I was told about 20 years ago that it was Western Electric. They
were the 2nd largest manufacturer of PDP-11 next to DEC and produced
them under license for their "customer" AT&T.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ward Donald Griffiths III [mailto:gram@cnct.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 10:23 PM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: What was the first Unix micro?
OK, I'm getting tired of the arguments about who made the first
microprocessor. Fine. Maybe God did -- it's called DNA and as an
atheist I don't grant credit to anybody.
Trivia question: who made the first successful mass-produced _and_
mass-marketed (in one system) Unix hardware platform?
--
Ward Griffiths <mailto:gram@cnct.com> <http://www.cnct.com/home/gram/>
When I was crossing the border into Canada, they asked me if I had any
firearms with me. I said "Well, what do you need?" -- Steven Wright
At 03:13 AM 10/4/98 -0700, you wrote:
>The Model 100 OTOH is more structured around word processing, I'd say.
>This could be another reason for the 100's popularity and the workSlate's
>lack of popularity.
The m100 has three useful programs (and two worthless ones) in ROM: BASIC,
Text, and TelCom. The "operating system" consists of 4 or 5 lines of 4
columns of filenames (including the ROM based ones) which you select by
moving a cursor with the arrow keys and hitting return. The other half of
the OpSys was BASIC commands.
What really got the m100 selling, though, IMO was the fact that it could be
had at Radio Shack -- and there are (were) about a gazillion of those. How
many Convergent stores were there? (Or, for that matter, NEC, Olivetti,
and Kyocera, who all sold versions of the Kyocera machine that the m100 was
based on.)
I bought my m100 with a credit card at a Radio Shack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.sinasohn.com/
< Does anybody know if the H8 and H-89 were software compatible? I know
< CP/M was available for the H-89 (as well as HDOS), but I've only heard
< rumors of an H-8 CP/M -- maybe they're the same?
They were somewhat software compatable in that the both ran 8080 based
software. The H89 was z80, the H8 was 8080, they had differenet IO port
and memory maps. Both had different disk formats.
CPM for both could be the same in the sense that the CCP and BDOS were
always the same... The bios however was likely very different as that
is the part that interacts with the IO and disks.
Allison
< the other 480 of them will hit the scrapers. Then I just have to
< figure out what to do with the remaining 220 recorders that haven't
< been claimed yet.
Are these basically portable audio recroders or something special?
Please describe them.
Allison
>It looks like the vt62 could be equipped with an additional printer
>unit. Is this correct?
It takes the same thermal printer as found in the VT55...
Megan Gentry
Former RT-11 Developer
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry!zk3.dec.com |
| Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg!world.std.com |
| Compaq Computer Corporation | addresses need '@' in place of '!' |
| 110 Spitbrook Rd. ZK03-2/T43 | URL: http://world.std.com/~mbg/ |
| Nashua, NH 03062 | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler |
| (603) 884 1055 | required." - mbg |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Hey All,
Got this weekend an Intel 8085 System Design Kit (in original box)
with manuals and a Dec vt62.
It looks like the vt62 could be equipped with an additional printer
unit. Is this correct?
Regards,
Ed
Light haul at the thrifts today, but a couple of nifties:
"Computer Technicians Handbook, 3rd Edition" by Art Margolis - $0.95
Magnavox RGB 80 composite monitor - $4.95
Wyse 60, no keyboard - $4.95
Large PC board etching kit, unopened - $1.95
Aaron
< > Can someone help identify this board? It has a 8085AH CPU in the A9
< > socket. On the right the board says "Intel (C) 1977 MADE IN USA." On t
< > back of the circuit board is etched "PWB1001480-03 REV H." If you wan
< > to see what the board looks like click on my link below.
Processor for a Intel model 220 development system is a good possibility.
Unfortunately the copyright date on intel board has little to do with
design and manufacture date.
Allison
I second your opinion Sam.
Marty
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: What was the first Unix micro?
Author: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu at internet
Date: 10/7/98 11:42 PM
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Ward Donald Griffiths III wrote:
> OK, I'm getting tired of the arguments about who made the first
> microprocessor. Fine. Maybe God did -- it's called DNA and as an
> atheist I don't grant credit to anybody.
Oh, ok. God forbid we discuss computer history on this list, Ward. We'll
just go away now so you can fill up the list with your pointless one-line
replies.
Sam Alternate e-mail:
dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
------ Message Header Follows ------
Received: from lists2.u.washington.edu by smtp.itgonline.com
(PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.9i(b5) for Windows NT(tm))
id AA-1998Oct07.234233.1767.68426; Wed, 07 Oct 1998 23:42:34 -0400
Received: from host (lists.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.13])
by lists2.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with SMTP
id UAA08061; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:40:21 -0700
Received: from mxu1.u.washington.edu (mxu1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.8])
by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id UAA29970 for <classiccmp(a)lists.u.washington.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998
20:40:16 -0700
Received: from mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (mailhub2.ncal.verio.com
[204.247.247.54])
by mxu1.u.washington.edu (8.9.1+UW98.09/8.9.1+UW98.09) with ESMTP id UAA13
302
for <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:40:15 -0700
Received: from shell1.ncal.verio.com (dastar(a)shell1.ncal.verio.com
[204.247.248.254])
by mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA03164
for <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981007203816.10432B-100000(a)shell1.ncal.verio.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Sender: CLASSICCMP-owner(a)u.washington.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Sam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com>
To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers"
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: What was the first Unix micro?
In-Reply-To: <361C2218.3E448C98(a)cnct.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 beta -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
< It looks like the only characteristic that a multi-chip implementation
< partially breaks here is "highly integrated". Then again, a two-chip
< implementation is not necessarily much less integrated than a single-chi
< Now I wonder why this level of integration matters. Is there something
< that a two-chip implementation can't do, and a single-chip can? Did
< people really care about this level of space-savings to the extent that
< it was worth introducing a new word into the language?
The key is the limits of IC gate density of the moment. Now we can have
lterally millions so complexity is very high. Back when (1970-71) teh
semi houses were hitting the ceiling at about 1000 gates/2500 raw devices
to a chunk of silicon. So splitting a function across two chips was not
unresonable idea. It's was a reflection of *manufacturability*.
< Actually, until ten minutes ago, I would have had trouble calling the
< two-chip thing a microprocessor because it broke the definition I learne
< as a kid: single-chip. But even the characteristic of being similar to
< 4004 is relevant to the extent that you are careful in choosing which wa
< it has to be similar. The first 4004's were probably in ceramic; shoul
< that be part of the definition? Probably not. Why did we care about th
< 4004? Is being implemented on a single chip really the important bit?
< was it cost, ease of use, small size, ...? A two-chip implementation
< could very well have been important to us for exactly the same reasons
< that the 4004 was.
The 4004 was significant at several levels. It was relatively low cost
commercial product. It had a return address stack. It had a fairly
large number of registers (for that time it was a very large number).
There were other chips to facilitate low cost construction of dedicated
systems. Being few is packages and low in numbers of pins made PCboard
consturction cheap. the PMOS process used was low power compared to TTL
or DTL of the time. Each one of those elements were significant relative
to computer systems of the day regrdless of the type!
< So, when is it useful to distinguish single-chip from, say, dual-chip?
When talking at the archetecture level or when interfacing.
< What kind of practical decision would someone make based on that?
COST, number of pins, flexibility. The LSI-11 for example was the WD13
chip set, with differnt MICROMS it was the Alpha Micro or the WD
microengine. Same chips some containing differnt microcode. If you have
a LSI-11 and the rare but manufacured WCS you could acutally add
instructions to your LSI-11 to suit specialized needs. This is not
doable with most single chip implmentations.
< BTW, was the 4004 really the first in the Intel series of 4004, 4040,
< 8008, and 8080? I seem to remember that something in this sequence
< actually happened in non-ascending order, like maybe the 8008 preceded
< the 4004, or the 4040 came out last, or ...? It could make sense; you
< could imagine scaling back an existing design to penetrate some niche
< market with a cheaper part.
