• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

List of collectable computers

I remember back in High School my science teacher (also in charge of the Computer Lab) asked my opinion about what the school should by with next years computer budget.

I suggested that they either go for quality or quantity.

On the quality side I recommended the new IBM PC since it was obviously going to set a new standard and the machines were rock solid and reliable, plus they had all of the software and languages the school needed.

On the quantity side I suggested machines like the Atari 800. Good, established, well built machines that could be easily replaced if broken and that had everything needed to work in the department.

If I remember correctly the budget would have allowed for 4 PCs or about a dozen Ataris depending on configurations.

I came back the next fall and they had purchased 3 Victor 9000s.

The machines were nearly useless because they didn't read or write disks that anyone else could use. The software was limited and what was available was more expensive then other machines.

Their reliablity was questionable at best and, in the end, they basically sat doing nothing until the next years appropriation allowed the department to correct its mistake.

Erik
 
IBM compatible?

IBM compatible?

CP/M User:
Sorry fr LOL, but your question tickled my funnybone until i realized you are completely unfamiliar with the V-9000...

No, you prolly won't find a DOS emulator for it because it *is* a MS-DOS machine. I don't think there is much point in uzing DOS to Emulate DOS

--T
 
>If I remember correctly the budget would have allowed for 4 PCs or >about a dozen Ataris depending on configurations.

>I came back the next fall and they had purchased 3 Victor 9000s.

In 1984 the V9000 would sell for $5000, whereas the IBM-PC was at 2205.00, but it didnt come with a monitor, or even a video card. Those had tto be purched separately, as did the serial port, the paralell port and any extra memory you might want above the 64k that it came with. It also had only one floppy drive

>The machines were nearly useless because they didn't read or write >disks that anyone else could use. The software was limited and what >was available was more expensive then other machines.

>Their reliablity was questionable at best and, in the end, they basically >sat doing nothing until the next years appropriation allowed the >department to correct its mistake.

Erik

Yeah, mine wrer pretty useless, except for the many hours I spent playing with them. They were useful for thier entertainment value.

--T
 
"Erik" wrote in message:

> I came back the next fall and
> they had purchased 3 Victor 9000s.

> The machines were nearly useless
> because they didn't read or write disks
> that anyone else could use. The software
> was limited and what was available was
> more expensive then other machines.

> Their reliablity was questionable at best
> and, in the end, they basically sat doing
> nothing until the next years appropriation
> allowed the department to correct its
> mistake.

Clearly in this situtation, I belive they made
the wrong choice. They would have been
better off with an Apple II based machines.

But if they purchased this machine believing
that it was IBM compatable they would have
been asking for trouble. 'The Personal
Computer Handbook - A complete practical
guide to choosing and using your micro' from
Peter Rodwell describes this machine simply
as a business machine. The software is
described Business Packages word processing,
spread-sheet, communications & graphics
available from various software suppliers. The
only thing going in terms of learning on it is
the programming languages.

However, I do not see this machine as an IBM
compatable. Sure it runs MS-DOS, CP/M-86
however back then there were a range of
machines not necessary IBM compatable at all
which used them.

Cheers.
 
Re: IBM compatible?

Re: IBM compatible?

"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

> CP/M User:

> Sorry fr LOL, but your question tickled my funnybone
> until i realized you are completely unfamiliar with
> the V-9000...

That doesn't stop me having a book which talks all about
the machine. Sure I've never had one or seen one at all,
but I do know what it runs. Check out my answer to Erik
because that holds come key arguments that I could use
here about the V-9000! :)

> No, you prolly won't find a DOS emulator
> for it because it *is* a MS-DOS machine.
> I don't think there is much point in uzing
> DOS to Emulate DOS

No, your missing the point. My point was 'is
there a DOS emulator program which
emulates the V-9000?'. This would be an
application when once runs boots up
MS-DOS (like the original machine would)
from perhaps a disk image. The image
would support the funny disk format 600k
per side disk & virtual hard disk could be
made (in a file on your computers HD!).
For the video display on the IBM, you may
need a VGA (to produce the text seen on
the V-9000)!

