Article 1667 of alt.sys.pdp10: Path: nntp1.best.com!news1.best.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!viper.inow.com!newshub.internex.net!santaclara01.news.internex.net!clients1.news.internex.net!usenet From: Len Shustek Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10,alt.folklore.computers Subject: The Computer Museum (long) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 96 14:02:16 PDT Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333 Lines: 155 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.xo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon -- TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage Xref: nntp1.best.com alt.sys.pdp10:1667 alt.folklore.computers:53517 I've just seen the recent messages on alt.sys.pdp10 and a few on alt.folklore.computers about The Computer Museum (TCM) in Boston, their collection activities, plans, etc. I'd like to respond. I'm sorry for the length of this message, but it's important. First: I'm not an employee of TCM, just a volunteer. I joined the Board of Overseers of the museum a few months ago specifically to help them start a project for a west coast computer history center and museum, which I'll talk about in a while. I was motivated to do this by teaching a graduate EE/CS course in computer architecture at Stanford, and it suddently struck me as outrageous that there was no place for my students to see the machines built out of the show-and-tell items I was bringing in: vacuum tube modules, core memories, etc. I've been in the business for a while. I wrote my first computer program in 1963 for an IBM 650. As a result of that epiphany while teaching I went both to the Smithsonian and to TCM to see what they were about and was disappointed, to an extent, to see that much of their apparent charter is educating schoolkids about current computer technology. That's good stuff, but not want I wanted to see. Eventually I spoke to Gwen and Gordon Bell, who, with Ken Olsen, started TCM back when it was inside DEC and was much more historical. I was delighted to discover that they, too, were interested in re-establishing the historical display, and even to do it in Silicon Valley, which cinched my participation because I now live and work here. TCM's facility in Boston evolved to what it is in part because it needed to become financially self-sufficient after leaving the DEC womb. They get 150,000 paying visitors a year and corporate grants for educating children. They would simply not have survived, a decade ago, had they kept the historical focus. But the times have changed, or so we're hoping. More people, as evidenced in part by the traffic on a.f.c and a.sys.pdp10, are concerned about preserving the history of computers. Other recent organizations, like Kip Crosby's Computer History Association of California (CHAC) are lobbying for the same ends. There *may* now be enough individual and corporate support to allow a history-centered museum to survive. In the 15 years since the start, however, TCM has never wavered in its mission to have the world's best collection of significant computer artifacts. It is the personal passion of Gwen and Gordon Bell, who have donated years of effort and millions of dollars personally, as well as using all the industry contacts they can. It *is* the best collection in the world, and sadly most of it is not on display. It's in the back storerooms of TCM in Boston, in rented warehouses in Boston, and recent acquisitions are being stored in Silicon Valley. We (I) intend to fix that and make it accessible. Now, on the issue of selling artifacts: When I first got into this venture, I had what Gwen calls the "naive collector's view" that absolutely *everything* has to be preserved. How can you possibly let a single Bendex G-15 module, or a 6600 logic card, or a core plane, slip away? The reality is that you have to. You just can't -- no museum can -- afford to keep everything. TCM works from a written collection policy that tries to help with the decisions, but ultimately it requires a judgement call. Sometimes duplicates (or more) are kept. But when an item can't be kept, it is far better to sell or auction it to a collector who values it rather than see it become landfill, which is what would otherwise have been the fate of many of the items had TCM not been involved. Small example: The museum already has two Gavilan notebook computers, which was an example of an early failed entrant into that field. (The collection policy covers, among other things, both "firsts" and "significant failures".) We have just been offered two more by someone whose wife is demanding that he throw them out of the garage. Do we take them? Answer: Yes, but for the auction. Benefits: Donor gets a tax deduction, TCM gets some income, and the items are preserved by some collector rather than being trashed. Seems like a good solution to me. It pains me to read some of the recent comments about TCM's collection policy. I can't answer any of the complaints about specific items, because I wasn't involved. I do know, and this comes mostly from getting to know the Bells, that preserving computers in the context of a financially sound organization that can survive our lifetimes is their main priority. So: what are we up to now? Plans are still in flux, so I can only describe our current vision. We would like to establish a "Computer History Center" which is a combination museum and study/research center. We will populate it with the bulk of TCM's current collection, and it then becomes the center of all future collection activities. There are multiple spaces for formally-presented exhibits, and "accessible storage" for more. In addition to physical computers and parts thereof, it includes documentation, books, photographs, videos, audiotapes, and software, all of which are currently part of the collection. The primary target audience, unlike the Boston facility, is adults, not children. In addition, we would like it to be an academically-oriented research institute whose charter is the preservation and study of the evolution of computer technology. We are getting an enthusiastic reaction from some of the people at Stanford, where there are already a number of related research and preservation projects. They will be a likely collaborator. Physically, the long-term plan is to secure a donated site on which to build a dedicated facility of, say, 60,000 square feet. We are also mulling over various interim plans. Financially, we don't expect that this institute can survive by generating earned income. TCM earns about 60% of its expenses, which is extraordinarily high by museum standards. This subsidiary will probably earn 15%. We must therefore raise both building costs and an endowment by fundraising. These are big bucks, folks: we're targeting the initial push for something like $15M for the building and another $15M for half the endowment. It will come (it must come or this project is doomed) primarily from individuals and companies in our industry. The fact that the IPO stock market has been kind to the computer business in recent years is part of the reason why we're making the push right now. Why on the west coast? Well, for starters, I don't think you can do this in more then one place; it's going to be difficult enough to get the financing for one. Besides, many of the significant pieces are unique. And the truth is that there are simply more computer companies, engineers, technology students, and sympathetic organizations per square mile here in Silicon Valley than anywhere else in the world. That's hard for me, a born-and-bred east-coaster, to say, but there it is. We think we will have the best shot at it here. There's lots more to talk about, but I've already made this too long. (For example: running vs non-running machines, complete machines vs. parts, how to preserve software, why there isn't a comp.history newsgroup, etc. etc.) I just wanted to say why I'm working with TCM and what we're trying to do, and I hope we get your support for this effort. Right now we're talking to as many potential large donors as possible to see if this thing will be financially feasible, because without the bucks it's doomed. But it will also fail without the grassroots support of the people who care, and that's you. Thanks for reading. -- Len **** Len Shustek, Network General Fellow **** **** phone: 415/473-2745 fax: 415/851-5916 **** **** email: shustek@ngc.com **** Article 1671 of alt.sys.pdp10: Path: nntp1.best.com!news1.best.com!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!peer-news.britain.eu.net!uknet!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!ard12 From: ard12@eng.cam.ac.uk (A.R. Duell) Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: The Computer Museum (long) Date: 29 Feb 1996 20:07:01 GMT Organization: University of Cambridge, England Lines: 161 Message-ID: <4h5115$s78@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: club.eng.cam.ac.uk Xref: nntp1.best.com alt.sys.pdp10:1671 alt.folklore.computers:53558 Len Shustek writes: > > I've just seen the recent messages on alt.sys.pdp10 and a few on > alt.folklore.computers about The Computer Museum (TCM) in Boston, their > collection activities, plans, etc. I'd like to respond. I'm sorry for > the length of this message, but it's important. Please don't apologise - it's 100% on-topic, and it needs to be said. I should be apologising for some of the things I said about the TCM. > place for my students to see the machines built out of the > show-and-tell items I was bringing in: vacuum tube modules, core > memories, etc. I've been in the business for a while. I wrote my Exactly. And I think that's what the main moan was about. The Computer Museum seemed to be claiming that preserving one module was as good as preserving the entire machine. That's not the case, and never will be the case. I've given talks to student computer societies on computer history, and I always try to have at least one working machine there that can be demonstrated. There's a big difference between hearing a talk about a machine and actually seeing it in operation, or even better trying it for yourself. > first computer program in 1963 for an IBM 650. > > As a result of that epiphany while teaching I went both to the > Smithsonian and to TCM to see what they were about and was > disappointed, to an extent, to see that much of their apparent charter > is educating schoolkids about current computer technology. That's good > stuff, but not want I wanted to see. I'm not sure that the 'walk through PC' is any more educational than a normal-sized PC with the cover removed. It certainly wouldn't be to me. [...] > It *is* the best collection in the world, and