I have always designed my projects using graph paper, ruler, pencil, and
(lots of) eraser. I have a somewhat more complicated job I want to do now.
There is a design for an entertainment center in FWW that I want to adapt. I
would like to take the measurements from the article, enter them on a
computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend who
uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that sophisticated.
I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning time on a CAD program
unless I can get a recommendation on this group for a product that one of
you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper, pencil, and eraser?

TIA.

Dick Snyder

On 4/10/2010 6:07 AM, Dick Snyder wrote:
I have always designed my projects using graph paper, ruler, pencil, and
(lots of) eraser. I have a somewhat more complicated job I want to do now.
There is a design for an entertainment center in FWW that I want to adapt. I
would like to take the measurements from the article, enter them on a
computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend who
uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that sophisticated.
I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning time on a CAD program
unless I can get a recommendation on this group for a product that one of
you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper, pencil, and eraser?

For things that are essentially boxes - like kitchen cabinets and,
perhaps, your entertainment center SketchUp has acquired a substantial
following.

I happen to do relatively little of that type of work and use an old
version of DesignCAD, which lets me draw curves that aren't often seen
in traditional woodworking (parabola, hyperbola, catenaries, sine
curves, etc) and export those shapes in a format that permits CNC machining.

Some folks are working with TurboCAD and like it best.

But everybody seems to use pencil and paper along with any CAD package
they're comfortable with.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Dick Snyder" wrote in message
...
I have always designed my projects using graph paper, ruler, pencil, and
(lots of) eraser. I have a somewhat more complicated job I want to do now.
There is a design for an entertainment center in FWW that I want to adapt.
I would like to take the measurements from the article, enter them on a
computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend who
uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that
sophisticated. I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning time
on a CAD program unless I can get a recommendation on this group for a
product that one of you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper, pencil,
and eraser?

TIA.

Dick Snyder

Your freind has not given the latest version of Sketchup a chance.
I have been using CAD programs since 1986. I used AutoCad LT from
1996-2008. I have been using Sketchup exclusively since 2008. I am not
going back!

First off as with any drawing program experience and or formal training is
an asset. There are numerous tutorials on line that will teach you what you
need to know for free. I highly recomend Sketchup. I recently designed and
built a bedroom project, 6 major components with probably 700-800 seperate
parts and I found the program drawings to be completely accurate.

While not the most sophisticated drawing program, most any wood working
project needs no more than what Sketchup has to offer.

On 4/10/2010 6:07 AM, Dick Snyder wrote:

computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend who
uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that sophisticated.
I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning time on a CAD program
unless I can get a recommendation on this group for a product that one of
you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper, pencil, and eraser?

First you take the word of someone else instead of making up your own
mind about a particular program; then you don't want to spend money, or
your time, on learning a skill to do what you are asking others to
advise you on?

Best stick to your paper and pencil ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 4/10/2010 7:42 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:

For things that are essentially boxes - like kitchen cabinets and,
perhaps, your entertainment center SketchUp has acquired a substantial
following.

Meh ... either a thinly veiled insult, or your ignorance is showing, or
both:

http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/...-armcrest-rail

"...essentially boxes...", eh? What a crock!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:42:06 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:

I happen to do relatively little of that type of work and use an old
version of DesignCAD, which lets me draw curves that aren't often seen
in traditional woodworking (parabola, hyperbola, catenaries, sine
curves, etc) and export those shapes in a format that permits CNC
machining.

Some folks are working with TurboCAD and like it best.

And older versions of both are available at a fraction of the original
cost.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 4/10/2010 8:43 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 4/10/2010 7:42 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:

For things that are essentially boxes - like kitchen cabinets and,
perhaps, your entertainment center SketchUp has acquired a substantial
following.

Meh ... either a thinly veiled insult, or your ignorance is showing, or
both:

http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/...-armcrest-rail

"Note that I did not scoop the seat in the SketchUp model..."

"I was able to trace over a scanned image of a top view of the Settee to
quickly achieve the flat face shown below."

So it can be used in conjunction with images produced elsewhere to
produce approximate copies of what has already been done with other
(circa 1820!) design tools - big deal.

"...essentially boxes...", eh? What a crock!

True, as illustrated in this settee example, only if tracing a digitized
image produced by other tools provides sufficient accuracy, and if
representing 3D curved surfaces (like the seat) as planar meets
requirements.

No insult was intended - I was attempting to point out a broad class of
design objects (which included the OP's immediate project) where I felt
SketchUp worked well for its users. If you interpret that as an insult,
perhaps you can explain why...

FWIW, when I /intend/ insult, there's no "thinly veiled" about it.

If you maintain that SketchUp is a superior tool for easily producing
accurate mathematical curves/surfaces in three dimensions (as is the
case in the many of _my_ woodworking projects) adequate for precision
production, then I invite you to produce the evidence - or to expand
your woodworking horizons.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 4/10/2010 1:05 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

No insult was intended - I was attempting to point out a broad class of
design objects (which included the OP's immediate project) where I felt
SketchUp worked well for its users. If you interpret that as an insult,
perhaps you can explain why...

FWIW, when I /intend/ insult, there's no "thinly veiled" about it.

If you maintain that SketchUp is a superior tool for easily producing
accurate mathematical curves/surfaces in three dimensions (as is the
case in the many of _my_ woodworking projects) adequate for precision
production, then I invite you to produce the evidence - or to expand
your woodworking horizons.

Come now, Morris ... you've proven yourself too smart a fellow to _not_
know exactly what you are about.

I recall taking the time to cobble up and post a SU tutorial model
showing you how to do something with curves which you were unable to
accomplish.

Just because you haven't taken to the time to become proficient with the
program, don't insult the program and, by association, those who have,
with such ignorant remarks.

