[HN Gopher] The Epson HX-20 - A Contrarian's View (2021)
___________________________________________________________________
The Epson HX-20 - A Contrarian's View (2021)
Author : rbanffy
Score : 56 points
Date : 2024-03-12 14:45 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (feertech.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (feertech.com)
| aidenn0 wrote:
| It seems like it would have been easy to use as a battery-powered
| POS terminal, with just some simple BASIC software. That might
| not have been sufficiently better than a mechanical cash register
| or a carbonless-copy receipt pad though to justify it.
| spiderxxxx wrote:
| You'd think so, but I can't find anyone had actually been using
| it as such. Since it can read and write tapes, it seems it
| would be perfectly suited to running a retail store's day to
| day business. The barcode scanner and some basic database
| software would have probably sold like hotcakes as a portable
| POS system.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Were there barcode scanners that were efficient enough to be
| battery-operated in 1981?
| internet101010 wrote:
| Epson is one of those companies that creates a solid product and
| just lets it ride. Like their V600 scanner has been $250-350 for
| its entire lifetime and is still the best on the market; it came
| out in 2009.
| throw_pm23 wrote:
| I remember my family having bought a PC and an Epson printer
| sometime in the 1990s. Both were roughly in the ~$1000 range.
| Almost a decade later we considered selling the computer for
| ~$50, and gave it away instead. We sold the printer for about
| the same price we bought it. (It was a type of printer that was
| in demand as small companies could print invoices and receipts
| with it).
|
| EDIT: I checked the model and incredibly it is still sold,
| between $300-$1000 on ebay, etc.
| buildbot wrote:
| Scanners are also a tech that has pretty much plateaued -
| correct me if I am wrong, but the linear arrays are fairly
| cheap and the resolution is a product of the linear array and
| the minimum step size, and steppers have not gotten much
| better. There are 2x+ more dense linear arrays than the v600
| has that exist, but that only would improve one dimension of
| the resolution.
|
| Also, the v600 is a great consumer scanner, but OH BOY can you
| get more fancy, for film you have the hasselblad/imacon line
| that are still a few thousand used, then you have drum scanners
| for the highest possible film scanning quality. For a more
| direct v600 comparison, there is this really, really old
| scanner that outperforms it:
| https://www.scansolutionsonline.com/media/1168/cezanne-elite...
|
| A more modern flatbed scanner: https://epson.com/For-
| Work/Scanners/Photo-and-Graphics/Epson... Sadly lower res than
| what used to be out there.
| fmajid wrote:
| The Imacon Flextight has been discontinued for a while now.
| Flatbed scannners are stagnant because there isn't enough
| demand to drive investment. Sheet-fed document scanners are
| still lively, but quality has gone down, my 2010 vintage
| ScanSnap S1500M has a high-quality CCD sensor, but newer
| models are almost invariably CIS with much lower color
| fidelity for scanning artwork.
|
| High-quality XY prepress scanners like the Cezanne you
| mention, or prepress leaders like Fuji Lanovia, Creo-Scitex
| are also discontinued since the industry's gone fully digital
| and doesn't expect to scan medium-format slides any more.
|
| No wonder Gen-Z finds scanners exotic and terrifying:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/27/gen-z-
| tec...
|
| The only actively produced scanner that can outperform the
| V600 is Epson's V850.
| buildbot wrote:
| Fair enough - personally, I'd use a digital camera to scan
| large things anyway, possibly using an XY gantry if needed.
| Use a monochrome sensor + color filter wheel for extra
| points.
|
| Scanners terrify generations equally in my opinion ;)
| spiderxxxx wrote:
| This thing was pretty solid. The circuitboard is silk screened
| on both sides with labels for everything, test points, and a
| trademark Epson thick technical manual. Repair is fairly easy
| except for the self destructing batteries that take out the
| FFCs inside. Still, if you can get your hands on one, you can
| probably repair it. The technical manual even goes into detail
| on how to install the capacitors, recommending about 1mm below
| the capacitor for the legs to come up and connect, so in the
| future if you have to replace them, you just cut the legs off
| and remove the remnants.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| I have one, funnily it was from the German military that used it
| for artillery calcularions.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Who said there's no digitalization in Germany?
| bballard wrote:
| As a forward observer once radioed to artillery during WWII,
| "Stop computing and start shooting!"
| helpfulContrib wrote:
| Its really nice that the language of that era still informs and
| inspires designers today.
|
| I have a small collection of ClockworkPi toys, most recently a
| couple of uConsole's, and they are delightful reminders of an
| aesthetic that still lingers on, in the minds of those raised on
| computers-as-life.
|
| The cyberdeck guys are going to continue this, I just know it. I
| hope we see an Epson HX-20-esque re-imagining of the ClockworkPi
| somewhere along the line ..
| surteen wrote:
| The later Epson PX-8 has a much more usable screen in a similar
| form factor.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| The DevTerm is their closest form factor imo
| https://www.clockworkpi.com/home-devterm. I bought one for
| kicks, the keyboard kinda sucks but the built in receipt style
| printer is badass.
