Charles J Knight wrote:
>
> > I've not heard much about the Nipkow disks lately, anyone? Those
> > could work for wearables, and the parts could be made on-site?
>
> You know, I was running through some of my old archived messages,
> looking at the Nipkow thread. I still think it has promise.
Next time I make photo film for PC boards, maybe I'll make a disk.
Could make a bunch at a time for not too much money. If I can find some
LED array that has good density (like better than 0.8+mm between LED's!)
it'd help; 0.8mm LED width means that we have a limit of about 1mm per
LED, so 25.4 dots/inch, for the emitter array. I'd really *like* 300
dpi, for a 640x480 HUD.
> > > I don't know that I would use the word run. Execute, maybe...
> >
> > Maybe you have higher expectations than us who've run Z80's at a
> > couple
> > MHz, off one 8" floppy, with 32k Ram, and eventually a whole 300
> > baud modem...
>
> Actually, I only got rid of my Xerox 820 a few years ago, and until then
> was still using Wordstar on 8" disk. I still use my old Model 100
> laptop (Z80 based, 32K RAM, 32K rom) which was my high power
> system until I went PC based. I also still have 12" hard disk platters
> in the garage, but sadly no drive on which to use them.
You're one of us dated dino's, huh? Uh-Oh <G>
I've seen the Model 100 rigged for data logging in the Arctic; You
replace *all* the electrolytic capacitors with Tantalums (rated for a
nice high voltage, as tantalums don't like over-voltages at all), and
they'll run (slowly) down to -40 degrees or so! (Off ZincAire
batteries, which do OK in the cold as well.) Good machine for it's
time, and fairly expandable. (Electrolytics don't freeze well...)
> The sad part is that both of those computers are functionally faster
> and more responsive than a 486/50 or less, running W95. Now,
> for text based apps, that's a different story. But W95 slows anything
> tremendously -- it has lots of overhead.
>
> Silly me -- my expectations are that a machine running at 50MHz,
> with a 32 bit bus and 1000x more memory (32M), running its "o/s"
> should be functionally faster than a 2 - 8 MHz machine with an 8 bit
> bus, running its "o/s" with only 32K.
>
> :-)
Newer machine IS faster, it's just that some coding is good at eating
{Time, Resources, Money, RAM, HDD space, you name it, ...} I still like
nice tight self-modifying assembly, but so few can cope with it <G>
> -- Chuck Knight
Mark
--
I re-ship for small US & overseas businesses, world-wide.
(For private individuals at cost; ask.)
--
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to 
Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail