Retro Thread?

Where can I find software for an Apple II?

File: Mac.jpg (137KB, 1328x747px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1328x747px

>>57828831
Still got this that i bought a couple weeks ago. Haven't gotten any disks for it yet though.

>>57828839
Archive.org perhaps? I've gotten stuff from there for my G3 and G4 before.

>>57828839
ftp.apple.asimov.net is pretty good

File: stickers.jpg (67KB, 850x662px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 850x662px

>>57828831
Found these notes posted on it, thought it was pretty neat.

Note: UNB is University of New Brunswick.

File: appleiic.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>57828843
You should think of getting a virtual disk drive

Here's a great druaga1 video showing him using it with his 512k Mac
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBz25fWz5ds

I use something similar for my Apple IIc using VDrive in ADTPro

>>57829406
Did you get that directly from the university or from someone else?

>>57829429
Been looking at it, saw a nice kit for ~$100 USD. Supports all the 68k macs.

>>57829478
Nope, was an ad on Kijiji. Came with some Model III documentation and disks. Pretty sure the disks are on their last legs though.

if you died in the storm it would still be worth it, nice find brotherman KKona

File: laptop.jpg (50KB, 411x408px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 411x408px

Also, posting from this. I know it's not retro, but it's getting there.

Still works great though, running XP, 2.5gb ram, 80gb hdd, 1.6GB turion processor. HP Pavilion DV6000.

Battery still holds a 2hr charge.

>>57828831
damn I'm jelly

>>57828839

Do you even know what you're looking for? or are you expecting there to be some resource out there they tells you exactly what software will work for for your particular dinosaur and then also provide download links for such software?

Are you a canadafag?

>>57829671
Yup

100% leaf.

>>57828839
http://asciiexpress.net/

http://asciiexpress.net/gameserver/

enjoy

>>57828831
The more i look the more it seems that it's going to be a real challenge finding software for this system.

Not a whole lot of anything on Ebay. Real shame because what i've used of the system, i've really enjoyed so far.

Where can I find an IBN5100?

>>57830335
eBay Titor, eBay
Didn't they tell you anything? I can't imagine people forgot eBay in a couple of decades.

>>57830335
Can't you guys just use a FPGA? Everybody else seems to.

>>57830335
Is this a literal meme machine?

Never heard of it, and all i see when i google it is animu shit.

File: 1461172995451.jpg (18KB, 300x220px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x220px

I'm trying to acquire an IBN5100 for somebody.
eBay just gives me weird looking chips.

I don't really know what an FPGA is.

Here is a picture of it from wkiwkipedia

>>57830367
>and all i see when i google it is animu shit.
>IBM 5100 - Wikipedia

>animu shit.
Google is pretty smart, they arrange search by your past search history.

>>57830357
I typed in "IBN5100" exactly in Ebay and immediately got 2 results for a system. Free shipping from Japan. 99.4% positive feedback.

>>57830357
>>57830372
Fail, such a shame though.
Didn't you use imageboards as a kid?

>>57829650
I'm looking for a very specific piece of educational software...

>>57829340
and I found it here. Thanks.

Those are alarm clocks...

There weren't any of image boards when I was a kid. I did not know how to edit my post so I deleted it.

>>57830376
Would make sense if i ever searched for anything even closely related to anime.

>>57830390
>There weren't any of image boards when I was a kid.
rip 4chin

>>57830390
>travels through time
>doesn't know how to edit posts

Kill yourself.

?
Where did you get that information about Time traveling?
Can you guys help me where to find the computer?

>>57830419
>send time traveler back in time
>bullied to death by trolls

>>57830429
we are 1337 haxors from around the world
actually we created the year 2038 problem to see the world burn

File: W045lrg.jpg (244KB, 612x584px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 612x584px

Anybody into vintage transistor and solid state radios here? I got outbid on one of these a few days ago, it's pretty much my white whale. The Zenith 3000-1 Transoceanic.

Is 1337 haxors related to super hackers?

I have to go now.

>>57830457
Yes and no.

Yes because i like them and think they're cool af.

No because i live in an apartment already filled with junk.

File: chemlab.png (20KB, 618x844px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 618x844px

>>57830387
OMG, the fucking nostalgia.

>>57830457
I saw one at a goodwill recently, but it was really beat up and didn't work when I plugged it in. They wanted $70, so I passed.

>>57830466
Eh, I have a neighbor with a kid called John with the same last name, gets the shit beaten out of him every time he comes home from school though.

File: dilbert-unix.png (5KB, 116x116px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 116x116px

>>57830335
>>57830372
I know you're just memeing steins;gate

But in all seriousness, out of all the different retro computers TRS-80, Apple II/Macintosh, Commodore 64/Amiga, Atari 8-Bit, etc... the IBM 5100 is downright unusable

File: zenith.png (1MB, 2090x2610px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2090x2610px

>>57830457
I absolutely love Zenith products! My grandpa has a 1959 Zenith console TV/HiFi combo that still works great, even after almost 60 years. It's fully tube amplified, and sounds great.

File: Vintage-National-Panasonic-4-Band-Radio-T-100D.jpg (284KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1600x1200px

>>57830468
Finding one in good condition is definitely a challenge, I'd say collecting Japanese radios is best since they're built like tanks and are impossible to kill it seems. Also really easy to find since Sony, Panasonic flooded the market.

>>57830635
It's the type of thing that i'll only buy if i end up finding one in absolutely mint condition.

Simply because i just don't have room.

File: e404-koyo-ktr-621-g.jpg (85KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 680x680px

>>57830457
I like collecting the cute pocket radios of the 70s and 80s, like
>>57830468
I don't have much room so they make most sense.

>trash80
>any year

k

>>57830671
They make sense in that way, but my priority is older computer systems.

File: acorn.jpg (63KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1024x576px

Is an Acorn Electron worth picking up? Guy near me selling one for relatively cheap with a handful of games.

>>57830826
Depends how much relatively cheap is.

I'd argue any vintage system is worth picking up for the right price, just because they're fun to play with. Even if you only get a few hours worth of play out of them you'll still probably get your money's worth.

Additionally, if obtained for the right price, it's almost always an investment. These things aren't being made anymore, over time less and less are in existent and eventually people will want to have them. The price will most likely only go up.

>>57830826
If you have to ask, then probably not worth for you.

>>57830846
Stop encouraging hipsters.

>>57830846
>buy machines as an investment
>literary the cancer killing retro
it was nice until it lasted guys, thanks

File: acorn2.jpg (83KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1024x576px

>>57830846
He wants £45 and is throwing in all the games he has, looks like some good ones. I like Paperboy a lot, never played the BBC Micro version.

>>57830562
Shit bait mate, even I could have come up with better.

>>57830860
Buy it if you're going to use it. £45 isn't enough to worry about.

>>57830854
It's more of an emergency investment. Still haven't sold a single unit i've purchased, and any time i've come into rough times i've found other ways to make my money. It's more of a way to make myself not feel guilty about buying this stuff.

File: Running_HP_85_with_BASIC_listing,_2012.jpg (162KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1024x683px

>>57830867
Hey it's the truth. The 5150 and up are still fun to use, because they are more capable, and can run a ton of DOS games.

The 5100, on the other hand is just a fancy programmable calculator. Even the HP-85 is more advanced.

>>57830899
>make myself not feel guilty about buying this stuff
>instead of the enjoyment of it
it's getting worse

>>57830935
When you buy as much of this shit as i do, you'd understand.

It's an addiction that can't be stopped.

And with every addiction comes a form of guilt control.

Get off your fucking high horse if you think you're so great.

>>57830635
i have one of those pictured

File: budgo.jpg (186KB, 823x646px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 823x646px

Anybody else here Britbong? Where do you discover your best finds? My local "Goodwills" or charity shops are pretty much dead granny clothing and bric-a-brac, the nearest car boot sale is miles away and dominated within minutes of opening by aggressive Polish who walk out with massive bin bags of loot.

I don't really know where to pick up anything nice around here. I rely on things being listed near me on eBay I can pick up.