|
| The uClonsole also looks pretty sweet.
| spiderxxxx wrote:
| If there was a devterm with a 80% keyboard I'd gladly buy it,
| but that tiny keyboard on it makes it a no from me.
| somat wrote:
| A question I have about this era of of computing. Why did DOS
| win?
|
| BASIC, for all it's faults, would have been a much nicer shell
| environment than the extremely limited CPM/DOS syntax. From this
| modern perspective I would have guessed at the time that BASIC
| would have grown better file management operations and been the
| home computers equivalent to the unix shell. that is, not a great
| programing language but let you run commands and easily, using
| the same language, program them.
|
| Instead the primitive(in comparison to BASIC syntax) CPM command
| interrupter and moreso Microsofts "we have CPM at home" DOS
| syntax won the home computer market. why? every computer in that
| critical 1981 lineup, including the IBM PC, had a BASIC rom.
| snakeyjake wrote:
| This may come as a shock to someone reading HN, but
| approximately 0.0% (rounded) of all people care about shell
| programming.
|
| Whatever gets programs to run the easiest wins. DOS was easier
| than BASIC.
|
| Hell, I had been using computers for well over a decade to
| accomplish tasks when they plopped me down in front of a Sun
| SPARCStation 5 and someone mentioned that the Bourne Shell
| could automate a bunch of the stuff I was doing.
| groby_b wrote:
| Because BASIC is a programming language (and was included with
| DOS, cf MS BASIC)
|
| DOS won because it offered a consistent way to manage your
| files and applications, it was "better" than CPM, and it was
| available on more machines than anything else. (DOS didn't win.
| The PC won. DOS tagged along)
|
| It's worth noting that it didn't, for a long time, "win" the
| home computer market. That was wildly diverse, until PCs were
| good & cheap enough to replace home computers. And at that
| point, sheer prevalence started squeezing out home machines.
| That world ended, more or less, with the Atari ST and the Amiga
| 500 - because both of those were great, and both were niche
| tools.
|
| PCs were the thing that you could use for games _and_ work
| stuff. It turns out "getting stuff done" matters much more to
| people than engaging in purity debates.
|
| (Also relevant in this context:
| https://www.dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html)
| AkBKukU wrote:
| I am deeply steeped in the history of computers and the biggest
| three things I can point to as the reason (MS-)DOS won are:
|
| - Licensing: Most computers either had custom operating systems
| that were not shared with other hardware vendors, or in the
| case of BASIC frequently, were licensed themselves.
|
| - IBM letting the genie out: The BIOS on the IBM PC 5150 was
| cloned, quickly and legally, and other companies started making
| compatibles. This caused an _explosion_ of computer variety in
| a few short years for a single platform.
|
| - Microsoft: DOS usually means "Microsoft DOS", Microsoft also
| was responsible for many of the BASIC environments of early
| systems as well. The ability to buy your OS from someone else
| lowered the pressure on hardware makers. IBM also favoured
| Micorsoft's DOS over CP/M-86 and stopped supporting it quickly.
|
| All this meant the PC compatible ecosystem with Microsoft DOS
| became easy to make from a hardware side, and lacked a single
| point of failure like Apple, Radio Shack, Commodore. Atari,
| etc. There were other MS-DOS compatible DOS's out there, but
| MS-DOS was usually the one shipped with computers to be as "IBM
| compatible" as they possibly could and gained dominance through
| that.
|
| EDIT: To those who may not be aware, BASIC did become more OS
| like before going away. HP BASIC was extremely feature packed
| before HP-UX replaced it and was more capable than MS-DOS in
| many ways. It evolved far beyond just a programming language.
| tcbawo wrote:
| > This caused an explosion of computer variety in a few short
| years for a single platform.
|
| The impact of this point can not be overstated. 99% of
| businesses make a much larger investment in software (and
| people!) than hardware. The idea that compatible hardware
| systems existed was a great hedge on their investment in
| software. For most businesses, this would be a no-brainer!
|
| Over a short time, other propietary/non-compatible systems
| were relegated to home use, education, and gaming.
| shrubble wrote:
| First, IBM created an open standard which stuck due to their
| size.
|
| Then the killer app Lotus 123 came out and it didn't use Basic
| and nothing you wrote in Basic could compete with 123 either.
|
| My older brother bought a $4000 TI Professional computer, added
| 123 and made enough to pay for it over 1 weekend (time
| sensitive tax related documents for a real estate transaction).
| He couldn't have done it with Basic.
| bombcar wrote:
| This and piracy was the kicker.
|
| And the business machines companies paid $$$ for to get
| access to 123 ended up at home a few years later as newer
| machines entered the workforce.
| pvg wrote:
| DOS won because IBM PCs and PC compatibles won. Most of the
| popular earlier 8 bitters had a merged REPL that did both BASIC
| and 'operating system' interaction. So, for instance, on an
| Apple ][, the default prompt put you in the BASIC REPL from
| which you could also run the Apple DOS (later ProDOS, neither
| related to MS DOS) commands.
