1 Jun
2024
1 Jun
'24
12:53 a.m.
I would accept a bit-slice. as I understand that, you take 8 of them and daisychain them
to act on a byte of data. Many early minis used them afaik.
<pre>--Carey</pre>
On 05/31/2024 7:29 PM CDT Brent Hilpert via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 2024May 31,, at 4:37 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:02 PM Dave Dunfield via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Liam Proven wrote:
>> It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify.
>> ... No µP = not a PC.
>
> Not entirely sure ...
> http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv
>
> Dave
>
I quite agree. I do believe that a *u*P is the
minimum that can be accepted
to call a PC a microcomputer. Another is that it must be usable, i.e.,
non-programmable, for the average PC owner. Like a car one doesn't need to
know how it works in order to drive/use a car to get from one place to
another. One can use a computer to solve a spreadsheet problem in an
efficient manner without learning the inner-workings of such spreadsheet.
Happy computing,
Murray 🙂
With no expectation of changing the opinion of anyone who thinks they have the definitive
definition of ‘first’ or ‘personal’, I will just mention that:
• the HP9830 (1972),
• Wang 2200 (1973),
• IBM 5100 (1975)
were all:
• single-user,
• desktop (2200 with CPU and PS in pedestal)
• fully integrated (CPU, memory, storage, keyboard and display),
• boot-to-BASIC (or APL for the 5100)
machines.
None of them used a microprocessor.
And they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal computer of ~10 years
later.