Subject: Re: Oldest computer still in current use

From: chris <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun May 11 19:55:11 2003

>I dont understand your logic. 

Logic plays no role... this was nothing more than a question I posed 
(almost a week ago non the less). Therefore in looking for answers, I can 
allow or disallow anything I please for any reason I please. That doesn't 
make it valid or invalid for anyone other than me. If others want to tag 
onto my 2 questions, then they can use whatever criterea they desire to 
see if something is a valid answer for them.

>The Voyager is ruled out because it might be
>too far away to have its valid data (stuff it was made to send back on
>purpose) get back to us, but the recieving equipment that will never get any
>data back since the signal isnt getting back is still a valid system?

The big strike Voyager has against it in my book is that no one can tell 
if it is still running. Its not valid to me, because it might be mythical 
(not the craft, but rather the fact that it is still functioning).

The ground computers on the other hand are valid, because they can be 
verified and someone each budgeting cycle has to make the decision if 
they want to continue to spend money having them operate. So they are 
still doing their original job... listening for data from Voyager.

Of course, its all pretty irrelivant as I'm sure the original ground 
computers for Voyager have long since been shut off and removed. NASA may 
still be listening, but if they are, I'm sure the task has been lumped in 
with other newer monitoring systems.

>Would an old obsolete college computer that runs a 300 baud bbs still be
>valid if nobody knows about it, or even called it and the college forgot to
>shut it down in the last 40 years?

If it is running ONLY because no one knows its running AND no one knows 
it exists... then its a mute point. If a tree falls in the woods...

Although, I would still, for my original question, consider it not valid. 
Because it isn't in normal use. The simple fact that no one knows about 
it removes it from use (no one dials in to the BBS anymore, and the sysop 
forgot it is there so isn't leaving it up just in case someone stumbles 
on it).

If on the other hand, a sysop knows about it and IS leaving it running 
just to see if someone hits it, then I might consider it valid. At least 
it is still serving a function. But I would have to hunt for a better 
answer, something that is a bit more in use. (I would also probably hunt 
for a better answer than Voyager ground monitoring computers for the same 
reason, they may be valid, but they are a poor example).

>If somebody fires up an old 50's analog computer in a museum just to see if
>it still kicks is it really "in use"?

No, because my ORIGINAL question was, what is the oldest computer still 
in normal use. So for MY question, that is, the answer I am looking 
for.... I will only consider a computer that was put into service when it 
was reasonably new, and is still functioning today. I will also accept an 
old computer that was put back into service either as a replacement for 
one the died, or because it was needed to do a job, and it was the best 
option for the job. 

So I wouldn't consider a collector or museum that has put an old machine 
into service just because they can (although that would still be 
interesting to know, but for my question, I would consider that a 
different catagory). This of course is 100% acceptable as an answer for 
my 2nd question that was: Whats the oldest computer connected online and 
preferably hosting a site that can be visited. Its very acceptable to me 
that the best answer for this is one that is doing it for no other reason 
than because someone wanted to see if it could be done with one of their 
old collected computers.

But for my first question, 'm looking for the type of answer along the 
lines of "Company XXX still uses YYY for their ZZZ process".

-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>

---

From: Roger Merchberger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun May 11 19:55:27 2003

At 01:00 05/11/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Logic plays no role...

[snip]

>it exists... then its a mute point. If a tree falls in the woods...
                          ^^^^^^^^^^ & ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Was the pun intended? The term is "moot point" -- to be "mute" is to be 
unable to speak/make sounds, which does tie into the original quote, which 
IIRC is "If a tree falls in the woods, and no-one is around to hear it, 
does it make a _sound_. Sound is merely a disturbance in a medium (in this 
instance, air) within an audible range. The fact that the tree disturbed 
the medium is all that matters, so the answer is "yes..."

... Which is why I had a notebook in college which had a much more 
thought-provoking quote: "If a tree falls in the woods, and no-one is 
around to hear it, does anybody give a shit?" ;-)

>Because it isn't in normal use....

Define "Normal" -- If you can't define "normal" to us, and can accept or 
dismiss anything any way you like, then we cannot give you a logical answer 
to your original question and the entire discussion up to this point is 
moot. ("Mute?  Unless you're using text-to-speech software, I doubt you're 
hearing this... ;-)

>lines of "Company XXX still uses YYY for their ZZZ process".

So, does that leave the gubbermint out? A different poster had postulated 
(and I'm paraphrasing - I don't have the original...) " The gubbermint has 
so much money that they replace everything every few years. " Bzzt! Anyone 
who has actually done time in the military (read: gubbermint) knows that 
there's *still* Civil-war surplus floating around...

... Okay, so I'm exaggerating a little - but the government still uses a 
*lot* of commo gear designed/built from the late 50's -> the '70s, and 
they're still using crypto gear that I was trained on in the late 80s... 
and if I could pass messages over 40Mhz FM with the little [unnamed 
computer -- If I told you, I'd have to kill you... ;-) ] beastie, I could 
prolly get it connected to the Internet *somehow*... ;-)  Granted, you 
couldn't *read* the messages; they're encrypted, after all...

And when I worked at EDS back in '89, and we had *lots* of big-iron capable 
of 100+MIPS (insane, back then... My shiny new '386SX was rated for 2.8 or 
so) - the gubbermint contracted sites were still working with 2-3 MIPS 
machines for daily business... and prolly still are.

My SWAG's would be that your best bets are: a) the gubbermint, and b) older 
CNC/punch/cutting machines -- I still get a few calls to work on 
computerized CNCs & Punches which were built back in the late '70s, and I'm 
in a small town... there's prolly still quite a few of 'em around being 
useful...

Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger

---

From: Bryan Blackburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun May 11 19:55:43 2003

Roger "Merch" Merchberger wrote:

>   tree falls in the woods, and no-one is around to hear it, does it 
> make a _sound_. Sound is merely a disturbance in a medium (in this 
> instance, air) within an audible range. The fact that the tree 
> disturbed the medium is all that matters, so the answer is "yes..." 

Yes, but do you know what the definition of the word "is" is? :o)

>
>  the gubbermint contracted sites were still working with 2-3 MIPS 
I worked as a contractor for the U.S. Forest Service up until August of 
2000, they were still regularly using tube based radio equipment built 
in the early to mid 1960's! I don't recall the model or make of computer 
used, but the last time I heard, our national airline radar system was 
still using tubes in the mainframe computers! The scandal had something 
to do with the millions of dollars spent to improve the system, that 
never actually does. Tubes were being ordered from Russia to meet the 
demand as the required tubes were no longer made in America. Anyone know 
more facts about that? I seem to remember the mainframes being IBM?

-Bryan