>>57831056
I know here in Canada i've never found anything much decent from our versions of "goodwill", which are Salvation Army and Value Village. Every now and then i can find some good Dos / 95 / 98 games from Value Village still complete in box for $3. Never found any systems or anything though, I'm pretty sure they chuck them.

Everything i find is from local ads on kijiji, our version of Craigslist. Not sure if Britbongs have anything similar.

>>57828831
sweet trash80 OP

>>57831056
>>57831105
burger here

haven't seen anything good at goodwill in years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hht-wG4qHRE

>>57831056
Yuropoor here, lots of local sites I get my shit from, gotten many XTs, ATs and clones, C64's, Amigas, Ataris, 68k and Power Macs, plus all kinds of peripherals, hardware and accelerators, usually for a few euros because people just want to get rid of it.

>>57830466
Aren't you dead?
>maybe another time travel

>>57831478
multiple universe theory

File: WP_20130801_004.jpg (3MB, 2000x3552px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2000x3552px

I love having retro computers around my office so I can spin around and re-experience the unique differences of those early attempts at figuring out how people were supposed to interact with technology.

>>57831567
>how people were supposed to interact with technology
apparently with horrible keyboards

>>57828831
what happens when you enter date >correctyear

>>57831567
>tfw you have a TS1000 complete in box that you got for free
>tfw the rf output circuit is on the fritz
I think it's a loose ground connection.

>>57831654
why not fix it?

>>57831662

I'm too stupid

>>57831662
other projects/work/college/family/etc

>>57831672
obiously

File: a87e987bf4.gif (504KB, 134x134px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 134x134px

>>57831672

>>57831567
>Trinitron

File: f4d26438be9439174d82330b801e3945.jpg (32KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x375px

>>57831775
>all tvs made by sony are trinitrons

File: 1472063356954.jpg (1MB, 3552x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3552x2000px

Post /retro/stations!

File: bst.jpg (688KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 1600x900px

>>57831842
needs moar wood paneling

File: entertainment center.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>57831876
also postin my retrocenter

>>57831894
>stargate
nice

>>57831876
>>57831894
moar, I like your stuff

File: dsc00013.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>57831914
ok then

dumping my /gentoo folder

File: rms.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>57831937

File: setup.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>57831948

File: bst.webm (1MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x480px

>>57831961

File: apple2.webm (3MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x480px

>>57831970

File: dsc00034.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>57831989
and a never before seen overall shot

File: 2012.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>57832011
... and what it looked like 5 years ago

>>57831894
wow. actually not bad. I have zero snarks.

>>57832011
Glorious! Respect.

File: Clipboard01.jpg (74KB, 351x294px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 351x294px

>>57832011
love the aesthetics

>>57831567

I miss my TS 1000. Got it back around '82 or so, had it until '89. In 1987 I used it as a science fair project where I wired up a ti99-4A keyboard I got from Radio Shack, gave it a nice metal case, 16K upgrade, and tried my best to make a crude OS and burned it to a new EPROM.

>>57832088
kek

>>57831842

VECTREX!!!??? I HATE you!!! I have no idea what happened to mine. I think my mother gave it away to some kid in my neighborhood. Had a bunch of games for it too.

>>57831970
Real cool anon!
Keep it up!

File: amiga.webm (1MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x480px

>>57832048
>>57832081
>>57832297
thanks

good night /retro/

>>57832342
good night boingball

File: Panasonic-TR-1020-wordpress-525.jpg (194KB, 525x364px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 525x364px

Just missed out on this thing, a Panasonic Travelvision. It's a 1.5" TV/radio combo, always wanted one because they're so tiny but they seem weirdly rare. They even come with a little magnifying lens so the screen appears bigger. Ah well, next time.

File: HPIM2193.jpg (3MB, 1952x2608px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1952x2608px

lol all these plebs

>>57832577
>bunch of x86 shit
>not even anything special
pleb

>>57832654

pre x86 even more useless

>>57832668
>pre x86
>there weren't other architectures competing with x86
>there weren't actually better alternatives to x86 at times
thanks for showing everyone how dumb you are

File: DSC00469.jpg (3MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 6000x4000px

>>57828831

>>57833754
showoff

>>57833754
I like James Lewis

>>57833598
this

File: casiodigitaldiarysf-5100.jpg (523KB, 1632x1224px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 1632x1224px

finaly found it... can even be conected to PC

>>57834417
I would totally use that to store passwords

File: 2016-12-04-170816_443x562.png (315KB, 443x562px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 443x562px

>>57832042
Looks comfy

>>57830457
>>57830628
Zenith was the Nokia of the 60s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-teXC1mFKaQ

File: Screen shot 2016-12-04 at 12.29.50 PM.png (277KB, 641x427px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 641x427px

So /g/, can I interest you in a brand new Zenith color set?

The finest picture in the industry!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGSBLcWAHV4

File: 2a-copy.jpg (102KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 700x700px

>>57837050
That's a great ad, shame these quality first companies always meet a sticky end since the market doesn't usually care if their electronics are well-built or not.

File: 1432081248664.jpg (81KB, 259x383px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 259x383px

>>57832668


>being this new
>not knowing anything about Motorola 68000 series procs, released less than a year after the 8086, which ran everything from Unix machines to your favorite 80's arcade games (Sega's System 16 was a 68000 based board)
>Not knowing the very popular Zilog Z80, released three years prior to the 8086, is the processor Intel was targeting as competition when designing the 8086.
>not knowing any of this plus far more to write in a 4chan reply box

c'mon son, just admit you're new to this shit. Everybody has to start somewhere but you're lookin kinda silly right now with this.

>>57837147

IIRC Zenith was one of the last electronics companies to build their stuff in the US.

>>57837121

It's all about Curtis Mathes....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAKDGkat2vw

Growing up in the 70's, your family aspired to own a Curtis Mathes console TV.

>>57835960
>muh safety

File: BST20161102.png (1MB, 1008x756px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1008x756px

>>57831961
>>57831970
>he keeps drawn gay animal people children porn open while taking photos of his battlestation
w h e w

>>57840233
>giving a fuck
W E W

>>57832577
What do I see here?

>>57835960
>>57839982
if i remember corectly if you dont watch the bateries and replase them regulery, when they die it erases all data stored

>>57841097
cumpotr

>>57841136
komputr

>>57841135
For about 50k you could get nuclear batteries for it that would last your lifetime.

File: IMG_870003.jpg (520KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 1000x750px

New equalizer for my hi-fi!
JVC SEA-33 from '83

>>57840233
and you keep posting on the hacker known as 4chan
what's your'rer point?

>>57833754
That's your daily driver?

File: room.jpg (72KB, 699x364px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 699x364px

>>57840233
It's a meme you dip

>>57832042

Insprion 6000 there? Thing's a fucking tank.

>>57840599
>>57842597
Jokes on you, I drew that gay ass animal child bullshit.

My office is at its limit now. Have to start figuring out what I actually care about and unload the rest.

>>57843390
Australia?

>>57843390
damn man, the stuff you find down there in australia must be crazy

>>57843390
Moar!

>>57843413
>>57843416
kek

File: IMG_5438.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>57843390
Dangit...

File: IMG_5435.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>57843445
Part 2: This stuff all works too, just not actively being used.

>>57843480
Any particular theme to what you collect or no

>>57843732
Concentrating on 8bit systems that primarily used floppies, but I'm getting into cassette stuff now too.

>>57832489
I have that thing, it's insanely whiney.

Sometimes there will be a loud pop and the whole thing will stop working.

File: 1457998416980.png (908KB, 3139x3287px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 3139x3287px

>>57831894
>Stargate SG1
God that show was shit but the nostalgia makes me love it.
It is a shame Universe got canceled. I liked Dr.Rush...

File: IMG_7449.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>57832489
I got a little gold one like that.

File: IMG_7450.jpg (2MB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3024x4032px

>>57844437
Top view

>>57832489
Woah think I might actually have that somewhere Was extremely convenient when the entire east coast lost power in 2003

File: dugxyfivbhd6lfhditoj.png (78KB, 301x234px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 301x234px

>>57832489
>>57844437
>>57844479
when I was younger I thought it would be so cool to get one of those, mount it in front of my eye, and hook it into a computer in a backpack.

It would probably give me super eye cancer tho

>>57844640
pretty sure you'd have to legally change your name to CYPHER after that

>>57844640
Cyberpunk for real. Crazy that it's basically available now, but phones are the preferred portaple computer now.

File: Wacko.gif (992KB, 250x185px) Image search: [Google]

992KB, 250x185px

>>57844300
It appears you've got them opinions reversed

better fix them

>>57829406
>drives aligned

>>57830376
are these weebs the new fedora atheist?

>>57830921
The problem with the pre-5150 IBM boxes isn't their hardware or theoretical capabilities though, its the near total lack of software, and probably documentation too.

>>57837121
>>57837147
>>57838665

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXuwduph3jc

>>57843370
Considering he's know for browsing the chans. I wouldn't rule out you being him

>>57838646
he's not wrong in his assumption that most of those chips bar the 68000 were toys though

alternate architecture-jerking is the worst, they were all shit in one way or another

File: 68747470733a2f2f7261772e6769746875622e636f6d2f626c69747a636f64652f6e65736b656c6c2f6d61737465722f363530322e706e67.png (156KB, 584x263px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 584x263px

>>57846388
you take that back

>>57846442
:^)

not dogging them too hard, they did their jobs as reasonably expected and that's all that matters

File: DSC01411-Medium.jpg (207KB, 1154x768px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1154x768px

check out this full scale 6502 replica

>>57846508
Pretty cool to think that a current Intel Kaby Lake CPU using the same component size of that would cover more area than the entire planet earth.

>>57846388
Hate to tell you this but x86 was a toy until at least the 386, if not the 486.

Even today the only thing x86 really has going for it is binary compatibility with a shit ton of software. Any of the RISC architectures were superior as was 68K. Intel has good chips, but if the same money and effort had been invested in another architecture the final result would be faster and/or more energy efficient than Intel's chips.

If something doesn't revise Moore's Law then desktop architecture may become relevant again.

>>57846388
x86 was shit too, still is
Prior to P6, there where other architectures that where way faster than x86
Considering all the 68k chips that came out with, like '040 and 486, the same frequency chips, the '040 beat the 486
Not to mention PowerPC or SPARC in the early 90's that ran at much higher frequencies than any x86 counterpart

>>57846388
>they were all shit in one way or another

Also: PowerPC was a sweet instruction set. Though in fairness to Intel, it was developed much later than many other architectures so the engineers had learned from past mistakes.

>>57846559
Already happening with ARM, by power consumption, ARM is ahead in performance vs low power x86 chips

>>57846574
>>57846582
PowerPC was still the prefered chip for high performance computing to the early 2000's, if you could afford cooling and powering it.

>>57846559
>Hate to tell you this but x86 was a toy until at least the 386, if not the 486.
shit it was a toy until P6, maybe even beyond to the 64-bit transition depending on what you were doing

not saying it was better, just that the x86 counter-jerk is stale shit that just makes you look retarded

>Even today the only thing x86 really has going for it is binary compatibility with a shit ton of software.
stop kidding yourself, pure RISC has been hot garbage since the turn of the century, the only thing that kept it competitive was register-spam, enterprise gimmicks and vendor lock-in

and acting like those two points in themselves are irrelevant is absolutely ridiculous, especially in the modern era where few tasks are really CPU-bound to the point that architecture makes or breaks it

>Any of the RISC architectures were superior as was 68K.
in many ways, definitely, but they weren't perfect, whether in implementation, cost, compatibility, even performance in some cases

>Intel has good chips, but if the same money and effort had been invested in another architecture the final result would be faster and/or more energy efficient than Intel's chips.
and that's why SPARC and POWER are leagues ahead today despite being backed by absolutely massive companies, right? hell look at the state of ARM with all of its investment

>If something doesn't revise Moore's Law then desktop architecture may become relevant again.
it sure as hell isn't going to be reversed by more register spam and idealistic engineer masturbation

>>57846574
indeed, 68k took x86 to the cleaners clock-for-clock all day long

>Not to mention PowerPC or SPARC in the early 90's that ran at much higher frequencies than any x86 counterpart
frequency is meaningless, especially when comparing large and complex designs like the x86 and the 68k with simple, streamlined RISC chips

it means fuck all in modern context too because that philosophy went straight to the shitter before the decade was even out

>>57846582
I used to agree with this but I really enjoyed reading Linus Torvalds' rambling on the subject:
http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/x86.html

it's mostly focused on blowing itanictards the fuck out but he also pays homage to ppc32 in there as well

>>57846654
POWER, not PPC

also, supercomputers and other fp-heavy use cases are a really terrible example when trying to dick-wave architectures, especially when trying to judge overall performance, there were a lot of RISC chips that blew SPECfp out of the water but couldn't even match a shitty Pentium for other tasks due to shit integer performance

the MIPS R8000 is a really great example of this kind of performance disparity, SGI POWER Indigo/Challenge boxes will sweep the floor in fp-focused jobs with well manicured code but if you wanted a good IRIX desktop an R4400 or even a lowly R4600 would see you a lot further

>>57846725
>frequency is meaningless
Frequency played a far far bigger role back then than now, specially bus speeds.

File: cores.jpg (30KB, 348x235px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 348x235px

>>57846828
Now it's just adding more cores

>>57846859
AMD was pretty good at that tho, until it just became ridiculous desu

>>57846828
but in the context of comparing two drastically different platforms, often with their own unique bus architectures? it's meaningless

a 200 MHz Pentium Pro would absolutely destroy a 200 MHz StrongARM, and a 175 MHz R10000 would rape and pillage both of them

now I feel like surfing old SPEC results even though I was just shitting on them

File: 39488.gif (271KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 200x200px

>all these people flamewaring over x86 & ppc

Don't you guys know that ONLY AMIGA MAKES IT POSSIBLE

>>57846882
>but in the context of comparing two drastically different platforms
You're tight, I was thinking more of the same architecture, frequency back then played a greater role, but that's irrelevant in this topic

>>57846904
>ppc amiga
>not glorious '060 amiga

>>57846508
could you wire it directly into a Apple II?

what is a good generally cheap terminal for a beginner?

>>57846913
yeah man, it's amazing what difference an upgrade of just a few megahertz could make back then

unrelated but I found this kind of interesting while making sure I wasn't talking out of my ass on the R8000 thing: http://www.verycomputer.com/16_fd5e027ac59d7cd9_1.htm

would love the shit out of a POWER I2 some day just to mess around with it, even though I'm still armchair-tier pleb and would probably end up using it as a glorified X terminal

File: pcat03-r.jpg (69KB, 740x532px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 740x532px

>click
>*whurrrrrr*
>ca-chunk-chunk-chunk brrrr-zt
>BEEP
>clickclickclick
>clickclickclickclickclickclick
>clickclickclickclick
>TADA.wav

>>57846999
would say anything you can get since there's no consistent supply, but late-era VTs like the vt220/420 are probably the most common

HP 700 series terminals sound kind of nice too, I have one laying around that needs a keyboard

>>57846999
Probably a DEC VT220

The cooler space age ADM3a-style terms are pretty pricy these days

File: 1468181187653.png (1MB, 1111x2158px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1111x2158px

>>57847006

>>57847030
Those old terminals are impossible to acquire today

>>57846999
other alternative: use terminal software

i.e. >>57831989

>>57846999
Rektberry Pi, supports 232 too

>>57846654
>if you could afford cooling and powering it
PPC970 x 1.8GHz 42w / max 85C
i7-6970 x 2.8GHz 45w / max 100C
Granted Intel's mobile chips are made to run hotter and this would tear the shit out of a 13 year old 1.8GHz single core PPC970, can we stop parroting this tired meme that's almost old enough to drive?

>>57847064
>>57847073
he's obviously going for the "authentic" experience though

but the first guy I quoted is still a good way to go too

>>57847099
What are you talking about? How is a i7 relevant?

>>57846810
>The POWER4 is a microprocessor developed by International Business Machines (IBM) that implemented the 64-bit PowerPC and PowerPC AS instruction set architectures.
>tfw I was wrong and they actually are technically PowerPC
wew lad

>>57847099
>PPC970 x 1.8GHz 42w / max 85C
>not dual core 2.6GHz

>>57847142
Yeah, POWER is a line of PowerPC architecture CPUs by IBM, the architecture is still PPC

>>57846559
>>57846725
he's got a point with the software. just look at the surface rt

>>57847193
>just look at the surface rt
irrelevant much?

>>57847142
>>57847175
The early POWER line CPUs of IBM actually used POWER architecture, a precursor to PowerPC, but most of the POWER chips where PowerPC

>>57847204
It's relevant. The RT was arm-based and didn't succeed against it's x86 counterpart

>>57847157
they didn't even clock that high, and those 970s were never used in supercomputers anyway

>>57847175
>>57847218
desu I for some reason always thought of PPC as more of a subset of POWER lacking some more enterprise-y extensions, pls don't shit on me too hard, second hand-RS/6K and pSeries gear is so unobtainable that I don't venture into that realm of the internet a lot

it still triggers me when the two are interchanged though, since it invokes the more mainstream chips branded as PowerPC rather than just the general ISA

>>57847204
that's the main idea, yeah

>>57847219
Pretty much what >>57846559 said

>>57847133
The PPC meme is that they need 1kw to run and explode into fire based on the 970. It gets parroted on /g/ quite often by kids who were potty training at the time it came out. Any modern CPU would be relevant for comparison, but I used an Intel mobile chip because I recall seeing my T420 SandyBridge hit 98C while super stressed.
>>57847157
The later PPC970FX/MP were supposedly even more efficient. I picked the worst case scenario with the original G5.

>>57847228
>they didn't even clock that high
>what is PowerMac G5 2.7 DP
Irrelevant though, because by that time there where better x86 chips

>>57847300
>The later PPC970FX/MP were supposedly even more efficient.
Not sure because >>57847304 had huge cooling problems and heat output, even with its water blocks

>>57847300
>The PPC meme is that they need 1kw to run and explode into fire based on the 970.
you didn't need 1kw, but they where highly inefficient for the time for their power and cooling requirements

>>57846942
They said, that won't work because of timing issues.
Because of it's size, it only runs at like 0.070Mhz.

>>57847304
he was talking about the dual core 970MPs that only clocked to 2.5

>>57847389
he was talking about PowerPC 970 actually MP and FX are just variations of it

>>57847412
take a look at the post again, he was talking about the dual core, not the 970 in general

>>57847300
>The later PPC970FX/MP were supposedly even more efficient
the problem was, that even slight clock increase on those chips increased the power requirement and heat output drastically, the higher you went the higher the curve of power requirement

>>57847432
>PPC970 x 1.8GHz 42w / max 85C
no mention of MP and also the 970 itself was a chip, no letters after it

>>57847228
>and those 970s were never used in supercomputers anyway
Yeah, not 970's but POWER5 was, it was out at the same time as the 970

>>57847441
the greentext just below that...
>not dual core 2.6GHz
there was never a 2.6 GHz 970MP
that was all I was saying

>>57847448
but they weren't the 970, get what I mean?
970s themselves are POWER4-derived apparently, I never knew that for some reason

>>57847100
Well, hes going to need a platform with RS-232 for that software to run on...
No point in having a huge PC or powerful one for the task.

>>57847489
>the greentext just below that...
oh yeah, I was looking at the wrong thing

>>57847228
>it still triggers me when the two are interchanged though
It's fucking confusing for sure

>>57847360
Pentium 4 Northwood is what it would have been competing with at the time. ~2003
P4 1 x 1.8GHz 68.1w 77C max

>>57830485
Isn't everything on earth Super Nova Juice?

>>57847494
of course
don't think an SBC is a great answer for that though really because I mean, if you're going to go with something new, why not just use a laptop and a USB to serial adapter? plus they kind of look ugly even when cased

it's not that far a stretch to use an old XT clone or something for that kind of job anyway

>>57847601
that's not really a 1:1 comparison though, the northwood 1.8 was destitute outdated shit '03

something like the P4HT 3.0 or 2.8 would probably be a closer matchup

>>57847631
>destitute outdated shit '03
what is it with quick reply that makes proofreading after editing such a difficult task for me

>in '03

>>57847631
>the northwood 1.8 was destitute outdated shit '03
It came out in 03
>something like the P4HT 3.0 or 2.8 would probably be a closer matchup
That would put P4HT using twice as much power, albeit still cooler.

>>57847657
it didn't, the 1.8 was the next to lowest end of the original lineup in January 2002

there wasn't even a super low end GHz 1.8 HT model, what reference were you looking at that said 2003?

>>57847622
Pretty much everything in the whole universe except hydrogen is

>>57847722
I was looking at Wikipedia, but I guess I read a graph wrong. They used the Northwood name into 03 but the 1.8 was released in 02.

The Pentium 4 3GHz HT was rated around 89w for a single core. Even with dual 1.8GHz 970 CPU that would have been 42w x 2. The 3GHz P4 was slightly cooler, but more power hungry.

>>57847840
But the Pentium 4 at the time was already faster than the 970. That was the time Apple was already planning on going x86.

>>57847840
I'll believe it
honestly when you think about it the 2.6/2.8 was probably more comparable since the 1.8 GHz G5 was shitbox-grade too and those were definitely cooler running

>>57847865
don't see how that is really relevant to that though, we're just talking heat output between comparable chips

>>57847919
>don't see how that is really relevant to that though
the whole discussion started with the inefficiency of the PPC chips of the time

>>57847865
It's kinda annoying trying to find benchmarks now but here goes.
3.2GHz Pentium 4 SPECint2000 1404 SPECfp2000 1348
1.8GHz PPC970 SPECint2000 937 SPECint2000 1051

When consider dual 1.8GHz 970 used around the same amount of power as a single core 3+GHz P4, it wasn't bad at all.

>>57847956
It wasn't bad for sure, but it was on a path downhill sadly, even my G5 1.8 DP is quite remarkable performance wise even today, even playing youtube in the browser

>>57847944
but whether there was a faster P4 out doesn't necessarily have a bearing on that

>>57847956
do they have the results for the 2 GHz chips too on the page you're looking at?

File: Goodwill Disappearing Stuff.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

ever wondered why thrift stores are empty nowadays and why you should make good connections with the people working there?

>>57847988
>do they have the results for the 2 GHz chips too on the page you're looking at?
Sadly no. I almost want to break out Linpack and benchmark all of my old hardware for the /g/ wiki.

File: mariovision.jpg (195KB, 1500x940px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1500x940px

>>57832489
>>57844437

>>57848396
They just toss everything away?

>>57848641
Yeah...

File: IMG_0002.jpg (511KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 1000x750px

I'm going to chip my Quadra 650 right now, the new oscillator just arrived in post.
20MHz oscillator, making the CPU run at 40MHz.
I already socketed the motherboard and tried a 18MHz oscillator, making it run at 36MHz, but I broke one of the legs on the oscillator and ordered a new one, but 20MHz.

>>57848435
the /g/ wiki has a benchmarks page?

sounds like I found something to do over the holiday break

>>57848641
you'd be amazed, in the case of smaller outlets the employees usually just don't want to deal with computers especially either because they don't want to deal with prepping them for sale or the possible consequences of selling shit with unwiped drives to a shithead that might misuse whatever information they can get off of it, even if it's not a likely occurrence

with larger outlets, it's just not worth devoting the shelf space to a niche piece with a small target audience that doesn't want to pay more than $20 for them anyway when they have much bigger, more desirable fish they can fry

antiques/collectibles in general are in a slump, and there are retards everywhere who have no idea what they're sitting on that just throw it in the trash because they can't be fucked to deal with it or just think it's worthless because it's not new or trendy, I've racked up plenty of horror stories from my still pretty limited experience working with estate liquidation

>>57844437
>>57848473
for some reason this sounds like it would be absolutely perfect for an ultimate retro-poorfag TS1000 setup like >>57831567 especially with that magnifying lens that looks like it can fit right snugly next to the memory expansion

fuck I want one of these now to go with mine

>>57846725
>>Even today the only thing x86 really has going for it is binary compatibility with a shit ton of software.
>stop kidding yourself, pure RISC has been hot garbage since the turn of the century,
So you have literally no idea what the fuck you're talking about? Got it.

