Replicas - was Re: *** Ideas needed for developing interactive displays....

[Hans B PUFAL]

Tony Duell wrote:

> Sorry, but I object to technical museums that present replicas (and 
> emulators hidden inside the case of an older machine, and...) as the real 
> thing. You would not accept an art gallery that showed copies of the 
> famous paintings, you shouldn't accept it for computers either.
> 
> If I go to a museum it's because I want to see the real machine -- one I 
> don't happen to already have. I don't want to see a fake.

I agree with you that the representation of a replica as an original is 
reprehensible. But, if the choice is a replica or nothing?

I am thinking of Sellams PDP-1 replica in Tokyo, by all accounts they 
tried but could not secure an original, so they did the next best thing.
In any case had they succeeded in getting an original it would not have 
been able to run any software so in some sense the replica could be 
considered "better". I would sincerely hope that do not represent 
Sellams work as an original PDP-1, there again it is original in the 
other sense of the word ;-)

Another example : the baby machine in Manchester. It also a replica, 
built with original components where those could be found. It is not 
represented as an original, but as a reconstruction.

I think that, properly represented, replicas do have a place in a 
museum. They allow the demonstration of working machines where the 
originals are too far gone to continue functioning.

Regards,

    -- HansP


> 
> -tony
>