Slashdot Mirror


Xerox Alto Source Code Released To Public

zonker writes: In 1970, the Xerox Corporation established the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) with the goal to develop an "architecture of information" and lay the groundwork for future electronic office products. The pioneering Alto project that began in 1972 invented or refined many of the fundamental hardware and software ideas upon which our modern devices are based, including raster displays, mouse pointing devices, direct-manipulation user interfaces, windows and menus, the first WYSIWYG word processor, and Ethernet.

The first Altos were built as research prototypes. By the fall of 1976 PARC's research was far enough along that a Xerox product group started to design products based on their prototypes. Ultimately, ~1,500 were built and deployed throughout the Xerox Corporation, as well as at universities and other sites. The Alto was never sold as a product but its legacy served as inspiration for the future.

With the permission of the Palo Alto Research Center, the Computer History Museum is pleased to make available, for non-commercial use only, snapshots of Alto source code, executables, documentation, font files, and other files from 1975 to 1987. The files are organized by the original server on which they resided at PARC that correspond to files that were restored from archive tapes. An interesting look at retro-future.

121 comments

  1. Aging and Orphan Open Source Projects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    osage writes: Several colleagues and I have worked on an open source project for over 20 years under a corporate aegis. Though nothing like Apache, we have a sizable user community and the software is considered one of the de facto standards for what it does. The problem is that we have never been able to attract new, younger programmers, and members of the original set have been forced to find jobs elsewhere or are close to retirement. The corporation has no interest in supporting the software. Thus, in the near future, the project will lose its web site host and be devoid of its developers and maintainers. Our initial attempts to find someone to adopt the software haven't worked. We are looking for suggestions as to what course to pursue. We can't be the only open source project in this position.

    1. Re:Aging and Orphan Open Source Projects? by master_kaos · · Score: 0

      maybe pay a competitive wage would help.

    2. Re:Aging and Orphan Open Source Projects? by CmdrTamale · · Score: 2

      Upload everything you have to an open repository (github, sourceforge?) and create a torrent on TPB. Once you have a few seeders, it could become immortal...

      ... or not.

      --
      You can learn a lot from how people used to do things. And why they stopped.

  2. even back then.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.computerhistory.org... (from tfa)

    they knew the best display aspect ratio for getting work done

    1. Re:even back then.... by rioki · · Score: 1

      What you are referring to is not aspect ration, but screen orientation. But yes, you are correct, for many applications portrait is the favorable orientation.

    2. Re:even back then.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of hard to have two documents side by side with that layout. A modern day widescreen display is much more efficient.

    3. Re:even back then.... by Urkki · · Score: 1

      What you are referring to is not aspect ratio

      I believe he's referring to the specific 0,75 (606:808) aspect ratio. If that is the best, I don't know, but it is an aspect ratio.

    4. Re:even back then.... by wed128 · · Score: 1

      you're technically wrong (the worst kind of wrong)

      the screen is always oriented so English text goes from left-to-right (not top-to-bottom). the fact that the monitor in the image happens to have a 1 aspect) does not mean it's 'oriented left', it's actually built this way.

    5. Re:even back then.... by rioki · · Score: 1

      Have you actually looked at the picture?! The monitor is in portrait orientation... That looks like 4:3 ratio; or rather a 3:4.

      But don't take my word for the meaning of the word "orientation" when it comes to displays or paper, take Wikipedia's article: Page orientation.

    6. Re:even back then.... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Or ..

      Have 2 monitors side by side.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    7. Re:even back then.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At double the cost.

    8. Re:even back then.... by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      Monitors aren't exactly expensive (seriously, there are some 22" 1080p monitors on newegg for $100 and I imagine there are better deals out there.) these days. If a second monitor makes your employees even 2% more productive on average, it will pay for itself in short order. For some jobs, it's going to be a hell of a lot more than 2%.

    9. Re:even back then.... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Just have one large reasonably close. My (binocular) field of view happens to be oriented horizontally, not vertically.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:even back then.... by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      So you are saying that the aspect ratio seems to you to be a more productive 3:4 rather than the older standard of 4:3?

      :)

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    11. Re:even back then.... by arnero · · Score: 1

      And place two documents side by side or see 2 consecutive pages of one document to decide on page break, I mean, do real work. 4k less then 1000 €

  3. Huh, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought only space was the reason for computers? So we went from the Moon landing in 1969 to the Alto in one year!? Wow, that is amazing!

    1. Re:Huh, what? by putaro · · Score: 2

      The space age rocked.

      The Apollo program and the military (Minuteman missile) pushed integrated circuit technology. Remember that 1969 was the culmination of Apollo, not the start. PARC was founded in 1970, the Alto started in 1972 and they had a working system by '76.

      There were a lot of things pushing computing in the 60's and 70's. The space program was a big part but business was using computers as well. The national laboratories were pushing for faster and faster computers. The Cray I supercomputer was available in '76.

    2. Re:Huh, what? by rioki · · Score: 2

      The difference between NASA and PARC is that NASA just followed the narrow goal of space exportation and PARC (being XEROX) tried to get the computer into the office. The use of computers for space exploration is does not bare many fruits for normal people. On the other hand almost everybody needs text processing and table calculations, including people that do not work in offices.

    3. Re:Huh, what? by rioki · · Score: 1

      True that, but in the 60s and 70s you would rather find a general purpose computer at an university or research facility than a business.

    4. Re:Huh, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I know, I was being ironic. It's surprising how many people actually believe that we only have modern computers because of NASA, when it was pretty clear that computers were useful before NASA even existed.

      It's hard to believe but computers existed before and businesses like banks and large corporations saw the usefulness. And unlike today, private companies actively invested in R&D and engineers. These days R&D is done by university students out of their own pocket and are then hired by companies "pre-broke".

      The Space Age rocked not only because of all the hardware, but because there was still a semblance of a social contract, not like today when corporations only seek to increase profits by using socialist concepts, while the citizens are left to fight among each other over crumbs "free market" style.

    5. Re:Huh, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? So how do you explain the proliferation of computer companies at the time? Universities weren't quite the mass-market businesses they are today. The home market was tiny to non-existent. You're saying that International Business Machines made business machines ... for universities? National Cash Register ... for university cafeterias?

      Why are people so intent on re-writing computer history?

    6. Re:Huh, what? by rioki · · Score: 0

      You are well aware that IBM was a merger from the three companies Tabulating Machine Company, International Time Recording Company and Computing Scale Company to form the Computing Tabulating Recording Company in the year 1880. They then renamed the company to International Business Machines in 1924. Their core business was building tabulators, time clocks and other specialized machines.

      The general purpose computer was not necessarily the most useful tool for business. In the aforementioned 60s and 70s some large companies used them for accounting purposes, but even there their use was limited. For universities and research labs general purpose computers was more useful and here you found them there.

      That does not mean that IBM did not have their hands in other specialized applications. You could probably equip you entire company with only IBM products. Only until the late 70s and 80s did the IBM general purpose computers find their way into mainstream business applications.

    7. Re:Huh, what? by bws111 · · Score: 2

      That is completely wrong. The IBM 360 was introduced in 1964. The POP even calls the instructions the commercial instruction set. Before that there was the IBM 702 (1952), the IBM 650 (1953), and the IBM 1401 (1959). All were general purpose machines used by businesses.

    8. Re:Huh, what? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      No, not space.

      Codebreaking and the Bomb were the reason for computers.

      The Minuteman missile was the reason for integrated circuits.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    9. Re:Huh, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Rioki is a Space Nutter that must maintain the illusion that computers didn't exist before NASA.

    10. Re:Huh, what? by putaro · · Score: 1

      You're off by at least a decade, maybe two.

      IBM mainframes were never really used that much in scientific applications. They cost too much. That's why minicomputers were so popular. Big business used IBM mainframes starting from the early 50's. COBOL (COmmon Business-Oriented Language) was introduced in '59.

      Computing follows the money. The money was initially in the military market, then the business market.

    11. Re:Huh, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's just confusing the integrated circuit with computers, which I don't think there were ever tube computers in space, but NASA certainly did not invent the IC.

    12. Re:Huh, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Codebreaking and the Bomb were the reason for computers."

      Not even. It was curiosity and mathematics... Then came the codebreaking.

      "I wish these tables had been calculated by steam!" or some such... Babbage? 19th century? People needed tables for navigation, calculation, artillery tables, etc?

    13. Re:Huh, what? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      " there were ever tube computers in space"

      Not that I'm aware, in the West, no, but tubes certainly were used in space for the radios. Pencil triode, traveling wave tube and probably some planar triodes here and there.

      I have heard of miniature "integrated" tubes from the East and something called a thermionic integrated micro module from the West.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    14. Re:Huh, what? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      A lot of companies continued to use older specialized business machines even years after the IBM S/360 was introduced. It's not like when IBM S/360 was introduced, everyone suddenly threw away all the recently-bought expensive equipment.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:Huh, what? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      NASA didn't invent the IC, but the initial orders of Fairchild's first digital RTL ICs sometime around 1962 were a massive push for the manufacturing and QA processes at Fairchild. The Fairchild people reportedly said that the strict requirements for the delivered units and the detailed feedback from the MIT people who used them to build the AGCs gave them vital experience for repeatable manufacturing of reliable logic circuits. (The AGC unit was not repairable during flight so those few thousand ICs had to work flawlessly.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    16. Re:Huh, what? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Who said otherwise? I was responding to the incredibly inaccurate statement that general purpose computers were not used by businesses until the late 70s and 80s. Regardless of whether or not older equipment was still in use, general purpose computers WERE used by businesses long before that. The 1401 was a general purpose computer, and they had orders for more than 5000 of them the first month, in 1959. The 360 was a general purpose computer and they had orders for 2000 of those in the first couple of months, in 1964.