>especially in the modern era where few tasks are really CPU-bound to the point that architecture makes or breaks it
A task does not have to be CPU bound to benefit from faster execution on the CPU and lower power use.

>>Any of the RISC architectures were superior as was 68K.
>in many ways, definitely, but they weren't perfect, whether in implementation, cost, compatibility, even performance in some cases
Nothing is perfect. But the only real flaw that mattered in the marketplace was binary compatibility. x86 had the momentum of the massive consumer PC market. Therefore Intel had the cash to keep it competitive because you can use silicon to make up for shitty architecture.

>and that's why SPARC and POWER are leagues ahead today despite being backed by absolutely massive companies, right?
You know damn well that they never had the investment of time and money (time = money) because they never had the market and therefore the profits. Yet when their parent companies cared they managed to out perform x86 with significantly less money invested.

>hell look at the state of ARM with all of its investment
You mean look at the state of the architecture that is closing in on Intel with cooler, more efficient chips? Have you not noticed that Intel is stuck (20-30% gain for the same clock rate in 5 fucking years) while ARM marches forward?

>>57847228
>it still triggers me when the two are interchanged though, since it invokes the more mainstream chips branded as PowerPC rather than just the general ISA

They're interchanged because they're practically the same damn thing. PowerPC was a minor evolution of the original POWER architecture. The 601 used in the first Power Macs was binary compatible with the POWER spec of the time. And later POWER processors were binary compatible with PowerPC.

There's no real meaning to the naming convention any more. Just lists of instructions and features for each chip design.

File: s-l1600.jpg (68KB, 800x641px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x641px

>>57848754
Not really. Not unless you're a hunchback who doesn't mind squinting through a magnifying lens as its image shifts & warps as you move your head around. I'd rather do it through something like this. Might even be small enough to sit on top of the computer, angled back.

>>57848755
>So you have literally no idea what the fuck you're talking about? Got it.
do you? are you really going to tell me that the under-performant, stagnant garbage the likes of Apple, Sun, SGI and HP were putting out post-dotcom bubble were actually good? these architectures were mostly only good at floating point math by virtue of register spam and kept on life support by vendor lock-in and occasionally niche instruction set enhancements

>A task does not have to be CPU bound to benefit from faster execution on the CPU and lower power use.
but nowadays it does to actually matter, being able to execute a program a few milliseconds faster than another architecture doesn't make a shit of practical different for the vast majority of computing tasks outside of things like big database boxes that even then are mostly dominated by x86 solutions now

lower power usage is definitely a point, but even that's coming to a point where it doesn't matter for shit outside of niche enterprise tasks in the context of desktop/server-grade hardware

>Therefore Intel had the cash to keep it competitive because you can use silicon to make up for shitty architecture.
Intel won out because software stagnation is a bitch, and once PCs finally passed that performance baseline in the 2000s wherein they could do most things you used to need cost-no-object kit for it was game over

>You know damn well that they never had the investment of time and money (time = money) because they never had the market and therefore the profits.
none of these companies catered to volume-dependent markets, they died because they outlived their usefulness

>Have you not noticed that Intel is stuck (20-30% gain for the same clock rate in 5 fucking years) while ARM marches forward?
yet ARM is still irrelevant outside of the embedded market and always will be

>>57848913
>yet ARM is still irrelevant outside of the embedded market and always will be
I wouldn't count on it, there are many people who don't even have a x86 device in their home anymore, just tablets and smartphones.

>>57848949
which are pretty much embedded devices, or I guess very much descended from them

there's nothing it really brings to the table to push into x86-dominated markets other than maybe slightly less power consumption for large datacenters, but even then, ARM is a very old and well established architecture, it would have been widely adopted years ago if it was really that compelling

>>57848879
didn't say it would actually be fun to use, more that it would look nice

I mean, that shitty keyboard alone is enough to make the TS1000 an exercise in masochism no matter what display device you attach to it

>>57848990
>which are pretty much embedded devices, or I guess very much descended from them
But the border between them and x86 devices is slowly blurring.

>>57848990
>it would have been widely adopted years ago if it was really that compelling
We didn't have the market for such devices.

Transistors could have been invented right after power was discovered too, but that would have been useless for them.

>>57849041
all the less reason to waste a ton of time retooling, renegotiating contracts, designing new systems and training new developers to migrate over to a platform no ultimately different from the one you left
>>57849055
sure we did, do you think really there was never a demand for low-power servers and multi-processor systems in the enterprise market? it's definitely more pronounced now especially with virtualization becoming as prevalent as it is, but there was always a use for small, efficient systems that could do a lot of shit at once, hell it was half of Sun's niche

Where's a good place to buy retro computers in Europe? I just looked though ebay but it's filled with faggots who think someone will pay 1000€ for their shit.

File: DSC_00291.jpg (221KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1200x675px

guts of my 1999 computer

>>57849955
I use local ads and talk to people
>>57831290

>>57850033
>dat SLI
MUH DICK

>>57848473
Wish mine had antenna in so I could hook it up to stuff too! At least my little Sony can do it.

>>57848913
>do you?
Yes, I do. Want to know how I know that you have no clue? Statements from you like this:
>are you really going to tell me that the under-performant, stagnant garbage the likes of Apple, Sun, SGI and HP were putting out post-dotcom bubble were actually good?
Post .com bubble the funds for R&D on every architecture but x86 dried up. Never the less the G5 absolutely kicked ass when it was first released. AIM never had the investment in PowerPC that Intel had in x86. Yet at every step through the 90's, up until the G5, they managed to out perform x86. Architecture matters.

>these architectures were mostly only good at floating point math by virtue of register spam
Just stop. You don't even know what you're saying.

>but nowadays it does to actually matter, being able to execute a program a few milliseconds faster than another architecture doesn't make a shit of practical different
A few ms constantly throughout the day = power for mobile devices. But it's not just that because A) we really do have some processor intensive shit going on (audio; photo; video; voice recognition; AI; etc) and B) we have a generation of coders who are shit when it comes to efficiency.

>lower power usage is definitely a point, but even that's coming to a point where it doesn't matter
It matters for every phone and every notebook.

>none of these companies catered to volume-dependent markets,
Bullshit. Volume = cash for R&D. It always matters. And where did RISC architectures dominate? Embedded and mobile where the volume warranted the $$$ to blow Intel out of the water.

>yet ARM is still irrelevant outside of the embedded market and always will be
There are more ARM chips in the world than x86 chips. (That might actually be true of PPC as well.) And if Moore's Law really is dead, then architecture is going to matter in a big way soon and Intel will have their ass handed to them by ARM.

>>57848990
>it would have been widely adopted years ago if it was really that compelling
Software compatibility was really compelling. Especially when that meant massive volume for Intel = massive R&D = employing silicon and watts to make up for shitty architecture.

In fairness, x86 was not shitty for the late 70's / early 80's. It's an architecture for a machine with limited resources. RISC architectures are for machines with substantial resources.

>>57849096
>sure we did, do you think really there was never a demand for low-power servers and multi-processor systems in the enterprise market?

Intel's advantage (binary compatibility) is rooted in the early 1980s with IBM's entrance into personal computing. Servers and enterprise, back then, meant mainframes with board-sized CPUs. And generally better instruction sets.

But Moore's Law trumped all. Sure this or that RISC chip might be 50% faster or 33% lower TDP, but this x86 chip can run all my software and next year there will be a faster version I can upgrade to. That's why x86 won out.

>>57828831
Want some software? I got a ton from a guy awhile back. His step dad had a collection of model 2 and 3s, I got a beat up three for free and loads of software.

Sadly before I got a chance to go through the boxes of stuff I had my folks threw it out because it was taking up space. I was attending college 3 hours away and dropped the stuff off there for safe keeping.

