test-drb April 1999

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

170 participants
1190 discussions

And what were the 80s like for you? (Was: z80 timing...

by edick＠idcomm.com

>10 years? >Does this imply that the PC was not the dominant force until the end of the 80s? > No, I'd say it was a force to be reckoned with from the first day it appeared, but it was several years before a reasonably useful suite of software was available at a reasonable price. The Z-80 and Apple-II continued to be a force in the marketplace until the late '80's. By 1988, the PC was completely dominant in the general purpose microcomputer market, with the exception of the desktop publishing market, which the Apple MacIntosh, in case you've forgotten about it, had pretty well dominated up to the release of Windows 3.0. The appearance of WIndows 3.0 got the MAC people to look at the pricetag for the first time. Up to then there had been few WYSIWYG graphics tools for the PC. Once the PC started showing up with WYSIWYG graphics applications, the MAC's days were numbered. This could have been fixed with a timely price cut, but that wasn't forthcoming. I even had pretty decent cross-development tools for the PC, yet continued using my CP/M tools until about 1987. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) <cisin(a)xenosoft.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 2:38 PM Subject: And what were the 80s like for you? (Was: z80 timing... >On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote: >> I suppose that's true, Hans, BUT, in1982, there were few other processors >> than the 6502 and Z-80 in popular use, with the exception of the 8080A and >> the 8085, of course. > >In it's first couple of years, the IBM PC (introduced 8/11/1981) sold >enough machines that surely the 8088 could have been said to be in popular >use! >[this is a comment about market, NOT an endorsement] > >> The majority of home computers, though, used one of >> these two, at that time. Several years later, we found the 6510 and 6809 in >> commercially interesting applications, but not for as long a period as the >> Z-80 and 6502. These two had a life of nearly ten years before the IBM-PC >> and its clones wrenched the home computer market from their grasp. > >10 years? >Does this imply that the PC was not the dominant force until the end of >the 80s? >[this is a comment about market, NOT an endorsement] > >

25 years, 2 months

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by edick＠idcomm.com

History ran a different course from where I sit. In 1985, the R65C02 was in almost every new communications product I saw, e.g. FAX machines, though many had a custom device. Those custom devices in many cases had a 65C02 core. Rockwell pushed it into those applications by making many of their other parts "friendly" to the 650x core. The 805x was a mite slow out of the blocks, and in '85, it was real but not appealing and certainly not taking much business from the Z-80 or 650x because its price was still WAY too high. It was, however, a single-chip device . . . There's this old military saying, that "where you sit determines what you see." Dick -----Original Message----- From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 5:17 PM Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing ><For the longest time, the TMS 9900 didn't appear in anything one could ><consider a reasonable computer. There was one model I saw at a colleagues > >One of the first commercial lorans had it! it was big in embedded circles >that needed some oomph or were replacing ti990 minis. > ><didn't pursue it and so I believe(d) it to be true. I saw one ad for an ><SC/MP, in '77, but that one was a homebrewed model. Other than that, it wa > >You didn't look hard. It was popular in embedded apps at the low end as it >was cheap and easy to code for. > ><of any operating system or application software for it. I don't believe ><ever saw a real SC/MP based computer. > >For the consumer market? Well, that's what we're discussing, isn't it? >In the 1981 to 1982 timeframe: > > 808x was getting into embeeded apps and there were few general computer apps for it. > > Z8000 series were getting in to military boxes. >

25 years, 2 months

Program Challenge (was Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing)

by mbg＠world.std.com

I have found a reference which has some rules for constructing roman numerals. Firstly, four of a given numeral is okay, but five or more is not. This allows VIIII to be valid. You must use the largest numeral at a given stage, so for 15, you don't write VVV, you write XV. Numerals of a lower value, when written in front of a higher valued numeral subtract their value from the higher valued numeral. Further rules for the subtraction: o Only I X and C can be used in this way. V, L and D cannot (nor can M) o Only one smaller numeral can be written first. So XIIX is not valid for 18. o The lower numeral must be no less than a tenth of the value of the higher numeral. o It specifically states that each power of ten is handled separately, and uses the example that 49 is NOT IL, it is correctly XLIX. These are the rules I have used in my routine... 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 | +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

25 years, 2 months

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<Name a non-homebrew SC/MP based computer. <(note, I believe one existed, but memory is fuzzy till i get home to <the old magazines) Not including the three sold by National Semi or the ones that used the 8073 SC/MP with a internal rom tiny basic(also sold be national)??? Allison