      In 1969 (a full decade before this guy claims businesses used general purpose computers) the DOJ filed an anti-trust suit against IBM alleging that IBM was 'monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the general purpose electronic digital computer market, specifically computers designed primarily for business'. How to you monopolize a market that does not exist?

    17. Re:Huh, what? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but the 1401 was only a "general purpose" computer in the sense that the Turing machine is a general purpose computer. The 1400 line was clearly business-oriented (decimal processing, no FP, RPG and COBOL as main tools provided etc.). Even the 700 line had binary models (704, 709) for science and technology use and incompatible decimal models (702, 705) for business use. As far as I know, S/360 was the IBM's first architecture actually suitable for both. Or did I miss some obscure model that was universal but didn't sell well?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    18. Re:Huh, what? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      What odd definition of 'general purpose computer' are you using? A 'general purpose computer' is a computer that can be programmed. 'General purpose' has NOTHING to do with binary or decimal modes, or scientific vs commercial applications. Earlier models of 'computers' were NOT general purpose, they had specific built-in functions, such as adding machines or tragectory calculators, and that is all they did. The 1401 is certainly a general purpose computer. The fact that you list RPG and COBOL proves that it was, in fact, a general purpose computer.

    19. Re:Huh, what? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Have you actually ever bothered to find out how your "general purpose machines" worked? As in what their CPUs did, what their peripherals allowed... I didn't say you couldn't perform scientific calculations on the 1401, but it would be like commuting in a lorry, or hauling bricks in a sedan.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    20. Re:Huh, what? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      What does being able to efficiently perform scientific calculations have to do with something being defined as a general purpose computer? NOTHING. General purpose says NOTHING about the suitability of a processor for a given task.

      The processor in your cell phone is a general purpose computer. Is it particularly good at performing high-precision scientific calculations? No. Is it particularly good at performing decimal operations? No. Does that mean it is not a general purpose computer? NO!

      Many businesses had 1401s, and 360s, and CDCs, and Univacs, etc. What were they all doing? WHATEVER THE CUSTOMER WANTED. Why were they not all doing exactly the same thing, exactly the same way? Because they were GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTERS.

    21. Re:Huh, what? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1
      That's certainly one point of view, and it's perhaps the way in which we're using the term nowadays, but it's definitely NOT the way in which IBM used (or uses) the term in relation with their mainframes:

      In the 1960s, the course of computing history changed dramatically when mainframe manufacturers began to standardize the hardware and software they offered to customers. The introduction of the IBM System/360 (or S/360) in 1964 signaled the start of the third generation: the first general purpose computers. Earlier systems such as the 1401 were dedicated as either commercial or scientific computers. The revolutionary S/360 could perform both types of computing, as long as the customer, a software company, or a consultant provided the programs to do so. In fact, the name S/360 refers to the architecture's wide scope: 360 degrees to cover the entire circle of possible uses.

      (Emphasis mine.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  4. emulator? by Tora · · Score: 1

    Is there an emulator this would run under?

    --
    tora
    1. Re:emulator? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      You would have to emulate the custom bitslice processor. I think that all of the schematics exist and it would be possible but it would take a lot of work.

      Great! Somebody should build it in Minecraft.

    2. Re:emulator? by pmcjones · · Score: 2
    3. Re:emulator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a simulator, not an emulator and it's very limited.

  5. Re:Apple was the real deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You weren't noticing. Apple stole it from Xerox!

  6. It would be interesting by msobkow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If possible, it would be interesting to cross compile the code to a modern processor and see how fast it would fly, given the limited capabilities of hardware at the time. Remember, we're talking about 1MHz 16-20 bit processors at the time the project started, if that.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:It would be interesting by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I looks like there's a some assembly code there from my browsing, which might be difficult to cross-compile. I would guess from the age of the code that a fair amount of it is assembly code. It would be possible to run it on an emulator. Even that could yield some serious speed gains.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:It would be interesting by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2

      I think you mean "micro" processors because things like the IBM 360 were far more powerful than that.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    3. Re:It would be interesting by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      Might still be possible to convert the assembly into C. An inefficient way of doing things compared with a proper conversion, but it should be faster than an emulator.

    4. Re:It would be interesting by tibit · · Score: 1

      On a modern cellphone, the whole thing could probably run in the baseband processor :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    5. Re:It would be interesting by tibit · · Score: 1

      I don't think it'd be inefficient at all if you use a modern compiler. If the compiler happens to notice some loops and vectorize stuff, it may be actually way more efficient per clock cycle than the original machine was.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    6. Re:It would be interesting by ledow · · Score: 1

      The chances of the code even compiling any more are slim. Let alone the required hardware and devices being present in a PC.

