Re: Computing Editorial (please read)

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <3E3C4945.3DDF@earthlink.net>,
Lee Hart  <leeahart@earthlink.net> wrote:
 
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>> Now, is there anyone who does something else with their old Apple II?
>> Any new software, or hardware, development going on for the Apple II?
> 
> I do volunteer work at my local elementary school. They have a lot of
> Apple IIs that aren't being used much any more (replaced by modern PCs).
> A few older kids have done some of their own programming on them. BASIC
> and LOGO seem to be the languages of choice.
 
Teaching yourself basic programming is of course quite feasible
on an Apple II ....
 
>> True -- but if you learn how electronics worked 25+ years ago, then
>> you'll still end up being behind those who learn how modern
>> electronics works.
> 
> Except, the students I've met AREN'T learning how modern electronics
> work! We've had college students interns at work. They've never touched
> real parts in any of their college courses; it's all done with
> simulations. They can't find pin 1 on an IC. They can't solder. They
> don't even know that resistors get hot! (though they can derive it from
> first principles).
 
Nice education system you got there.... :-)
 
When I studied physics at college, some practical exercises were
included: in the electronics course we had an examination where we
were given some components and instructions how to connect them, and
then the examinator went around and checked if we'd done it right.
Another exercise was to build a simple candleholder in brass....
 
>>> Or, you might do it to develop some brilliant new idea that will
>>> revolutionize the future world.
> 
>> And make it run on Apple II hardware?  C'mon on!
> 
> The Apple II was an open system, fully documented with complete
> schematics. It required no tools to open the case and plug in accessory
> cards. The speeds were slow enough that crude wiring techniques worked
> just fine. The nature of the 6502 makes it easy to write programs with
> precise timing. All this is lost on a modern PC.
 
I'm not proposing a modern PC as an alternative -- a modern
microcontroller is a much better alternative: it has all the
advantages you listed above, with the added advantage that it's still
manufactured.
 
> I don't work much with the Apple II, but here are three examples of
> projects that I have seen students do.
> 
>  - Built a "turtle" robot out of an old disk drive and model car. The
>    head stepper steered the front wheels, and the rotation motor ran
>    the car's wheels. The write protect switch became the car's bumper.
>    Directly controlling the motors and sensing the switch is easy on
>    an Apple II. It would be very difficult on a PC (besides which,
>    the disk drives are far too delicate to be used this way).
> 
>  - Connected a phototransistor, and wrote a program to capture the
>    stream of pulses from an infrared remote. Then playback these
>    sequences of pulses to drive an IR LED. Used this capability to
>    make a programmable remote for the TV/VCR/stereo in his bedroom.
> 
>  - Connected solenoid valves, and used them to control the water flow
>    in a fountain to produce decorative displays.
 
While these projects probably were both entertaining and educationg,
did any one of them "revolutionzie the future world" in any way?
After all, you earlier claimed:
 
#  Or, you might do it to develop some brilliant new idea that will
#  revolutionize the future world.
 
Remember?
 
>> If your new idea really is so brilliant that it has the potential to
>> revolutionize the future world, then it would be MUCH better to
>> implement it on a modern microcontroller than on old clunky Apple II
>> hardware. There are development systems for these microcontrollers
>> which aren't impossibly expensive even for private budgets.
> 
> You are perhaps confusing the tool with the end result. Many great ideas
> have nothing to do with computers. The computer is just a tool to solve
> a problem; it is not the end in itself. Modern computers are vast
> overkill for most problems. They don't help; they get in the way. If all
> you need is a calculator, using a computer will only distract you and
> slow you down.
> 
> The Parallax BASIC Stamp development kit is $150, and then you still
> need a PC to use it. But you can pick up an Apple II for next to
> nothing.
 
You can pick up an old PC for next to nothing as well...... they're
even more abundant than old Apple II's .....
 
> Is there anything the BASIC stamp can do that the Apple II can't?
 
Sure!  For instance:
 
1. It's still manufactured, so you can buy a new one whenever you need
   it.  You need not depend on luck in finding an old one in some
   flea market or so.
 
2. You can use it to build a device which can fit in a matchbox.
   Not the slightest chance of doing that with an Apple II .....
 
Of course it would probably be quite possible to build an Apple II
compatible microcontroller (at least if you omitted some I/O devices
such as the floppy disk and the video generator).  But there seems to
be little demand for this, or else it would have been done already.
 
>> Now, I'm not trying to belittle retrocomputing, but merely trying to
>> put things in perspective.  No matter what you think, retrocomputing
>> is NOT cutting edge technological development!  Retrocomputing is a
>> kind of museum activity -- its benefit is to preserve for future
>> generations what computing once was.
> 
> I agree. There is a place for retrocomputing, just as there is for the
> Ford model T. It's fun, it's entertaining, it's a hobby, it's
> educational!
>  
> But, there is more to it than that. The model T is not in production,
> and no one uses them as their daily driver (for safety's sake, if
> nothing else). But the Z80 is still in production, and being used in new
> products! It's a bit premature to pretend it's dead.
 
The Apple II was 6502 based, not Z80 based.  Also, today's Z80
descendants (which are faster than the old Z80A) are used in embedded
controllers, not general-purpose microcomputers.
 
>> When you built your first computer, the Internet was nowhere as
>> widely accessible as it is today.  That's a big difference.
> 
> Yes. But does it help, or hinder? If you were a high school student and
> wanted to build your own computer, where would you go? Where are the
> plans? The parts? The kits? The software? The information on how to do
> it?
 
