In article <BLU145-W4466F3D75594E510A08717BA330 at phx.gbl>, Randy Dawson <rdawson16 at hotmail.com> writes: Yes, I'm well familiar with Sutherland and sketchpad. I'm trying to drill back before Sketchpad. For most people, Sketchpad is where it starts, but after reading the book on the SAGE system, I realize that SAGE predates Sketchpad for a couple key innovations. I am wondering if they originate with SAGE or had already been known techniques used in other computers before that. So far, I can't find anything earlier than SAGE. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

In article <48F6A4DB.4060204 at brouhaha.com>, Eric Smith <eric at brouhaha.com> writes: While the SAGE book I read (From Whirlwind to MITRE: The R&D Story of The SAGE Air Defense Computer) talked quite a bit about Whirlwind, the discussion was only in terms of its memory and CPU circuitry. I don't reclal any mention of Whirlwind having a graphics display. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

In article <48F6B450.2277EBCB at cs.ubc.ca>, Brent Hilpert <hilpert at cs.ubc.ca> writes: m ng system. Whirlwind was used in prototyping SAGE after it was built. However, I don't consider that to "predate SAGE" as its just part of the SAGE design effort. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

In article <48F783F8.1030000 at brouhaha.com>, Eric Smith <eric at brouhaha.com> writes: No. I'm saying that I want to see some evidence that Whirlwind had such a display *before* SAGE was envisioned and that it was used for computer graphics like tasks (not for showing waveforms for test and debugging of the hardware) driven by software. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

In article <48F7AC94.2020101 at gmail.com>, Jules Richardson <jules.richardson99 at gmail.com> writes: No. Look at the subject of this message. It doesn't ask anything about firsts. I merely commented that the first system I was aware of was the SAGE and I couldn't recall anything earlier than that. I most definately, absolutely was not asking people to identify a *first* anything. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

If you're really curious, why not drop Carl Machover a line: http://www.arnetminer.org/personsearch.do?keyword=Carl%20Machover Carl's been giving historical presentations to ACM SIGGRAPH for donkey's years. But I'll bet he'll say Whirlwind. Cheers, Chuck

And thusly were the wise words spake by Jules Richardson Even the Commodore PET had an addon board made by Micro Technology Unlimited that gave it a 320 x 200 bitmap display. Cheers, Bryan

In article <48F65B4D.740.30F95A73 at cclist.sydex.com>, "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes: Sure; but I'm not talking about analog computers. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

Joachim Thiemann wrote: *applause* Ahh, the minefield of "what was the first..." questions :-) In the electronic arena, the Manchester machine (Mk.1) had a visual display of what was going on inside the Williams Tubes, and I believe that system pre-dated Whirlwind by a few years (essentially completed in 1948 vs. 1951?) - however what I'm not sure of is whether the visual display was there from day one, or if it was added later as a debugging aid... Furthermore, what's a "graphical display", anyway? Most people seem to make the distinction between graphics and text-mode terminals - so maybe early CRTs etc. that only display machine state or rudimentary characters don't count? Perhaps the first graphical display is one that can render some form of graphics primitives (lines, arcs etc.) direct from software using a bitmapped or vector display? cheers Jules

In article <48F755C5.5050501 at gmail.com>, Jules Richardson <jules.richardson99 at gmail.com> writes: The only people that seem to torture themselves with these definitions are the ones on this list. Most reasonable people have no troulbe distinguishing between a text terminal and a graphics display. One displays TEXT. The other displays arbitrary figures and drawings, and no before someone gets off on another torturous stretch of the definition, "block" graphics character sets on text terminals don't count either. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

In article <48F781AD.4090303 at brouhaha.com>, Eric Smith <eric at brouhaha.com> writes: Characters are not pixels, so no, I'm not setting a constraing on the pixel size. I *am* arbitrarily excluding text terminals with graphic character sets. Its not graphics in any sense that a practitioner of computer graphics would call it. If it were, bitmapped based displays Since I'm the one asking the question, I get to decide what the question means. This isn't the floor of the US House of Representatives. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

Hardly. That bitmapped displays took off indicates they are better for a substantial fraction of the applications. It doesn't mean they are the only graphic displays. (LCD monitors took off; does this prove that CRTs are not video monitors?) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Eric Smith wrote: Still think that the vector displays look "sexier" ;-)

Bryan Pope wrote: So what's the practical upper limit on a vector display? Did the speed at which the CRT guns could deflect become an issue, or were the limitations in vector display's heyday purely on the 'computer' side (i.e. how fast the machine could pull data from memory and drive the CRT)? I'm just wondering what could be done with a vector display on more modern hardware; whether a lot more detail than the old systems could be achieved... cheers Jules

Did anyone try using 3 monochrome CRTs and combining the outputs optically (e.g. by back projectuion)? That would get round the need for a shadowmask (The reverse, splitting up the image into primary colours using dichroic prisms and imaging the result with 3 vidicon tubes, was not uncommon in colour video cameras at one time). I haev an HP1350 'graphics translator' here -- it's an HPIB input vector display generator. The manual mentions an HP colour vector monitor for this unit, which would appear to work as you described, alas I've never seen one (I have the HP1311 monochrome monitor only). I cna dig out the model number if anyone wants to look for one. -tony

Hi, everyone, I'm looking for a reference document that defines the functions of the various signals on the DEC PDP 8/e/f/m Omnibus. In Volume 1 of the Maintenance Manual, there is an Omnibus locator that gives the names of the various signals and which pin on the backplane each function exists on, but there's nothing that I can find that gives the function definition of each of the signals. The information is buried in the test of the processor description, but there doesn't seem to be a place that I can find that summarizes the information all in one place. I'm troubleshooting a DEC RK8E disk controller that causes problems on the Omnibus when the controller boardset is installed in an otherwise fully operational PDP 8/e, and knowing what the various bus signals do would make the task a whole lot easier. Does anyone know of a document like this? Rick Bensene

Sure, and actually, thay applies to delta-gun shadowmask CRTs too. You had to converge those in the place where the set was going to be used [1]. But I was sepcifically asking about a vector displaym biot a raster one. A vector display using 3 monochrome CRTs optically combined would not have the resolution limit imposed by the shadowmask. [1] The coming of the in-line gun CRT firstly allowed for portable colour TVs, and secondly meant the colour TVs could be sold by what are known in the UK as 'box shifters' -- shops with almost no knowledge of their products, they just sell you the unit. Before that, a colour TV had to be set up in the customers house, something that few people did themselves. -tony

Of course the problem, for TV, was that the signal was not compatible with the monochrome system (in either direction). That was, I believe, a major reason for not using sequential colour systems. Of course this doesn't apply for vector graphics displays, and thinking about it, at least one vector display system did use a rotating colour wheel on a spectacle-like frame in front of the useres eyes. Not only did this give colour, but also a 3D effect (the wheel could blank off each eye alternately so that you could have the 2 images of a stereo pair viewed by each eye). The machine I am thinking of is, of course, the Vectrex video game. The colour/3D spectacles are, alas, very hard to find. -tony

That strikes me as a complete non-sequitur. I want to change one phrase : 'That bitmapped displays did take of and eventually completely displaced vector displays just proves my point hat vector displays are not graphic displays'. I think that vector displays are now rarely used except for specialised application. But I would also claim that vector displays are most certainly a from of graphic display by any reasonable definition. So how you can claim your original statement is beyond me. -tony

In article <200810162007.QAA27137 at Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>, der Mouse <mouse at Rodents-Montreal.ORG> writes: They are not pixels, tortured imaginations aside. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Tony Duell wrote: What was the first computer to have an ESP interface?

