The ISA-Bus

One blog to bind them all.

Category: Computer history

How We Surfed Ten Years Ago

This is, of course, not a computer ad. It’s the first photo in a longish series. Later on, the lady somewhat predictably sheds all her clothes and does some weird things to her nether regions. This is beside the point here. While used as a prop and not even on, the computer and desk are not a stage setting, but an actual workspace.

The EXIF info is intact, so we know that the photo was taken late in 2002. The rig was probably fairly new. The monitor is a Proview, probably from 2000. I’m not sure but I think it’s a 15″. If it was the photographer’s, he would probably have run it at its maximum resolution, 1024×768. Other people might have preferred 800×600, so text would be better readable.

On outfits like these, the web was viewed, and in most cases designed, ten years ago. The desktop revolution of the years that followed is often a greater obstacle when viewing these old sites than changes in HTML standards and coding habits.

Here are a few reviews of Proview monitors from around 2001:

Only 1.5 GB

I just got served an ad for some MMORPG saying, “Only 1.5 GB. Free download!”

And I remembered, how ten years ago, I sat up a whole night through, seven hours, to download Enemy Nations, a bit larger than 300 MB.

Another six years earlier, Blizzard had found it advisable to warn potential downloaders of the Diablo demo: “The demo is just over 50 mb in size. At 28.8k, it will take approximately 5 hours to download.”

Only 1.5 GB.

Times sure are changing.

A Celeron PC in June 2002

This set was advertised by Saturn Vienna in June 2002. It is not a top of the line set, inside the flyer there are more expensive, more powerful sets. But it wasn’t a budget solution either, in spite of the Celeron. It was advertised as a giga-computer. The official name is microstar Avantgarde 1740 A 75 LE DVD.

It has a 1.70 GHz Celeron, 256 MB DDR-RAM, a 16× DVD drive, a 40 MB hard drive, a 64 MB ATI 7500LE video card, and a built-in modem. It comes with StarOffice and an XP Home OEM Recovery version that won’t work on other computers. The 17″ CRT has a maximum resolution of 1280×1024. Note that the included mouse has a wheel.

What the set does not have is a burner, the second drive is just a standard CD-drive, I wonder what it’s for. Maybe it can read CDs faster than the DVD drive. That the DVD drive is given more space on the ad than the hard drive is amusing. Note also the use of the smiley.

It’s amazing how fast the development was at the time. Three years earlier, a good all-purpose system had 64 MB RAM, 4 MB video RAM, and a hard drive between 1.5 and 4 MB. My current machine is about as far from the 2002 as the 2002 is from the 1999. But then, my current machine is pretty old, so maybe it doesn’t count.

Loving and hating the Commodore 64

I’ve got a sort of love-hate relationship with the Commodore 64. First, as a sort of disclaimer, I’ve never owned one and therefore have no nostalgy whatever.

I do think it was one of the most important game platforms ever. It was not as pioneering as the Apple ][, which gave birth to nearly every relevant RPG and adventure series, and a couple of genres too. But the number and variety of C64 games is probably unmatched.

Most platforms are at home in one region. Apple ][, Mac and PC (well into the 90s) were American platforms. The Amiga was mostly European and especially popular in the UK and Germany. The Sinclair ZX Spectrum was popular only in the UK and Spain, the Amstrad CPC mainly in France.

The Commodore 64 had its followers on both sides of the Atlantic. As a result, the variety of games is much greater than on other platforms. It is maybe the best 8-bit platform for RPGs, it had the typical British platform games like Chuckie Egg and Jet Set Willy, it had shoot ‘em ups, and it had lots of puzzle and board games too.

My problem with the Commodore 64 is emulation. That all the emulators I’ve tried so far for unknown reasons emulate the loading time too is a minor concern. The main one is the graphics.

Most computer graphics are based on an RGB model. Those of the C64 weren’t. It had a palette of 16 somewhat arbitrary chosen colors (a member of the dev team once said in an interview, we chose colors we liked), and nobody really knows how to translate them to RGB for emulation.

The best currently available palette is probably the Pepto palette by Philip Timmerman. It is especially popular for demo pics because it gets the gradients and skin tones far better than any other. Unfortunately it is rather dark and dreary, not to be recommended for more abstract, geometric games.