What I do know that was lost was a few copies of the ultima series.

>>57850673
>That's why x86 won out.
even microsoft doubted x86, thats why windows NT 4 supports so many architectures

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (213KB, 966x659px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 966x659px

Welcome to the computer chronicles I'm Stewart Cheifet and this is Garry Kildall

>>57850613
>Post .com bubble the funds for R&D on every architecture but x86 dried up.
it was happening long before that, SGI was doing fuck all with MIPS since the R10K, likewise for Compaq/HP with the Alpha, the only one who really dried up like that was Sun because their entire market was dotcom companies

and for fuck sake you bring up Apple as an example right after that, and they were doing better than ever at that time, AIM had three huge juggernauts backing it and PowerPC had prolific usage among all of them

>Never the less the G5 absolutely kicked ass
merely clock-for-clock, and once again in floating point math, otherwise it was quite lackluster

>Just stop. You don't even know what you're saying.
just stop, all you're doing is jerking off to ancient benchmarks and anecdotes

>A) we really do have some processor intensive shit going on
yep

>B) we have a generation of coders who are shit when it comes to efficiency.
oh fuck off with this circlejerk, we're still using the same old algorithms and design paradigms for 90% of the things we do on a computer, and they've never been better equipped to handle them, the existence of shitty web apps doesn't make them the norm

>Bullshit. Volume = cash for R&D.
just like 55+% profit margins on systems that cost $250,000 a pop
your notion that all you have to do to make something good is throw money at it anyway is absolutely fallacious

>And where did RISC architectures dominate? Embedded and mobile where the volume warranted the $$$ to blow Intel out of the water.
>There are more ARM chips in the world than x86 chips.
cool, who cares? we're not talking about embedded chips, stop trying to broaden the subject to save face

>And if Moore's Law really is dead, then architecture is going to matter in a big way soon and Intel will have their ass handed to them by ARM.
increasingly nervous infoworld columnists said that in the '90s about MIPS and Alpha too and those chips actually brought something to the table

>>57850673
>Software compatibility was really compelling.
it is, it's a big factor, but there are still a lot of things that market was doing that was architecturally agnostic, just look at how much Sun lost out over the space of a couple years to cheapening x86 server offerings in the 2000s
>Especially when that meant massive volume for Intel = massive R&D
can we stop treating everything as a consumer chip???
>employing silicon and watts to make up for shitty architecture.
and stop throwing these empty weasily statements like "employing silicon"? what the fuck does that even mean? do you mean "designing a less shit chip" but you don't want to say that because it would reveal how retarded this "the evil jews just threw money at a turd and it won!" narrative is?
>In fairness, x86 was not shitty for the late 70's / early 80's.
in terms of performance it really was a fucking toy until P6, but in terms of implementation and cost effectiveness? it really wasn't a terrible choice
>RISC architectures are for machines with substantial resources.
weren't you just lecturing me about pure RISC's wild success in embedded devices a post ago?
general ISA design philosophy doesn't mean that much in implementation especially nowadays, ARM, MIPS and PPC are all very successful in the embedded market (yes, partially owing to their simplicity) but so are classical "CISC" designs like the 68k, Z80, even x86 has its run in the sun for the occasional niche products with the likes of the 186, Geode, and whatever pieces of shit VIA is hocking nowadays
>servers and enterprise, back then, meant mainframes with board-sized CPUs.
in the '80s
>Sure this or that RISC chip might be 50% faster
stop acting like it was this kind of night-and-day difference for more than a few years in the early '90s while Intel had no interest in taking x86 to the high end
towards the end of the decade the gap really started to close to the point that it wasn't worth giving a shit in performance either

>>57850841
microsoft just wanted into the workstation market, they weren't trying to jump ship from x86
it was also a massive failure because you spent 90% of your time emulating 386 code anyway while being unable to run half of the software you bought a cost-no-object workstation/server for in the first place, the only platform with a semblance of an application base was the Alpha version and it was still shit

File: 80s.jpg (70KB, 500x620px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 500x620px

80s tech aesthetic > modern glass slab

File: WP_20161205_13_56_29_Pro.jpg (2MB, 3264x1840px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1840px

Was this mac plus originally beige or platinum?
Fuck poor lighting and color blindness.

>>57853125
>and for fuck sake you bring up Apple as an example right after that, and they were doing better than ever at that time, AIM had three huge juggernauts backing it
AIM NEVER put the money into desktop PPC that Intel had to throw at x86 engineering. And yet their chips still kept pace with lower investment and, in two instances (G3 and G5), kicked the living snot out of Intel's offerings.

>and PowerPC had prolific usage among all of them
Embedded PPC did. AIM never sold more than a tiny fraction into the desktop/laptop market.

>merely clock-for-clock, and once again in floating point math, otherwise it was quite lackluster
FP, integer, vector...it kicked the living shit out of the x86 chips available at the time. It was the G3 all over again. It didn't last long because IBM could never scale clock up and TDP down. But that goes back to resources available.

>just stop, all you're doing is jerking off to ancient benchmarks and anecdotes
I lived all of this kiddo. I don't need your ill-informed opinions because I remember setting G3 Macs and later G5 Macs side by side with the best Intel had to offer and laughing.

>>B) we have a generation of coders who are shit when it comes to efficiency.
>oh fuck off with this circlejerk, we're still using the same old algorithms and design paradigms for 90% of the things we do on a computer,
t. 20MB of JavaScript for Hello World Pajeet
t. 50MB of .NET Libraries for Single Window App Rajeesh

>>Bullshit. Volume = cash for R&D.
>just like 55+% profit margins on systems that cost $250,000 a pop
You are just clueless regarding the numbers involved. Nobody ever sold enough $250k systems to make up for all the x86 PCs being sold every week.

>your notion that all you have to do to make something good is throw money at it anyway is absolutely fallacious
Do you think electrical engineers are free?

>cool, who cares?
You don't because you're stuck on a narrative.

>>57853371
>it is, it's a big factor, but there are still a lot of things that market was doing that was architecturally agnostic, just look at how much Sun lost out over the space of a couple years to cheapening x86 server offerings in the 2000s
So what you're saying is that Moore's Law covered the sins of x86 and Intel started to dominate because of software compatibility? Gee...who said that originally?

>can we stop treating everything as a consumer chip???
Are you just completely ignorant about EE and chip design that you think R&D $$$ has nothing to do with the final result?

>>employing silicon and watts to make up for shitty architecture.
>and stop throwing these empty weasily statements like "employing silicon"? what the fuck does that even mean?
It means a larger chip, or a chip on a finer fab, so that you can add more circuitry to deal with the issues that plague a CISC instruction set. (Mainly increased complexity when it comes to decoding and dynamic branch prediction, register pressure, etc.)

If all things are equal while you waste die space on that shit a RISC designer can simply add functional units or increase L1 cache. Easy money.

>weren't you just lecturing me about pure RISC's wild success in embedded devices a post ago?
By comparison to the first systems to have 8088 or 8086 processors 90's embedded systems had vastly more resources.

>general ISA design philosophy doesn't mean that much in implementation especially nowadays,
You're wrong kiddo. Maybe if you ever go back to school and take a few related courses you'll find out.

>stop acting like it was this kind of night-and-day difference for more than a few years in the early '90s
Given two equivalent engineering teams with same time/$$$ and same fab, the team building a RISC chip will end up with a faster / lower power device. Sorry, but that's the truth.

File: apple_macintosh_plus-beige-gray.jpg (41KB, 624x374px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 624x374px

>>57855504
yes

File: 1478273190618.jpg (536KB, 1415x1409px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 1415x1409px

Who are the two retards fighting? The point was already made like 30 posts ago, why do they still keep shitting? Specially if they both are dumbasses.

>>57856309
Thanks. this picture actually helps.

>>57856469
These threads are always like this it seems. Just ignore it.

>>57855504
What part are we looking at? In the thin strip before the black side, it looks like it transitions from platinum to beige. So if that area was partially covered, I'd guess it was platinum case.

>>57856513
The back part of the case with the font removed, the black part slots under the font plastic.