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Jules Richardson wrote: Yes. "ESP" and "interface" are adequately defined

Actually, I believe there was a CRT-like device (I forget the name -- 'Charactertron'?) where you did sort-of send the characters to the CRT. THe CRT had 3 deflection systems and an electode between them that cotnained the patterns for all the xymbols (characters, etc) that the device could display. You used the rearmost deflection system to direct the beam from the electron gun at the right pattern and the front deflection system to put it at the right place on the screen. No, I don;t have one. And I don't send the bitmap directly to the CRT either. Typically you take the bitmap from the memory, extract the approprtiate number of bits (I assume you allow more than 1 bit/pixel), process those in some way (perhaps by feeding them itno a colour lookup table, then to a DAC), and only then feed them to the video amplifiers nad then to the CRT. My problem is that I've worked on plenty of things that fit _neither_ definition, and I want to know if oyu consider them to be graphics displays or not. Apart from the obvious vector displays (which you seem to ignore, for all the 1950's grpahics displays are very likely to be of this type since memory was expensive -- very -- back then), what about : 1)_ The DEC 'waveform generator' grapghics in the VT55 and VT105 (amongst others). It had a fairly high resolution and limited memory, but you could only display 2 points in each vertical column (or, IIRC, all the points below the specified one in that column). It was thus useless for displaying bitmapped images, but ideal for the intended application which was displaying mathematical function grapbs and histograms. 2) A design that can either be bitmapped or character based without changing the hardware. This was certainly used commercially in machines like the Sirius (victor 9000) and Apricot. Let me explain how it works. You have the conventional scan counters addressing 2K (or so) of 16 bit memory, as in a character display. But 11 bits of of that 16 bit value are used to address a programmable 'character generator' memory, the output of which is serialised, combined with attributes (blinking, etc) determined by the remaining 5 bits of the 16 bit 'character') and sent to the CRT. Now, the point is that 11 bits is enough to have a different 'character pattern' at each location on the screen. So you can use it in one of 2 ways : a) As a character based display. Store the patterns for the ASCII (or whatever) character in the second area of memory, store the character codes yoy want to display in the first area. b) as a bitmapped display. Initialise the first area of memory with a difference code at each location, and then set/reset bits in the second are to turn individual pixels on or off. -tony

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Tony Duell wrote: Interesting. This reminds me of the CRT display of a Cogar C4 (or ICL/Friden 1501). It is a standard 5" CRT with an almost ordinary deflection system. But the deflection itself is rotated/mirrored, i.e. the "vertical" sweep is from left to right and the "horizontal sweep" from top to bottom. So the display controller writes all characters from the first text column first (and then IIRC only the text lines 1,3,5 and 7). Then comes the next columns. After all 32 columns come the even text lines (there's a display mode which only displays lines 1,2,3 and 4; the display has a 32 x 8 character cells). But that's not all. There is a second horizontal deflection coil that interferes with the first main deflection coil (I think this is called twiggle sweep or something like that). This second coil deflects the beam according to the width of one character cell, and one raster line of a character is written on the screen during this time. Christian

Christian Corti wrote: ... The Datapoint 2200 used a serial mos memory in its first incarnation. Sweeping each row of text implies scanning the same characters seven times in a row. They couldn't afford to add a line buffer, so they invented "diddle scan". They actually scan to the upper left corner of each character, then sweep out the 5x7 dot matrix for that character, before adjusting the x,y deflection to the upper left corner of the next character.

The Tektronix 4052 and 4006 (and presumaby 4051 and 4012) do this. These machines all have storage-tube vector displays, but when you want to display text, scan a little dot matrix of the character. The 4052 at least can put this little dot matrix at any addressable point on the screen, not limited by the character block spacing or even (AFAIK) the dot matrix spacing. (The 4014 and 4054, iirc, drew the characters in a line draw font, which meant they could be scrolled or rotated. I don't have either... yet) Philip.

Christian Corti, quoting me: In that case, what was the terminal that drew text in line-draw font on a big (4054-sized?) storage tube? When Tony and I were at Cambridge, there was one in the user area. Tony, do you remember what it was? Philip.