Nevertheless, I'll spot you the "insult", but the link posted proves
either one of my contentions to be correct, without necessity for
further words.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Dick Snyder" wrote in
:

I have always designed my projects using graph paper, ruler, pencil,
and (lots of) eraser. I have a somewhat more complicated job I want to
do now. There is a design for an entertainment center in FWW that I
want to adapt. I would like to take the measurements from the article,
enter them on a computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I
have a friend who uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and
not that sophisticated. I don't want to invest the money and a lot of
learning time on a CAD program unless I can get a recommendation on
this group for a product that one of you likes to use. Should I stick
to my paper, pencil, and eraser?

TIA.

Dick Snyder



If you're familiar with drafting, a program called CadStd will get you
going right away. It's basically computer drafting. A little quirky at
first, but once you get used to the interface it's easy to use.

Sketchup takes a bit to get used to, also. I had to take the time to get
used to the 3D aspect, but didn't find anything too difficult. The
interface is a little quirky as well, but not terrible. (Zooming, for
example, is done by selecting the Zoom tool and moving the mouse up or
down.)

CadStd has a Lite version that does quite a bit, or a Pro version for
around $50. Sketchup is free, with a Pro version that costs around $500
(I think). For the base program in either case, you're out only your
time to try it.

Puckdropper

--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.

"Puckdropper" puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote in message
...


If you're familiar with drafting, a program called CadStd will get you
going right away. It's basically computer drafting. A little quirky at
first, but once you get used to the interface it's easy to use.

Sketchup takes a bit to get used to, also. I had to take the time to get
used to the 3D aspect, but didn't find anything too difficult. The
interface is a little quirky as well, but not terrible. (Zooming, for
example, is done by selecting the Zoom tool and moving the mouse up or
down.)

Actually if you learn the short cuts with the Sketchup program it becomes
much easier to use. I seldom use any icons at all as all can be assiciated
with a keyboard command or mouse jesture. For example, I have always used
a track ball mouse because IMHO it is much quicker to draw with. To zoom I
simply rotate my middle click wheel and hold down the wheel to orbit.
Placing the curser over the spot I want to zoom concentrates the zoom at
that point and rotating the ball with my thumb enables me to orbit at that
spot.

On 4/10/2010 3:33 PM, Puckdropper wrote:

Sketchup takes a bit to get used to, also. I had to take the time to get
used to the 3D aspect, but didn't find anything too difficult. The
interface is a little quirky as well, but not terrible. (Zooming, for
example, is done by selecting the Zoom tool and moving the mouse up or
down.)

At minimum, a mouse with a wheel works better for most any modern
software of this type. All you have to do to zoom is move the wheel, or
hold it down and move it, and the mouse, to zoom and orbit.

There are a lot of other "input" devices used by CAD jockeys that work
well also.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Apr 10, 7:07*am, "Dick Snyder" wrote:
I have always designed my projects using graph paper, ruler, pencil, and
(lots of) eraser. I have a somewhat more complicated job I want to do now..
There is a design for an entertainment center in FWW that I want to adapt.. I
would like to take the measurements from the article, enter them on a
computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend who
uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that sophisticated.
I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning time on a CAD program
unless I can get a recommendation on this group for a product that one of
you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper, pencil, and eraser?

TIA.

Dick Snyder

I routinely use TurboCAD before starting any woodworking project (w/
the exception of a cutting board, etc.).
I have tried Sketchup and I also found it difficult to use/learn
coming from TurboCAD. If I invested more time I'm sure I could learn
to use it, but I couldn't see investing the time considering I already
know TC.

Good luck.

On Apr 10, 7:06*pm, GarageWoodworks
wrote:
On Apr 10, 7:07*am, "Dick Snyder" wrote:

I have always designed my projects using graph paper, ruler, pencil, and
(lots of) eraser. I have a somewhat more complicated job I want to do now.
There is a design for an entertainment center in FWW that I want to adapt. I
would like to take the measurements from the article, enter them on a
computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend who
uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that sophisticated.
I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning time on a CAD program
unless I can get a recommendation on this group for a product that one of
you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper, pencil, and eraser?

TIA.

Dick Snyder

I routinely use TurboCAD before starting any woodworking project (w/
the exception of a cutting board, etc.).
I have tried Sketchup and I also found it difficult to use/learn
coming from TurboCAD. *If I invested more time I'm sure I could learn
to use it, but I couldn't see investing the time considering I already
know TC.

Good luck.

For examples of my work w/ included CAD renderings see:

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/ (I always forget to whore my website)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
On 4/10/2010 6:07 AM, Dick Snyder wrote:

computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend who
uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that
sophisticated.
I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning time on a CAD
program
unless I can get a recommendation on this group for a product that one of
you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper, pencil, and eraser?

First you take the word of someone else instead of making up your own mind
about a particular program; then you don't want to spend money, or your
time, on learning a skill to do what you are asking others to advise you
on?

Best stick to your paper and pencil ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Boy that is kind of hostile response. If I had taken the word of my friend,
I wouldn't have bothered with the post. I just don't want to invest a large
amount of time learning a tool if it can't do the job. The replies I have
seen so far indicate that it is worth my time to it out.

On 4/10/2010 1:31 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 4/10/2010 1:05 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

No insult was intended - I was attempting to point out a broad class of
design objects (which included the OP's immediate project) where I felt
SketchUp worked well for its users. If you interpret that as an insult,
perhaps you can explain why...

FWIW, when I /intend/ insult, there's no "thinly veiled" about it.

If you maintain that SketchUp is a superior tool for easily producing
accurate mathematical curves/surfaces in three dimensions (as is the
case in the many of _my_ woodworking projects) adequate for precision
production, then I invite you to produce the evidence - or to expand
your woodworking horizons.

Come now, Morris ... you've proven yourself too smart a fellow to _not_
know exactly what you are about.

Whether I was too stupid to grasp SketchUp or SketchUp was
insufficiently capable or user friendly was/is a lot less important to
me than producing a result that met requirements. I did know what the
requirements were, and SketchUp didn't get me there.