      You're looking at a full emulation environment, which would kill all the performance anyway. It'd still fly on a modern PC, even so, but I can remember entire games fitting in 16Kb of RAM and Windows graphical interfaces that you needed to upgrade to 2Mb of RAM in order to run.

      Of course they'd be fast on modern architecture. But they won't run directly. And by the time you get them to run, you could have wrote a basic GUI that did the same in a language of your choice.

      The problem is not that we should be running ancient systems as they were back then. It's asking ourselves why Windows needs a Gig of RAM in order to even boot properly, when the user "experience" of such is a desktop background bitmap and a clicky button in the corner. Windows 3.1 could do that in 2Mb of RAM.

    7. Re:It would be interesting by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      It's probably fairly simple assembly. It wouldn't have been more than an 8 bit architecture. Anywhere it calls into any firmware might be problematic, but it'd probably be possible to read the asm and port it to newer asm or to C (Either one probably about just as easy.)

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    8. Re:It would be interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Both of your assumptions (simplicity and 8-bit architecture) are wrong. While the Alto's processor itself was microcoded, this microcode itself could be re-written to suit the task at hand, so even the assembly instructions themselves vary depending on what microcode was in use for a given task. The Alto's hardware was ridiculously baroque by today's standards.

    9. Re:It would be interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would probably be better off emulating the original hardware. Cross-compilation is problematic as the CPU was microcoded and the microcode could be (and occasionally was) replaced.

    10. Re:It would be interesting by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      It's asking ourselves why Windows needs a Gig of RAM in order to even boot properly, when the user "experience" of such is a desktop background bitmap and a clicky button in the corner. Windows 3.1 could do that in 2Mb of RAM.

      If you are truly asking yourself that, you just don't understand the differences between hardware of the differing eras and the magnitude more of which modern Windows does compared to Windows 3.1

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    11. Re:It would be interesting by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was a 16-bit architecture. Use the Wiki:

      Alto was a microcoded design but, unlike many computers, the microcode engine was not hidden from the programmer in a layered design. Applications such as Pinball took advantage of this to accelerate performance. The Alto had a bit-slice arithmetic logic unit (ALU) based on the Texas Instruments' 74181 chip, a ROM control store with a writable control store extension and had 128 (expandable to 512) kB of main memory organized in 16-bit words. Mass storage was provided by a hard disk drive that used a removable 2.5 MB single-platter cartridge (Diablo Systems, a company Xerox later bought) similar to those used by the IBM 2310. The base machine and one disk were housed in a cabinet about the size of a small refrigerator; one additional disk could be added in daisy-chain fashion.

      It would be relatively simple to come up with an emulator that could run well. Although I'd rather see a Dandelion clone, anyway - I knew all about the AMD 2900 series, back in the day.

      --
      That is all.
    12. Re:It would be interesting by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Here is an example of what you're talking about.

      In windows 3.1, there was no networking. Period. Windows since 95 have had built in networking stack. Now think about all the networking applications built into Windows now (not just the stack), file sharing, remote control, hell as crappy as IE is today, there was nothing like it (yes, still built into the OS).

      I remember how much of an advance Windows 3.11 for was with its networking additions. In fact, looking back, 3.11 is what killed off DOS apps, because of the built in networking. No more sneaker net.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:It would be interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hand it to the MAME/MESS guys and tell them its tell them it is impossible.

    14. Re:It would be interesting by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      It would be fairly fast, but the graphics part was a bit overstated. The Alto didn't support overlapping windows (Wozniak, who did the overlapping windows implementation on MacOS, later found that out after he did (and patented) regions (and after his plane accident).).

      Given the Alto was the inspiration for MacOS (and Apple did license the idea from Xerox by giving them stock), I wonder how many other things we thought the Alto had, but it really lacked.

    15. Re:It would be interesting by pmcjones · · Score: 2

      Smalltalk, running on the Alto, definitely had overlapping windows. See for example http://www.vpri.org/pdf/m19770... .

    16. Re:It would be interesting by pmcjones · · Score: 1

      Cross-compiling to a modern machine would definitely be interesting. As others have noted, many applications were written in BCPL with bits of assembly language (very similar to Nova assembly language) plus microcode for "tight loops" such as BITBLT. There is also a simulator called Salto, written by Juergen Buchmueller, that works well enough to give a feel for the Alto but still has bugs. This page has .zip file with executables and disk images ready to run on Windows, plus links to the source code: http://toastytech.com/guis/sal... .

    17. Re: It would be interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Alto had all of that.
      -all of it-

    18. Re:It would be interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I never said it was impossible, it's just going to be a pain in the ass to cross-compile the assembly code given the dynamic nature of the microcode. As one of those "MAME/MESS guys" I'd say we're in perfectly good shape to emulate the Alto given that the author of one of the only Alto emulators out there, Jürgen Buchmueller, is one of the current developers on MESS.