25 years, 2 months

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<For the longest time, the TMS 9900 didn't appear in anything one could <consider a reasonable computer. There was one model I saw at a colleagues One of the first commercial lorans had it! it was big in embedded circles that needed some oomph or were replacing ti990 minis. <didn't pursue it and so I believe(d) it to be true. I saw one ad for an <SC/MP, in '77, but that one was a homebrewed model. Other than that, it wa You didn't look hard. It was popular in embedded apps at the low end as it was cheap and easy to code for. <of any operating system or application software for it. I don't believe <ever saw a real SC/MP based computer. For the consumer market? In the 1981 to 1982 timeframe: 808x was getting into embeeded apps and there were few general computer apps for it. Z8000 series were getting in to military boxes. 8051 was well on the way and pushing out 6502s. In the embedded market is where most started. Allison

25 years, 2 months

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by KFergason＠aol.com

In a message dated 4/21/99 3:29:10 PM Central Daylight Time, dastar(a)ncal.verio.com writes: >> of any operating system or application software for it. I don't believe I >> ever saw a real SC/MP based computer. > > Richard, the rest of the world does not peer through the same blinders you > have on. > > Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com > Name a non-homebrew SC/MP based computer. (note, I believe one existed, but memory is fuzzy till i get home to the old magazines) Kelly

25 years, 2 months

And what were the 80s like for you? (Was: z80 timing...

by KFergason＠aol.com

In a message dated 4/21/99 4:33:49 PM Central Daylight Time, jim(a)calico.litterbox.com writes: > Heh. No. I got my first PC in 1990. 386s had just come out, but an XT was 386's came out in 1986. Kelly

25 years, 2 months

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by KFergason＠aol.com

In a message dated 4/21/99 4:20:10 PM Central Daylight Time, dastar(a)ncal.verio.com writes: > Is this a challenge of some sort? The comment I made was referring to > Richard's overall outlook on computer development throughout the past two > and a half decades. But as far as SC/MP based computers go, the next time > I visit my warehouse I'll take take note of the singleboard SC/MP > computers I have. > > In the meantime, Hans will tell you about the ones he has in his > collection. > call it what you will. I simply asked for a name. Kelly

25 years, 2 months

And what were the 80s like for you? (Was: z80 timing...

by CLASSICCMP＠trailing-edge.COM

>> *My* gauge of when the PC became the dominant force was when: >> 1. Dr. Dobb's started carrying few articles other than ones talking about >> MS-DOS >> and >> 2. The quantity of IBM PC ads in the back of BYTE outinched the >> number of S-100 ads >> Looking at my back issues, I'd draw the line at 1985. >Did Dr. Dobb's and Byte really represent the mainstream? Dr. Dobb's in the early 80's kind-of split itself between dedicated hobbyists and professional (business-based, usually) microcomputer programmers, with a lot of influence from the mini world. BYTE was really wide-ranging, and actually did a pretty good job at covering not only what the current hot seller was, but also exploring into the nooks and crannies of the industry as new things came out. *Both* lost most of their variety when the IBM PC and early clones steamrolled through. >How about something even more subjective: >IBM PC became the dominant force when, ... >The fun went out of the industry. That's kind-of-sort-of the same thing :-(. >Who can assign dates to when the industry lost its sense of humor? Such >as: when Kentucky Fried Computer became NorthStar? > when Thinker Toys became Morrow Designs? > when Intergalactic Digital Research became Digital Research Inc.? The DRI change was before 1976 by a year or two, I believe. My first copy of CP/M (1.3) says "Digital Research" under Gary Kildall's signature on the license, and that's from 1976. Wasn't there also "Itty Bitty Machines" which was forced to change its name when leaned on by a slightly larger company with similar initials? -- Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/ 7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917 Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927

25 years, 2 months

And what were the 80s like for you? (Was: z80 timing...

by CLASSICCMP＠trailing-edge.COM

>> The majority of home computers, though, used one of >> these two, at that time. Several years later, we found the 6510 and 6809 in >> commercially interesting applications, but not for as long a period as the >> Z-80 and 6502. These two had a life of nearly ten years before the IBM-PC >> and its clones wrenched the home computer market from their grasp. >10 years? >Does this imply that the PC was not the dominant force until the end of >the 80s? >[this is a comment about market, NOT an endorsement] *My* gauge of when the PC became the dominant force was when: 1. Dr. Dobb's started carrying few articles other than ones talking about MS-DOS and 2. The quantity of PC-Clone ads in the back of BYTE outinched the number of S-100 ads Looking at my back issues, I'd draw the line at 1985. -- Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/ 7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917 Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927

25 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 April 1999