File: megaprocessor-panorama.jpg (163KB, 1280x414px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1280x414px

>>57846508
get on my level.

File: sneezing face.jpg (133KB, 536x593px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 536x593px

>>57856605
as a CE major this makes me wet

>>57856513
Yeah. that was under the front seam. I'm gonna get some hydrogen peroxide cream anyways for the keyboard/mouse once my dad digs them out of storage and mails them to me.

>>57850770
That would be amazing, i've been looking everywhere for some.

[email protected]

File: maxresdefault (2).jpg (164KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1920x1080px

this guy has a IBM 360 front panel wired up to a emulator

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv6WK5QiG1Q

File: g5_spec2k.png (64KB, 698x733px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 698x733px

>>57856106
>FP, integer, vector...it kicked the living shit out of the x86 chips available at the time.
oh come on, even apple's own whitepapers disagree with you
that FP margin is pretty good though, I'll give you that, didn't remember it being that nice, stacks up even better in the DP results

but FP isn't everything, that's the point I'm getting at, there are still a lot of integer-heavy jobs, especially for desktop use cases

>lived all of this kiddo. I don't need your ill-informed opinions because I remember setting G3 Macs and later G5 Macs side by side with the best Intel had to offer and laughing.
vague anecdotes and the kid meme aren't really a great way to look like an authority on the topic

>t. 20MB of JavaScript for Hello World Pajeet
epic /pol/ poo in the loo memes aren't either, you have to have been blind if you think we're in an overall worse state than we were 10-20 years ago in terms of what our systems can handle, software bloat hasn't kept up with moore's law as much as bikeshedders here want you to believe

>You are just clueless regarding the numbers involved. Nobody ever sold enough $250k systems to make up for all the x86 PCs being sold every week.
never said they did, but to think these companies were starving for capital in a pure profit market is ludicrous
SGI had the world eating shit from their hands

>Do you think electrical engineers are free?
do you think it's all about the amount of electrical engineers you throw at something rather than their individual knowledge and experience?

>You don't because you're stuck on a narrative.
well, we're talking about desktop RISC chips and how they compared to desktop x86 chips, I've already repeatedly stated that the embedded and mobile market is a far different animal

File: 3063265-inline-3063265-inline-i-2-the-teenage-ibm-employee-who-got-his-job-by-buying-an-old-mainframe-computer.jpg (105KB, 640x853px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 640x853px

>literally the final boss of /g/retro incarnate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45X4VP8CGtk

>>57856920
Scary, that looks like me in 10 years

>>57857011
Kek, that old shit again.
It's literary meme hipster with rich parents, like the articles of 10 year old niggers "building computers".

>>57856961
>do you think it's all about the amount of electrical engineers you throw at something rather than their individual knowledge and experience?
This, same with developers, is what has ruined the hardware and software of today. 99% of those guys are people who work from 8-5 while hating their job.

>>57856961
>>57856106

I can't be bothered to read all those posts made in the last few hours about the topic.

Could you please sum up in 1-2 words what the fuck you guys are disagreeing on please?

>>57856271
>So what you're saying is that Moore's Law covered the sins of x86 and Intel started to dominate because of software compatibility? Gee...who said that originally?
what I'm ultimately saying is the "sins" of x86 were meaningless bikeshedding

>Are you just completely ignorant about EE and chip design that you think R&D $$$ has nothing to do with the final result?
are you just completely ignorant about how money works? especially after you've spent the last 20 something posts whining about how "shit" x86 is despite all that investment?

>It means a larger chip, or a chip on a finer fab
better processes only get you so far

>so that you can add more circuitry to deal with the issues that plague a CISC instruction set.
>If all things are equal while you waste die space on that shit a RISC designer can simply add functional units or increase L1 cache. Easy money.
you should go up and read that rant from Linus Torvalds I linked further up, he'll explain why that's retarded a lot better than I can

>By comparison to the first systems to have 8088 or 8086 processors 90's embedded systems had vastly more resources.
not really in most cases

>You're wrong kiddo. Maybe if you ever go back to school and take a few related courses you'll find out.
here goes the kid meme and a weak ass cop-out again, if you can't back up your shit then don't bother at all

>Given two equivalent engineering teams with same time/$$$ and same fab, the team building a RISC chip will end up with a faster / lower power device. Sorry, but that's the truth.
hmm, still no substance whatsoever beyond the overarching theme "I swear they were good in the '90s they're still good now! I know a lot about EE! Go to school!"

>>57856961
>oh come on, even apple's own whitepapers disagree with you
>Xeon clocked 50% higher
>"wins" by <10%
And I bet if the right compiler optimizations had been used the G5 would have won even at a severe clock disadvantage.

Say what you want, I remember how various applications ran at the time. Everybody wanted the G5.

>vague anecdotes and the kid meme aren't really a great way to look like an authority on the topic
So experience, living the time period, counts for nothing? How old are you?

>you have to have been blind if you think we're in an overall worse state than we were 10-20 years ago in terms of what our systems can handle,
I never said that. Don't strawman.

>never said they did, but to think these companies were starving for capital
Stop with the strawmen. They made money. They did not make enough money to throw the $$$ at chip engineering that Intel did.

>do you think it's all about the amount of electrical engineers you throw at something rather than their individual knowledge and experience?
Do think there isn't a bidding war for the most experienced, which leads us back to $$$?

>well, we're talking about desktop RISC chips and how they compared to desktop x86 chips,
All other things being equal, a RISC chip will out perform a CISC chip. That's why ARM dominates mobile where there was no software legacy to worry about.

And don't cry "muh mobile isn't muh desktop!" because for years now it literally has been. Android is Linux; iOS is OS X (is NextStep); Windows is one OS across platforms. Today's smart phones have as much in terms of resources as desktop did a few short years ago.

>>57857128

Side A: architecture matters in processor performance.

Side B: architecture does not matter in processor performance.

>>57840233
Could you name those computers/displays?

File: 5960566+_f604d25347120590b3f64e3b0de38fb9.jpg (93KB, 792x476px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 792x476px

>>57857077
Except he actually knows his shit.

>>57857170
It's a Magnavox VideoWriter and maybe a Amdek

>>57833754
What is this setup? I used to have the exact same model...

>>57857220
IBM PC/AT 5170

>>57857165
Architecture is everything in processor performance...
The other thing is how you write your software to take advantage of that architecture.
Also, there's no perfect architecture, it depends what you use it for.
You don't need a CS or Engineering degree to know that. Even more pointless to fight 12 hours straight about the topic.

Also those systems utilizing the different architectures always had very different memory and bus architectures too, playing a bigger role sometimes then the CPU itself.

>>57857181
As much as any other 18 year old long haired dude sitting all day at the computer.
Don't kid yourself. Read about the backstory of it.

>>57857135
>what I'm ultimately saying is the "sins" of x86 were meaningless bikeshedding
Without holding your hand through a few courses related to processor design, or at least a course on some assembly, I don't know how to help you. Believe whatever stupid fucking narrative you want.

>>It means a larger chip, or a chip on a finer fab
>better processes only get you so far
Stupid statement of the thread. Fab process underlies everything. It's Moore's Law. It's why we went from a 740 kHz 4004 to a 3.4 GHz i7. Your competitor can have a superior architecture but if you can do a process shrink, boom, you're ahead.

>you should go up and read that rant from Linus Torvalds I linked further up,
I read it before you ever linked it. I respect the man, but that rant is full of half truths. Problem is shit like that is ALL you have to go on. It's obvious you have no experience in EE or even assembly coding.

>>By comparison to the first systems to have 8088 or 8086 processors 90's embedded systems had vastly more resources.
>not really in most cases
Second most stupid statement of the thread. Some early embedded PPC ships had more cache than the first 8086 boards had RAM.

>>Given two equivalent engineering teams with same time/$$$ and same fab, the team building a RISC chip will end up with a faster / lower power device. Sorry, but that's the truth.
>hmm, still no substance whatsoever beyond the overarching theme "I swear they were good in the '90s they're still good now! I know a lot about EE! Go to school!"
ARM is threatening Intel, not the other way around. That's all the evidence a normie should need.

