what was the difference between the 4004 and the 4040? Presumably the
<4040 was faster / more flexible, but was it a completely different
<architecture?
Faster, larger register set and stack, increased instruction set fully
compatable with 4004.
Allison
hi all,
what was the difference between the 4004 and the 4040? Presumably the
4040 was faster / more flexible, but was it a completely different
architecture?
I remember seeing a fairly large box a few years back at my old college
in the electronics department labelled either "4004 CPUs" or "4004 CPUs"
- I really can't remember which but maybe there are still a few 4004's
out there!!
cheers
Jules
>
>
<So Intel's web site labels it as 108Khz, just as the 8008. See, the 800
<(from what I gather) was really a modified (although greatly modified) 40
<designed to accept data/characters, not numerical data.
That's like saying a Lotus Elan is a Model A with a smoother ride and
faster.
First the 8008 clock is 500khz for the slow 20us part the faster 12.5us
part was 800khz. Source is my 25 year old copy of the 8008 8 bit parallel
central procrossor unit users manual and my hand written notes from then.
I also have my listing and the printset for that project still.
Also if anything modified was not even a close term as the number and
organization of registers were considerably different from the 4004
though in some respects the overall organization was similar. At the
time IC designs like that were literally drawn on the wall and
photographed down to die size. It did however embody a 8bit data path
rather than 4. The bigger difference was the instruction set was larger
and more general than the 4004. The 4004 could process characters, it
was awkard due to the narrow data path and limited instruction set.
Allison
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ismail <dastar(a)wco.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, 17 May 1998 15:13
Subject: IBM Selectric used as printer on Apple ][+
>
>I saw a very cool thing today. I stopped off at a garage sale and found
>some old computer books (a couple on UCSD Pascal, the p-system, a FORTH
>book). The old lady tending the cash box said her husband had a big old
>Apple that they wanted to get rid of. Thinking it just might be a Lisa I
>followed up on this lead and went and got the old man. He took me to his
>other house where he had it stored. It turned out it was an Apple ][+,
>but it did have something cool about it. The old man told me that the ][+
>was his son's and he used it when he was at Stanford. Around the time a
>local bank was selling off a bunch of IBM Selectric typewriters that were
>being used as computer printers. They had an external box which provided
>the control mechanism for the computer. The son had a friend who was an
>electronics wiz and so he built an interface card for the Apple to drive
>the control box, thereby allowing the Apple to use the Selectric as a
>printer. Pretty cool. I dug through his manuals and found the schemtic
>for the adaptor card. I passed on it because I already had enough stuff
>for the day and the beast isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I'll
>probably go back for it someday (just the control box, the Selectric and
>the interface card).
>
>
>Sam Alternate e-mail:
dastar(a)siconic.com
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>Ever onward.
>
> September 26 & 27...Vintage Computer Festival 2
> See http://www.siconic.com/vcf for details!
> [Last web page update: 05/11/98]
>
email: desieh(a)southcom.com.au
desieh(a)bigfoot.com
museum_curator(a)hotmail.com
Apple Lisa Web Page:
http://www.southcom.com.au/~desieh/index.htm
yes in the early 1980s this modifacation was quite popular because the price
of printers was ofthen cost more than the
computer itself. these was also one where it fit over the keys of the
typewritier and had a interface card and it pushed the keys
when somthing was menat to be printed.....
cool eh?
At 10:23 PM 5/17/98 -0400, you wrote:
>> I have a guy who's looking for a 3330-011 so he can dump a diskpack. Anyone
>> have a spare they want to get rid of, or do you have one running so he can
>> get the data off?
>
>Hmmm...I think he is in for a bit of a disappointment, as those drives
>date back to 1970 or so. I really doubt there are any left doing work, or
>even having the potential to do work.
Knowing who this fellow is, this is probably a Y2K project, believe it or
not. I guess the company's drive finally gave up the ghost and they're in a
panic, or something like that.
>
>I do remember seeing a 400 meg 3330 in a junk yard two years ago. It was
>pretty well trashed, and the ton plus beast would not fit in my Escort.
Yeah, they just don't build cars the way they used to, do they. <g>
>
>Trivia: the 3330 "Merlin" was the first production drive to have servo
>tracks.
>
>William Donzelli
>william(a)ans.net
>
>
--
David Wollmann
dwollmann(a)ibmhelp.com
Bill Pechter <pechter(a)shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> Actually there was the 8/32 port done and a 7/32 port done. The 8/32
> was (I think, the AT&T port) the 7/32 was done by Wollongong and later
> migrated into Perkin-Elmer's Edition VII.
