5 Oct
1998
5 Oct
'98
11:20 a.m.
Dec sold the LSI-11 and later chip based systems as
microcomputers.
They sold the *systems* as "microcomputers". That has little bearing on
whether the LSI-11 MOS VLSI chip set can be considered to be a
microprocessor.
Source for this is the bindings of not less than 7
databooks and
technical descriptions.
Yes, I've got the whole set as well.
Also the T-11 member of the family is a single
40pin dip with one die inside.
Still not relevant. The T-11 was definitely a microprocessor, but it came
much later than the LSI-11. AFAIK noone ran Unix on a T-11, but even
if they did, it certainly didn't predate running Unix on an LSI-11.
If that werent' the case the fairchild F8 would
not qualify as a single
chip CPU due to the need for multiple chips and the same would apply to
the predecessor to the RCA CDP1802.
Certainly the F8 qualifies as a single chip CPU. So did the 8080, 6800,
6502, Z-80, etc. Just because it took some additional chips to make a
system doesn't mean that it didn't have a single-chip CPU.
We haven't established a precise definition for microprocessor, but what
you seem to be talking about is a microcontroller, which is a complete
system on a chip (i.e., CPU, memory, and I/O).
You'll get very few people to agree that the memory and I/O must be present
for a chip to qualify as a microprocessor. This is evident from the word
itself: 'micro', meaning small, and 'processor', meaning something that
processes information. Nothing in either the 'micro' or 'processor'
portion
of the word seems to imply that any memory or I/O are included.
AFAIK, the first true microcontroller (CPU, memory, and I/O on one monolithic
IC) was the Intel 8048.
Eric