>>57857283
link?

>>57857340
Not gonna spoonfeed you, this is a several year old story, if you don't know about it, then you shouldn't even post about it.

File: 15544917.jpg (38KB, 269x187px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 269x187px

>>57848396

>>57857235
Thank you very much.

>>57857158
>And I bet if the right compiler optimizations had been used the G5 would have won even at a severe clock disadvantage.
let's recap:
>the G5 totally whipped x86 ass guys it ABSOLUTELY DESTROYED IT
I showed you Apple's own marketing whitepaper that indeed gave it a glowing ~20% advantage in FP but a pathetic 10% trail in integer performance against a competing system, which is pretty important especially in the context of the G5's typical use case
and you come back with this contrived straw-grasping:
>And I bet if the right compiler optimizations had been used the G5 would have won even at a severe clock disadvantage.
apple designed the fucking compilers
hell the anti-macfags love to post articles railing them for it
and yet it still didn't perform to your expectations, so you're grasping straws to save face

even if it's the case, and the vendor itself didn't know how to use their own fucking chip to generate some simple marketing benchmarks, that's fucking meaningless, because the software landscape is not an ideal world, if your chip can't handle code unless it's meticulously curated, it's a piece of shit

>Say what you want, I remember how various applications ran at the time. Everybody wanted the G5.
so much that it was the last PPC chip ever to make it into a desktop Mac

>So experience, living the time period, counts for nothing? How old are you?
does your grandpa know the ins and outs of PDP-11 assembly because he used one in college once?
why the fuck does existing on the same plane of something and having a few non-quantitative anecdotes about it make you an authority on it?

>I never said that. Don't strawman.
you're bitching about how shitty developers are now despite the fact that even destitute shit from 10 years ago can accomplish 90% of every day computing tasks

you couldn't even reliably run windows 3.1 on a 2 year old 386SX system at release

>>57857433
>dumb terminal poster

File: 1479742499013.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x500px

>>57857433
>>57857446
Just kidding, it's cool!

>>57857170
Center one is just a Comrex CR-5600 amber monochrome display. Right display is a built-in part to a Magnavox Videowriter, which is basically a fancy electronic typewriter.

File: ackchyually.png (19KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 200x200px

>>57857446
The vt220 is actually a "smart terminal" because of it's integrated display capabilities

>>57857446
>>57857507
dumb dumb terminal poster poster b t f o

>>57857158
>Stop with the strawmen. They made money. They did not make enough money to throw the $$$ at chip engineering that Intel did.
do you even know what a strawman is?
I'm basing what I say on your own implications, which seem to be that RISC was shit because their vendors were too poor to finance them properly, instead of the natural conclusion that it actually wasn't superior especially when it got to the point that they just had to throw in CISC-isms to keep them competitive anyway
>Do think there isn't a bidding war for the most experienced, which leads us back to $$$?
and other vendors couldn't participate in this how again...?
every company had some absolutely genius developers and engineers, to imply otherwise is just fucking delusional
>That's why ARM dominates mobile where there was no software legacy to worry about.
christ you're fucking delusional
ARM has been a fixture in the mobile market for only a decade less than Intel has been on the desktop, and for many of the same reasons, it was a cheap, efficient but decently performant implementation for a PDAs, palmtops and other handhelds just like the cheap to implement but decently performant 8088 was for the PC, it's not used today because it's some kind of CPU übermensch, it's used because it always has been, and does the job just as good or better than any of its competitors in its market just like x86
>And don't cry "muh mobile isn't muh desktop!" because for years now it literally has been.
you should go write for PCworld or something with all of this bullshit, you'd fit right in

>>57857481
Where is the monochrome display connected to?

>>57857526
>>57857526
>>57857526
>dumb dumb terminal poster poster b t f o
dumb smart terminal poster poster b t f o
FTFY

>>57857584
Was connected to an old Acer Aspire Revo that was taped underneath the desk.

>>57857481
How did you get that Comrex? Private, inherited, auction sites?

I'm looking for a green/amber monochrome display. I am planning to turn it into an element of an extravagant home music system (it would be part of an interface to view details on stored music/select playlist)

>>57857674
Ebayed. I had it and some other CRTs hooked up to my computer with scan converters. Worked alright.

>>57857707
Thank you.

>>57857605
How? Isn't it some special non-vga thingy?

>>57857768
I got that specific monitor because it had an RCA input. Computer VGA Output > Scan Converter With RCA Output > Monochrome Monitor

>>57857853
Alright, so it's not that crispy kind of monochrome

>>57856669
s-sauce?

>>57857295
>Without holding your hand through a few courses related to processor design, or at least a course on some assembly, I don't know how to help you. Believe whatever stupid fucking narrative you want.
so basically you have fucking nothing to back it up or are too much of a lazy piece of shit to educate us about it? nice
>Stupid statement of the thread. Fab process underlies everything. It's Moore's Law. It's why we went from a 740 kHz 4004 to a 3.4 GHz i7. Your competitor can have a superior architecture but if you can do a process shrink, boom, you're ahead.
but it *isn't* everything, the best fabs in the world won't make a shit design not shit, the leading performance chips for one thing or another throughout history didn't wear those crowns supported by the merit of manufacturing process alone

>Second most stupid statement of the thread. Some early embedded PPC ships had more cache than the first 8086 boards had RAM.
of course there were high-performance chips, but we both know those were not the norm in the embedded market by a long shot

>ARM is threatening Intel, not the other way around. That's all the evidence a normie should need.
too bad it's not evidence, it's just you saying something and following it with "by the way I'm right" just like everyone else in the '90s who got summarily destroyed by reality

this argument is getting muddled as fuck and we both look like retards just shitting all over the thread, so if you want the last word you can have it, not even really trying to shill for x86 just my own experience with the ton of alternate platforms I've messed with over the years has left me feeling that it's really ultimately meaningless on the hardware level and understanding why these platforms didn't take the world by storm like anyone just looking at the spec sheets would have thought

File: 1480889531642.jpg (607KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 1000x750px

NEW THREAD

>>57858053
>>57858053
>>57858053

Just got a PowerBook Duo 2400c and I like it. It's probably not startlingly faster than an 040 at least running System 7, but it's fast enough that it isn't annoying.

I have a DuoDock, and I think this one's compatible but my guess is the cache and math slots are disabled. I heard that it doesn't fit well unless you modify or remove the top part of the dock, can anybody confirm or deny?

>>57858017
idk i just searched for sneezing anime girls

>>57858128
I don't think they are sneezing anon

>>57858087
Sheesh, that's oddly too specific for these /g/entoomen. Go check out lowendmac, either on google groups or on facebook.

>>57858181
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYPhXA2zHCU

These threads always make me feel so sad. I used to have a ton of old IBMs and Commodores. Nothing rare, but still I miss them.

I do have two of my grandpa's old Interacts. They were a late 70s i8080 microcomputer built in Ann Arbor Michigan. One might still work, the other is a shell. I should dig them out this week to mess with them.

>>57858367
sure we'd love to see them, go for it

stuff that old is an absolute rarity to come across anymore

>>57858367
That's life bro.
That's awesome, have fun!

>>57858377
>>57858380

Biggest regret is losing my VIC-20. That was my first computer, and almost exactly as old as I am. Used to play hours of GORF and Centipede.

>>57858425
wouldn't beat yourself up over it, shit happens
>tfw I didn't start collecting until my grandparents had already thrown out tons of nice shit from their tenure as HP engineers a summer earlier

>>57831567

I had one of these as a kid. I think my parents got it free by going to a time-share sales pitch. I remember taking hours to type in a program to make a monopoly board (or something) only to have it never work.

>>57838646

The Z80 was a knock off of the 8080.

Same way MOS 6502 was a knock off of the Motorola 6800.

The 8086 and 68000 were not released to compete with the Z80 or 6502, they were next gen 16 bit processors. The reason MOS and Zilog never released knock offs of the 16 bit processors, is that Intel and Motorola upgraded their legal departments at the same time they upgraded their processors.