew about
> "integrated circuits" in 1972. Yes, they knew about the _existence_
> of transistors because (1) new radios were called "transistor
> radios" and (2) transistors offered a huge improvement over tubes
> in such devices that impacted consumers personally (transistors
> didn't burn out like tubes did and the radios were much lighter.)
>
But I think you're goint out of your way to dismiss script writers as "Joe
Average".

Unless they want to keep rewriting the same episode, they need stimulous.
So I suspect they would be better read than the average person. They are
constantly on the lookout for ideas, for the plot but also to fill out
details of that plot. I mentioned Popular Science because I read it at
the library, and I ended up with all kinds of bits of information that had
no real relevance by itself. I vividly remember the article about night
vision scopes. So if you need ideas, you probably are reading all kinds
of magazines, maybe not deeply, but go to the library or a waiting room
and skim through them.

I've told the story before of reading in the paper about two kids who
built their own computer. This was 1969 as far as I can remember. In
retrospect it must have been one of those kits that demonstrated how
computers work, cheap and simple to build, but at the time I was in awe.
That sort of thing trickles out. If you are paying attention, you notice,
others might not. "How can I use this information" is a skill, many
people seem to need someone else to tell them what to do with the
information. And I say script writers are in the group who take bits of
information and figure out what to do with it, if only fictionally.

Michael
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347718 is a reply to message #347133] Fri, 07 July 2017 14:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-07-07, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:

> On 7/7/2017 7:21 AM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> I have to respectfully disagree that the general public knew about
>> "integrated circuits" in 1972. Yes, they knew about the _existence_
>> of transistors because (1) new radios were called "transistor
>> radios" and (2) transistors offered a huge improvement over tubes
>> in such devices that impacted consumers personally (transistors
>> didn't burn out like tubes did and the radios were much lighter.)
>
> They had known that for over a decade. Transistor radios were on the
> market in 1955, and by the end of that year were being made by Sony
> and were an option for your new Chrysler. Along with tape recorders,
> etc., they were common and relatively low priced by the early 1960s.

Indeed, transistor radios were practically ubiquitous among teenagers
at the time - almost like smartphones now. I first heard Van Morrison
sing "Going down to the old mine with a transistor radio" on my own
transistor radio, which I had scrimped and saved fifty dollars to buy.

> Computers were common in SF even earlier (I still think Clarke's "The
> Nine Billion Names of God" was one of the best SF shorts ever written).
>
>> But outside of people who actually dealt with electronics or computers,
>> I would say people did not know about integrated circuits. They weren't
>> utilized in consumer products or in ways that would touch the typical
>> consumer.
>
> They may not have known about ICs, but it was obvious that electronics
> were shrinking. In fact, it was obvious to me (as a junior high
> student, late 1950s) that they would shrink to the point where size
> would be dictated by having enough room for the controls. (I confess I
> did not foresee the diabolical technique of having one button that
> provides many different functions, by pressing it in patterns or for
> various lengths of time. Even though I was a ham radio operator who
> knew Morse, expecting users to learn the equivalent of Morse code
> would have seemed insane then, and still does to me today.)

http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-06-12/

--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347719 is a reply to message #347701] Fri, 07 July 2017 14:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-07-07, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> Here's another one from 1970:
>
> http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/cas121a.html

That quirky behaviour sounds similar to that of the 1972-vintage
Casio Mini:

http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/casiomini.html

A cow orker had one of these. It had a 6-digit display but
could generate 12-digit results; there was an arrow key you
pressed to see the remaining digits.

I discovered a combination of keypresses which would make the
arrow key display start counting up rapidly. I showed this to
the calculator's owner and he wouldn't let me play with it anymore.

--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347729 is a reply to message #347698] Fri, 07 July 2017 15:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 8:45:07 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

[snip]

> Integrated circuits _were_ mentioned in magazine articles seen by
> the general public, however: I did provide an example from the
> October, 1967 issue of LIFE magazine that proved that.

(Actually, the Oct 27th issue. Here is the link to it:)
https://books.google.com/books?id=SEkEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA5&a mp;dq=life%20october%2027%201967&pg=RA1-PA58#v=onepage&a mp;q=circuit&f=false

Indeed, RCA and others ran ads at that time touting the use of
integrated circuits in their high-end consumer electronics.

However, I still believe, based on my experiences of that era, that
the average person didn't understand any of it. For instance, I
suspect a lot of readers of LIFE just skipped over the article or
skimmed it. People just weren't used to thinking in computer-like terms.
Indeed, early computer courses back then spent time just on teaching
flow-charting--not only to teach the symbols, but also to teach the
concept of breaking down tasks into discrete steps and dealing with
decision points.

I'd say a lot of people wouldn't understand even the concept of
"magnetizing the core in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction".
Don't forget, the typical adult may have studied science in high
school, but never touched it since then. A person age 40 or 50
(about the age of the 'greatest generation') hadn't looked at anything
scientific in decades unless they worked in technology or were a
technician.



> That doesn't show that _every_ member of the general public would
> promptly remember what an integrated circuit was after that issue
> went out in the trash. But it does show that a scriptwriter who
> wasn't also an electrical engineer could have known that
> "microelectronics" was a real thing - and, even in 1970,
> electronic calculators were advertised and sold, even if they
> didn't fit in your pocket: the SHARP QT-8B.

> So it is entirely plausible that the writer of the script for the Mannix episode in question could have known, from a layperson's acquaintance with news stories and advertisements in popular publications, that integrated circuits existed, and were getting more advanced...

> enough so that a "briefcase-sized computer" might be something to
> reasonably expect in the near future, rather than Buck Rogers
> science fiction.
>
> Even sometime in early 1971.


You make some good points.
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347730 is a reply to message #347686] Fri, 07 July 2017 15:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 6:21:26 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> I have to respectfully disagree that the general public knew about
> "integrated circuits" in 1972. Yes, they knew about the _existence_
> of transistors because (1) new radios were called "transistor
> radios" and (2) transistors offered a huge improvement over tubes
> in such devices that impacted consumers personally (transistors
> didn't burn out like tubes did and the radios were much lighter.)

> But outside of people who actually dealt with electronics or computers,
> I would say people did not know about integrated circuits. They weren't
> utilized in consumer products or in ways that would touch the typical
> consumer.

For the first point, I should note the difference between "for
all" and "there exists". You're quite right that in 1970, there
would be a lot of ordinary people who didn't know what an
integrated circuit was, and they wouldn't have had to have been
living under a rock for that to be the case.

The point I'm trying to make is a weaker one: that _some_ ordinary people, who weren't electronics engineers or anything like that, would have known what an integrated circuit was even back then.

And so I looked at the 1970 catalog for Radio Shack.

On page 32, I saw advertised the STA-65B AM/FM radio receiver.

For inclusion in a home hi-fi system, not even any short-wave bands, definitely a consumer product. But it was noted as having circuitry including both FETs and ICs.

John Savard
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347731 is a reply to message #347699] Fri, 07 July 2017 15:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 8:55:13 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 6:40:10 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> Everyday people did know the world of electronics and technology in
>> general was moving ahead rapidly. But they didn't understand most
>> of it and weren't sure how it would impact them at home and at work.
>> Some were afraid it would cost them their job.
>
> For the question at issue: could a mere scriptwriter have realized that a "briefcase-sized computer" wasn't Buck Rogers science-fiction, but something plausible enough to be presented as a near future thing in the real world, that level of knowledge is just about enough.
>
> And I've found another data point here:
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/91591049@N00/33185449322
>
> The Sharp Compet electronic calculator - at a price of $395,
> rather too much for an ordinary person to want to spend on a
> four-function calculator - was advertised in TIME Magazine for
> January 11, 1971.

Interesting ad. Of course, $400 then was roughly $2,400 today.
Also, check out the keypad. It seems some functions shared a key.


I want to point out a cash register ad from a few years earlier.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ilUEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA31& amp;dq=life%20%22electronic%20calculator%22&pg=PA31#v=on epage&q=life%20%22electronic%20calculator%22&f=false

Note that the manufacturer also makes an electronic desk calculator,
though their ad touts an electro-mechanical cash register. (FWIW, I
never saw a Victor cash register, virtually every store had an NCR,
and a few had Monroe-Sweda.)

https://books.google.com/books?id=ilUEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA31& amp;dq=life%20%22electronic%20calculator%22&pg=PA31#v=on epage&q=life%20%22electronic%20calculator%22&f=false




> Electronics. Doing calculations. Isn't that what a computer is?
> Some of these scriptwriters are fairly intelligent guys, and
> could have seen that. That the main technical obstacle was the
> high price of memory - yes, you probably would have almost had
> to be an engineer in the field to know _that_ sort of stuff
> then.

I would think a true computer would require memory and I/O, not just
an arithmetic unit. But admittedly for TV that definition is irrelevant.


You make some good points.

I just want to point out an ad from Metropolitan Life Insurance, touting
their "computer analysis" of a policyholder's needs. This kind of ad
very extremely common back then, indeed, lots of ads included the
phrase "computer designed". Anyway, I think it's a 1401 in the background.

https://books.google.com/books?id=2UwEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&a mp;dq=life%20october%206%201967&pg=PA75#v=snippet&q= computer&f=false
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347732 is a reply to message #347711] Fri, 07 July 2017 15:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 11:32:34 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:

> It's hard to look back - heck, I can barely remember how we got along
> without google and gps. It would be interesting to be the person or people
> who checks this sort of stuff for movies and tv: "let's see, they had THIS,
> but they didn't have THAT", etc.

In watching Mannix, very often a situation comes up where he needs
information. Today, it would be readily available on his computer.
But back then, he had to ask Peggy to do some searching.

I can't help but suspect that today's private investigators have access
to some databases with lots of our personal information on them,
including tie-ins to banking, credit, medical, and motor vehicle
information. Insurance companies like to share information. (Have a
licensed driver in your household that is not on your policy? They
will know about it.)

As to Hollywood, despite their publicity flacks claiming how carefully
a production was researched, I suspect in most cases they get pretty
sloppy, and dramatic license wins out. (Ok, in a civil war film I
doubt they'll show a computer. And in "The Americans", they had to
explain to the teenage daughter than in 1980 kids didn't use their
thumbs to dial a phone, but their index finger.)