    19. Re:It would be interesting by ledow · · Score: 1

      Er... windows 3.11 had the same minimum spec as Windows 3.1... 2Mb RAM. And a 15Mb hard disk. So the point still stands.

      And I have personally contributed to a project that brought Linux networking and TONS of extra features that we'd have died for in the 3.11 era to a single, bootable, 1.44Mb floppy disk.

      Sure, Windows 95 upped the ante, but in terms of what you were given was it really that much of an advance? That's where things started to go downhill if anything... networking stack, yes. Firewalling of any kind? No.

      And Windows 95: "To achieve optimal performance, Microsoft recommends an Intel 80486 or compatible microprocessor with at least 8 MB of RAM.".

      I think you're forgetting how much you could get done in 2Mb of RAM. Hell, Windows 95 can't even boot if you have 512Mb, it was never designed to have that much RAM EVER. I'm just not sure there was ever a feature worth quite that amount of system resources - at this moment in time, my Bluetooth tray icon takes more RAM than Windows 3.1 needed to load everything. I can't see the justification for that at all.

      CPU speed, yes, devices nowadays shove data through them a LOT faster than they ever used to so you need to be able to keep up. Disk space, possibly. But RAM usage? Why should a Bluetooth icon take more RAM than an entire former OS?

    20. Re:It would be interesting by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's microcode, not assembly. I also wonder how the physical HW would get emulated. The Alto had some pretty nifty barrel processing inside, with the microcode acting as both device drivers and CPU in a round-robin fashion. I wonder if you wouldn't need to actually physically simulate a rotating disk...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    21. Re:It would be interesting by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Use an assembler emulator instead, or machine language emulator which is a common. This was a very custom-built CPU, with custom features.

      I suspect there may be stuff there that is binary-only, so that machine emulation is the way to go. For example, later on Smalltalk would come as images, and while you had the source code what you did not have was a way to bootstrap that code into an image easily.

    22. Re:It would be interesting by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      8-bit? Back then there were 12, 16, 32, 36, and other bit counts for native word sizes. 8-bit didn't really take off until the home microcomputer market, a boon for home hobbyists but not important to serious computing.

    23. Re:It would be interesting by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      True. Alto was a moving target. You can't point to it like you could the original Mac and detail all the features. Because every month it would change yet again. Certainly the software changed all the time, but even the hardware changed. This was primarily a research product and not a commercial one.

    24. Re:It would be interesting by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Bitblt was a great invention. Because it was bit based (as opposed to later things calling themselves bitblt) and and support for it in hardware/microcode, there were a lot of possibilities it could be used for. Amiga had something similar, since even though it was color it used bit planes instead of pixels.

    25. Re:It would be interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er... windows 3.11 had the same minimum spec as Windows 3.1... 2Mb RAM. And a 15Mb hard disk. So the point still stands.

      And I have personally contributed to a project that brought Linux networking and TONS of extra features that we'd have died for in the 3.11 era to a single, bootable, 1.44Mb floppy disk.

      Sure, Windows 95 upped the ante, but in terms of what you were given was it really that much of an advance? That's where things started to go downhill if anything... networking stack, yes. Firewalling of any kind? No.

      And Windows 95: "To achieve optimal performance, Microsoft recommends an Intel 80486 or compatible microprocessor with at least 8 MB of RAM.".

      I think you're forgetting how much you could get done in 2Mb of RAM. Hell, Windows 95 can't even boot if you have 512Mb, it was never designed to have that much RAM EVER. I'm just not sure there was ever a feature worth quite that amount of system resources - at this moment in time, my Bluetooth tray icon takes more RAM than Windows 3.1 needed to load everything. I can't see the justification for that at all.

      CPU speed, yes, devices nowadays shove data through them a LOT faster than they ever used to so you need to be able to keep up. Disk space, possibly. But RAM usage? Why should a Bluetooth icon take more RAM than an entire former OS?

      Posting Anon here, to protect my moderations. To answer your question, Windows 3.1 did this with far less because it didn't do that much in the first place. It didn't have protected memory, it didn't have real multitasking, it didn't have a journaling filesystem, it didn't have to support 20 years of previous applications, and it had a far smaller hardware base. Dig up an old machine, install Windows 3.11 on it, and just try to use it as your day to day machine. You'll find very quickly why it was so much more efficient.

      Don't get me wrong. I love to use old OS's, and it's actually kind of a hobby of mine. However, it's important to understand why they were so much quicker: they didn't do that much stuff in the first place.

    26. Re:It would be interesting by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Why should a Bluetooth icon take more RAM than an entire former OS?

      It should not.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    27. Re:It would be interesting by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if even the BCPL could be compiled today. Altos were great for showing the coke machine status through the window of the 3rd floor CS lab. Oh the days of the much-sought X1 key. Bonus points for anyone who gets that reference.

