I wrote:
> Some computers, of course, have neither monitor
nor signal generation (e.g.,
> "card cage" machines like the S-100 machines, or machines with only a
serial
> port for a terminal). And some OTOH have built-in monitors (e.g., the
> TRS-80 Model III, some HP machines, and the IBM 5100 -- all of which are
> from roughly the era of the Apple ][).
Allison Parent wrote:
There were not less than 8 video cards for S100 by
1977, several offered
what was considerd higest resolution that then current monitors could
display in color.
Please understand that I'm making a very specific distinction. I'm paying a
slight amount of attention to the argument that Richard and someone else (I
forget who) are having, and it seems to be getting out of control. (I could
be wrong about that... I hope I'm not making things worse!)
The argument is getting out of control because the arguers are trying to
make the same point (to be a personal computer, a machine must have video
capability as an integral part of its construction) using different
definitions of "video capability". So I wanted to point out that the
two definitions didn't match.
The issue of "integral part" is different. I didn't mean that the S-100
machines had no video capability, I mean that it wasn't an integral part of
the system because you had to install it. A manufacturer (like SOL? I
think) might install the video for you and sell the result as a package --
that's an interesting borderline case. But S-100 is clearly different from
a single board (like the Apple ][ motherboard) in which the video circuitry
can't be easily changed or removed.
Actually, this whole "First PC" argument is getting out of control, because
everyone is free to use a different definition. The the argument
degenerates into a "My definition is right!" argument. That's the reason I
don't get involved.
-- Derek