Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #212554 > unrolled thread

If Memory Had Been Cheaper

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-06 14:24 -0700
    Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Terry Kennedy <terry-groups@glaver.org> - 2020-08-06 16:59 -0700
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-06 17:22 -0700
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2020-08-08 16:10 -1000
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Terry Kennedy <terry-groups@glaver.org> - 2020-08-08 21:07 -0700
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-09 10:07 -0700
          Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2020-08-09 11:04 -1000
            Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2020-08-09 12:03 -1000
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-09 15:30 -0700
    Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 10:24 -0400
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2020-08-07 11:26 -0700
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2020-08-07 11:33 -0700
          Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Terry Kennedy <terry-groups@glaver.org> - 2020-08-07 13:30 -0700
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-07 11:39 -0700
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2020-08-07 14:11 -0500
          Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-07 12:35 -0700
            Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-07 12:37 -0700
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-08 13:23 -0400
          Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2020-08-08 16:29 -1000
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-08 13:21 -0400
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-07 11:31 -0700
    Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-08-07 10:05 -0600
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-08 14:23 -0700
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2020-08-15 11:42 -0700
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-15 21:48 -0700
          Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-07 12:36 -0700
            Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 17:03 -0400
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 23:13 -0700
                Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-07-08 09:51 -0600
                Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper char <char@code.ord> - 2021-07-08 17:56 -0500
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-08 09:31 -0700
                Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-08 18:14 +0000
                  Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper char <char@code.ord> - 2021-07-08 18:00 -0500
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 15:21 -0700
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-16 11:13 -0700
                Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-16 17:20 -0400
                  Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-20 12:08 -0700
                    Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2021-07-20 21:30 +0100
                    Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-22 04:09 -0700
                      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-07-22 13:51 +0000
                        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-22 14:50 -0700
            Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-07 22:20 +0100
            Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-07-07 18:52 -0600
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 15:15 -0700
                Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-14 00:02 +0000
                Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:30 -0400
            Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2021-07-11 21:31 +0100
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-08-16 11:15 -0500
          Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-17 12:36 -0700
          Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-18 02:04 -0700
            Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 07:53 -0500
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2020-08-19 14:15 +0000
                Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 10:51 -0500
    Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2020-08-15 11:39 -0700
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-15 21:54 -0700
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2021-07-27 22:58 -0700
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2020-08-16 21:44 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#212563

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 14:24:23 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
> 
>> I was looking for information on K&E's abandoned prototype slide rule, the KE-Lon, 
>> and found an article about how the demise of the slide rule was more gradual than 
>> often acknowledged.
>> 
>> That may be, but it certainly was still more rapid than most other replacements of 
>> older products by new technologies.
>> 
>> One thing that came to my mind was that, while it was true that machines like the 
>> Wang 500 or the HP 9100A preceded the arrival of the pocket calculator, still, 
>> while slide rule makers could perhaps have been expected to see the pocket 
>> calculator coming _eventually_, the rapid pace of improvement in digital 
>> electronics was not so obvious at the time.
>> 
>> And the pocket calculator came to market *before* the 8-bit personal computer.
>> 
>> Computer memory chips are, of course, made using the same basic digital microchip 
>> technology as computer processor chips. There are differences in the fabrication 
>> processes used, so that memory designs can emphasize density over speed, but these 
>> are variations on the same basic technology.
>> 
>> So it's difficult to see how an alternate history could have happened in which CPU 
>> technology developed more slowly, but memory technology, at least in terms of 
>> density if not speed, developed more quickly.
>> 
>> A pocket calculator chip performs calculations on decimal floating-point numbers, 
>> often including trig and log functions. So it performs pretty complex operations. 
>> And there were also programmable calculators.
>> 
>> The operations performed by the instructions in even a mainframe computer like 
>> the IBM System/360 weren't any more complex.
>> 
>> So, even without a major change in CPU technology versus memory technology... 
>> instead of 8-bit processors like the 8080 and 6800, why didn't some enterprising 
>> chipmaker take a microchip with an 8-bit ALU, and, through microprogramming, 
>> produce a chip that was similar to a System/360 Model 30 - a chip with 
>> instructions to operate on 32-bit integers and 32-bit and 64-bit floating-point 
>> numbers?
>> 
>> I suppose that the reason was one of efficiency and flexibility. A chip designed 
>> that way wouldn't have been able to run with maximum efficiency on problems only 
>> involving 8-bit integers; the microprogram layer would always be in the way. The 
>> other way around, BASIC interpreters could certainly include floating-point 
>> subroutines... and, if desired, one could even have the UCSD P-System, where an 
>> 8-bit micro is turned into a mainframe-like computer through the use of an 
>> interpretive routine for a more powerful instruction set.
> 
> I don't recall exactly when but IBM actually did that some time before
> the PC.  I'd love to find the article in which they described it
> again--I thought it was in Scientific American but I can't find it in
> their archive.