I recall taking the time to cobble up and post a SU tutorial model
showing you how to do something with curves which you were unable to
accomplish.

You did - and it was appreciated. My next step in that progression was
to add a tapped hole using the same technique - which sorta worked but
required /way/ too much patchy cleanup. I got the job done, but wasn't
satisfied that something so simple required so much time and piddling.

Just because you haven't taken to the time to become proficient with the
program, don't insult the program and, by association, those who have,
with such ignorant remarks.

Sorry, but after spending more than a half-century developing software
(link in sig), and using CAD packages for more than half of that time, I
don't feel as ignorant as you portray. I have to admit, though, that I
only started producing actual 3D renderings in wood eight years ago,
when I installed my 'Bot. Sadly, the more I've learned the more ignorant
I've become.

Since you feel that noticing difficulties with software is an insult to
its user, please bypass any and all comments I may ever make about
Microsoft's software products (cough) and practices (cough, cough).

Nevertheless, I'll spot you the "insult", but the link posted proves
either one of my contentions to be correct, without necessity for
further words.

Tracing an image and skipping definition of contoured surfaces don't
work for me. Whatever you think you proved to me with the example went
whoosh - unless it was that a settee isn't a box (Well, duh! I never
said SketchUp was /limited/ to boxes.)

I hoped SketchUp would work for me, too - but it simply wasn't worth
more than 60 hours of my time when I already had a CAD tool doing what,
after all that time, I couldn't get SketchUp to do.

I glad you like it so well for the work you're doing.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/mrd/mrd_res1.html

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...


Sorry, but after spending more than a half-century developing software
(link in sig),

I'll see your Spectra 70/45 and raise you an RCA 501 and 301. )

On 4/10/2010 9:05 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but after spending more than a half-century developing software
(link in sig),

I'll see your Spectra 70/45 and raise you an RCA 501 and 301. )

You win - besides, the 70/45 was just a thin film approximation to a
360/30 (same instruction set and I/O devices, but had a sexier front
panel)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

My 2 cents from a Turbocad user:
Unless you plan to use the CAD program often, don't bother. There is
a serious learning curve.
In the company where I worked for a long time, some of the paper and
pencil draftsmen never were able to make the change to CAD.

If you intend to do it:
You need to have a large vocabulary of "special" words to utter under
your breath to bleed off frustration, unless you have mentor handy.
Once you have spent the time and have done the tutorials that some
have suggested, you can't really expect to stay current if you only haul
the program out once a month or so.
To keep myself barely reasonably current, I almost force myself to
invoke the program for even small simple things. I am still finding new
buttons to push after several years at it.
One of the big problems, to me, is that there are so many nesting
levels for all the commands, shortcuts, etc.. You have to learn many of
the them by rote. This means repitition.
And, every time they upgrade, they seem to do it for the highest
level of power users; those who spend a lot of their life at the keyboard.
And some commands seem to be moved around with each upgrade, too.
Okay, no problem. I won't upgrade anymore. Oh yeh? A few years later
they stop supporting that level, or they only put the newbie tech guy on
that product.
ETC.
Not to say "don't do it at all", but just to make you aware.

Using a CAD program, to me, is like using a PC based spreadsheet was 20
years ago. I found that, as soon as I added a few numbers together, I
wondered what would happen if I doubled it, averaged them, etc.. ---The
"what if?"
So I started opening my spreadsheet program (Lotus 1-2-3 1A) whenever I
even started to do some math.
It's the same with CAD. Once you have taken the time to get the
basics of the part/assy on the screen, the sky's the limit in playing
"what if?" there, too.

Pete Stanaitis
-------------------

Dick Snyder wrote:
I have always designed my projects using graph paper, ruler, pencil, and
(lots of) eraser. I have a somewhat more complicated job I want to do now.
There is a design for an entertainment center in FWW that I want to adapt. I
would like to take the measurements from the article, enter them on a
computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend who
uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that sophisticated.
I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning time on a CAD program
unless I can get a recommendation on this group for a product that one of
you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper, pencil, and eraser?

TIA.

Dick Snyder

Morris Dovey wrote:
On 4/10/2010 9:05 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but after spending more than a half-century developing software
(link in sig),

I'll see your Spectra 70/45 and raise you an RCA 501 and 301. )

You win - besides, the 70/45 was just a thin film approximation to a
360/30 (same instruction set and I/O devices, but had a sexier front
panel)


By "thin film", do you mean it also had the cros (capacitance read only
memory) instruction set as the 360/30? It was punch card size mylar
with copper traces that were punched out on one of four sides of a
squeare or some such. The first time I saw the 30 power on and the cros
"pump up" to push the cros punch card ros together, I wondered "WTF"?

Then there was the 360/40 with the "tros" micro programmed instruction
set...

That's the one I started with in '64.

Dick Snyder wrote:
I have always designed my projects using graph paper, ruler, pencil, and
(lots of) eraser. I have a somewhat more complicated job I want to do
now. There is a design for an entertainment center in FWW that I want to
adapt. I would like to take the measurements from the article, enter them
on a computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend
who uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that
sophisticated. I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning
time on a CAD program unless I can get a recommendation on this group for
a product that one of you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper,
pencil, and eraser?

TIA.

Dick Snyder

FWIW, I like the program a lot. I am a new SketchUp user, but if you would
like to
see how I was able to use it to help model my shop (to be). Click on the
pdf at:

http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/

All of the "fancy items" were download from a library at no cost and resized
as desired.

Bill

Dick Snyder wrote:

I have always designed my projects using graph paper, ruler, pencil, and
(lots of) eraser. I have a somewhat more complicated job I want to do now.
There is a design for an entertainment center in FWW that I want to adapt.
I would like to take the measurements from the article, enter them on a
computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend who
uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that
sophisticated. I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning time
on a CAD program unless I can get a recommendation on this group for a
product that one of you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper, pencil,
and eraser?


