[net.micro] Orphaned Response

kline (08/06/82)

#R:we13:-27600:uicsovax:3700014:000:697
uicsovax!kline    Jun 30 15:53:00 1982

	No, no, no. . .you misunderstand my point. There's no conspiracy
to keep computers away from the masses. It's just that a lot of computer
scientists have secret feelings (or job insecurities) which make them
feel as though they had to keep the technology to themselves, and to let
the public have only a watered-down, simplified version of their knowledge.
Thus, home computers become tax-computing, game-playing toys.

	It's good that you have such an attitude towards your profession.
Unfortunately I think that much of the reason for the lousy documentation
in personal computer software (and also the somewhat shallow software
available) is due to hidden fears on the part of some CS people.

hamilton (08/06/82)

#R:we13:-27600:uicsovax:3700013:000:1059
uicsovax!hamilton    Jun 30 12:19:00 1982

***** uicsovax:net.micro / kline /  6:30 pm  Jun 29, 1982
	The thing that burns me is those of us in the academic computer
world who look upon computers as being `our' property. It's a pretty
snobbish attitude to try to exclude the rest of the world from computers ...
... the infamous jargon and other attempts by computerists to keep the field
to themselves ....
----
   you make it sound like a concerted conspiracy to keep computers secret;
this is absurd and contrary to the evidence.
   it's not the academic's job to put a computer in every garage, or even to
educate the general public (not that it is inappropriate for one to try to do
so, but it is not a shameful ommision to NOT do so).
   i don't know about you, but my job is to develop and "sell" (in a political
sense) software for people who are not CS-oriented.  if anything, i might be
accused of trying to push computers on people who don't need or want them, in
spite of all my attempts to make computers desirable.
	wayne hamilton ({decvax,ucbvax,ihnss}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!hamilton)

kline (08/06/82)

#R:we13:-27600:uicsovax:3700011:000:596
uicsovax!kline    Jun 29 18:30:00 1982

	I agree, and concede the point. It doesn't HAVE to be this way.

	The thing that burns me is those of us in the academic computer
world who look upon computers as being `our' property. It's a pretty
snobbish attitude to try to exclude the rest of the world from computers
and computing devices just because they are complicated and the `average
user can't be expected to understand them.' The average user WON'T under-
stand, as long as the infamous jargon and other attempts by computerists
to keep the field to themselves exist.

					Charley Kline
					[decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!kline]

kline (08/06/82)

#R:we13:-27600:uicsovax:3700007:37777777600:2130
uicsovax!kline    Jun 23 17:44:00 1982

	The problem is in the software. Hardly any of the software
manufacturers for microcomputers make any attempt whatsoever to target
their software at the "average user." Most of the time, the documentation
is nonexistent, very poor, or aimed at someone who is knowledgeable in
the field of microcomputers. The programs that are available are mostly
games, granted, but there is a wide, untapped market. Home lighting
control and security, for example--with a phone interface, a speech
synthesizer, and a touch-tone decoder, the average person could easily
inquire about and control the status of his house from far away. This
sort of thing is simple--if only a company would take the time to make
the software and hardware as easy to install as, say, a washing machine.

	The problem is that everyone in the computer field thinks of
microcomputers in terms of computers. What can they do? Well, they can
crunch numbers, store vast amounts of data, communicate with a large
network, and can be excellent text processors. Fine. These are the
*ACADEMIC* uses of computers (micros being a subset). The *PERSONAL*
applications of computers are different; the audience is much different.
They don't care what the computer can do, what kind of microprocessor it
has, what kinds of networks it can connect to, or even how many floating-point
multiplies it can perform in a second. They are interested only in a machine
to make life easier and more entertaining for themselves. They want 
to be able to organize business records, keep notes, type out letters,
and so on. And those companies which first come out with programs that
the personal computer user really wants, well DOCUMENTED and EASY TO
USE and MEETING THE NEEDS of the home computer users, will be making a buck.