You'd be amazed to know that on faster
computers someone has written a 386
emulator! This is so you can take those
ol' games as well as programs & use
them at the speed they were intended to
run at. So someone might just say, why
emulator an older IBM compatable on a
new IBM compatable? Why not just buy
a 386 instead! ;-)

The Victor 9000 is as you stated runs
MS-DOS & CP/M-86. But I set this
machine aside from a IBM compat. as
a standard alone machine (which by
strange co-instance uses the 8088
processor!).

Cheers.
 
The Victor could have looked better than the IBM, at least on paper. It supported more memory (up to 896kb), higher capacity disk drives, came with monitor, disk drives, serial port ans paralell port, all for about the same price as the IBM PC. It doesn't surprize me that they chose the Victor.

--T
 
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

> The Victor could have looked better than the IBM, at
> least on paper. It supported more memory (up to
> 896kb), higher capacity disk drives, came with
> monitor, disk drives, serial port ans paralell port, all
> for about the same price as the IBM PC. It doesn't
> surprize me that they chose the Victor.

This is True. Unfortunately, the options of buying a
machine back then mean't you had to look what it
provided. It's not such a big issue now, since
computers in general offer a range of things for
anyone. They always said that buying a machine
just as it came out was risky, unless you knew
what range of software was available for it. For
myself I got the shock of my life in 1989 when
I discovered what games were like for an Amstrad.
Up til that year, I only had games which came out
roughtly from 1984/5 vintage (the year the first
Amstrads came out).

Another example of a machine gone horribly
wrong due to the lack of public interest is the
Jupiter Ace. Some people I met over the 'net
have stated they once had one & threw the
machine out because of the lack of interest.
Now this rare machine has even more interest! :)

Cheers.
 
I noticed that the Telcon Zorba is missing from this list (I just bought one). I'll add it on the next iteration.

The Zorba is a CP/M portable much like the Kaypro and Osborne machines.

Erik
 
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

> Oh yes, I remember it well. I had a chance to
> buy one but I thought the price was too high
> [for] my budget. Someone else got it tho...

I've only heard a little bit about this machine from
the CP/M newsgroup & unfortunately I don't know
much. I didn't realise this was a portable machine
though. How ol' would it be Erik?

Cheers.
 
I got the REALLY nice Zorba that was on eBay a few weeks ago. It hasn't arrived yet (it should any day now. . . ) but from the auction it looks pretty sweet.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2731878911

This was one of those situations where I was willing to pay for quality. I'm usually VERY conservative in my bids, but this machine is pretty much factory-new and that's what I look for in a collectible.

The Zorba was a CP/M machine made in 1983 or 1984 (I'll do a bit more research when it gets a page on my website). The company didn't last too long, for some reason, but the combination of features (basically identical to the Kaypro) along with the ability to read/write pretty much every 5.25" CP/M format made the machine popular with a bunch of people.

Erik
 
"Erik" wrote in message:

> The Zorba was a CP/M machine made in
> 1983 or 1984 (I'll do a bit more research
> when it gets a page on my website).
> The company didn't last too long, for
> some reason, but the combination of
> features (basically identical to the
> Kaypro) along with the ability to
> read/write pretty much every 5.25" CP/M
> format made the machine popular with a
> bunch of people.

Maybe Kaypro sued them! :-(

Reading all the CP/M formats with the 5.25"
disk probably suggested that they stole
code based on the information of each disk
& broke copyright laws.

Cheers.
 
I think it was probably more a matter of timing. The Kaypro was dominant in that market until about 1985 and from that point the PC was king.

Erik
 
"Erik" wrote in message:

> I think it was probably more a matter of
> timing. The Kaypro was dominant in that
> market until about 1985 and from that
> point the PC was king.