sadly most of it is > not on display. It's in the back storerooms of TCM in Boston, in I don't think you can apply the word 'best' to the collection. I am quite sure I can name a machine that you don't have, and that at least one other collection does. But that's not really important. The fact that _any_ historic computers are being preserved is the important thing. It is almost certainly a very impressive collection, and I'd love to see as much of it as possible. [...] > Now, on the issue of selling artifacts: When I first got into this > venture, I had what Gwen calls the "naive collector's view" that > absolutely *everything* has to be preserved. How can you possibly let > a single Bendex G-15 module, or a 6600 logic card, or a core plane, > slip away? I'd like to present my naive collector's view - I've been a naive collector for 10 year :-). It goes like this 'Everything should be preserved, but not necessarily by me'. For example, I've often been offered a number of identical machines, and as I can't possibly run them all, I find other enthusiasts or museums who would like the others. But I don't strip them for spares and I don't give them to just anybody. > > The reality is that you have to. You just can't -- no museum can -- > afford to keep everything. TCM works from a written collection policy > that tries to help with the decisions, but ultimately it requires a > judgement call. Sometimes duplicates (or more) are kept. But when an > item can't be kept, it is far better to sell or auction it to a > collector who values it rather than see it become landfill, which is Indeed. I have no problem with machines being given or sold to enthusiasts. In fact in my experience, giving a duplicate machine to such an enthusiast is a good way to ensure you have somebody capable of maintaining the museum's machine. I have a big problem with stripping down a machine and selling the modules to the general public who have no idea what they are used for, and who will never try to use them electronically ever again. But even that's preferable to them going in the landfill, I guess. > what would otherwise have been the fate of many of the items had TCM > not been involved. > > Small example: The museum already has two Gavilan notebook computers, > which was an example of an early failed entrant into that field. (The > collection policy covers, among other things, both "firsts" and > "significant failures".) We have just been offered two more by > someone whose wife is demanding that he throw them out of the garage. > Do we take them? Answer: Yes, but for the auction. Benefits: Donor > gets a tax deduction, TCM gets some income, and the items are > preserved by some collector rather than being trashed. Seems like a > good solution to me. That's an excellent solution, and I've obtained machines in that way myself. But you are talking here about selling a complete machine _as a complete machine_. That's fine. > > It pains me to read some of the recent comments about TCM's collection > policy. I can't answer any of the complaints about specific items, I will stand by my comment that any musuem that dismantles and sells off the last of a particular artifact is not fit to be called a museum. It now appears that the Boston Computer Museum is not doing that, so I hereby apologise to them for any implication that they did. I understand that the PDP-6 that started this discussion is still in one piece :-) > storage" for more. In addition to physical computers and parts thereof, > it includes documentation, books, photographs, videos, audiotapes, and I am very pleased that somebody has had the sense to realise the value of documentation - particularly technical documentation. A lot of that would be lost forever otherwise. [...] > There's lots more to talk about, but I've already made this too long. > (For example: running vs non-running machines, complete machines vs. > parts, how to preserve software, why there isn't a comp.history > newsgroup, etc. etc.) I just wanted to say why I'm working with TCM and I'd like to hear your views on those subjects - they'll disagree with mine almost certainly, but hopefully not too majorly. Here are my views, briefly : running vs non-running machines. Machines should be kept in running condition if at all possible, and knowledge of operation and repair techniques should be passed on to the next generation. However, it may not be practical to run the machines all the time, particularly for the older machines (parts are hard to find, and poor design practices may mean that they need full-time attention). complete machines vs parts. It's obviously better to keep complete machines in working condition. IMHO, parts should be kept either by the museum or by known enthusiasts, so that they can be used for future repairs or restorations. It may be a good idea to have parts on show to the public (particularly if you're aiming the collection at technically-minded people), but not at the expense of working machines. Software preservation. I'd be very interested to hear of methods for doing this, as it's a lot more difficult IMHO than hardware preservation. What are people doing about this ? a comp.history newsgroup. Yes, why isn't there one ? It would be very useful. > Thanks for reading. > > -- Len -- -tony ard12@eng.cam.ac.uk The gates in my computer are AND,OR and NOT, not Bill