Running under Linux, I use VariCAD www.varicad.com

I've been very happy with its speed and ease of use

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On 4/10/2010 11:16 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:

By "thin film", do you mean it also had the cros (capacitance read only
memory) instruction set as the 360/30? It was punch card size mylar
with copper traces that were punched out on one of four sides of a
square or some such. The first time I saw the 30 power on and the cros
"pump up" to push the cros punch card ros together, I wondered "WTF"?

You and nearly everyone else - I've always suspected it was designed by
the same madman who designed the 407...

I honestly don't know how RCA implemented the instruction set or the
internals of IPL. I suspect that they may have used ROMs, because IBM
was likely to have the CROS covered every which way with patents.

Thin film refers to (yet another) logic family (like ECL, TTL, MOS,
CMOS, etc). RCA claimed it was cheaper, provided higher yields, and was
more reliable. Of course, when you asked around you discovered that
every company's technology flavor was well above average.

You might get a kick out of learning that the floppy disk was originally
developed to load the microcode into the ill-fated object-based FS (for
Future System) machines.

Then there was the 360/40 with the "tros" micro programmed instruction
set...

That's the one I started with in '64.

I was away from computers from 62-65 working for Uncle Sam, but IIRC I
was introduced to the 40 (but it could have been a 50) and DEBE at the
same time.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 4/10/2010 9:05 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but after spending more than a half-century developing software
(link in sig),

I'll see your Spectra 70/45 and raise you an RCA 501 and 301. )

You win - besides, the 70/45 was just a thin film approximation to a
360/30 (same instruction set and I/O devices, but had a sexier front
panel)

Operating that 501 was like playing an organ ...

When we got the 70/45s I went to supervision. All the fun had been taken out
of operation.

Half decent pic he

http://archive.computerhistory.org/r...6273.fc.lg.jpg

Might even be me in the photo - wore a suit just like that. )

On 4/11/2010 12:27 AM, LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 4/10/2010 9:05 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but after spending more than a half-century developing software
(link in sig),

I'll see your Spectra 70/45 and raise you an RCA 501 and 301. )

You win - besides, the 70/45 was just a thin film approximation to a
360/30 (same instruction set and I/O devices, but had a sexier front
panel)

Operating that 501 was like playing an organ ...

When we got the 70/45s I went to supervision. All the fun had been taken
out of operation.

Half decent pic he

http://archive.computerhistory.org/r...6273.fc.lg.jpg

Might even be me in the photo - wore a suit just like that. )

Hmm - I may have seen one of those. At one point in '65 the outfit I was
working for needed more capacity so one Saturday I was loaded into a cab
with a couple dozen tapes to borrow the 70/45 at NIPSCO (Northern
Illinois Public Service Co).

They still had their pre-Spectra system (just in case) and it looked a
lot like that.

That trip was my intro to RCA's high-speed tape drives - which, as I
discovered, meant that if they glitched they could suck about 250' of
tape into a vacuum column faster than an operator could say ****, and
pack it so tight that it took a letter opener to pry out.

By the third time it'd stopped being even mildly interesting. (Hit the
COIN button, abort the run, pry the tape out of the drive, rewind the
other drives, mount a backup tape, and re-start the program. Ugh.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 4/10/2010 8:49 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Tracing an image and skipping definition of contoured surfaces don't
work for me.

The "tracing" of a component, imported into a project from an outside
source, is routinely done as a matter of convenience and is a common
practice to speed up a project, with any design software, and is one of
the reasons for an "import" feature.

Furthermore, it is inarguable that if the software contains the tools to
effectively "trace" a component, it therefore has the tools/ability to
"draw" it instead, should you chose to do so, as this software indeed does.

Your argument in that regard falls flatly on its face ...

With regard to the 'seat", it was plainly stated why it was not
contoured ... and, even then, for you to bring it up and pretend/insist
that a shop drawing be a photorealistic image to have any value in
woodworking is misleading, irrelevant, and a ploy to bolster a feeble
argument.

On 4/10/2010 7:42 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:

For things that are essentially boxes - like kitchen cabinets and,
perhaps, your entertainment center SketchUp has acquired a
substantial following.

(Well, duh! I never
said SketchUp was /limited/ to boxes.)

OK, then ... it was an ignorant attempt to imply it.

In short, I gave you a clear, factual and accessible example containing
nothing remotely resembling your "...things that are essentially
boxes...", and which nicely illustrates the ignorance of the software
behind the remark.

Your arguments thus far do nothing to disprove that.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 4/11/2010 12:27 AM, LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 4/10/2010 9:05 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but after spending more than a half-century developing software
(link in sig),

I'll see your Spectra 70/45 and raise you an RCA 501 and 301. )

You win - besides, the 70/45 was just a thin film approximation to a
360/30 (same instruction set and I/O devices, but had a sexier front
panel)

Operating that 501 was like playing an organ ...

When we got the 70/45s I went to supervision. All the fun had been taken
out of operation.

Half decent pic he

http://archive.computerhistory.org/r...6273.fc.lg.jpg

Might even be me in the photo - wore a suit just like that. )

Hmm - I may have seen one of those. At one point in '65 the outfit I was
working for needed more capacity so one Saturday I was loaded into a cab
with a couple dozen tapes to borrow the 70/45 at NIPSCO (Northern Illinois
Public Service Co).

They still had their pre-Spectra system (just in case) and it looked a lot
like that.

That trip was my intro to RCA's high-speed tape drives - which, as I
discovered, meant that if they glitched they could suck about 250' of tape
into a vacuum column faster than an operator could say ****, and pack it
so tight that it took a letter opener to pry out.

By the third time it'd stopped being even mildly interesting. (Hit the
COIN button, abort the run, pry the tape out of the drive, rewind the
other drives, mount a backup tape, and re-start the program. Ugh.

