30 Oct
2004
30 Oct
'04
4:40 a.m.
At 11:48 AM 10/30/04 -0400, you wrote:
I thought that the SD controller board set was also bit
slice (the series
II internal was of course 8271 based).
That's possible but I've never seen a SD board set and I have 8 or nine
complete machines and about that many more for parts plus hundreds of
Multibus cards. I guess that anyone that paid for a board set went with the
DD set. I don't think that the SD set is even shown in the few catalogs
that I have. I wonder why Intel would use bit slice on the SD board set
instead of an 8271?
Joe
30 Oct
30 Oct
5:05 a.m.
the very first MDS800 I worked on in 1977 was SD based and used ISIS (not
ISIS-II). In fact, I even had the paper tape reader and punch to go with
it. Company is long gone of course, but my memory lingers on.
When I spoke about the 8271, I was talking about the IOC board in the
series II and was not talking about the MDS800 because it had no internal
boards other than the bus board all the carded plugged into. The 8271 was
not introduced until 1977 when the Series II was released. The MDS800 was
released in 1975.
Their decision was based on available technology...
At 12:40 PM 10/30/2004, you wrote:
At 11:48 AM 10/30/04 -0400, you wrote:
I thought that the SD controller board set was
also bit slice (the series
II internal was of course 8271 based).
That's possible but I've never seen a SD board set and I have 8 or nine
complete machines and about that many more for parts plus hundreds of
Multibus cards. I guess that anyone that paid for a board set went with the
DD set. I don't think that the SD set is even shown in the few catalogs
that I have. I wonder why Intel would use bit slice on the SD board set
instead of an 8271?
Joe
31 Oct
31 Oct
12:51 a.m.
At 01:05 PM 10/30/04 -0400, you wrote:
the very first MDS800 I worked on in 1977 was SD based
and used ISIS (not
ISIS-II). In fact, I even had the paper tape reader and punch to go with
it. Company is long gone of course, but my memory lingers on.
You go back further with these than I do. I've never found a copy of
plain ISIS or any paper tapes.
When I spoke about the 8271, I was talking about the IOC board in the
series II and was not talking about the MDS800 because it had no internal
boards other than the bus board all the carded plugged into. The 8271 was
not introduced until 1977 when the Series II was released. The MDS800 was
released in 1975.
How sure are you of these dates? I've been trying to find out exactly
when the various models were released but never found found anything that
was authoritative.
Joe
6:36 a.m.
Intel has a complete chronology of all their devices and systems at:
http://www.intel.com/intel/intelis/museum/archives/timeline/
How sure are you of these dates? I've been
trying to find out exactly
when the various models were released but never found found anything that
was authoritative.
Joe
12:57 p.m.
At 03:36 PM 10/31/04 -0500, you wrote:
Intel has a complete chronology of all their devices
and systems at:
http://www.intel.com/intel/intelis/museum/archives/timeline/
It's a dead link when I try it. How long since you've looked at it? I
remember seeing a chronological list from Intel a couple of years ago but
it only including ICs.
Joe
How sure are you of these dates? I've been
trying to find out exactly
when the various models were released but never found found anything that
was authoritative.
Joe
30 Oct
30 Oct
5:31 a.m.
I think the reason that Intel did that SD controller in the bit-slice
implementation is that the 8271 hadn't been made yet.
Joe R. wrote:
At 11:48 AM 10/30/04 -0400, you wrote:
I thought that the SD controller board set was
also bit slice (the series
II internal was of course 8271 based).
That's possible but I've never seen a SD board set and I have 8 or nine
complete machines and about that many more for parts plus hundreds of
Multibus cards. I guess that anyone that paid for a board set went with the
DD set. I don't think that the SD set is even shown in the few catalogs
that I have. I wonder why Intel would use bit slice on the SD board set
instead of an 8271?
Joe
7140
days inactive
7141
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
dmabry＠mich.com -
melamy＠earthlink.net -
rigdonj＠cfl.rr.com