< ::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
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
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
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
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]
> 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
< 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
> 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
< > 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
< 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