Yeah, those babies were Fun. We used to have contests to see how quickly you
could get all the drives off BT and then rewound - using the console. Then
there was the tape mount rodeo! And with 3/4" tape, you did some upper body
work every shift. When we got the Spectras, I wrote some cod to emulate the
tape drives using the spectra disk drives. Really speeded up the stuff we
still had to run using the 501 and 301 emulators. Drove the 501 prototype
for a couple weeks in Camden, NJ. IIRC, RCA had several in Viet Nam.
Supposedly one running in a tent, which I can believe as ours could take all
kinds of a licking and keep on ticking!

Did they have a goony bird paper tape reader? Sometimes you had to use the
eraser on the end of a pencil to keep the pt reader from snapping the tape.
Idea was to use an Unsharpened pencil - DAMHIKT! I used to be able to read
the paper tape manually.

On 4/11/2010 2:17 AM, LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

Hmm - I may have seen one of those. At one point in '65 the outfit I
was working for needed more capacity so one Saturday I was loaded into
a cab with a couple dozen tapes to borrow the 70/45 at NIPSCO
(Northern Illinois Public Service Co).

Brain fart. It couldn't have been NIPSCO - must have been ComEd.

Did they have a goony bird paper tape reader? Sometimes you had to use
the eraser on the end of a pencil to keep the pt reader from snapping
the tape. Idea was to use an Unsharpened pencil - DAMHIKT! I used to be
able to read the paper tape manually.

No paper tape on the RCA systems I used (thankfully), but the home
system was tape only. The good part about the utility's system was that
they had a disk drive for the operating system. Pure luxury for a TOS
operator.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 4/11/2010 2:01 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 4/10/2010 8:49 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Tracing an image and skipping definition of contoured surfaces don't
work for me.

The "tracing" of a component, imported into a project from an outside
source, is routinely done as a matter of convenience and is a common
practice to speed up a project, with any design software, and is one of
the reasons for an "import" feature.

Furthermore, it is inarguable that if the software contains the tools to
effectively "trace" a component, it therefore has the tools/ability to
"draw" it instead, should you chose to do so, as this software indeed does.

Your argument in that regard falls flatly on its face ...

Yeah fine. Give this easy one a whirl:

Draw parabola with curve length of 96" between intersections with the
latus rectum (a line through the focus perpendicular to another line
passing through both focus and vertex). Points separated by 0.0100"
along the x-axis, and accurate to +/-0.0005". I don't care whether you
draw or trace, only that all requirements be met, so that I can export
it as a DXF (the format needed for my 'Bot) and machine it accurately.

With regard to the 'seat", it was plainly stated why it was not
contoured ...

Oh really? I just re-read the entire thing (4th time) and still don't
see that. Perhaps you would quote that plain statement to make it easier
for me to find.

and, even then, for you to bring it up and pretend/insist
that a shop drawing be a photorealistic image to have any value in
woodworking is misleading, irrelevant, and a ploy to bolster a feeble
argument.

I not only didn't "pretend/insist" - I never made such an assertion. I'm
not sure what exactly your problem is, but please stick to the truth.

The fact is that I don't care at all about the graphic presentation -
only that the exported DXF meet accuracy requirements. If you assumed
that I was after a pretty picture, then you assumed wrong.

On 4/10/2010 7:42 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:

For things that are essentially boxes - like kitchen cabinets and,
perhaps, your entertainment center SketchUp has acquired a
substantial following.

(Well, duh! I never said SketchUp was /limited/ to boxes.)

OK, then ... it was an ignorant attempt to imply it.

No. There was no such attempt - ignorant or otherwise. That issue was
your contribution to the discussion - not mine.

In short, I gave you a clear, factual and accessible example containing
nothing remotely resembling your "...things that are essentially
boxes...", and which nicely illustrates the ignorance of the software
behind the remark.

Let's see. I said:

"For things that are essentially boxes - like kitchen cabinets and,
perhaps, your entertainment center SketchUp has acquired a substantial
following."

Which part is false or misleading? - or are you in a snit because I
omitted other capabilities you think the OP is likely to need for his
entertainment center?

Your arguments thus far do nothing to disprove that.

Eh? Why should I have any interest in proving or disproving anything?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 4/11/2010 4:45 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 4/11/2010 2:01 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 4/10/2010 8:49 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Tracing an image and skipping definition of contoured surfaces don't
work for me.

The "tracing" of a component, imported into a project from an outside
source, is routinely done as a matter of convenience and is a common
practice to speed up a project, with any design software, and is one of
the reasons for an "import" feature.

Furthermore, it is inarguable that if the software contains the tools to
effectively "trace" a component, it therefore has the tools/ability to
"draw" it instead, should you chose to do so, as this software indeed
does.

Your argument in that regard falls flatly on its face ...

Yeah fine. Give this easy one a whirl:

Draw parabola with curve length of 96" between intersections with the
latus rectum (a line through the focus perpendicular to another line
passing through both focus and vertex). Points separated by 0.0100"
along the x-axis, and accurate to +/-0.0005". I don't care whether you
draw or trace, only that all requirements be met, so that I can export
it as a DXF (the format needed for my 'Bot) and machine it accurately.

Obfuscation par excellence ... and totally, and ridiculously, irrelevant.

Your arguments thus far do nothing to disprove that.

Eh? Why should I have any interest in proving or disproving anything?

Yep, it's indeed a mystery why you bothered in the first place. You've
made it plain in the past that you have little use for the software;
that you don't use it; have minimum experience with it and are ignorant
of its capabilites for the most part.

So, what's behind this obsession with taking snide shots at every
opportunity that presents itself?

Hell, it wasn't even a good troll, so why bother muddying the water with
ignorance?

A little self reflection might be in order there, Bubba ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Apr 11, 2:17*am, "LDosser" wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message

...



On 4/11/2010 12:27 AM, LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 4/10/2010 9:05 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but after spending more than a half-century developing software
(link in sig),


There is another free option, but I should mention that there is a
bit of a learning curve to get started. The virtual world of Second
Life allows one to build. You may enter exact dimensions, create
multiple pieces, and it is free. There are tons of in world
tutorials. I made my living for 3 years building spaces in SL for
corporate clients, so that is where I design most of my stuff. The
nice thing about SL is that you could build in groups, if your
woodworking friends also joined. As for curves and such, no problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suGykJIBLZU This is a video showing
things that either I personally built or my workers built. There are
lots of bits of furniture.

I also love Google Sketchup and 3Ds Max.

Good luck,

Brian
http://extremelyaverage.com

LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 4/11/2010 12:27 AM, LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 4/10/2010 9:05 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but after spending more than a half-century developing
software
(link in sig),

I'll see your Spectra 70/45 and raise you an RCA 501 and 301. )

You win - besides, the 70/45 was just a thin film approximation to a
360/30 (same instruction set and I/O devices, but had a sexier front
panel)

Operating that 501 was like playing an organ ...

When we got the 70/45s I went to supervision. All the fun had been taken
out of operation.

Half decent pic he

http://archive.computerhistory.org/r...6273.fc.lg.jpg


Might even be me in the photo - wore a suit just like that. )

Hmm - I may have seen one of those. At one point in '65 the outfit I
was working for needed more capacity so one Saturday I was loaded into
a cab with a couple dozen tapes to borrow the 70/45 at NIPSCO
(Northern Illinois Public Service Co).

They still had their pre-Spectra system (just in case) and it looked a
lot like that.

That trip was my intro to RCA's high-speed tape drives - which, as I
discovered, meant that if they glitched they could suck about 250' of
tape into a vacuum column faster than an operator could say ****, and
pack it so tight that it took a letter opener to pry out.

By the third time it'd stopped being even mildly interesting. (Hit the
COIN button, abort the run, pry the tape out of the drive, rewind the
other drives, mount a backup tape, and re-start the program. Ugh.

Yeah, those babies were Fun. We used to have contests to see how quickly
you could get all the drives off BT and then rewound - using the
console. Then there was the tape mount rodeo! And with 3/4" tape, you
did some upper body work every shift. When we got the Spectras, I wrote
some cod to emulate the tape drives using the spectra disk drives.
Really speeded up the stuff we still had to run using the 501 and 301
emulators. Drove the 501 prototype for a couple weeks in Camden, NJ.
IIRC, RCA had several in Viet Nam. Supposedly one running in a tent,
which I can believe as ours could take all kinds of a licking and keep
on ticking!

Did they have a goony bird paper tape reader? Sometimes you had to use
the eraser on the end of a pencil to keep the pt reader from snapping
the tape. Idea was to use an Unsharpened pencil - DAMHIKT! I used to be
able to read the paper tape manually.

Ah, the tape emulator idea. We had a 360/40 and got a 7094 free from
the Navy. Also got an IBM TICU (Tape Intersystem Connecting Unit). It
connected to the 7094 and looked exactly like 10 tape drives. It also
connected to the 360 and didn't look like anything without some code
work. I got the job of writing the tape emulator program on the 360.
We were running OS/MFT and I had all of 8K for code and buffers. The
challenge was the 7090 could read/write 32K words of 36 bits in one
whack. It was an interesting I/O chaining challenge with CCW's imbedded
in the disk buffers. It also depended on a seek of one cylinder taking
no more time than one rotation of the disk and not having any
re-assigned tracks. Those were the days...

"Dick Snyder" wrote in message
...
I have always designed my projects using graph paper, ruler, pencil, and
(lots of) eraser. I have a somewhat more complicated job I want to do now.
There is a design for an entertainment center in FWW that I want to adapt.
I would like to take the measurements from the article, enter them on a
computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend who
uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that
sophisticated. I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning time
on a CAD program unless I can get a recommendation on this group for a
product that one of you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper, pencil,
and eraser?

TIA.

Dick Snyder


I do not care for Sketchup either. I downloaded DoubleCAD and have been
using it for a while.
http://www.doublecad.com/
Greg

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 19:05:03 -0700, LDosser wrote:

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...


Sorry, but after spending more than a half-century developing software
(link in sig),

I'll see your Spectra 70/45 and raise you an RCA 501 and 301. )

I'll put in a Univac and a Ramac :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 4/10/2010 8:38 PM, Dick Snyder wrote:
wrote in message


First you take the word of someone else instead of making up your own mind
about a particular program; then you don't want to spend money, or your
time, on learning a skill to do what you are asking others to advise you
on?

Best stick to your paper and pencil ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Boy that is kind of hostile response. If I had taken the word of my friend,
I wouldn't have bothered with the post. I just don't want to invest a large
amount of time learning a tool if it can't do the job. The replies I have
seen so far indicate that it is worth my time to it out.

Actually, there was no need for pussyfooting around, it was sound
advice, if taken, will save you wasting your time and money ... advice
based on a good deal of practical experience ... take it or leave it.

The only way to know if something is suitable for your use is to try it
_yourself_, taking the word of someone else is unwise and will only cost
your both time and money ... particularly true of software used for
designing woodworking projects.

What works for me may or may not work for you. AAMOF, you will _never_
find that out by asking here. To find that out with lasting satisfaction
takes a disciplined, internal reality check at the beginning.

`Will I be satisfied with 2D, or do I need 3D capability?

`What is the general consensus of users regarding ease of use and
learning curve?

`What about support, and very important in this day and age, is their an
online community where support and answers to questions are easily
obtainable?

`Is third party support/information/expertise readily available, like
books from bookstores?

`Would it be beneficial to me if the software lends itself easily to
generating things like cutlist's for ordering woodworking material,
optimzing utilization of that material and cutting down on waste?

`Will I ever have the need to collaborate with others on a design?

`If so, is it important that my ultimate choice have the ability to make
that easy, and cheaply done for both parties?

`What do I need as far as features, with particular thought to features
that I will pay for, but never use?

In short, those are just few of the questions you should answer
internally _before_ you spend your money, and your time, both concerns
of yours expressed in your original post.