  7. Talk about late by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Ten or twenty years ago, when enthusiasts still had this hardware, this would have been very interesting. I remember David Case having a big pile of the stuff he had nothing to do with because software was too hard to come by. Today, virtually all of that stuff has been landfilled or recycled.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Talk about late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a simulator in MESS

  8. Oh wow by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    Oh wow... it's like you spend your whole life understanding your childhood.

    When I saw that image of the Sol-20, it immediately took me back to being 6yrs old. I'd go with my father to work in a manufacturing plant. He ran "The lab" and up until the late 70s, they'd program their machines with an infrared laser onto a chip... and it was a nightmare because it took hours and if anyone turned on a light it would ruin the etch. Then these computers started showing up with floppy drives and the first one I remember seeing looked exactly like that Sol-20. I'm assuming that's what it was. I got to type on it for fun a couple of times. Later they swapped to Commador's, apple IIs, IBM clones, etc... whatever was cheap.

    This was probably the first computer I ever touched. Wow!

  9. emulator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You would have to emulate the custom bitslice processor. I think that all of the schematics exist and it would be possible but it would take a lot of work.

  10. Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I the only one here that is impressed that they were able to restore the archives from tape from 40 years ago just fine? :)

    1. Re:Is it just me? by DougOtto · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no kidding. Clearly it wasn't 4mm.

      --
      Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    2. Re:Is it just me? by pmcjones · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the original 9-track tapes were copied to 8mm cartridge tapes around 1991, and those were later copied to CD-ROM -- for more detail, see http://xeroxalto.computerhisto... .

    3. Re:Is it just me? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I think I have a couple 9-track tapes up in a box in the rafters of my mother's garage. Was hoping to be able to read them back someday... I knew I should have stuck to punch cards.

  11. "mouse pointing devices"? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    mouse pointing devices

    You went with that because you didn't know whether to put mouses or mice, right?

    It is, of course, mieces.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:"mouse pointing devices"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meeces, you fool, meeces!

    2. Re:"mouse pointing devices"? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Mices, but pronounced "MY-sees" like index -> indices.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    3. Re:"mouse pointing devices"? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      mouse pointing devices

      A device which slows mice down enough to be pointed at is indeed a technical marvel to be venerated.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    4. Re:"mouse pointing devices"? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Snap!

    5. Re:"mouse pointing devices"? by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      mouse pointing devices

      You went with that because you didn't know whether to put mouses or mice, right?

      It is, of course, mieces.

      I, for one, can't stand a dull mouse. I need only the sharpest, pointiest mice.

      --
      -
  12. My favorite Alto application: Mazewar by OmniGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In 1977 or thereabouts, I was a co-op student at Xerox' Webster, NY Research Center. At lunchtime, I had access to an Alto, and spent far too much time playing MazeWar, a networked multi-player real-time 3D-perspective game wherein the players navigated a maze (displayed as wireframe 3D with an overhead map at the side), finding other players (who appeared as giant floating eyeballs) and zapping them. Once zapped, you respawned elsewhere in the maze and attempted to sneak up on your opponent and return the favor.

    The graphics were extremely simple; there was no detail in the walls, just lines showing the edges, and player positions were limited to the center of each grid square; player movement was in discrete jumps. All of this was done to reduce the computational load for the graphics, of course. As a result, the system was very responsive, and the experience was quite immersive.

    --

    "My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
    1. Re:My favorite Alto application: Mazewar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NAHHHH - Missile command on the STAR with 3 button mouse was MUCH Better!!!! Or better yet, the Star Trek game, when you'd be flying through some sector of space and WHAM, 50 Klingon's would all of a sudden show up and turn you into space dust. . . . The beauty of Ethernet of the day - playing against folks in the company in different locations.
      I was co-op from RIT @ Xerox Spring 1983, then hired on after for 2 years. Worked down the road in Henrietta and also at the Webster plant - worked on the "low end" copiers. Used both Alto's and Star's - since we used custom compilers for the 8048's, 8051's we were using at the time. They also build a "custom" plug-in emulator for 8086's where by you could control multiple CPU's "simultaneously" on the same clock edge to start/stop the product. VERY state of the art for the times.
      Yes, Alto's and Star's were 16 bit bit-slice (microcoded) machines. . . The 5" Floppy (yes. . .) could be formatted for CP/M or several other different formats at the time. A very slick system. We ran Dylan on the Star's, not the full-blown STAR setup they sold to the government. Was more like what SUN OS/Solaris was. . . . as far as the desktop metaphor goes.

    2. Re:My favorite Alto application: Mazewar by rjstegbauer · · Score: 1

      I also worked for Xerox at Webster, NY from '80-'90. The Altos were utterly amazing, as well as the software that ran on them...Pilot OS, Mesa, SIL for creating schematics, Swat for debugging. It spoiled me. Even programming on the Sun hardware and OS years later was a step down.

      My favorite game was Polish Pong, but I loved Star Trek too.