I always find it curious when they show a steam train going into a
tunnel, and then show supposedly the same train leaving the tunnel yet
pulled by a diesel locomotive.
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347733 is a reply to message #347714] Fri, 07 July 2017 15:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:38:58 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
[snip]

> But I think you're goint out of your way to dismiss script writers as "Joe
> Average".
>
> Unless they want to keep rewriting the same episode, they need stimulous.
> So I suspect they would be better read than the average person. They are
> constantly on the lookout for ideas, for the plot but also to fill out
> details of that plot. I mentioned Popular Science because I read it at
> the library, and I ended up with all kinds of bits of information that had
> no real relevance by itself. I vividly remember the article about night
> vision scopes. So if you need ideas, you probably are reading all kinds
> of magazines, maybe not deeply, but go to the library or a waiting room
> and skim through them.

Certainly TV needed fresh ideas. However, TV writers of a series need
to strike a balance--on the one hand, provide fresh ideas, but on the
other, don't deviate too much from the show's theme lest they alienate
the audience. (Sherwood Schwartz wrote about this.)

As to Popular Science and Popular Mechanics, my father subscribed to
both, and I would read them. But my mother and sister never looked at it.
Further, my father basically passed by all the articles on electronics--
they were simply over his head, and also beyond his wallet. (He focused
more on metal working and wood working.)

While P/S and P/M were popular in their day--what was their total
circulation relative to the entire U.S. population? I dare say
relatively low.

Indeed, I think back to the parents of my friends. One or two men worked
in electronics or technology, or were into ham radio, and knew about
that stuff. But the rest had no clue. The father of one kid said he
was clueless about his son's studies, the son was studying electrical
engineering. The father was a hardware salesmen. He knew plumbing
joints and washers.


A show like Star Trek or one that dealt with technology would be a
lot more up on that stuff. But Mannix was an action/crime show. It
dealt with car chases, adultery, fraud, embezzlement, and murder.
We already know the first season, where they did have a computer, was
totally bogus. I dare say the writers of Mannix culled through police
files and P.I. files for story ideas.

(I wonder if anyone caught that Perry Mason episode aired the other
night which featured advanced technology; I was curious about the
authenticity.)




> I've told the story before of reading in the paper about two kids who
> built their own computer. This was 1969 as far as I can remember. In
> retrospect it must have been one of those kits that demonstrated how
> computers work, cheap and simple to build, but at the time I was in awe.
> That sort of thing trickles out. If you are paying attention, you notice,
> others might not. "How can I use this information" is a skill, many
> people seem to need someone else to tell them what to do with the
> information. And I say script writers are in the group who take bits of
> information and figure out what to do with it, if only fictionally.
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347735 is a reply to message #347730] Fri, 07 July 2017 16:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:23:32 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 6:21:26 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> I have to respectfully disagree that the general public knew about
>> "integrated circuits" in 1972. Yes, they knew about the _existence_
>> of transistors because (1) new radios were called "transistor
>> radios" and (2) transistors offered a huge improvement over tubes
>> in such devices that impacted consumers personally (transistors
>> didn't burn out like tubes did and the radios were much lighter.)
>
>> But outside of people who actually dealt with electronics or computers,
>> I would say people did not know about integrated circuits. They weren't
>> utilized in consumer products or in ways that would touch the typical
>> consumer.
>
> For the first point, I should note the difference between "for
> all" and "there exists". You're quite right that in 1970, there
> would be a lot of ordinary people who didn't know what an
> integrated circuit was, and they wouldn't have had to have been
> living under a rock for that to be the case.

One of the guys on the ship I was staitoned on in 1970, subscribed to
a weekly newspaper. About 4 to 6 pages. It kept him up with the new
stuff in radio and electronics. I remember him getting completely
upset, he and some friends had a very small electronics company, when
he found out that some big corportation had beat him to making a GHz
radio that could transmit and receive 100 yards. His could transmit
about the width of a table. He said something about his used the
transit time across the PN junction, of some diode I don't remember
the name of, as an oscillator.
--
Jim
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347740 is a reply to message #347732] Fri, 07 July 2017 16:44 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 Friday, July 7, 2017 at 11:32:34 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> It's hard to look back - heck, I can barely remember how we got along
>> without google and gps. It would be interesting to be the person or people
>> who checks this sort of stuff for movies and tv: "let's see, they had THIS,
>> but they didn't have THAT", etc.
>
> In watching Mannix, very often a situation comes up where he needs
> information. Today, it would be readily available on his computer.
> But back then, he had to ask Peggy to do some searching.
>
> I can't help but suspect that today's private investigators have access
> to some databases with lots of our personal information on them,
> including tie-ins to banking, credit, medical, and motor vehicle
> information. Insurance companies like to share information. (Have a
> licensed driver in your household that is not on your policy? They
> will know about it.)
>
> As to Hollywood, despite their publicity flacks claiming how carefully
> a production was researched, I suspect in most cases they get pretty
> sloppy, and dramatic license wins out. (Ok, in a civil war film I
> doubt they'll show a computer. And in "The Americans", they had to
> explain to the teenage daughter than in 1980 kids didn't use their
> thumbs to dial a phone, but their index finger.)

That's hilarious! I hadn't heard that one.

>
> I always find it curious when they show a steam train going into a
> tunnel, and then show supposedly the same train leaving the tunnel yet
> pulled by a diesel locomotive.
>
>
>



--
Pete
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347754 is a reply to message #347732] Fri, 07 July 2017 21:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-07-07, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> And in "The Americans", they had to explain to the teenage daughter
> than in 1980 kids didn't use their thumbs to dial a phone, but their
> index finger.)

:-)

> I always find it curious when they show a steam train going into a
> tunnel, and then show supposedly the same train leaving the tunnel yet
> pulled by a diesel locomotive.

Somebody in Continuity deserves to catch hell over that.

--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347755 is a reply to message #347754] Fri, 07 July 2017 22:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:42:31 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

>> I always find it curious when they show a steam train going into a
>> tunnel, and then show supposedly the same train leaving the tunnel yet
>> pulled by a diesel locomotive.
>
> Somebody in Continuity deserves to catch hell over that.

There are reviews of shows that cover the many continuity errors they
make. Normally, it's barely noticeable, like a vase in the background
in one frame, and not in the background of another frame. I noticed
different telephone sets in the same scene of a show.

They do have prop people who do track that sort of thing. But sometimes
a scene needs to be reshot and slipups occur. As mentioned, they're
normally barely noticeable.

When a book is written about a TV show (and they're usually very
interesting), it often includes a chapter on bloopers that got
through, giving examples of all this stuff.

On Get Smart!, the Chief's desk had a console of push buttons. I
noticed from week to week the console varied. I don't know why they
didn't use the same console, presumably it was a dummy unit.

On I Love Lucy, between seasons, they rearranged the Ricardo's
apartment, moving the piano and removing (adding?) a window.

On the Brady Bunch, the girls requested that their bedroom set have
floral wallpaper and it was done. But that was hard to film and
in subsequent seasons it was a solid colored wall.


People Magazine had a game where they had two photos which had very
subtle differences and the reader had to find them. A few were easy,
but some were hard.
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347756 is a reply to message #347740] Fri, 07 July 2017 22:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 4:44:57 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:

>> As to Hollywood, despite their publicity flacks claiming how carefully
>> a production was researched, I suspect in most cases they get pretty
>> sloppy, and dramatic license wins out. (Ok, in a civil war film I
>> doubt they'll show a computer. And in "The Americans", they had to
>> explain to the teenage daughter than in 1980 kids didn't use their
>> thumbs to dial a phone, but their index finger.)
>
> That's hilarious! I hadn't heard that one.

I'm curious what would happen if a 12 y/o kid was given a rotary dial
phone (on a working landline) and asked to place a call with it. Would
the kid know what to do? Would the kid be willing to put down his/her
cell phone long enough to even look at the rotary phone?

(A friend tried that with her 10 y/o son. He was thrilled to use it,
and called his grandma right away to announce he was on a rotary phone.)
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347757 is a reply to message #347735] Fri, 07 July 2017 22:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Black is currently offline  Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017, JimP. wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:23:32 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 6:21:26 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> I have to respectfully disagree that the general public knew about
>>> "integrated circuits" in 1972. Yes, they knew about the _existence_
>>> of transistors because (1) new radios were called "transistor
>>> radios" and (2) transistors offered a huge improvement over tubes
>>> in such devices that impacted consumers personally (transistors
>>> didn't burn out like tubes did and the radios were much lighter.)
>>
>>> But outside of people who actually dealt with electronics or computers,
>>> I would say people did not know about integrated circuits. They weren't
>>> utilized in consumer products or in ways that would touch the typical
>>> consumer.
>>
>> For the first point, I should note the difference between "for
>> all" and "there exists". You're quite right that in 1970, there
>> would be a lot of ordinary people who didn't know what an
>> integrated circuit was, and they wouldn't have had to have been
>> living under a rock for that to be the case.
>
> One of the guys on the ship I was staitoned on in 1970, subscribed to
> a weekly newspaper. About 4 to 6 pages. It kept him up with the new
> stuff in radio and electronics. I remember him getting completely
> upset, he and some friends had a very small electronics company, when
> he found out that some big corportation had beat him to making a GHz
> radio that could transmit and receive 100 yards. His could transmit
> about the width of a table. He said something about his used the
> transit time across the PN junction, of some diode I don't remember
> the name of, as an oscillator.

Which reminds me, there were clipping services which you could pay to
track news articles along a specific line. So if you were rich, and
conceited, you'd pay to get articles about yourself. But I could see
someone starting to write something and get a clipping service to pay
attention to something. Though I guess the real trick is to know what to
look for in the first place.

I know that once I become interested in something, I suddenly do see
related articles, presumably that sort of thing always being there but I
just ignored until I got interested.