Again, the answers/results is different for everyone, but if you find a
logical fit and don't spend the time to become facile with the program,
you will have wasted your time, and possibly money, and will indeed will
have been better off sticking with paper and pencil, as first noted.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 19:05:03 -0700, LDosser wrote:

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...


Sorry, but after spending more than a half-century developing software
(link in sig),
I'll see your Spectra 70/45 and raise you an RCA 501 and 301. )

I'll put in a Univac and a Ramac :-).

OK, so throw in the Philco 2000, too...

--

Dick Snyder wrote:

computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend who
uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that
sophisticated.

Sketchup is quite sophisticated and easy to use, once you learn how to
use it. Your friend either didn't spend the time to learn it (most
likely) or is using cad to design something way, way, way more
sophisticated than an "entertainment center" Having said that, cad
programs simply are not all that easy to learn, you must invest a good
bit of effort to learn how they work. Many people go to school to learn
this crap. Sketchup can be learned on line, no school needed.

I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning time on a CAD
program

Money is a non-issue as Sketchup is free. Don't let the $600 for the
pro version fool you, the "basic" or free version does more, way more
than any common woodworker needs. And the pro version adds about nothing
useful for the average wood worker. You can export your drawings to
AutoCad, for example... If you have a $10,000 copy of AutoCad laying
around, you might need that ability.

unless I can get a recommendation on this group for a product that one of
you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper, pencil, and eraser?

I would guess of of now, more woodworkers use Sketchup as their design
program than any other software. This is really good because the
internet is chock full of free information on its use, as in detailed
tutorials, and components like swivel casters or full blown drawings of
things like entertainment centers.

First you take the word of someone else instead of making up your own mind
about a particular program; then you don't want to spend money, or your
time, on learning a skill to do what you are asking others to advise you
on?

Boy that is kind of hostile response.

Thats unusual for Swingman. He is the one to ask about Sketchup. He
uses it commercially to build everything from full kitchens to complete
houses. He has the pro version so he is the one that can, and will tell
you you probably don't need to spend any cash on that, but is the only
one I know of in this rec that has in depth experience with both the
free, and the pro version.

If I had taken the word of my friend,
I wouldn't have bothered with the post. I just don't want to invest a large
amount of time learning a tool if it can't do the job.

Most that use Sketchup have invested a lot of time learning it. Most
are self taught, so that makes it a bit of work, but, the internet is
full of good tutorials that will get you going fairly fast, IF you take
your time, and loose some of the preconceived notions that thwart
learning something as complicated (and free) as this, you will get there.

It's best to work through these tutorials step by step, pausing and
switching back and forth.

I know because I started, quit, started, quit 4 times before I figured
it out, and most of the problems were with my preconceptions of what a
free program would be able to do. Just about every limitation I
*thought* it had turned out to be wrong, the limitation was with me, not
sketchup.

The replies I have
seen so far indicate that it is worth my time to it out.

I've been around woodworking and computers for a very long time, and I
can emphatically say yes, it is worth the time. If you're building
kitchens cabinets, living room furniture, tables, chairs, entertainment
centers, computer stations, round stuff, square stuff or about anything
related to basic cabinetmaking, Sketchup is your tool for designing. It
can draw quickly to exact dimensions, show you pretty much what the
finished project will look like, print out pictures in as much detail as
you like and so on.

My big tip for you is if you think it should be able to do something,
and think it can't, you most likely need to learn more about it. Ask
here, or search the net, you eventually will learn it can do most
anything you need quickly and easily.

People like Leon and Swingman (and me) would not be wasting our time
telling people it is a great woodworkers tool if it wasn't. The
naysayers almost always have some combination of lack of knowledge,
investment in other pricey software, or some crazy, over the top needs
that most wood workers don't really have.

YouTube has a lot of good stuff for the beginner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPHcn...eature=related

Go through some of that, and get familiar with the tools, learn some hot
keys and so on. Once OK with that, I liked this guys methods to build a
simple bookcase:
http://garykatz.blip.tv/file/2375765/

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

On Apr 11, 10:32*am, Swingman wrote:
On 4/11/2010 4:45 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:





On 4/11/2010 2:01 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 4/10/2010 8:49 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Tracing an image and skipping definition of contoured surfaces don't
work for me.

The "tracing" of a component, imported into a project from an outside
source, is routinely done as a matter of convenience and is a common
practice to speed up a project, with any design software, and is one of
the reasons for an "import" feature.

Furthermore, it is inarguable that if the software contains the tools to
effectively "trace" a component, it therefore has the tools/ability to
"draw" it instead, should you chose to do so, as this software indeed
does.

Your argument in that regard falls flatly on its face ...

Yeah fine. Give this easy one a whirl:

Draw parabola with curve length of 96" between intersections with the
latus rectum (a line through the focus perpendicular to another line
passing through both focus and vertex). Points separated by 0.0100"
along the x-axis, and accurate to +/-0.0005". I don't care whether you
draw or trace, only that all requirements be met, so that I can export
it as a DXF (the format needed for my 'Bot) and machine it accurately.

Obfuscation par excellence ... and totally, and ridiculously, irrelevant.

Your arguments thus far do nothing to disprove that.

Eh? Why should I have any interest in proving or disproving anything?

Yep, it's indeed a mystery why you bothered in the first place. You've
made it plain in the past that you have little use for the software;
that you don't use it; have minimum experience with it and are ignorant
of its capabilites for the most part.

So, what's behind this obsession with taking snide shots at every
opportunity that presents itself?

Hell, it wasn't even a good troll, so why bother muddying the water with
ignorance?

A little self reflection might be in order there, Bubba ...

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

I'm a little late to the party, but 'snide shots', 'obsession',
'troll' and 'ignorance' are not words I can associate with the Morris
*I* know.

Some self reflection is in order, however, but I am a bit confused as
to who should be doing the reflecting.

On 4/11/2010 5:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:

Some self reflection is in order, however, but I am a bit confused as
to who should be doing the reflecting.


