<> Sounds bogus. The small laptops using 8080 (actually 8085) were the tand
<> M-100s and there were also the Epson and NEC but none were before 1979.
Most of the early laptops were either 8085 or z80 as both required less
support chips than the 8080 (8080+8224+8228) as the 8080 chip set required
three voltages and lots of board space. the 8085 or z80 were single 5v
at lower power needs. the 6502 was also popular for the application.
<On the subject of early laptops in general, I have heard much in praise
<of the Tandy model 100, but I like the Epson HX20 which has everything
<you could possibly want in a laptop except a decent sized screen!
Tandy improved the 100 with the 102 which has a lager screen.
Allison
> < Another "cute" blurb, "CP/M-86 is the 16 bit version of the de facto
> <industry standard microcomputer operating system, CPM. Once a user
> <slips the 8-inch floppy containing CPM-86 into a (IBM) Displaywriter,
> <an entirely new world of data processing will open up on the typist's
> <desk." Sounds almost pornographic. ; ^ ))
>
> Call that a snapshot in time before the PC explosion.
I like it! I used a Displaywriter occasionally at IBM, but I never knew
it had an 8088/86 in it! I didn't even know you could get a general
purpose operating system for it. It was a very nice machine, and ran a
version of Displaywrite nicer than _any_ of the PC implementations. I'd
love to get one for my collection...
Well, there you are. A non-IBM-compatible with an 8088/86, and made by
IBM too!
I would add the FTS series-88 - a very strange British box with an 8088
in it, also running CP/M-86. An 8086 CPU card exists, but the machine
was soon replaced by the FTS Series-86. This machine was sold as the
"Non-compatible Compatible" - it ran a multi-tasking version of CP/M-86
called Concurrent DOS, sold by a company whose name escapes me, but
begins with P (Pegasus?). It ran Lotus-123 from an IBM disk with no
complaints, even drawing graphs on the (monochrome) screen. I must get
mine working sometime...
Now for what Allison was waiting for - a mention of Honeywell :-) When
FTS went bust, they sold the design of the series-86 to Honeywell-Bull,
who marketed it as the Microsystem Executive. Needless to say it died
:-(
Philip.
> <I've recently heard of someone who told me about an 8080 laptop from
> <someone who has been into computers longer than I have. He said that
> <there was a laptop... in the 1970's, that was smaller than the origional
> <Compaq. It was soupossed to only have a little RAM, and it was used by
> <journalists, who would connect with a modem an upload the files. Is
> <this true? If so, what on earth ever happened to these? (Does this
> <sound like something else... H/PC come to mind?
>
> Sounds bogus. The small laptops using 8080 (actually 8085) were the tandy
> M-100s and there were also the Epson and NEC but none were before 1979.
> I did a quick flip through my Kbaud and Byte for 76-80 and there were no
> adverts for anything laptop other than a hand terminal that used a 4bit
> part.
I wonder. A few weeks ago I bought for L1 at a car boot sale a device
called a Microscribe 320. (Made by a Welsh company, Microscribe Ltd.,
but sold with a British Telecom badge.) This is a sub-notebook (7 in
square) terminal with built in text editor, 32K battery backed RAM and
40 x 8 character display. Before you all jump on me, yes, I know it was
built circa 1983. It is a very nice machine, the only thing wrong with
it being the small keyboard. Fortunately I don't touch type - FWIW I
use the index and middle fingers of each hand and am as fast as most of
the touch typers I know who aren't professional typists.
The reason I am replying is that shortly after I posted about it here
(and had a brief conversation with Tony Duell about how to power it up)
I received an e-mail from one Adrian Godwin, who had seen my posting,
and who also had a microscribe, and wanted to compare notes. In the end
we concluded that his was an earlier model than mine (less RAM, smaller
screen). So when did these start being made? Was there an even earlier
model right back in the seventies?
I would also like to thank Adrian (if he is reading this) who, when he
obtained a Microscribe manual, and discovered it was for mine and not
his, sent me a copy for free. The world needs more people like this!
