7 Oct
1998
7 Oct
'98
1:23 p.m.
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Bill Yakowenko wrote:
Sources of value.
1. Nostalgia
I had/wanted one of these once.
I've always considered these two different motivations:
1a) Nostalgia -- I had one and miss it.
1b) Revenge -- I wanted one, and now I can afford it.
I learned the definition of microprocessor to be a
single-chip CPU, and
a microcomputer to be a computer based on a microprocessor. But I never
questioned it. Why is that a useful definition?
[...]
I have my own ideas about which things are micros and
which are not, but
in retrospect, the definition that I was taught is not a useful one; it
does not classify things into categories that I can use to any benefit.
Exactly. Naming things is just a way to classify them, to separate one
kind of thing from another. So, the first time a term like
"microprocessor" is coined is due to necessity -- a new thing came into
being and it needed a name. Applying that name to things that follow is a
convienient way to establish a relationship to the original thing.
As far as I know, the name "microprocessor" was first given to Intel's
4004. It was just shorthand for "this new thing that has a high level of
logic integration that gives you a bunch of stuff needed to build a
general purpose computer." Calling anything else a microprocessor, to me,
is just a way of saying it's a CPU that is in the same class as the Intel
4004: general purpose, highly integrated, commercially available, etc.
If somebody made a two-chip CPU that had all of the other characteristics
of the Intel 4004, you'd have trouble calling it a microprocessor, because
it would be missing something. Maybe you'd call it a two-chip
microprocessor. If it were special purpose instead of general purpose,
maybe you'd call it a special purpose microprocessor. But once you make
something different enough from the 4004 that you need to add a bunch of
qualifiers, you might as well just call it a CPU or come up with a new
name.
-- Doug