Not unless they are a Charactron -- which was mentioned earlier. Wikipedia has a good description. paul

In article <m1KsMDJ-000IxyC at p850ug1>, ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) writes: For this list: "monitor" is any asshole checking messages to look for ways in which they can deliberately misinterpret commonly held definitions. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

In article <B135486A342E6244AEE1EB13118903BA01972FC1 at ausx3mpc106.aus.amer.dell.com>, <Paul_Koning at dell.com> writes: ...which is not a monitor, so no characters are not sent to monitors. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

In article <B135486A342E6244AEE1EB13118903BA01973073 at ausx3mpc106.aus.amer.dell.com>, <Paul_Koning at dell.com> writes: While all monitors are display devices, not all display devices are monitors. Seriously guys, does anyone have anything useful to contribute on this subject or do you all just sit around on your asses waiting for a chance to nitpick on definitions of words? -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

Someone touched on this before and, despite the risk of being either slammed with dissent or nibbled to death by ducks, I'm going to restate, reiterate and otherwise pontificate. IMHO, the concept of 'graphical display' turns on what constructs were presented by the device to the programmer for manipulating the display. Something like a VT100 allows the programmer to ask for representations of characters; the fact that someone created either an image of Snoopy or a pair of double-Ds by selecting the sequence of characters does not change the nature of the display primitive: textual. OTOH, some systems offered the ability to ask that a point be plotted at (X,Y), that a line of length N be drawn from (X1,Y1) to (X2, Y2) (or equivalent polar coordinates), and perhaps other graphical primitives (circles, etc.). That is a graphical display. Some offered both, e.g. the Tektronix 4010, but the textual display was an abstraction on top of the underlying graphical display. It could be argued that a raster-scan text display is likewise an abstraction on top of an underlying graphical display, but I would disagree: the device as presented to a programmer (again, think VT100) does not allow for manipulation of objects at a lower level than character selection. You cannot access the dot-level of a VT100 from the computer. The raster-scan text display is an *implementation*, not an abstraction. That doesn't mean a raster-scan display can't be a graphical display, obviously, but again it turns on what the devices lets you write code to do. Anyway, that's how I think of it, FWIW. I'm going to go do something meaningful now.... -- Ian -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Paul_Koning at dell.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:46 PM To: cctalk at classiccmp.org Subject: RE: CRT displays [was: computer graphics in the 1950s] I give up. I can't figure out how you define "monitor". Is it a raster-scan CRT? If so, then yes, it doesn't directly do characters. Is it a vector-only CRT? If so, then again it doesn't directly do characters. Is it a vacuum tube with a phosphor face intended as an output device viewed by humans? That would be the definition I would assume you're using. If so, then the SAGE displays fit: those are direct view tubes that can display both vectors and characters, and the character display is a Charactron. paul -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Richard Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:38 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: CRT displays [was: computer graphics in the 1950s] In article <B135486A342E6244AEE1EB13118903BA01973073 at ausx3mpc106.aus.amer.dell.com>, <Paul_Koning at dell.com> writes: While all monitors are display devices, not all display devices are monitors. Seriously guys, does anyone have anything useful to contribute on this subject or do you all just sit around on your asses waiting for a chance to nitpick on definitions of words? -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

Well...one without deflection plates is rather difficult to use as a vector display, but that's a matter of complicated and unconventional driving electronics more than a matter of possibility proper. (Or, I suppose, one could use electrostatic deflection with the deflection plates outside the vacuum envelope, but that gets interesting in other ways.) But, that aside, if you want to use that narrow a definition of CRT, then no, characters are never sent to any CRT, Charactron or not; it's all voltage levels. I suppose you could view the voltage levels sent to a Charactron's pre-mask deflection electrodes as an encoding of a character; this point of view has some justice to it, since you could equally well say that a serial line doesn't carry characters, just voltage waveforms - but in that case you can view the relevant inputs to any CRT that's displaying a character as an encoding of that character, so it's really a question of which point of view is most useful. But I think we already got an explanation upthread that basically said it depended on software's view of it, making it more a question of design intent than anything else, since either "graphics" or "character" can be pressed into service as the other.... /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Tony Duell wrote: I just want to mention that there were polar-coordinate tubes. They may be either completely electrostatic or mixed static/magnetic. I've just read an interesting discussion on the 3DP1 on the net. The DEC VR14/VR17 are electromagnetic CRTs. The two push-pull power amplifiers for both ordinates as well as the current through the deflection coils are quite impressive. Christian