On the subject of early laptops in general, I have heard much in praise
of the Tandy model 100, but I like the Epson HX20 which has everything
you could possibly want in a laptop except a decent sized screen!
Philip.
On 9 Nov 97 at 22:54, SUPRDAVE(a)aol.com wrote:
> i need some help with an applecolor rgb monitor if anyone can.
> does anyone know any way of testing this monitor?
Apple have mastered the art of confusing names for monitors. The
"original" colour monitor you need for a Mac II series is called the
"AppleColor Hi-Resolution RGB Display"; for early Mac II series
particular adaptor cards are required for particular monitors, so
your adaptor card will not work with an A4 portrait display for
example. From about 1990 it was replaced by the "Macintosh 12" RGB
Display" which was smaller and lighter,
There is a similarly named rgb monitor designed for the Apple IIgs;
this is a 12" analog display very similar to the Macintosh
display. It works with a horizontal refresh rate of 15.75kHz -- half
that supplied by the IIcx video port.
> i have one in the
> silver-gray colour that matches my mac IIcx yet, i cannot seem to get any
> video on it. i have tried using both a laser128 and a //c's rgb output into
> the monitor, but the only thing i can get is a deep blue screen with stable
> vertical lines with the //c, and a moving blue bar with the laser128 although
> they both can do rgb output and i was using the same cable.
Isn't the output from the //c and the laser *digital* rgb, not
*analog* rgb? You can also be certain that Apple didn't use the same
pinouts for the //c and the Mac II series so your cable will be wrong.
> when i tested the
> monitor with my mac cx which has a 1 bit mono card, i did get video, but was
> difficult to read, and i got double images of the desktop. i've already tried
> every control accessable on the monitor too.
This sounds like the IIgs display to me. I'd hang on to it -- they
are very highly regarded -- until a IIgs system turns up...
Phil
**************************************************************
Phil Beesley -- Computer Officer -- Distributed Systems Suppport
University of Leicester
Tel (0)116 252-2231
E-Mail pb14(a)le.ac.uk
<> Does anybody but me remember the Byte cover (1976, I think) of a 4-bit
<> computer built from transistors, diodes, etc. and wire? (No boards or
<> anything). There was a followup picture in the magazine some months
<> later after the cat had knocked it off the desk.
the first BYTE cover was sept 1976 and there was never such article around
then. There are two I remember the first was a terminally simple machine
of extreme limitations that illustrated microprogramming (simple TTL) and
was very low parts count. The other in the Aug and Sept 1985 Bytes called
EGO and was a 16bit general purpose machine using mostly TTL SSI/MSI (74181
was the most complex part). <SSI small scale integration 7400, 7474 are
examples and MSI medium scale integration such as 74181 or complex
counters.>
Allison
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first--Invent the
Universe.
---Dr. Carl E. Sagan
----------
From: "Lawrence Walker" <lwalker(a)mail.interlog.com>
To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers"
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Classic Computer Rescue Squad
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 10:26:08 +0000
> On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, William Donzelli wrote:
> 500 years from now, if what I am trying to accomplish with the Vintage
> Computer Festival succeeds, the machines which were truly significant from
> a social context, meaning the ones which ran the banking system, the
> airline system, government, etc. (in other words, the computers which were
> the foundation of modern society), will be the ones which we remember, and
> the Altair and others of its ilk will be merely novelties.
I'd reign in your desire to pidgeonhole computers into "novelties" vs
"socially significant" if I were you. Not only is EVERY piece of hardware
and software a legacy of the history of computing, but those "novelty"
computers (the Commodores, the Altairs, the Apples) were more than just 8
bit precursors to the current wave of desktop technology...they were
inextricably linked to the social mileux for whom, and in whose time, they
were developed...a sign of the times as it were. Part of the mystique of
the "novelty" computers of which you speak is the very fact that the design
and function of the computer reflected a historic mindset, the widespread
dissemiation and embracing of the IDEA of computing within the masses of
society. It would be foolish and shortsighted to try to relegate certian
aspects of computing history as "novelty" vs "foundation of modern society".
I would remind you that some of the founders of the modern age of
computing, architects of those computers you would no doubt find "socially
significant", started out peeking and pokeing their way along an 8 bit
piece of silicon that shaped far more influential commodities than the
banking system or the stock market...it shaped their MINDS.
A little respect for the grass roots of the computing age is in order.
Mark Tosiello
("Soapbox mode off, Mr. Spock")
After a very poor start, my weekend ended up great - I picked up three
Apple IIc's (which I didn't want as I already have two) for $10, but they
came with some thirty manuals for most of the Apple II range (along with
the Osborne Executive) and a number of books on the Apple IIs. Thinking
this made for a good day, I was later given a Microbee with the
Computer-in-a-Book drive,and a Dick Smith System 80. The Microbee was an
Australian Z80 CP/M system, highly sucessful both as kits (as they
originally were) and complete systems, especially in schools. I had been
searching for one for a while, but had very little luck - everyone I knew
who had one was too attached to it to let it go. The System 80 was a
TRS-80 Model 1 clone, with some interesting modifications - most notably an
inbuilt tape deck. Another computer I had been specifically looking for.
:)
Anyway, as to my question. The System 80 works fine, but it seems it needs
a cable to connect to the monitor. The monitor uses a standard TV aerial
connector, but the computer has a DIN. Fortunately I found a technical
manual for the computer in one of my piles of manuals at home, and it lists
the pin outs - one +5 volt, one ground, and one video output. It also has a
diagram of the cable, and it seems it is just a plain cable with different
plugs at each end. Knowing nothing about electronics, it seems to me that
the TV plug has only two contacts, not three - anyone know how I make the
cable? Or know where I might find a replacment?
I'm sure this is a really stupid question but I am a mere programmer -
technical stuff is way out of my league.
Thanks heaps,
Adam.
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first--Invent the
Universe.
---Dr. Carl E. Sagan
----------
From: William Donzelli <william(a)ans.net>
To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers"
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Classic Computer Rescue Squad
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:21:21 -0500 (EST)
> > On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, William Donzelli wrote:
> I'd reign in your desire to pidgeonhole computers into "novelties" vs
> "socially significant" if I were you. Not only is EVERY piece of hardware
Next time you want to turn your flamethrower on, please aim at the right
person. You quoted me for something I did not say.
Damn software anyway.......would be nice if I learned to read, wouldn't it?
Public apology hereby humbly expressed to William Donzelli, for inexplicably
confusing him with the author of the quote to which I responded.
Again, my mistake!
Mark Tosiello
William Donzelli
william(a)ans.net
<I've recently heard of someone who told me about an 8080 laptop from
<someone who has been into computers longer than I have. He said that
<there was a laptop... in the 1970's, that was smaller than the origional
<Compaq. It was soupossed to only have a little RAM, and it was used by
<journalists, who would connect with a modem an upload the files. Is
<this true? If so, what on earth ever happened to these? (Does this
<sound like something else... H/PC come to mind?
Sounds bogus. The small laptops using 8080 (actually 8085) were the tandy
M-100s and there were also the Epson and NEC but none were before 1979.
I did a quick flip through my Kbaud and Byte for 76-80 and there were no
adverts for anything laptop other than a hand terminal that used a 4bit
part.
I happen to have a Epson geneva (PX8) but that was years later(1984).
Allison
<If any of those network cards ARE token-ring and have BNC connectors, I
highly likely as IBM was a strong proponent for token ring.
<would love to buy a couple. I got an old Token ring MAU several years ago
<that has BNC ports and would like to try it out. Can't tell you how many
<people have flat out denied that Token Ring was ever carried over coax!
<But the existence of the MAU is proof enough that at one time it was done.
Obviously they never saw any of the WANG system that used it as the default
interconnect to EVERYTHING even POS terminals!
Allison