I have a vague memory of this but can’t find a reference.  What I recall
was a tabletop machine that could fun in two modes, one of which (I think)
was 360 instruction set. It predates the XT/360, etc, and was aimed at the
scientific or engineering market.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212561

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

> I was looking for information on K&E's abandoned prototype slide rule, the KE-Lon, 
> and found an article about how the demise of the slide rule was more gradual than 
> often acknowledged.
>
> That may be, but it certainly was still more rapid than most other replacements of 
> older products by new technologies.

Where was that article?  I bought my last slide rule intended for actual
use (as opposed to many I've gotten since 'cause they're cool) as a high
school senior in 1975.  That fall, the Melcor SC-535 scientific
calculator got cheap enough for a college freshman to buy (I want to say
it went sub-$100, but I'm not sure on that memory).  By 1977 I was
teasing my Physics lab partner about being a Luddite since she was one
of the last people in the department to still have a slide rule.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212585

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 10:05:20 AM UTC-6, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

> > I was looking for information on K&E's abandoned prototype slide rule, the KE-Lon, 
> > and found an article about how the demise of the slide rule was more gradual than 
> > often acknowledged.

> > That may be, but it certainly was still more rapid than most other replacements of 
> > older products by new technologies.

> Where was that article?  I bought my last slide rule intended for actual
> use (as opposed to many I've gotten since 'cause they're cool) as a high
> school senior in 1975.  That fall, the Melcor SC-535 scientific
> calculator got cheap enough for a college freshman to buy (I want to say
> it went sub-$100, but I'm not sure on that memory).  By 1977 I was
> teasing my Physics lab partner about being a Luddite since she was one
> of the last people in the department to still have a slide rule.

Here's a link:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2507986

As I was of modest means when I attended University...

In my first year, pocket calculators weren't a thing yet. I spent some money on 
the Sterling Plastics duplex log-log slide rule, but for actual use, I think I 
stuck to the Ricoh 121 bamboo Darmstadt I got as a Christmas present while 
attending Junior High.

About a year after the Texas Instruments SR-50 came out, I was finally able to 
get my first pocket calculator, a Microlith Scientific. This calculator, the 
model 205, ran on one 9-volt battery, it had a vacuum fluorescent display (large 
green numbers); while it had a two-digit exponent, it only calculated to eight 
digits of precision, and the log and trig functions were only calculated to five 
digits of precision. But I could get it for $25, which I could afford, and it 
still was far more powerful than a slide rule.

I'm pretty sure that this calculator, enough to supersede the slide rule 
completely, came out before inexpensive calculators were available from more 
major companies - so I think that claiming it was the TI-30 that "killed" the 
slide rule is too late, even if claiming the HP 35 did it was too early.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212870

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 12:05:20 PM UTC-4, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes: 
> 
> > I was looking for information on K&E's abandoned prototype slide rule, the KE-Lon, 
> > and found an article about how the demise of the slide rule was more gradual than 
> > often acknowledged. 
> > 
> > That may be, but it certainly was still more rapid than most other replacements of 
> > older products by new technologies.
> Where was that article? I bought my last slide rule intended for actual 
> use (as opposed to many I've gotten since 'cause they're cool) as a high 
> school senior in 1975. That fall, the Melcor SC-535 scientific 
> calculator got cheap enough for a college freshman to buy (I want to say 
> it went sub-$100, but I'm not sure on that memory). By 1977 I was 
> teasing my Physics lab partner about being a Luddite since she was one 
> of the last people in the department to still have a slide rule.

Serious engineering and science students rushed out and got electronic calculators
when they became available in the early 1970s.  _IF_ they could afford one.
They were not cheap.  The rest of us mere mortals stuck with our slide rules.