Here ya go, Bubba. Let me help you out:

"For things that are essentially boxes - like kitchen cabinets and,
perhaps, your entertainment center CNC has acquired a substantial
following. "

A ridiculously ignorant, superficial remark, showing a decided lack of
depth of understanding, eh?

Now, live with it ... lol

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 4/11/2010 9:32 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 4/11/2010 4:45 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 4/11/2010 2:01 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 4/10/2010 8:49 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Tracing an image and skipping definition of contoured surfaces don't
work for me.

The "tracing" of a component, imported into a project from an outside
source, is routinely done as a matter of convenience and is a common
practice to speed up a project, with any design software, and is one of
the reasons for an "import" feature.

Furthermore, it is inarguable that if the software contains the tools to
effectively "trace" a component, it therefore has the tools/ability to
"draw" it instead, should you chose to do so, as this software indeed
does.

Your argument in that regard falls flatly on its face ...

Yeah fine. Give this easy one a whirl:

Draw parabola with curve length of 96" between intersections with the
latus rectum (a line through the focus perpendicular to another line
passing through both focus and vertex). Points separated by 0.0100"
along the x-axis, and accurate to +/-0.0005". I don't care whether you
draw or trace, only that all requirements be met, so that I can export
it as a DXF (the format needed for my 'Bot) and machine it accurately.

Obfuscation par excellence ... and totally, and ridiculously, irrelevant.

Perhaps irrelevant to you, but has real relevance to others (a _lot_ of
others!) Photos he

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Heat.html

It's a real project. No one much cares whether it's relevant to you. I
was merely curious to find out if you and SketchUp were up to the
challenge - and received a clear enough answer.

Your arguments thus far do nothing to disprove that.

Eh? Why should I have any interest in proving or disproving anything?

Yep, it's indeed a mystery why you bothered in the first place. You've
made it plain in the past that you have little use for the software;
that you don't use it; have minimum experience with it and are ignorant
of its capabilites for the most part.

I've made clear that I felt it seemed to be a weak tool for some real
problems I was trying to use it to solve, and when I did so I limited my
comments to my specific problem.

Back when I had access to a.b.p.w, I posted SketchUp solutions (the last
I can recall was for dado set storage) and have had SketchUp
illustrations on my web site for quite some time - along with a credit
that some of the drawings had been produced using SketchUp. See

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/LLJ/

If a couple of years of use is "minimum experience", then your statement
is true, otherwise false.

I'll assume you're telling the truth, and so will feel free to warn
newbies that the resident SketchUp disciple pronounced two years of use
"minimal experience".

So, what's behind this obsession with taking snide shots at every
opportunity that presents itself?

You exaggerate - I've passed on most of the opportunities, but now that
I know you're so emotionally involved I'll try to do better.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 4/11/2010 12:27 AM, LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 4/10/2010 9:05 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but after spending more than a half-century developing
software
(link in sig),

I'll see your Spectra 70/45 and raise you an RCA 501 and 301. )

You win - besides, the 70/45 was just a thin film approximation to a
360/30 (same instruction set and I/O devices, but had a sexier front
panel)

Operating that 501 was like playing an organ ...

When we got the 70/45s I went to supervision. All the fun had been
taken
out of operation.

Half decent pic he

http://archive.computerhistory.org/r...6273.fc.lg.jpg


Might even be me in the photo - wore a suit just like that. )

Hmm - I may have seen one of those. At one point in '65 the outfit I
was working for needed more capacity so one Saturday I was loaded into
a cab with a couple dozen tapes to borrow the 70/45 at NIPSCO
(Northern Illinois Public Service Co).

They still had their pre-Spectra system (just in case) and it looked a
lot like that.

That trip was my intro to RCA's high-speed tape drives - which, as I
discovered, meant that if they glitched they could suck about 250' of
tape into a vacuum column faster than an operator could say ****, and
pack it so tight that it took a letter opener to pry out.

By the third time it'd stopped being even mildly interesting. (Hit the
COIN button, abort the run, pry the tape out of the drive, rewind the
other drives, mount a backup tape, and re-start the program. Ugh.

Yeah, those babies were Fun. We used to have contests to see how quickly
you could get all the drives off BT and then rewound - using the
console. Then there was the tape mount rodeo! And with 3/4" tape, you
did some upper body work every shift. When we got the Spectras, I wrote
some cod to emulate the tape drives using the spectra disk drives.
Really speeded up the stuff we still had to run using the 501 and 301
emulators. Drove the 501 prototype for a couple weeks in Camden, NJ.
IIRC, RCA had several in Viet Nam. Supposedly one running in a tent,
which I can believe as ours could take all kinds of a licking and keep
on ticking!

Did they have a goony bird paper tape reader? Sometimes you had to use
the eraser on the end of a pencil to keep the pt reader from snapping
the tape. Idea was to use an Unsharpened pencil - DAMHIKT! I used to be
able to read the paper tape manually.

Ah, the tape emulator idea. We had a 360/40 and got a 7094 free from
the Navy. Also got an IBM TICU (Tape Intersystem Connecting Unit). It
connected to the 7094 and looked exactly like 10 tape drives. It also
connected to the 360 and didn't look like anything without some code
work. I got the job of writing the tape emulator program on the 360.
We were running OS/MFT and I had all of 8K for code and buffers. The
challenge was the 7090 could read/write 32K words of 36 bits in one
whack. It was an interesting I/O chaining challenge with CCW's imbedded
in the disk buffers. It also depended on a seek of one cylinder taking
no more time than one rotation of the disk and not having any
re-assigned tracks. Those were the days...


We thought they'd never end ... As late as 1983 I was still keying stuff in
on the front panel of an SDS Sigma 7 - using my nose. ) Had to Manually
calculate overlays and break up the code to fit.

Worked on a port of Unix to PDP Micro J/11 only to find out two years later
that the company hadn't licensed it from ATT.