This is the contemporary problem of "information explosion": there is
just so much information (and dis-information as well) out there, so
how do you go about to locate what you're interested in?  While the
amount of information appears overwhelming to us oldtimers, perhaps
the younger generation are better prepared to deal with it?  My kids
(one son + one daughter) for instance surf the web and find stuff
they're interested in there with much greater ease than my wife, who
frequently stops and asks me "What should I do now?" -- my kids
usually find that out for themselves.  So I think there's some hope.
Even the, to us, fairly simple society of the 1950's probably would
have appeared overwhelmingly complex to those who were adults around
1900.
 
But if you want to build your own computer, why would you require
software?  Isn't the ultimate computer building experience to first
construct the hardware, and then write the fundamental software (the
BIOS and stuff like that) to enable you to run it?  Of course, were
then exceeded what a high school student can be expected to do.... :-)
 
>> Also, your first electronic construction project should not be a
>> computer: It's just too complex, even if it's a 25-year old 8-bit
>> microcomputer.  It should be something simpler, for instance an AM
>> radio, or a stereo amplifier, so you have a chance to understand how
>> it works.
> 
> Perhaps. But different skills are required for a crystal set, an audio
> amplifier, and a computer. You learn different things.
> 
> Some computers really *are* simpler than radios and audio amplifiers. In
> 1978 I built an 1802 "ELF" computer. You can't get much simpler, even
> today!
 
You can buy a microcontroller, and hook up a powersupply and a few
external components.....
 
>> During my school days I once had a project called "The Transistor"...
>> I let that device receive our local radio station. My son could not
>> do that -- OK, he could probably build the device, but it wouldn't
>> receive anything because almost all our AM radio stations have been
>> closed down; we only have FM radio now.
> 
> Crystal sets still pick up AM radio stations. When you add
> amplification, I can't imagine anywhere in the country where they
> wouldn't bring in at least one station.
 
Your country is different from mine: during daytime the AM
(medium-wave) band here is more or less dead, since all our MW
transmitters have been shut down!!!!  At night, foreign MW stations
can be heard of course.  Actually, during daytime, you hear more
stations on LW than on MW.
 
> And of course, nowdays he can build an FM radio with a single
> semiconductor (which happens to be an IC). The learning experience is
> still there!
> 
> Ramsey Electronics has lots of inexpensive radio kits (see
> www.ramseyelectronics.com). Crystal sets are under $10, or $15 with a
> 2-transistor audio amp. They even have inexpensive FM radio kits. Last
> Christmas, I bought their shortwave receiver kit for an 11-year-old
> relative; he had a ball with it!
> 
>> Perhaps you should try a ham radio club instead?  They're still
>> here, even though they're declining too.  And ham rigs are getting
>> more and more like computers....
> 
> Yes! Although most hams buy rather than build, home construction is
> still common enough, and it's easy to find clubs with people who can
> help. If you are interested in radio and not computers :-)
 
The two are not mutually exclusive: ham rigs are getting more and
more computerized.  And the major ham radio association of Sweden
offers a kit for a Morse Code computer which, among other things,
includes a Morse Code training course!!!!
 
>> Not even an experienced technician could get these things cheaper by
>> constructing them himself.  That would be like building your own car
>> from spare parts you buy -- such a car would end up being horribly
>> expensive!
> 
> No. If it is, you aren't doing it right. :-)
> 
> The essence of "hacking" is to make do with what you can actually get
> and afford. You don't build a car from new parts; you start with a
> junked car you got for free, and fix it up with parts from the junkyard.
 
Of course!  And by getting that junk car, there's a lot if things you
need not build.
 
> Likewise, you don't buy your computer parts new at full retail. You
> strip them out of old systems, or get them at hamfests or from surplus
> dealers.
 
Today you don't do that, but in the early 1980's I did actually
build a new motherboard for my Apple II, from new parts: it was
much cheaper than a new computer.  Of course, computers were much
more expensive back then....
 
>> And in addition you'd have to pay a lot more money to have people
>> test it for you, so you could get permission to use that vehicle
>> on public roads!
> 
> As it happens, I *have* built cars from scratch. It is relatively easy
> to get a custom one-off vehicle licensed. But we're getting off-topic.
> 
>> Of course life was simpler earlier.  Today it would be very hard for
>> a beginner to build his own computer for scratch, a computer having
>> the capabilities people expect from modern computers.  OTOH 20 years
>> ago such a person wouldn't even dream of trying it, because such an
>> ambition would have been considered impossible...
> 
> But, we have microcomputers today because people DID dream of building
> their own computer -- and they did it!!!
 
Nah -- we have microcomputers today because we have microelectronics....
Dreams alone don't build computers.
 
>> So why don't you put up a web site which shows these beginners
>> how very easy this is nowadays?
> 
> That's a good idea, although the web is not where my skills lie. I have
> instead been doing a lot of volunteer work in schools, showing kids how
> to do it. But I am only one person. I'm writing here so perhaps others
> will do their part, too.
 
You don't need to make the web site fancy -- stick with fairly simple
HTML, and some images here and there where appropriate.  The
important thing is the information, not the appearance.  Of course
this requires written documentation -- perhaps you prefer to teach
what you know by word of mouth instead?
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se
WWW:     http://hem.passagen.se/pausch/index.html
         http://home.tiscali.se/~pausch/