      --
      Randy Stegbauer -- thosewerethedays

    3. Re:My favorite Alto application: Mazewar by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      So basically, Wizardry I, Death Maze 5000 kind of movement/wireframes.. (to list some personal computer games with that look).

  13. Okay, I'll bite by NotFamous · · Score: 2

    What on earth is "An interesting look at retro-future"?

    --
    Some settling may occur during posting.
    1. Re:Okay, I'll bite by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Maybe he wanted to say "the past", but had a stroke at the last moment.

    2. Re:Okay, I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sibling post is a lot more funny, but I think the poster was referring to Retrofuturism, an art term for old works that depict the future as foreseen at that time.

    3. Re:Okay, I'll bite by zonker · · Score: 0

      Yes, thank you. Sorry, I thought it was obvious.

  14. PARC monument by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    There really should be an august monument to noble accomplishments Xerox achieved.

    Stylish, classic, with a simple inscription:

    "On this spot, Steve Jobs stole all his good ideas."

    1. Re:PARC monument by hackertourist · · Score: 3, Informative

      "On this spot, Steve Jobs bought all his good ideas."

      FTFY.

    2. Re:PARC monument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mediocre artists copy; great artists steal.

    3. Re:PARC monument by dbc · · Score: 1

      Except that he didn't steal enough. He took what he could see: graphical display, windows, menus, pointing device. But he didn't understand what was under the hood, and missed a huge opportunity. The Smaltalk language was a huge part of the Alto system, and Jobs ignored it completely. If the original Macintosh had shipped with a Smalltalk interpreter in ROM, the world would be a hugely different place. Turning the world's hackers loose with Smalltalk on an original Mac would have made the Mac and Apple hugely successful, instead of sending Apple into an extended near-death experience. Trying to write an application for the original Mac was about as pleasant as repeatedly poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick, and that was after shelling out large $$ for the dev system.

    4. Re:PARC monument by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I would add "And then refined them."

      There is no doubt that Xerox was instrumental in GUI development. However Apple will be remembered because they brought it to the masses. While Xerox had great ideas about GUI, it lacked some refinement. They may have done it if the company had backed the researchers and fully embraced the idea of computers. Instead management was stuck on being a copier company.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:PARC monument by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      | If the original Macintosh had shipped with a Smalltalk interpreter in ROM, the world would be a hugely different place.

      It would have been 2x as expensive and 5x as slow, and a flop.

      All the original Mac programs were exceptionally hand-optimized 68000 assembly.

      On his NeXT project, Jobs had Objective-C built in, whose object model is nearly Smalltalk, at a time when C++ was the overwhelmingly dominant object-oriented language. And so NeXT had the first major commercial operating system with a serious object-oriented API---and in 1989, programming and using the NeXT was so far ahead of everybody else other than the commercially irrelevant Lisp machines.

      So I don't think Jobs was as ignorant as one imagines---he surely heard from people who knew the deep details.

    6. Re:PARC monument by dbc · · Score: 1

      There was a commercially available Smalltalk that ran just fine on the original Mac. Adding it to the Mac ROM image would have added less than 64K bytes to the image (originally 128K) so no way would it have doubled the costs. And it would not have precluded the 68000 C/assembly programs -- it would have provided the same hacker-friendly extension environment provided by BASIC on the Apple II as an addition. For a small incremental cost they could have enabled a huge eco-system of community-created applications -- that was a huge opportunity forgone.

      One of the reasons Smalltalk ran well on the Mac is that the main thing that makes a system feel snappy is good rendering -- and of course it relied on the hand-tuned assembly rendering API in the ROMs. Sure, you may have noticed the speed on compute-intensive apps, but that really wasn't the bread-and-butter of the original Mac.

      Jobs did learn his lesson, as you point out he corrected the oversight in the NeXT project. But Jobs is also on record as regretting ignoring Smalltalk on that fateful day at PARC, regarding it as a mistake.

    7. Re:PARC monument by mattack2 · · Score: 2

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....

      Jobs and several Apple employees, including Jef Raskin, visited Xerox PARC in December 1979 to see the Xerox Alto. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares (800,000 split-adjusted shares) of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share.[39]

    8. Re:PARC monument by Namarrgon · · Score: 1, Troll

      Funny how Xerox didn't see it that way.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    9. Re:PARC monument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Apple hired Alan Key.

  15. Re:Apple was the real deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    right..

    "
    It was a visit by Jobs to Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center late in 1979 that set Apple on a new course that would revolutionize personal computing.
    "

  16. Gotta say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a real piece of computing history. Xerox PARC and the Alto are the bedrock of all modern graphical computing systems. In fact you might say that this system was the first realization of the ideas in the Mother of All Demonstrations.

  17. Patent Buster? by argee · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many software patents these revelations will bust?

    1. Re:Patent Buster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good question!

    2. Re:Patent Buster? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Probably not many, any patents on a basic GUI would have expired by now.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Patent Buster? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, it seems conceivable that you could find something ingenious in it that someone patented only recently.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  18. Sponsored by Jobs and Gates by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

    They've been copying the design for years, now you can copy the source code too!

