31 May
2024
31 May
'24
6:17 p.m.
It appears that I am in error. I see that micro-electronics or something
similar can be used in a computer or computer-like device. If a non-uP
machine accomplishes the same result then I bow to being corrected. I
want/wish to learn new things.
Happy computing,
Murray 🙂
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 8:54 PM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
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>
accepted
have the definitive definition of ‘first’ or ‘personal’, I will just
mention that:
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
> 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
• 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.