22 Apr
1999
22 Apr
'99
11:55 p.m.
The Apple-][ most certainly did come with built-in Video. That's just about
all that was built-in. BTW, I just gave away one which had an APPLE brand
monitor with it. I bought seven of these at one time, because they did
something I didn't want to have to reinvent, but though the video monitor
came with it, the Apple video is not the monitor, it's the refresh memory
and the video control and timing logic to support it. Of course I've still
got one with only a single drive, + multiple controllers each capable of
either two or four drives, and a bunch of other cards, etc.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Smith <eric(a)brouhaha.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 22, 1999 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: The "FIRST PC" and personal timelines (Was: And what were the
80s
The Apple ][
would qualify, it came with built-in video.
The Apple ][ did not come with a built-in monitor; a monitor was not even
available from the manufacturer.
The PDP-8/e with VT8-E that I mentioned earlier was shipped by DEC with the
VT8-E installed, and DEC provided a monitor.
You are making distinctions even more arbitrary (IMHO) than most of the
"first PC" arguments. It seems like you are picking your criteria in order
to get an answer you've already selected. 
23 Apr
23 Apr
4:22 a.m.
The Apple-][ most certainly did come with built-in
Video. That's just about
all that was built-in.
Strange. Several of my friends bought them back in 1977, and they only
got a computer with an RS170A-compatible (roughly) output on an RCA jack,
which was intended for connection to a TV or monitor that was NOT supplied.
My point was that the PDP-8/e with VT8-E that I had brought up earlier had
every bit as "real" a video output as the later systems that Lawrence wants
to designate as "first".
BTW, I just gave away one which had an APPLE brand
monitor with it.
Sure, but there weren't any Apple brand monitors in 1977. Apple didn't
even resell another brand of monitor at that time.
I stand by my assertion that the PDP-8/e with VT8-E was a personal computer
with raster graphics. It was designed for use by one person, and was
inexpensive enough that a determined but not fabulously wealthy person could
buy one. A few people did.
The VT05 that Allison mentioned was a raster display terminal, but did not
have graphics capabilities (even as an option). I've got one. I don't have
a VT8-E; since I can't seem to find one, I'd at least like to get some prints
and build one.
4:43 a.m.
Eric Smith wrote:
> The Apple-][ most certainly did come with
built-in Video. That's just about
> all that was built-in.
Strange. Several of my friends bought them back in
1977, and they only
got a computer with an RS170A-compatible (roughly) output on an RCA jack,
which was intended for connection to a TV or monitor that was NOT supplied.
My point was that the PDP-8/e with VT8-E that I had brought up earlier had
every bit as "real" a video output as the later systems that Lawrence wants
to designate as "first".
Whose message are you replying to? Richard Erlacher's, or someone else's?
Just making sure.
You two seem to be confusing built-in video signal generation capabilities
with a built-in video screen. The Apple has the signal capabilities. As
you said, there was no monitor as part of the main unit (and Apple didn't
aggressively put its name on external monitors, at least not before the
//e).
It sounds like the VT8E has the signal capabilities and the monitor. I'm
not sure about that.
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 ][).
Personally, I think that whether the monitor is physically attached or
external is not very important. It's the presence/absense of the built-in
monitor _controller_ that is the distinction worth making. And I am NOT
going to make any specific statements about how that relates to the category
of "personal computer".
-- Derek
7:47 a.m.
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 ][).
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.
System that supplied RS170 video include the PT SOL and the POLY-88 which
are older than the trs80.
allsion
3:24 p.m.
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
3:44 p.m.
New subject: Is video relevant? (was: The "FIRST PC" and personal timelines (Was: And what were the 80s
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Derek Peschel wrote:
The argument is getting out of control
OK
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.
Excuse me?
Am I misunderstanding you?
Or are you saying that a machine that is sold without video is NOT a
"personal computer", even if a video card is sold separately?
And that if the DEALER installs the video card, that it is still a
"borderline case" for being a PC?
By THAT reasoning, virtually NONE of the "PC Compatible" could be more
than "borderline"! It would mean that NONE of my 80x86 machines are PCs!
(I purchased the video cards separately, and installed them in all of
them, INCLUDING the 5150s.)
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.
THAT part is inarguable. Unless a definition becomes externally impoised,
it will always remain subjective.
6:56 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 814 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990424/89fd51b7/at…
24 Apr
24 Apr
2:55 a.m.
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Derek Peschel wrote:
You two seem to be confusing built-in video signal
generation capabilities
with a built-in video screen. The Apple has the signal capabilities. As
you said, there was no monitor as part of the main unit (and Apple didn't
aggressively put its name on external monitors, at least not before the
//e).
Apple introduced the monochrome Monitor /// around the same time it
introduced the Apple ///, which was before the //e.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 04/03/99]
3:54 a.m.
New subject: The "FIRST PC" and personal timelines (Was: And what were the
Sellam Ismail wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Derek Peschel wrote:
> you said, there was no monitor as part of the
main unit (and Apple didn't
> aggressively put its name on external monitors, at least not before the
> //e).
Apple introduced the monochrome Monitor /// around the
same time it
introduced the Apple ///, which was before the //e.
I actually knew that because we had a Monitor /// with our ][+, which we got
in... 1984? 1985?
I have the exact date, but not handy. One of my brother's disks (which is
in my closet now) has a HELLO program which proudly declares that "THIS IS A
SLAVE DISK INITIALIZED ON [some date, some year]." I think the date is
December 31, actually. IIRC I had already started monopolizing the computer
and my brother (who was pretty young, about 10) wanted some attention too,
so we gave him his disk. Even if my dad did the initialization, I was
probably the one who told him how. :) And since December 31 is my mom's
birthday, she was undoubtedly irate that we were playing with the dumb
computer. That pattern continued pretty solidly for the next several years.
My brother's disk eventually got some pirated games stashed on it. :)
So I guess I goofed about monitors. There was an Apple-brand color monitor
that went with the //e too.
-- Derek
9389
days inactive
9391
days old
8 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
allisonp＠world.std.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dastar＠ncal.verio.com -
dpeschel＠u.washington.edu -
edick＠idcomm.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com