Additionally it seems that some games and graphics used the TV artifacts to their advantage, similar to the CGA composite mode. This is especially difficult to emulate.

These issues make it often rather difficult to write about C64 games, and are the reason I haven’t done so as much as I’d like to.

Here’s my main Commodore 64 page. If you have any recommendations regarding emulators, please comment below.

Windows games are different (1)

And one of the reasons for that is that Windows was different.

It is a consistent but silly notion that Windows was somehow a copy of the Mac. That’s nonsense. Microsoft may have copied the Mac cursor and used the same or at least similar interface elements, but these are formalities. The soul, the raison d’être of Windows was different from the beginning.

On the Mac, the GUI was l’art pour l’art. Macs had a GUI because Jef Raskin thought it would be so much easier and more intuitive to click on little pictures than to enter commands with the keyboard. The early Macs didn’t multitask. There were some desktop accessories that could run parallel to each other and an application. You could copy data from one app to another, but you had to save, close the app, start the other app.

Windows, on the other hand, was designed as a multitasking environment from the beginning. It did not care much about clicking on little pictures. Its core was the DOS executive, which listed files pretty much the same way a text terminal did. The far goal was multitasking DOS programs, but that was hardware dependent. An 8088 couldn’t do it at all. A 286 could do it, but not well. A 386 could do it well. That’s why Bill Gates called the 286 brain-dead and wanted IBM to skip it completely. It would probably have been the better choice.

But—and that is often overlooked—as far as its own programs were concerned, Windows was multitasking from the beginning. As long as there were sufficient resources, any number of Windows programs could run at the same time, on every Windows version from the very beginning, on any processor.

Balance of Power for Windows

Balance of Power for Windows

Of course, this had a huge impact on how the programs on the two platforms handled the screen. A Mac program had the whole screen for itself and sometimes replaced the desktop with its own. A Windows program ran in a window, tiled in 1.0, overlapping and resizable in 2.x. Among the Windows 1 games there is one that was ported from the Mac: Balance of Power. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It grabs the whole screen, does not share it with other programs, cannot be minimized, cannot be closed the standard Windows way, only through its own interface.

Windows thus—and not the Mac—gave birth to the desktop game. Except Balance of Power every early Windows game was a desktop game. The first one that definitely was not, and was not ported from the Mac either, was probably Entombed, in 1993, when Windows was already eight years old.

Windows could run on very different types of video hardware. Typically the early games were designed for high-end systems with color monitors, but in the Windows 2 era that could still mean EGA or VGA, two systems with very different screen geometry. Bitmaps were therefore to be used with caution, Windows’ built-in ability to draw geometrical shapes was to be preferred. At the time, this seemed to be the future anyway, for it could take advantage of 2D acceleration in systems like IBM’s 8514/A.

This changed radically with the advent of Windows 3. In the Windows 3 era, bitmaps were king. But a predilection for simple, geometrical graphics remained.

So much (for now) for the technical aspects. To avoid endless pages, I’ll make the content and gameplay aspects a seperate post.

The Hacker’s Dictionary, 1983

The Hacker's Dictionary, 1983 and 1996

The Hacker's Dictionary, 1983 and 1996

A couple of days ago I received a copy of the original Hacker’s Dictionary (also known as Steele-1983) I had bought on eBay. On the photo it lies on top of the third edition of the New Hacker’s Dictionary, and it’s interesting to compare the two volumes simply for size: Steele-1983 has 140 pages, of which 110 are the dictionary proper. The New Hacker’s Dictionary has around 570 pages, of which about 470 form the dictionary proper, including the cartoons.

What makes Steele-1983 so interesting is that it is the oldest version of the jargon file still to be found, and unless someone digs up a crumpled printout of the late seventies, this is not likely to change.

NIMROD, 1951

Came across this via this. NIMROD was a computer built for the Festival of Britain in 1951, and it had only one purpose: To play Nim. Later in the same year it was an exhibit at the Berliner Industrieausstellung, the German minister of economy Ludwig Erhard played against it and lost every time. A replica of NIMROD has now been built for the new Berlin museum of computer games.

NIMROD is older than A. L. Samuel’s Checkers program, and it was a far bigger project (a dedicated computer vs. a program running on an IBM 701), but it seems to be less known. Guess the role of the UK in the history of computer games, and computing in general, is still underestimated quite a bit.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers