test-drb October 1998

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

175 participants
1141 discussions

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< ::It was Intel's competitors - notably Motorola and especially MOS < ::Technology - who were responsible for driving microprocessor CPU cost < ::to the hundred-dollar-level and below. That's when times really bega < ::a-changin'. Tim is right as is was MOS Tech. that lobbed the biggest shot by offering the 6502 for a mere $20 (single unit price!) at one of the computer shows. < I agree with this. The 6502 architecture and the 6800/68000 series did m Where did zilog fit in... they certainly improved on the 8080, they did it cheaper and had a design that was easier to use too. Forced intel to emphasize the 8085 that didn't extend the instructionset of the 8080 any significant amount. < to advance low-cost computing than anything Intel did. Intel seemed perf < satisfied to stay in the high-end market until relatively recently. I strongly disagree. The following were Intel chips aimed at low to mid end applications/markets. 8048/9 series the 8088 and 80188 parts (8bit bus lower cost to use design with) 8051 series That may not be the total list either. The market that intel couldn't or didn't care to be in was the $1 single chip microprocessor market where TMS1000, COPS, uCOM4 and other 4bitters can and did have a distinct presence. Allison

26 years, 2 months

Top 10 Holy Grails of Classic Microcomputer Collecting

by altair8800＠hotmail.com

I received a tip last year that a long time computer business located in Mobile, Alabama was a virtual storehouse of vintage machines. I payed them a visit and could not get past the receptionist. I was told that they occasionally donated the things to be used in educational institutions but that they were absolutely not interested in selling anything. About six months later I learned that the business had closed. Subsequently, I was told by a veteran employee of this firm that when they shut their doors they hauled two Xerox Altos (among many others) to the landfill. I told this person that it was unlikely that they would ever have been in possesion of Xerox Altos but he was adamant that they were indeed Xerox Altos. In hindsight, I now wish I had fibbed to that receptionist and told her that I was connected with the University of Alabama. Bob Wood ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

26 years, 2 months

Top 10 Holy Grails of Classic Microcomputer Collecting

by kaikal＠MICROSOFT.com

Whoops, Holy Grails of Classic PERSONAL Computer Collecting :) I only put in "Micro" to leave out the PDP-1's, etc. -----Original Message----- From: Doug Yowza [mailto:yowza@yowza.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 4:14 PM To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers Subject: Re: Top 10 Holy Grails of Classic Microcomputer Collecting On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Kai Kaltenbach wrote: > 2. Xerox Alto Not a micro. > 5. Kenbak-1 Not a micro. > 10. IBM 5100 Not a micro. You need three more :-) -- Doug

26 years, 2 months

Aquarius Data Recorders

by kaikal＠MICROSOFT.com

Well, my whole Aquarius only cost $35 with mini-expander and 3 carts, so I guess I'd go maybe $10 on a tape drive. Kai -----Original Message----- From: David Williams [mailto:dlw@trailingedge.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 1:50 PM To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers Subject: Aquarius Data Recorders I just received an email from a local group which has 250 new in box Aquarius cassette recorders. They are taking bids but I suspect you can't just buy a few but would have to take the whole lot. I have one but could use at least one more and maybe two and it would be nice to have the box and any doc or cables. Is there any interest in this out there? If so, how much would people be willing to pay? Don't forget shipping costs. Let me know. BTW, "local" in this case is Houston, TX. ----- David Williams - Computer Packrat dlw(a)trailingedge.com http://www.trailingedge.com

26 years, 2 months

VCF Press Clippings

by kaikal＠MICROSOFT.com

Any news on the airtimes for the ZDTV and CNET pieces? -----Original Message----- From: Sam Ismail [mailto:dastar@ncal.verio.com] Sent: Friday, October 02, 1998 9:50 PM To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers Subject: VCF Press Clippings Allow me to introduce you to my vanity: http://www.vintage.org/vcf/press.htm VCF press clippings for the past year or so. 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]

26 years, 2 months

Corrections to trivia

by allisonp＠world.std.com

> In some respect the F8 was like many early parts in that the < > CORE CPU was there but glue was needed to make it all work. < > (8080/8224/8228 for example). < < Yes. Are you arguing that the 8080 is not a microprocessor? Where did you get that idea from. It's a the idea that CPUs don't have to be single chip to constitute a microprocessor/microcomputer. The rest is stirring the pot to hear it clang. Allison

26 years, 2 months

a collectors grail

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< Don't you mean 1801R and 1801S? My early 18xx book doesn't list any 181 Both. Mine do, I have an unusual collection of RCA data books with alot of their loose data sheets as well. I used to call on the RCA microcomputer systems group down Somerville NJ. Allison

26 years, 2 months

Definitions

by franke＠sbs.de

> So would it be possible to come up with a group sanctioned list of > definitions for: > computer (generic) > digital computer > analog computer > minicomputer > microcomputer > processor > microprocessor > mainframe > Then when we all agreed on what the definition was we could argue 'firsts' > with some sort of logical frame-work. As it is, the discussions read a lot > like: I think the problem is that it's impossible to find a singe and _undisputed_ definition for any of the terms above. Even computer isn't clear at all (just remember Raul Rojas' speak about the Z1), not to mention this when is a microprocessor a microprocessor discusion going thruout the list. > No offense intended, my observation is that many discussions are running > around in circles because the participants haven't agreed on their basic > tenents yet. Same for me, but if we follow the ongoing thread, it will be visible, thats it's less about whats the first of wich ever (unclear) kind, and more about vague concepts and the impact of a certain design. All this firsts and this-but-not-that things operate at borderlines where are no real borders. Maybe there is a 'Uncertainty Principle' of certain 'seem to be exact' terms. Like ordinary physiks, they are usable for every day life, but when (we are) try to define the very finest structur, we have to discover that they are no more usable. Gruss H. BTW: should I call it Frankes Uncertainty Principle of Computer Terms ? (SCNR *g*) (I meet Werner Heisenberg once in 1972 at a speech at our school - quite an notable man.) P.S.: I like Sam's point about regarding unpretended tasks AND is like Doug's idea about (technical/comercial) impact. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but none can either be used as this blade everybody wants to have, since there is no strict this-or-that. I think both are to be considered. A concept without without follow up is not relevant, and if we only look for the (comercial) impact, so anything beside the x86 wouldn't be woth to be remembered ??? The true worth of this list is NOT to get this-or-that thing, it's about aquiering and enhance knowledge on all regarding fields, ideas, concepts, etc. -- Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut HRK

26 years, 2 months

Definitions

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< > So would it be possible to come up with a group sanctioned list of < > definitions for: < > computer (generic) < > digital computer < > analog computer < > minicomputer < > microcomputer < > processor < > microprocessor < > mainframe Pick up a dictionary and use it! These words have a definition that works if used concisely. Then we also need to get group santioned english. Part of the problem is these are exacting terms that are often abused linguisticly. After all it's easity to say X is first computer. Only to be corrected because you didn't say analog, digital, mechanical, electrical, relay, vacuum tube, transistor, integrated circuit, RTL, TTL, ECL, MOS, CMOS, ad infinitum. If this seems nitpicky consider this statement; The norden bomb sight, an analog mechanical computer has it roots in what? If that appears to be an exercise for the inane we are preserving, using, trading, collecting and otherwise dealing with history and in archeological terms what, where, when, who, how are other questions are part of the story. Accuracy and minuniscule details are the essence of an industry that in my lifetime went from the early commercial vacuum tube machines to the 64bit CPU chip running some thousands of times faster. Allison

26 years, 2 months

Corrections to trivia

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< Historical footnotes are always intresting, but it seems to me that to < pronounce "the F15 CADC was first, not the Intel 4004" is a strawman. W It is if you leave it at first and don't get any more specific than that. the F14 CADC was the first microcomputer system that made fly by wire practical. The 4004 was the first commercially viable single chip CPU. Clear statments that do not conflict but do make a statment that points to their significance. < I'm not denying that Holt produced a CPU, and it may be important in th < history of military computers. It is irrelevant in the history of the < personal computer unless there was a personal computer designed that < included it or a direct descendant. Or the technology that made the silicon possible for later commercial designs. It doesn't have to be the same design. < I think it's great that Holt got his story out. Footnotes always add < depth, but no chapters need to be rewritten. The assuption is they are accurate chapters. ;) the depth is needed to see how the later chapters are significant. Allison

26 years, 2 months

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb October 1998