	There is an application out there for computers. The long worn
statement that computers can make anything easier is true. It's just
that the home applications have gone unnoticed for so long. They are
NOT the same as our ideas of computer applications, and the two sets
of needs will never meet. God help us if they ever do. But the want is
there nevertheless.

hamilton (08/06/82)

#R:we13:-27600:uicsovax:3700018:000:1227
uicsovax!hamilton    Jul  1 10:17:00 1982

***** uicsovax:net.micro / kline /  3:53 pm  Jun 30, 1982
"It's just that a lot of computer scientists have secret feelings (or job
insecurities) which make them feel as though they had to keep the technology
to themselves, and to let the public have only a watered-down, simplified
version of their knowledge."
----
   really, what makes you think this?  and are you really talking about
"computer scientists" (ie, academics & researchers), or more generally
"computer professionals" (programmers and engineers in the industry)?
can you point out an example of technology withheld from the public by
computer scientists or professionals for such venal reasons?
   i don't own a personal computer myself, because i have basically free
access to far more computer than i could hope to buy for my own.  i have
done a few personal applications, but nothing to brag about.  now, if i,
presumably clued in to the technology, can't dramatically apply it to my
own personal life, why should i assume that if novices can't either, it's
because info i have is being withheld from them?  i can agree with you that
most PCs are schlock, but not for the reasons you give.
	wayne hamilton ({decvax,ucbvax}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!hamilton)

jss (08/11/82)

	To our computer scientist mania freak:
With all due respect, thats alot of bull.
Would that more people would take the time to learn about computers.
Personally, I am more than wil;ling to help them, and it has been my experience
that when I or someone else gets stuck and needs help the surrounding programmers are more than willing to be of aid if they can.  This, I think, conclusively
demolishes your csmania argument.

	If you can reconcile this reality with your argument,
I would like to see you do so.

johns (02/03/83)

#R:ihnss:-123900:kirk:22100002:37777777600:537
kirk!johns    Jan 17 07:26:00 1983

	I have used the MW editor/assembler for a while now, and love the
	whole system.  I have no problem with inserting SWIs into my code -
	even the longest program takes only about 25 seconds to assemble,
	and you never have to worry about what opcode is which (that is,
	when trying to insert a breakpoint).  Oh, by the way, if you wand
	a photocopy of my disassembly of the editor/assembler, you are
	welcome to it.

					Russ Nelson
					...hp-cvd!johns (not my account)
					503-929-6278
					Rt. 2, Box 321A
					Corvallis, Or. 97333

donn@hp-dcd.UUCP (07/07/83)

#R:mit-eddi:0:hp-dcd:16700001:37777777600:1085
hp-dcd!donn    Jul  5 20:31:00 1983

I agree that the conventional light pen is a nightmare.  What I simply
don't understand is why the manufactuers havn't figured out that a 
pistol grip is 'the right answer'.

I don't follow the field as closely as I did 5 years ago, but everyone
I knew of at the time made light pens in the shape of a pen (more or
less).  At the time I was using an Imlac with a light pen that used
fiber optics to take the light to a photomultiplier.  It had lenses
and everything.  It was heavy (but would track a crosshair at 2 feet
from the screen with the glare screen off!) and clumsy.  We had a
little box machined and mounted the switch as a trigger in a pistol
configuration (and used a larger button on the switch).  It was 
infinitely better than the old configuration.

At the time there was even one of those 'how we spent your bucks'
movies on computer graphics where whoever was doing it said that
they had done about the same thing, only mounted it in a squirt gun
body!

I still don't see pistol grip light pens.  Why?

Donn Terry
..[ucbvax]!hplabs!hp-dcd!donn
...csu-cs!hp-dcd!donn

ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (07/11/83)

#R:mit-eddi:0:ucbesvax:5600006:000:514
ucbesvax!turner    Jul  9 17:09:00 1983

Re: pistol-grip light-pens

Sounds like a good idea--unlike a "pen" light-pen, you could probably
strap it onto your chosen hand in a way that wouldn't interfere with
normal typing when you weren't pointing.  Alas, computer packaging
seems unlike to transcend tubes and boxes.  (Most sculputured key-
boards don't impress me.)