    Jokes aside, these were groundbreaking machines that determined the next 30 years or so of UI design. It had to be polished a bit to work on personal computers of the day (by Mssrs Gates and Jobs) and unfortunately somewhat cut down. The Alto screens were meant to replace paper, and only now has the price come down enough that we are getting screens with the resolution to rival paper.

  19. Good, but... by mugurel · · Score: 1
    thank god Xerox didn't do open source back then, free software might have never seen the light of day:

    In 1980, Stallman and some other hackers at the AI Lab were refused access to the source code for the software of a newly installed laser printer, the Xerox 9700. Stallman had modified the software for the Lab's previous laser printer (the XGP, Xerographic Printer), so it electronically messaged a user when the person's job was printed, and would message all logged-in users waiting for print jobs if the printer was jammed. Not being able to add these features to the new printer was a major inconvenience, as the printer was on a different floor from most of the users. This experience convinced Stallman of people's need to be able to freely modify the software they use.

    (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... )

  20. Wozniak, who did the overlapping windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Atkinson, you stupid cunt.

  21. "general market" computers by mbkennel · · Score: 1

    meaning that they would be competitive and useful to the commercial and scientific markets simultaneously. IBM was thinking in the monetary sense, which makes sense as a business.

    A small embedded CPU in a radiation-hardened box is a 'general purpose computer' by the theoretical definition but nobody would buy one to play games and do the wide variety of tasks a PC does today.

    1. Re:"general market" computers by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the original comment that sparked the whole debate was clearly addressing the issue of converging mainframe architectures, and so was I, and so were people in the 1960s writing on the topic, which is why this usage still exists when debating the computers of that particular period. It's obviously not the only term that has to be interpreted in context.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:"general market" computers by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Exactly where in that post do you see anything at all about 'converging mainframe architectures'? He talks about 'tabulators, time clocks, and other specialized machines', then starts talking about general purpose computers. And, in fact, that is pretty much what the division was - there were specialized machines for things, and then there were general purpose computers and the specialized machines died off. The problem with his post is not in the definition of general purpose, it is that he is about 2 decades off from when the transition happened.

      And even if you want to stick with your ridiculous interpretation, the 'covergence' happened with the 360, a decade and a half before he thinks. And the 360 was successful immediately - those 2000 orders in the first 8 weeks did not go primarily to universities. The things cost $2M to buy, or rented for $20K/month in 1964. Not many universities had that kind of cash to shell out.

    3. Re:"general market" computers by putaro · · Score: 1

      I agree that the comment that sparked this was talking about special purpose machines (tabulators, etc.) vs computers. I suspect that he went googling for computer history, though, and found the rather specialized definition of "general purpose computer" that the mainframe people created.

      For those of us with a computer science, rather than an IT background, general purpose computer means Turing complete. And while doing scientific computing on a BCD machine may be like going to LeMans with your turnip truck, it's still doable and in an era when computers were rare for the average person, many would have been interested in doing it.

    4. Re:"general market" computers by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I agree that the comment that sparked this was talking about special purpose machines (tabulators, etc.) vs computers. I suspect that he went googling for computer history, though, and found the rather specialized definition of "general purpose computer" that the mainframe people created.

      I didn't "google" for it, I have known this since I was nine or ten, a quarter century ago, when I got interested in the history of computing. Although I admit that in my native tongue, we called them "universal computers", not "general-purpose computers", which is obviously the same meaning in English, as per the IBM page. The English form of the same term is the only thing I found recently. (Obviously, all the historical publications I was reading as a kid were in my native tongue, not in English.)

      Also, some of the old low-end business machines (even the stored program ones, of course, otherwise I wouldn't mention it) had more in common with the tabulating equipment than you might think: many of them were designed to be plugged into the tabulating workflow, given that they were very limited in their internal storage. Only the larger business machines were self-sufficient. I'm not really sure there was any fixed frontier between the tabulating equipment and standalone business computers.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:"general market" computers by putaro · · Score: 1

      Well, when I was referring to the original comment, that was the one written by rioki, not you.

      I got interested in computers at about the same age as you, but for me that was around 1978 in the US. At that time things like tabulators were ancient history.

      We did have a test scoring machine that was semi-standalone when I was in high school but I think it had a microprocessor in it. You could program it with an answer key and then it would mark the Scantron (fill-in-the-bubble) forms based on the answer key. It had an RS-232 interface that it would output data from as well and I spent some time writing software to capture test results on an Apple II.

  22. Re:Apple was the real deal by kmoser · · Score: 3, Funny

    Apple invented the desktop. Xerox, Microsoft and Linux are just faggots who've stolen the idea.

    Tthe first caveman who propped up a flat rock invented the desktop. Xerox just virtualized it first.