Michael
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347762 is a reply to message #347733] Sat, 08 July 2017 01:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

In article <fd43947e-e41b-4acc-b831-0d6d6c5ab686@googlegroups.com>,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says...
>
> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:38:58 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> But I think you're goint out of your way to dismiss script writers as "Joe
>> Average".
>>
>> Unless they want to keep rewriting the same episode, they need stimulous.
>> So I suspect they would be better read than the average person. They are
>> constantly on the lookout for ideas, for the plot but also to fill out
>> details of that plot. I mentioned Popular Science because I read it at
>> the library, and I ended up with all kinds of bits of information that had
>> no real relevance by itself. I vividly remember the article about night
>> vision scopes. So if you need ideas, you probably are reading all kinds
>> of magazines, maybe not deeply, but go to the library or a waiting room
>> and skim through them.
>
> Certainly TV needed fresh ideas. However, TV writers of a series need
> to strike a balance--on the one hand, provide fresh ideas, but on the
> other, don't deviate too much from the show's theme lest they alienate
> the audience. (Sherwood Schwartz wrote about this.)
>
> As to Popular Science and Popular Mechanics, my father subscribed to
> both, and I would read them. But my mother and sister never looked at it.
> Further, my father basically passed by all the articles on electronics--
> they were simply over his head, and also beyond his wallet. (He focused
> more on metal working and wood working.)
>
> While P/S and P/M were popular in their day--what was their total
> circulation relative to the entire U.S. population? I dare say
> relatively low.
>
> Indeed, I think back to the parents of my friends. One or two men worked
> in electronics or technology, or were into ham radio, and knew about
> that stuff. But the rest had no clue. The father of one kid said he
> was clueless about his son's studies, the son was studying electrical
> engineering. The father was a hardware salesmen. He knew plumbing
> joints and washers.
>
>
> A show like Star Trek or one that dealt with technology would be a
> lot more up on that stuff. But Mannix was an action/crime show. It
> dealt with car chases, adultery, fraud, embezzlement, and murder.
> We already know the first season, where they did have a computer, was
> totally bogus. I dare say the writers of Mannix culled through police
> files and P.I. files for story ideas.
>
> (I wonder if anyone caught that Perry Mason episode aired the other
> night which featured advanced technology; I was curious about the
> authenticity.)
>
>
>
>
>> I've told the story before of reading in the paper about two kids who
>> built their own computer. This was 1969 as far as I can remember. In
>> retrospect it must have been one of those kits that demonstrated how
>> computers work, cheap and simple to build, but at the time I was in awe.
>> That sort of thing trickles out. If you are paying attention, you notice,
>> others might not. "How can I use this information" is a skill, many
>> people seem to need someone else to tell them what to do with the
>> information. And I say script writers are in the group who take bits of
>> information and figure out what to do with it, if only fictionally.

The big mistake you're making is in assuming that writers have to know how
to make something in order to put it in a story. I'm pretty sure that H.G.
Wells did not know how to make a time machine or an interplanetary
spacecraft, that Jules Verne did not know how to make an ocean-crossing
submarine, that Edgar Rice Burroughs did not know how to make an
antigravity machine, and that Doc Smith did not know how to make an
intertia neutralizer, but there they all were in the stories.

Remember the ecosystem in which the Mannix writers were working. When
Mannix started up, Emma Peel had just left The Avengers, The Man From
U.N.C.L.E. was in its next to last season, Get Smart had been out for two
seasons, the sixth James Bond movie was about to release, Mission
Impossible was in its second season, The Outer Limits had finished its run.
All of these had tiny listening devices and easily concealable cameras and
the like. Then there was My Living Doll in which Julie Newmar portrayed a
sentient android in a sitcom placed in the present. The notion of a tiny
computer just wasn't that much of a stretch.

Then there's the matter of cross-pollination. During the course of the
series they credited on the order of 100 different writers. One also
worked on Star Trek, another on Batman, another on Science Fiction Theater
and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, another on The Invaders, another on
The Outer Limits, and I could go on but I think the point is made.

Oh, and the public might not know a lot of details about computers but that
didn't stop Hollywood from putting one in "Desk Set" in 1957, the last
Hepburn/Tracy comedy.
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347778 is a reply to message #347732] Sat, 08 July 2017 03:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> And in "The Americans", they had to
> explain to the teenage daughter than in 1980 kids didn't use their
> thumbs to dial a phone, but their index finger.)

I Googled the television series "The Americans". Apparently, it is not
about time travellers from the future posing as an ordinary American
family, but rather spies from the Soviet Union.

Now, I do recall Lincoln Steffens' famous quote after a visit to the
Soviet Union: "I have seen the future - and it works." - but as far as I
am aware, in the 1980s, they weren't using rotary dial phones in the U.S.
while in the Soviet Union they were already using smartphones instead.

But then, the teenage daughter was actually born in the U.S., and didn't
initially know her parents were spies. So rather than the character havng
to be told, onscreen, during an episode, how rotary dial phones worked, I
think you mean that the actress who played the teenage daughter had to
have that explained to *her*.

John Savard
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347783 is a reply to message #347730] Sat, 08 July 2017 08:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> And so I looked at the 1970 catalog for Radio Shack.

> On page 32, I saw advertised the STA-65B AM/FM radio receiver.

I have the link for that now:

http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/html/1970/h032.html

John Savard
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347787 is a reply to message #347783] Sat, 08 July 2017 10:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Black is currently offline  Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Quadibloc wrote:

> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> And so I looked at the 1970 catalog for Radio Shack.
>
>> On page 32, I saw advertised the STA-65B AM/FM radio receiver.
>
> I have the link for that now:
>
> http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/html/1970/h032.html
>
Yes. It may not have meant much to the average person, but it was seen as
a selling point.