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, der Mouse wrote: I've never seen such a tube in any equipment myself, but there is a very interesting (German) discussion on the RCA 3DP1 polar-coordinate tube: http://www.radiomuseum.org/forum/3dp1_3dp1_polarkoordinaten_roehre.html Nonetheless I recommend having a look at this link as there are great pictures from the tube including pinout, data and photos from a disassembled tube. This particular tube has four deflection plates as in an ordinary electrostatically deflected tube. You apply a sine/cosine voltage to the plates to create a circle. But additionally there's a needle at the center of the screen used for the polar deflection. Maybe there is more information in the patents 2328259 (Polar coordinate cathode-ray tube, 1943) and 2864033 (Polar coordinate tube, 1958), both found on freepatentsonline.com, but the site seems to be non-functional at the moment. Christian

Get some WW2 vintage radar tech manuals. They explain it all. -- Will

Probably not. -- Will

On 24 Oct 2008 at 21:24, Tony Duell wrote: Weren't they used for radar displays? Cheers, Chuck

opps, that sine cosine pot X sweep sawtooth generator to create the rotating vector. Randy _________________________________________________________________ Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008

If he means J-scopes, yes. They have a trace that runs in a circle, and a deflection plate - actually a pin - running down the centerline of the tube. The signal on the pin can deflect the trace out a bit. Early radar alitimeters have them. I am not sure if that is what he means, however... And then there is the 6762 Wamoscope. It had electrostatic plates for centering the trace, but the business was done with klystron-ish action. They were combination CRT/TWT tubes. -- Will

Richard wrote: If a charactron isn't a monitor, then CGA, MDA, EGA and DVI screens aren't either. Peace... Sridhar

You can, of course, use words to mean what you like, but it helps if we all know that definition. So could you please tell us what you mean by (video) monitor [1], what inputs it may have, and so on. [1] I put the 'video' in to avoid discussion of monitor programs, and the like. And what do you call the HP98780? -tony

Tony Duell wrote: Keep in mind that the VT11 is a second processor which is reading through the same main memory as the PDP-11 processor. Any vectors or characters are refreshed with every pass through the "display file" which is simply the list of display commands in memory. All one needs to do to move the vectors or text is to alter the data for the beam positioning commands, and viola, the text or vectors 'move' on the next refresh. Megan Gentry Former RT-11 developer (and developer of some programs which did simple circuit design and test using the GT40)

On Thursday (10/16/2008 at 10:10PM +0100), Tony Duell wrote: Hayes built the ESP interface around 1996... http://bill.herrin.us/freebies/hayes-esp8/ oh, wait... -- Chris Elmquist mailto:chrise at pobox.com

Mainly becuase you asked a question, expecting (I assume) a precise answer, and it's not at all clear what you will and will not include. A couple of messages ago, you excluded analuge computers, which I would most certainly consider to be computers. Of course you can consider digital machines only if you so wish, but surely you should state that Well I am not use of the exact distinction. I've worked on devices which have used pixel-addressable LCD displays (that is, the display is capable of displaying graphics, it doesn't, in iteslf, have a 'text mode' or a character generator, but the (not normally changeable) firmware that controlled the device used said display to display text only (the character generator paterns were part of the firmware ROMs for the main procesor). To me, as a hardware person, that's a grpahical display module, but I'll bet you'd call it a text display. OK, and what's the distinction here? Do you have a minimum resolution before somethign is caleld a 'graphical display' (if so, what is it?). Is a display of 80*24 pixels, with no other capabilites a graphical display? If it is, why does it lose that distinction when it can _also_ display text? -tony

On Thursday 16 October 2008, Richard wrote: :) Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:17 AM, bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> wrote: You might be trying to pull the wool over our eyes, but there is a well-woven argument here. However, I think we may be loosing the thread. I better stop before Jay tell us to put a sock in it. --- Joachim Thiemann :: http://www.tsp.ece.mcgill.ca/~jthiem

From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca [bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 8:55 AM To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: computer graphics in the 1950s Joachim Thiemann wrote: Yes, that could be looming ahead. [snip]

Rich Alderson wrote: This is the sort of thing that is threatening the very fabric of our community. Gordon

At 02:05 PM 10/16/2008, Gordon JC Pearce MM3YEQ wrote: But will it unravel? - John

I'm on tenterhooks waiting for the next installment of this thread. -tony

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Richard wrote: TOO LATE. Any question that starts with "What was the first . . . " is doomed to it. Then DEFINE what you want. "genuine" is a bogus qualifier. 80 x 24 pixels may not be impressive, but it is still genuinely "a graphics display". You will NOT get the discussion that you are looking for until you can define what you want. 1) Not everybody has the same set of definitions that you do. For example, many people consider a non-CRT display to still be valid. If you don't want plotters, then you have to SAY SO. I consider a diablo micro-spaced graphics produced with the full-stop ("period") arm to be a graphics display. "You know what I mean" is NOT valid. 2) We're all a bunch of wise-asses who will look for and find the flaws in your query.

By that definition, the year would be not later than 1961 (when the PDP-1 and its CRT I/O device appeared). paul

Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote: Although I still think a 1948 Mark 1 with the associated display qualifies (e.g. http://www.computer50.org/kgill/williams/display.html) It's specifically intended as a visual output device, and it is under program control...

In article <20081016111123.V58869 at shell.lmi.net>, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> writes: Yep, that's the essence of the responses so far. Mostly useless, tangential and nitpicky. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

In article <20081016143058.V74632 at shell.lmi.net>, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> writes: ...for one person had at the expense of many subscribers. Honestly I don't know what it is about email that makes people think its fun to be an asshole. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>

Actually, with the exception of the Jacquard loom (which I would argue is controlled by a sequencer and not a computer, since it doesn't have any read/write storage for variables or conditional branching', I've found the other answers to be interesting and sensible. Certianly things have been menitoned that i'd not really heard of before. And yes, I tend to be pedantic, both in e-mail and face-to-face. Before trying to answer a question (or solve a problem, or whatever), I like to be sure I know exactly what is being asked. -tony

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Jules Richardson wrote: Yes. That is the funadmental flaw in any discussion of "first". Occasionally, there will be some sort of official recognition of which is "first" - but ask Elisha Gray about the telephone patent! Authoritative determination of "first" is quite difficult, and is sabotaged by marketing. Does anybody believe that the "Sleep Number bed" was the "FIRST bed design to ever take into account personal comfort"? And, without publicity of "first"s, the discussion will ALWAYS be towards the one that achieved public notice, NOT the one that was earlier. Many writers in the industry will dismiss anything that came before they got involved. Hence, we get Cringely type "history" that ignores CP/M and asserts that the history of the "computer" (sic: not "microcomputer) was Apple -> IBM. And if you ask the general public, or "industry experts" about Processor Technology, Northstar (some sort of drivetrain package for Cadillac?), or even Morrow, . . . What is the difference between a "pel" and a "pixel"? , other than IBM's desire to avoid something that sounds like "pixie", and their refusal to use "motherboard" due to the Black Panthers. Color displays are made up of discrete dots that are red, green, and blue. if the computer is closely matched and linked with the display, then each pixel contains one red, one green, and one blue dot. And, unless the computer attempts to exceed the capabilities of the display (ah, such wondrous artifacts!), every pixel is a block of many of those RGB dots. Hence, "ALL" computer graphic displays are BLOCK graphics, and any torturous stretch of the definition to differentiate whether or not those blocks are the size of complete character positions is mostly useless, tangential and nitpicky. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com

Richard wrote: I know you have the '0's but, Sorry ONES's where invented about 1400 BC. :) Yet when you think about they all were FIRST, since the computer and I/O devices where invented indepenedant of each other, and about the same time. The only common idea was you could calculate using electricity rather than wheels and gears.