I remember that for many years calculators were forbidden in exams as not
all students had them--too expensive.  Slide rules were cheap.  (Someone
mentioned the Sterling plastic units, I think only $3).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212894

On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:

> Serious engineering and science students rushed out and got electronic calculators
> when they became available in the early 1970s.  _IF_ they could afford one.
> They were not cheap.  The rest of us mere mortals stuck with our slide rules.

For a little while longer. The HP 35 came out in 1972 and it certainly wasn't 
cheap.

The SR-50 came out in 1974, and it wasn't quite as expensive, but it wasn't 
cheap either.

But by 1976, they were cheap. So while ordinary mortals had to wait for four 
years, they did get their calculators eventually.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218287

On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 12:48:53 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote: 
> 
> > Serious engineering and science students rushed out and got electronic calculators 
> > when they became available in the early 1970s. _IF_ they could afford one. 
> > They were not cheap. The rest of us mere mortals stuck with our slide rules.
> For a little while longer. The HP 35 came out in 1972 and it certainly wasn't 
> cheap. 
> 
> The SR-50 came out in 1974, and it wasn't quite as expensive, but it wasn't 
> cheap either. 
> 
> But by 1976, they were cheap. So while ordinary mortals had to wait for four 
> years, they did get their calculators eventually. 

I'd say it took a little longer before calculators became cheap enough for widespread use.

Note that $50 in 1976 was still a nice chunk of money, maybe $250 today.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218293

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:36:55 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 12:48:53 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote: 
>> 
>> > Serious engineering and science students rushed out and got electronic calculators 
>> > when they became available in the early 1970s. _IF_ they could afford one. 
>> > They were not cheap. The rest of us mere mortals stuck with our slide rules.
>> For a little while longer. The HP 35 came out in 1972 and it certainly wasn't 
>> cheap. 
>> 
>> The SR-50 came out in 1974, and it wasn't quite as expensive, but it wasn't 
>> cheap either. 
>> 
>> But by 1976, they were cheap. So while ordinary mortals had to wait for four 
>> years, they did get their calculators eventually. 
>
>I'd say it took a little longer before calculators became cheap enough for widespread use.
>
>Note that $50 in 1976 was still a nice chunk of money, maybe $250 today.

K&E officially presented to the Smithsonian the last slide rule they
ever produced on July 11, 1976.

That suggests that by that date the transition from slide rule to
electronic calculator was essentially complete.

Around that time I bought a for-cheap scientific whose brand escapes
me (it was not HP, TI, Casio, Commodore, or any other company that
anybody has ever heard of).  It was more reliable than the two HPs I
had (which rotated to HP monthly).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218300

On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 7:03:09 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:36:55 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4 
> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: 
> 
> >On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 12:48:53 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: 
> >> On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote: 
> >> 
> >> > Serious engineering and science students rushed out and got electronic calculators 
> >> > when they became available in the early 1970s. _IF_ they could afford one. 
> >> > They were not cheap. The rest of us mere mortals stuck with our slide rules. 
> >> For a little while longer. The HP 35 came out in 1972 and it certainly wasn't 
> >> cheap. 
> >> 
> >> The SR-50 came out in 1974, and it wasn't quite as expensive, but it wasn't 
> >> cheap either. 
> >> 
> >> But by 1976, they were cheap. So while ordinary mortals had to wait for four 
> >> years, they did get their calculators eventually. 
> > 
> >I'd say it took a little longer before calculators became cheap enough for widespread use. 
> > 
> >Note that $50 in 1976 was still a nice chunk of money, maybe $250 today.
> K&E officially presented to the Smithsonian the last slide rule they 
> ever produced on July 11, 1976. 
> 
> That suggests that by that date the transition from slide rule to 
> electronic calculator was essentially complete. 
.
I used a slide rule for computing grades, until 1998.
Quicker than calculator.
.
Some folks still use the abacus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218310

Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 7:03:09 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:36:55 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4 
>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: 
>> 
>> >On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 12:48:53 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: 
>> >> On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >> > Serious engineering and science students rushed out and got electronic calculators 
>> >> > when they became available in the early 1970s. _IF_ they could afford one. 
>> >> > They were not cheap. The rest of us mere mortals stuck with our slide rules. 
>> >> For a little while longer. The HP 35 came out in 1972 and it certainly wasn't 
>> >> cheap. 
>> >> 
>> >> The SR-50 came out in 1974, and it wasn't quite as expensive, but it wasn't 
>> >> cheap either. 
>> >> 
>> >> But by 1976, they were cheap. So while ordinary mortals had to wait for four 
>> >> years, they did get their calculators eventually. 
>> > 
>> >I'd say it took a little longer before calculators became cheap enough for widespread use. 
>> > 
>> >Note that $50 in 1976 was still a nice chunk of money, maybe $250 today.
>> K&E officially presented to the Smithsonian the last slide rule they 
>> ever produced on July 11, 1976. 
>> 
>> That suggests that by that date the transition from slide rule to 
>> electronic calculator was essentially complete. 
> .
> I used a slide rule for computing grades, until 1998.
> Quicker than calculator.
> .
> Some folks still use the abacus.

Outliers don't invalidate the point.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218323

On 7/8/21 1:13 AM, Robin Vowels wrote:
> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 7:03:09 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:36:55 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4 
>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: 
>>
>>> On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 12:48:53 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: 
>>>> On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>> Serious engineering and science students rushed out and got electronic calculators 
>>>>> when they became available in the early 1970s. _IF_ they could afford one. 
>>>>> They were not cheap. The rest of us mere mortals stuck with our slide rules. 
>>>> For a little while longer. The HP 35 came out in 1972 and it certainly wasn't 
>>>> cheap. 
>>>>
>>>> The SR-50 came out in 1974, and it wasn't quite as expensive, but it wasn't 
>>>> cheap either. 
>>>>
>>>> But by 1976, they were cheap. So while ordinary mortals had to wait for four 
>>>> years, they did get their calculators eventually. 
>>>
>>> I'd say it took a little longer before calculators became cheap enough for widespread use. 
>>>
>>> Note that $50 in 1976 was still a nice chunk of money, maybe $250 today.
>> K&E officially presented to the Smithsonian the last slide rule they 
>> ever produced on July 11, 1976. 
>>
>> That suggests that by that date the transition from slide rule to 
>> electronic calculator was essentially complete. 
> .
> I used a slide rule for computing grades, until 1998.
> Quicker than calculator.
> .
> Some folks still use the abacus.
> 

It is still quick to use tally piles (beans, pennies, pebbles). It's
really fast to just slide over a bean from one pile to the other without
needing to look up. It's about twice as fast as feeling for a calculator
button.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218313

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 3:03:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Around that time I bought a for-cheap scientific whose brand escapes 
> me (it was not HP, TI, Casio, Commodore, or any other company that 
> anybody has ever heard of).

My first calculator was also of an obscure cheap brand, but I do
remember it; it was a Microlith Scientific, model 205.

http://www.calcuseum.com/SCRAPBOOK/BONUS/15854/1.htm

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218314

On 2021-07-08, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 3:03:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Around that time I bought a for-cheap scientific whose brand escapes 
>> me (it was not HP, TI, Casio, Commodore, or any other company that 
>> anybody has ever heard of).
>
> My first calculator was also of an obscure cheap brand, but I do
> remember it; it was a Microlith Scientific, model 205.
>
> http://www.calcuseum.com/SCRAPBOOK/BONUS/15854/1.htm

A cow orker in the early '70s had a Casio Mini
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/casio_mini.html

It had a 6-digit display, but there was a button you could
push to display more digits.  One day I discovered a combination
of button presses that would make this extra register count up
rapidly.  I showed it to the owner, and he wouldn't let me
play with it anymore.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  They don't understand Microsoft
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  has stolen their car and parked
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  a taxi in their driveway.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Mayayana

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218324

On 7/8/21 1:14 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-07-08, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> 
>> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 3:03:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Around that time I bought a for-cheap scientific whose brand escapes 
>>> me (it was not HP, TI, Casio, Commodore, or any other company that 
>>> anybody has ever heard of).
>>
>> My first calculator was also of an obscure cheap brand, but I do
>> remember it; it was a Microlith Scientific, model 205.
>>
>> http://www.calcuseum.com/SCRAPBOOK/BONUS/15854/1.htm
> 
> A cow orker in the early '70s had a Casio Mini
> http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/casio_mini.html
> 
> It had a 6-digit display, but there was a button you could
> push to display more digits.  One day I discovered a combination
> of button presses that would make this extra register count up
> rapidly.  I showed it to the owner, and he wouldn't let me
> play with it anymore.
> 
Do you remember the first smart watches with a tiny calculator? My dad
had one in the late 1980s. I thought it was the neatest thing since the
steam engine. The buttons were tiny, and dad would use his retractable
pen to punch in the numbers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218376

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 5:03:09 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:

> K&E officially presented to the Smithsonian the last slide rule they 
> ever produced on July 11, 1976. 
> That suggests that by that date the transition from slide rule to 
> electronic calculator was essentially complete. 