I have an "early" Sony am/fm portable, it's not small and it's not light,
and right on the front it mentions "Esaki diode" and probably the number
of transistors inside. "Esaki diode" is a "tunnel diode", lots of fanfare
when it came out, but the idea didn't last too long, other devices coming
along that were better. But somehow Sony felt it worth mentioning, as if
the consumer would be awed.

Michael
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347788 is a reply to message #347787] Sat, 08 July 2017 11:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Gareth's Downstairs Computer

On 08/07/2017 15:35, Michael Black wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> And so I looked at the 1970 catalog for Radio Shack.
>>
>>> On page 32, I saw advertised the STA-65B AM/FM radio receiver.
>>
>> I have the link for that now:
>>
>> http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/html/1970/h032.html
>>
> Yes. It may not have meant much to the average person, but it was seen
> as a selling point.
>
> I have an "early" Sony am/fm portable, it's not small and it's not
> light, and right on the front it mentions "Esaki diode" and probably the
> number of transistors inside. "Esaki diode" is a "tunnel diode", lots
> of fanfare when it came out, but the idea didn't last too long, other
> devices coming along that were better. But somehow Sony felt it worth
> mentioning, as if the consumer would be awed.
>

In the same way that car manufacturers put some form of boast on the
rear, such as 16V or 4L.

I saw one recently that boasted of a "seat"!
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347795 is a reply to message #347788] Sat, 08 July 2017 12:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
osmium is currently offline  osmium
Messages: 749
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 7/8/2017 10:48 AM, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
> On 08/07/2017 15:35, Michael Black wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> And so I looked at the 1970 catalog for Radio Shack.
>>>
>>>> On page 32, I saw advertised the STA-65B AM/FM radio receiver.
>>>
>>> I have the link for that now:
>>>
>>> http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/html/1970/h032.html
>>>
>> Yes. It may not have meant much to the average person, but it was
>> seen as a selling point.
>>
>> I have an "early" Sony am/fm portable, it's not small and it's not
>> light, and right on the front it mentions "Esaki diode" and probably
>> the number of transistors inside. "Esaki diode" is a "tunnel diode",
>> lots of fanfare when it came out, but the idea didn't last too long,
>> other devices coming along that were better. But somehow Sony felt
>> it worth mentioning, as if the consumer would be awed.
>>
>
> In the same way that car manufacturers put some form of boast on the
> rear, such as 16V or 4L.
>
> I saw one recently that boasted of a "seat"!
>
>

I would think of an AM-FM radio with a tunnel diode as a pretty
impressive thing, even today. Assuming that L stands for liters, I
think a better analogy would be ceramic pistons or something of that
sort. Whether the tunnel diode makes the receiver actually *better* for
the consumer is an entirely different matter.
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347796 is a reply to message #347787] Sat, 08 July 2017 12:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:34:55 AM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote:
> "Esaki diode" is a "tunnel diode", lots of fanfare
> when it came out, but the idea didn't last too long, other devices coming
> along that were better.

The tunnel diode has properties that make it interesting even today.

The problem isn't so much that other devices came out that *out-
performed* it; the problem was of an entirely different kind.

Tunnel diodes were difficult to manufacture in a repeatable fashion. So,
what one had to do was, after one made a batch of tunnel diodes, was to
measure each one and sort them into bins based on their properties.

That meant that when electronics shifted from discrete components to
monolithic integrated circuits... as the yield of any chip with more than
one tunnel diode on it would be essentially zero, the technology ceased
to be applicable, and so the integrated circuit had to make do with that
old-fashioned and inferior component, the transistor, instead.

In fact, here is a recent news article

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/university-of-alb erta-researchers-solve-puzzle-that-baffled-scientists-for-de cades

about excitement generated when a researcher made discoveries that might
possibly make the tunnel diode manufacturable enough for integrated
circuit use.

John Savard
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347801 is a reply to message #347757] Sat, 08 July 2017 15:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 10:15:12 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:

> I know that once I become interested in something, I suddenly do see
> related articles, presumably that sort of thing always being there but I
> just ignored until I got interested.

Today, online searches are tricky. One must use multiple search keys and
even then, some important stuff doesn't get picked up.

For instance, I had searched for "computer" in the LIFE archive, but
didn't find the article Mr. Savard showed us. (I believe the reason
was that the article headers were in white-on-black, which didn't
get converted to text by the scanners.)

Anyway, say someone wants to keep up with "light rail". They'd also
have to search under 'trolley', 'streetcar', 'urban rail' and perhaps
other keywords in order to get a full list.

Newspapers and magazines today are on-line, but sometimes their
indexing isn't very good and inconsistent. For instance, if I want
to share an article I see in the print edition of my newspaper,
sometimes I can not find it on-line.
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347802 is a reply to message #347778] Sat, 08 July 2017 15:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 3:57:00 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> And in "The Americans", they had to
>> explain to the teenage daughter than in 1980 kids didn't use their
>> thumbs to dial a phone, but their index finger.)
>
> I Googled the television series "The Americans". Apparently, it is not
> about time travellers from the future posing as an ordinary American
> family, but rather spies from the Soviet Union.
>
> Now, I do recall Lincoln Steffens' famous quote after a visit to the
> Soviet Union: "I have seen the future - and it works." - but as far as I
> am aware, in the 1980s, they weren't using rotary dial phones in the U.S.
> while in the Soviet Union they were already using smartphones instead.
>
> But then, the teenage daughter was actually born in the U.S., and didn't
> initially know her parents were spies. So rather than the character havng
> to be told, onscreen, during an episode, how rotary dial phones worked, I
> think you mean that the actress who played the teenage daughter had to
> have that explained to *her*.