I would like to see audio/visual feedback for returning to the home
keys after taking your hands away.  Don't know how this would work,
ideally.

	Michael Turner
	ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner

Anonymous@inmet.UUCP (07/30/83)

#R:sri-arpa:-277600:inmet:5800008:177600:1
inmet!Anonymous    Jul 28 11:56:00 1983

alpert@inmet.UUCP (07/30/83)

#R:sri-arpa:-277600:inmet:5800009:000:547
inmet!alpert    Jul 28 12:01:00 1983

I have found COMPUTE! magazine to be an excellent resource for
this kind of information.  Despite their sometimes juvenile-
appearing covers, they cover a considerable amount of technical
ground.  For example, the last seven issues have carried
a series entitled "Commodore 64 Video- a Guided Tour".

"Commodore" magazine is also a good resource.  In their
last issue they have an article regarding the addition of graphics 
commands to BASIC.  COMPUTE! has published similar info.

		Bob Alpert
		Intermetrics, Inc.
		decvax!cca!ima!inmet!alpert

alpert@inmet.UUCP (07/30/83)

#R:pyuxll:-37400:inmet:5800010:177600:2035
inmet!alpert    Jul 28 12:21:00 1983

I use an Epson MX-80 with a CARDCO CARD/? interface. The Interface
sells for approx. $80 and performs all necessary conversion between
PETSCII and ASCII.  

For most work this is a satisfactory arrangement. Of course, the
Epson's graphics character set does not match the C64's. The
interface does translate cursor commands, color commands, etc.
to a readable form for listing. For example, the cursor up
character lists as "{CU}", clear as "{CL}", etc.

The only problem I have run across is that certain graphics
characters are printer control codes, and occasionally during a
program listing the printer will go into condensed mode or
go to top-of-form.  This happens rarely, and generally can
be avoided by coding the offending characters as CHR$(x)
rather than explicitly typing them inside quotes.

The CARDCO interface is inexpensive, well made, works well
(has several modes software controllable), and carries a
lifetime warranty. I connects to the serial bus and connects
to any standard parallel (Centronics-compatible) printer.

One thing that makes the CARDCO user-friendly is that not all
printers supply power at the parallel port.  All other
interfaces I have seen require either a separate power supply
or surgery to the printer in this situation.  The CARDCO
simply draws its power from the cassette port on the computer
if unavailable at the printer (this is the case with the EPSON).

You may want to check out the STAR-micronics series of printers,
they provide EPSON-like functionality at a somewhat lower
price (their Gemini-10 and 10X series seem to be the most popular).
The printer Commodore sells for the C64 sucks. If you have a
really restricted budget, the new Gorilla Banana from Leading Edge
Products seema a good alternative.  It seems to be a faster
(50 cps vs. 30 cps) version of the same printer Commodore sells.
I believe it costs about $250 plus another $30 for a Commodore
adapter cable.

Hope this info has been of some help.

			Bob Alpert
			Intermetrics, Inc.
			decvax!cca!ima!inmet!alpert

alpert@inmet.UUCP (07/30/83)

#R:hplabs:-159900:inmet:5800011:177600:436
inmet!alpert    Jul 28 12:25:00 1983

>From what I have read, the Olivetti Praxis based conversions
(Bytewriter, etc.) are rated for light-duty use only.

In the nest several months, it appears that there will be
a number of inexpensive letter-quality printers in the $300 - $400
range hitting the market (Atari will be selling one for $350).

It might be worthwhile to wait for some of these new products.

			Bob Alpert
			Intermetrics, Inc.
			decvax!cca!ima!inmet!alpert

miller@uiucdcs.UUCP (08/03/83)

#R:sri-arpa:-341400:uiucdcs:10400076:000:220
uiucdcs!miller    Aug  2 16:15:00 1983

There used to be a net.micro.cbm.  I haven't seen anything on it (except local
notes) in about 1.5 months.  I assume someone killed it.  Can someone who is
responsible for these sorts of things recreate net.micro.cbm???