Some observations...

1) K&E made a premium slide rule.  Most of their customers were probably
serious users who would be more likely to go electronic earlier (see separate post).

2) K&E was only one of many slide rule manufacturers.  There were cheaper
brands available for students, and they continued to be available.

3) K&E slide rules were well made.  The date of last production doesn't
mean date of last use.  Undoubtedly a great many continued in service
long after production ceased.  Other durable products, like Western Electric
telephone sets, VHS tape units, etc remained in service long after production ceased.
  Indeed, many kids at high school and college came in with a K&E slide rule passed
down from their father.

4) In 1976 electronic calculators were still relatively expensive and not worth
the expense for casual users.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218424

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 5:03:09 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> K&E officially presented to the Smithsonian the last slide rule they 
> ever produced on July 11, 1976. 

These K&E ads for slides appeared in the 1990s.
K&E slide rule April 1995
https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Site-Technical/Engineering-General/Archive-Electronics-IDX/IDX/40s/Electronics-1945-04-OCR-Page-0005.pdf#search=%22slide%20rule%22

K&E partners in creating July 1996
https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Site-Technical/Engineering-General/Archive-Electronics-IDX/IDX/40s/Electronics-1946-07-OCR-Page-0005.pdf#search=%22slide%20rule%22

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218432

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 11:13:16 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 5:03:09 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> K&E officially presented to the Smithsonian the last slide rule they 
>> ever produced on July 11, 1976. 
>
>These K&E ads for slides appeared in the 1990s.
>K&E slide rule April 1995
>https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Site-Technical/Engineering-General/Archive-Electronics-IDX/IDX/40s/Electronics-1945-04-OCR-Page-0005.pdf#search=%22slide%20rule%22
>
>K&E partners in creating July 1996
>https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Site-Technical/Engineering-General/Archive-Electronics-IDX/IDX/40s/Electronics-1946-07-OCR-Page-0005.pdf#search=%22slide%20rule%22

Do you actually _look_ at the links you post?  Those are scans of
magazine pages from 1945 and 1946.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218481

On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 5:20:55 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:


> Do you actually _look_ at the links you post? Those are scans of 
> magazine pages from 1945 and 1946.

The date is in fine print, but on the page.  There's only five years between
1995 and 1999.  Chill.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218487

On 20/07/2021 20:08, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:
> On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 5:20:55 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> 
> 
>> Do you actually _look_ at the links you post? Those are scans of
>> magazine pages from 1945 and 1946.
> 
> The date is in fine print, but on the page.  There's only five years between
> 1995 and 1999.  Chill.
> 
Looks like he didn't read your reply either.

The first is smudged, but the second is clear as anything. 1946. As 
you'd expect from the link text.

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218498

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 1:08:43 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:
> On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 5:20:55 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: 

> > Do you actually _look_ at the links you post? Those are scans of 
> > magazine pages from 1945 and 1946.

> The date is in fine print, but on the page. There's only five years between 
> 1995 and 1999. Chill.

The fact that there's only five years between 1995 and 1999 does not
change the fact that there are fifty years between 1945 and 1995, so the
relevance of your reply is obscure.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218499

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 1:08:43 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:
>> On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 5:20:55 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: 
>
>> > Do you actually _look_ at the links you post? Those are scans of 
>> > magazine pages from 1945 and 1946.
>
>> The date is in fine print, but on the page. There's only five years between 
>> 1995 and 1999. Chill.
>
> The fact that there's only five years between 1995 and 1999 does not
> change the fact that there are fifty years between 1945 and 1995,

1999-1995 = 4 (which you say is five) and 1995 - 1945 = 50 (which
you say is fifty).

There is no way of counting including or excluding the starting
or end year that would cover both.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web