Yes, the Americans takes place in the early 1980s, I think they're up
to 1983-84 now. The family has a Touch Tone phone (and an Apple
computer). Anyway, yes, it was the _actress_ who plays the teen
daughter who had to be taught to press the buttons with her index
finger, not her thumbs as she was used to doing.

In the early episodes of the show, they seemed to show more background
of the 1980s, such as newscasts by Walter Cronkite and fashions specific
to that era (the daughter wanted to get leg warmers). While they still
do some Reagan references, in the last season their background wasn't
as time oriented.

As an aside, in the early 1980s, in the. U.S., plenty of people still
did not have Touch Tone service as there was an extra charge for it.

I think cellular phones were out by 1984--in the built-in car model.
To my surprise, the family doesn't have one even though it would
help their spying a great deal. On the other hand, they're probably
very nervous about evesdropping--they generally conduct their spy
business by payphone.


Then, I didn't have Touch Tone. But I did discover a modem command so
that my modem would pulse out at 20 pulses per second instead of
the normal 10. My exchange was able to handle that, some couldn't.
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347803 is a reply to message #347783] Sat, 08 July 2017 15:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:49:03 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> And so I looked at the 1970 catalog for Radio Shack.
>
>> On page 32, I saw advertised the STA-65B AM/FM radio receiver.
>
> I have the link for that now:
>
> http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/html/1970/h032.html

Interesting, thanks.

Note the tube page:
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/html/1970/hr125.html

Note the telephone sets for sale. They were technically illegal
to hook up to your phone line, but lots of people did so to save
the $1/month extension charge. Their $11 phone would pay for itself
in only 11 months.
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/html/1970/h109.html
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347808 is a reply to message #347783] Sat, 08 July 2017 16:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:49:03 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> And so I looked at the 1970 catalog for Radio Shack.
>
>> On page 32, I saw advertised the STA-65B AM/FM radio receiver.
>
> I have the link for that now:
>
> http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/html/1970/h032.html

Speaking of that era, here is a 1972 ad for an SCM typewriter.
It refers to the user having his own telephone. Note the ad's
text touting better school grades and the cachet of typing.

https://books.google.com/books?id=kWFARbBWIZcC&lpg=PA7&a mp;dq=%22boys%20life%22%20typewriter&pg=PA7#v=onepage&am p;q&f=false
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347810 is a reply to message #347801] Sat, 08 July 2017 17:18 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 Friday, July 7, 2017 at 10:15:12 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
>
>> I know that once I become interested in something, I suddenly do see
>> related articles, presumably that sort of thing always being there but I
>> just ignored until I got interested.
>
> Today, online searches are tricky. One must use multiple search keys and
> even then, some important stuff doesn't get picked up.
>
> For instance, I had searched for "computer" in the LIFE archive, but
> didn't find the article Mr. Savard showed us. (I believe the reason
> was that the article headers were in white-on-black, which didn't
> get converted to text by the scanners.)
>
> Anyway, say someone wants to keep up with "light rail". They'd also
> have to search under 'trolley', 'streetcar', 'urban rail' and perhaps
> other keywords in order to get a full list.
>
> Newspapers and magazines today are on-line, but sometimes their
> indexing isn't very good and inconsistent. For instance, if I want
> to share an article I see in the print edition of my newspaper,
> sometimes I can not find it on-line.
>

That's what a good clipping service will do for you, or a professional
researcher. There used to be specialists who were familiar with a specific
database and knew exactly what keywords to search on (or not) to get the
desired result. Now we're on our own and the database is constantly
changing, so no one really knows the best way to search.

--
Pete
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347811 is a reply to message #347808] Sat, 08 July 2017 17:18 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 Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:49:03 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> And so I looked at the 1970 catalog for Radio Shack.
>>
>>> On page 32, I saw advertised the STA-65B AM/FM radio receiver.
>>
>> I have the link for that now:
>>
>> http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/html/1970/h032.html
>
> Speaking of that era, here is a 1972 ad for an SCM typewriter.
> It refers to the user having his own telephone. Note the ad's
> text touting better school grades and the cachet of typing.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=kWFARbBWIZcC&lpg=PA7&a mp;dq=%22boys%20life%22%20typewriter&pg=PA7#v=onepage&am p;q&f=false
>
>

They make it sound like a text-to-speech system. Also the primary selling
point seems to be that if you're typing everyone will leave you alone.