Another part of that intro I never wrote: I work for The Wollongong
Group, or what's left of it -- it was bought by Attachmate a couple of
years ago, and the office at 1129 San Antonio Road is a lot smaller
than it used to be.
I started working there in 1989. The "Perkin-Ernie" was gone by that
time. None of the old-timers still remaining ever called it an
Interdata in front of me, always "the Perkin-Elmer" or "Perkin-Ernie".
So I don't know a lot about it, just have the impression that it was
a lot like V7 and worked pretty well 'til near the end.
As I understand the early years of TWG, they got the rights to
commercially develop the Unix port done at the University of
Wollongong and turned it into the Edition VII product, and I think
TWG sold it under the Edition VII name.
Anyone care to clue me in on what I missed?
-Frank McConnell
So Intel's web site labels it as 108Khz, just as the 8008. See, the 8008
(from what I gather) was really a modified (although greatly modified) 4004
designed to accept data/characters, not numerical data.
Tim D. Hotze
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 3:35 AM
Subject: Re: Clock speed of the 4004?
>>
>>
>> Anyone know what the clock speed of the 4004 is? Courson's web page
>> mentions it not.
>
>I knew I'd kept that 1977 Intel databook for a good reason :-)...
>
>OK... define clock speed :-)
>The instruction cycle is claimed to be 10.8 us. That consists of 8 clock
>cycles, each of 1.35us minimum, 2us maximum. But conventionally the clock
>was sourced from a 4201A clock generator that divided an external xtal by
>either 7 or 8. Common crystals were either 4MHz divided by 8 (giving the
>2us cycle time, 16us instruction) or 5.185MHz divided by 7 (giving 1.35us
>clock cycle, 10.8us instruction).
>
>For real Intel trivia collectors, Intel even listed a 5.185 MHz crystal
>under the part number 4801 for this chipset.
>
>Incidentally, this data book lists the following parts in the MCS-40
>family :
>
>4040 4-bit microprocessor
>4004 4-bit microprocessor
>4003 10-bit shift register
>4265 Programmable general-purpose I/O
>4269 Programmable keyboard/display interface
>4201A Clock generator
>40008/4009 Standard memory interface component pair
>4289 Standard memory interface
>4002 320 bit RAM, 4 I/O lines
>4001 256*8 ROM, 4 I/O lines
>4308 1024*8 ROM, 16 I/O lines
>4316 2048*8 ROM
>4702A 256*8 EPROM
>4801 Clock crystal
>
>I'd now like to ask a question in return. Can anyone provide me with the
>pinouts of the 8291/8292/8293 GPIB chips? Just a list of the 40 (or
>whatever) pins and their names. I don't seem to have them in any of my
>databooks, and I'm trying to sort out a unit which uses them
>
>>
>>
>> Sam Alternate e-mail:
dastar(a)siconic.com
>
>-tony
>
At 03:53 PM 17-05-98 -0400, William Donzelli wrote:
>> Here's a quick unix timeline:
>
>Does anyone know of the oldest surviving version of Unix that is still
>running? Sure, there may be tapes for the PDP-7 version floating aroung
>somewhere, but I do not think there are any working PDP-7s around!
I'm not sure of the current status but the PDP-7 in the Digital Australia
museum was being worked on to see if it could be made to fly again. Any
Aussies with more recent information?
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)latrobe.edu.au
Information Technology Services | Phone: +61 3 9479 1550 Fax: +61 3 9479
1999
La Trobe University | "If God had wanted soccer played in the
Melbourne Australia 3083 | air, the sky would be painted green"
<>Proof by assertion *and* buzzer is my favorite kind of proof. At least
<>the guy that wrote the UNIX FAQ disagrees with you, but I'm sure your
<>buzzer is bigger than his :-)
<>
<> http://www.ee.byu.edu/unix-faq/subsection3_8_2.html
<
<Well I don't care how nicely formatted the page is, it's wrong. Unix was
<definitely originally written in assembler for the PDP-7. I'm sure I've g
<the reference at home.
The PDP-7 was the starting point. The OS was the base unix written in
PDP-7 asm, all versions later would originate from the first C version on
PDP-11. The C version is from my understanding the first unix and C are
synonomus with PDP-11 as before that was B, BCPL and the rudiments of
unix OS on the PDP-7. It would take the PDP-11 arachecture to pull
that all together.
Allison
I have a guy who's looking for a 3330-011 so he can dump a diskpack. Anyone
have a spare they want to get rid of, or do you have one running so he can
get the data off?
Thanks
--
David Wollmann
dwollmann(a)ibmhelp.com