| spiderxxxx wrote:
| True. DOS wasn't better, it's just the first OS I've used,
| but CP/M works just fine and is easy to learn. Not that
| that's relevant to this machine, it has no real OS, just a
| basic system for managing the hardware.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Because DOS is a disk OS and BASIC is an interpreted
| programming language.
|
| The point of DOS isn't just the command line. It provides a set
| of standard abstracted system calls that can be used by any
| developer working in any language with a compatible compiler,
| including assembler, to create any application.
|
| A command line interpreter sits on top of the library for
| immediate use, but that's just the part the user sees. The meat
| of DOS is the function library.
|
| BASIC doesn't work like that. It _is_ an application, and other
| software can 't access its commands from outside. It was never
| designed to allow that, and extending to it to make it possible
| would have created a confusing, slow, inefficient, and
| unreliable mess.
| icedchai wrote:
| Still, many 8-bit micros extended BASIC to provide a "shell"
| for their DOS equivalent. For example, the Apple II with both
| ProDOS and DOS 3.3. There was still an underlying DOS
| library. It would've made sense for the PC to do the same,
| given all the contemporary 8-bit systems.
| deldelaney wrote:
| Why DOS? 1) Gary Killdall thought too high and mighty of CP/M
| (maybe rightly) while 2) Bill Gates had nothing to lose from
| selling IBM what they needed to the new PC. Gates told them
| what they wanted to hear, and he won. That dweeb was smart and
| his dad being a lawyer taught him about contracts. He then sold
| DOS to all the clones with a forced per CPU license, even if
| MSDos wasn't sold with the Clone. Gates made bank early.
|
| Interesting side note. It took years for PC users to gain
| multi-user capabilities, mostly when with Novell connected
| machines and brought file/record locking etc. And before the PC
| multiuser was already in MP/M and Unix on machines like Altos
| and Molecular Computer. Killdall would have probably got eht
| market back if he hadn't died.
|
| And fast forward today, deep down Windows still runs much DOS
| code. Like Veeger it's morphed into Windows whatever.
| jpitz wrote:
| That was strongly true for a long time through Windows 9*,
| but with Windows NT/2000 much less so as the core was
| primarily influenced by David Cutler's experiences with VMS.
| fortran77 wrote:
| There's no DOS code running deep down in Windows. What do you
| have to gain by saying these things?
| jhallenworld wrote:
| One reason is limited memory and address space- the in-memory
| size of CP/M was something like 9K (including BIOS, BDOS and
| CCP). BASIC is at least another 8K. If you are using CP/M as a
| program loader, you don't want to waste that 8K.
|
| Another is that BASIC was not extensible, at least not in any
| standard way. But CP/M was: to add a command to CP/M, you just
| add a .COM file of that name to the disk.
| microtherion wrote:
| My first sizable programming job in high school was with one of
| these, I think. A special education teacher had written an app to
| create a Blissymbolics <https://www.blissymbolics.org>
| communicator and hired me to tune it up, because some of his more
| prolific students had mastered more symbols than the app could
| readily handle.
|
| I spent quite some time with the machine, and felt it was fairly
| capable for the time (my reference being CBM a.k.a. PET
| desktops).
| deldelaney wrote:
| Yep cool, but the tiny screen was ridiculous and hard see, let
| alone sell.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| This is a weird take - dunking on a product from more than forty
| years ago because it doesn't have modern ease of use.
|
| It's like complaining a 1990s dumb phone wasn't an iPhone, or
| that a 1920s string and canvas biplane wasn't a 1960s SR-71.
|
| Yes, obviously, but why would anyone expect that?
| squarefoot wrote:
| "... the charging circuit is, to put it mildly, primitive. There
| is no charging indicator. Nor is there a sign that the batteries
| are fully charged. The HX-20 manual states that empty batteries
| should be put on charge for 8 hours. Leaving them longer risks
| damaging them, but without any way to tell that they are full
| there is no way to be sure you've timed it right. "
|
| This is normal for NiCd and later NiMH batteries. They're
| recharged applying regulated (ideally constant) current for a
| given time, and it's impossible to get a figure of their charge
| status just by sampling their voltage like with Lithium cells,
| which are dangerous indeed if abused, still much much easier to
| recharge. The only known ways to check those cells status are to
| either continuously sample the energy put in, or to intercept the
| so called _delta V_ and _delta T_ , a very slight (millivolts)
| decrease in cell voltage near the end of charge, paired with an
| increase of temperature which indicates the cell can't store more
| energy. This becomes even more difficult with battery packs, and
| makes measuring their status very hard when charging, and
| completely impossible if kept in use at the same time. Many
| portable safety anti-blackout lamps from the 70s to the 90s used
| NiCd and NiMH batteries, and many of them broke after some time
| because they kept their batteries under constant charge.
| jhallenworld wrote:
| I used one long ago: I remember that, as with the TRS-80 model
| 100, the keyboard was outstanding.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-12 23:00 UTC)