--
Pete
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347812 is a reply to message #347801] Sat, 08 July 2017 17:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gerard Schildberger is currently offline  Gerard Schildberger
Messages: 163
Registered: September 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:10:31 PM UTC-5, hanc wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 10:15:12 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
>
>> I know that once I become interested in something, I suddenly do see
>> related articles, presumably that sort of thing always being there but I
>> just ignored until I got interested.
>
> Today, online searches are tricky. One must use multiple search keys and
> even then, some important stuff doesn't get picked up.
>
> For instance, I had searched for "computer" in the LIFE archive, but
> didn't find the article Mr. Savard showed us. (I believe the reason
> was that the article headers were in white-on-black, which didn't
> get converted to text by the scanners.)
>
> Anyway, say someone wants to keep up with "light rail". They'd also
> have to search under 'trolley', 'streetcar', 'urban rail' and perhaps
> other keywords in order to get a full list.

Also: traction.


> Newspapers and magazines today are on-line, but sometimes their
> indexing isn't very good and inconsistent. For instance, if I want
> to share an article I see in the print edition of my newspaper,
> sometimes I can not find it on-line.
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347813 is a reply to message #347808] Sat, 08 July 2017 17:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:26:33 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> Speaking of that era, here is a 1972 ad for an SCM typewriter.
> It refers to the user having his own telephone. Note the ad's
> text touting better school grades and the cachet of typing.

> https://books.google.com/books?id=kWFARbBWIZcC&lpg=PA7&a mp;dq=%22boys%20life%22%20typewriter&pg=PA7#v=onepage&am p;q&f=false

I'm glad I scrolled down. Immediately following the ad is even more
interesting content: an article by Isaac Asimov, "The Coming Decades in
Space".

John Savard
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347821 is a reply to message #347802] Sat, 08 July 2017 18:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

In article <58728a56-9953-4130-9d7a-7b385b8c1d21@googlegroups.com>,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says...
>
> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 3:57:00 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> And in "The Americans", they had to
>>> explain to the teenage daughter than in 1980 kids didn't use their
>>> thumbs to dial a phone, but their index finger.)
>>
>> I Googled the television series "The Americans". Apparently, it is not
>> about time travellers from the future posing as an ordinary American
>> family, but rather spies from the Soviet Union.
>>
>> Now, I do recall Lincoln Steffens' famous quote after a visit to the
>> Soviet Union: "I have seen the future - and it works." - but as far as I
>> am aware, in the 1980s, they weren't using rotary dial phones in the U.S.
>> while in the Soviet Union they were already using smartphones instead.
>>
>> But then, the teenage daughter was actually born in the U.S., and didn't
>> initially know her parents were spies. So rather than the character havng
>> to be told, onscreen, during an episode, how rotary dial phones worked, I
>> think you mean that the actress who played the teenage daughter had to
>> have that explained to *her*.
>
> Yes, the Americans takes place in the early 1980s, I think they're up
> to 1983-84 now. The family has a Touch Tone phone (and an Apple
> computer). Anyway, yes, it was the _actress_ who plays the teen
> daughter who had to be taught to press the buttons with her index
> finger, not her thumbs as she was used to doing.
>
> In the early episodes of the show, they seemed to show more background
> of the 1980s, such as newscasts by Walter Cronkite and fashions specific
> to that era (the daughter wanted to get leg warmers). While they still
> do some Reagan references, in the last season their background wasn't
> as time oriented.
>
> As an aside, in the early 1980s, in the. U.S., plenty of people still
> did not have Touch Tone service as there was an extra charge for it.
>
> I think cellular phones were out by 1984--in the built-in car model.
> To my surprise, the family doesn't have one even though it would
> help their spying a great deal. On the other hand, they're probably
> very nervous about evesdropping--they generally conduct their spy
> business by payphone.
>
>
> Then, I didn't have Touch Tone. But I did discover a modem command so
> that my modem would pulse out at 20 pulses per second instead of
> the normal 10. My exchange was able to handle that, some couldn't.

FWIW, the early cell phones weren't encrypted--anybody who was nearby and
tuned to the right frequency could listen in on the conversation. Not an
ideal situation for spies, especially not when the simple fact that one had
a cell phone at all made one stand out.
Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #347822 is a reply to message #347811] Sat, 08 July 2017 18:46 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

In article <1762966314.521241429.151955.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-
september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says...
>
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:49:03 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> And so I looked at the 1970 catalog for Radio Shack.
>>>
>>>> On page 32, I saw advertised the STA-65B AM/FM radio receiver.
>>>
>>> I have the link for that now:
>>>
>>> http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/html/1970/h032.html
>>
>> Speaking of that era, here is a 1972 ad for an SCM typewriter.
>> It refers to the user having his own telephone. Note the ad's
>> text touting better school grades and the cachet of typing.
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=kWFARbBWIZcC&lpg=PA7&a mp;dq=%22boys%20life%22%20typewriter&pg=PA7#v=onepage&am p;q&f=false
>>
>>
>
> They make it sound like a text-to-speech system. Also the primary selling
> point seems to be that if you're typing everyone will leave you alone.

Note that this advertisement was in Boys Life, a publication targeting
males aged 6 to 18.

Having a phone that the 'rents _didn't_ answer was a big deal for teenagers
back then--few had one.
Pages (7): [ «    1  2  3  4  5  6  7    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: TRAX manual set for sale
Next Topic: US Post Office computer upgrades
Goto Forum:
  

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

Current Time: Thu Mar 28 08:39:20 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.20505 seconds