If you're referning to IBM based PCs, then
it was a slightly different story here. They
didn't really take off here until Windows 3.0
did. That's not to say that DOS rules, it's a
far better OS than Windows is (well having
used Windows 3.1 isn't too bad, but Win95
onwards is a joke!).

C64s seem to be the machine most people
had, 'til that turning point. Since Amstrads
were in direct competition with them here,
I tend to favor the Amstrad! :)

Cheers.
 
I think I should add some machines produced in my proud country :wink:

  • Regnecentralen RC700 Piccolo
    Regnecentralen RC Piccoline
    Regnecentralen RC Partner
    Logic Design James PC800
    Regnecentralen GIER
    Christian Rovsing CR16 Ambassador

...to name but a few...Personally I only own a few Piccolo and Piccoline's, but they're sweet. Running CP/M in some flavour or other...
 
"denim" wrote in message:

> What's with all the bitty boxes? I go for
> Real Systems:

> CDC 6600
> Cray anything
> DEC Alpha 7000
> DEC PDP-x {x= 1-11}
> DEC VAX-11
> DEC VAX 8650
> IBM 1130
> IBM 360
> Intel Hypercube
> Pyramid whatever

> If it doesn't qualify for
> alt.folklore.computers, it's not Vintage!

I don't believe that. Why aren't they
vintage? How about early micros which
are older than some of the PDP systems.

> Or so it seems to me.

Well I don't agree. Easily you could need
a mansion to fit all of your huge systems
into & by that degree you are limiting the
old machines to the higher class of
people. Surely someone of a higher class
would give too hoots about ol' vintage
computers (sure there maybe some),
but do you really want to see this
messageboard turn into that.

I believe that a vintage machine is
something outside the class of an IBM
compatable. In other words a hobbyist
machine. People don't really class an
IBM compatable computer as that,
generally due to the way the public
has treated it.

BTW, I remember one of your fellow
alt.folklore.computers claiming that
anything over 20 years old is suitable
for it. In a sense I could quickly turn
this group into a discussion for the
Jupiter Ace, Apple IIs, Atari 400 or
800! ;-)

Cheers.
 
CP/M User said:
"denim" wrote in message:
I don't believe that. Why aren't they
vintage? How about early micros which
are older than some of the PDP systems.
Click to expand...
Oh, you just don't know what alt.folklore.computers is. If a computer is at least 20 years old, it's old enough. Size isn't the important thing. I was asking two questions, not one.

Ah, I see you do know after all! :) Then you should understand that.
 
"denim" wrote in message:

>> I don't believe that. Why aren't they
>> vintage? How about early micros which
>> are older than some of the PDP systems.

> Oh, you just don't know what
> alt.folklore.computers is. If a computer is
> at least 20 years old, it's old enough. Size
> isn't the important thing. I was asking two
> questions, not one.

Yes, I know what alt.folklore.computers is.
Size seemed to be the important thing in your
last post & I only saw one question, not two.

> Ah, I see you "do" know after all! :)
> Then you should understand that.

So in a sense subjects on computers about the
Jupiter Ace could be posted there. It's 20 years
old (this year). Unfortunately, they make
comp.sys.sinclair & comp.lang.forth it's
destination. It may appear to look like an
Sinclair & have had 2 former members of
Sinclair create it, but it ain't exactly what it is.
As a result, the comp.lang.forth has turned into
a mini discussion group about the hardware
made for it.

Cheers.
 
Re: daList

Re: daList

CP/M User said:
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

> I don't see the TI CC-40 on the list either.

Or the TI-99/4. It's simular (in appearance)
to the TI-99/4A listed there, but it isn't a
16bit computer.
Click to expand...

No, the TI-99/4 (without the A) certainly is a 16-bit computer, both use a TMS9900NL. There's some software that won't run on one or the other but that's ~1%. the /4 and /4A should be lumped together for general purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top