21 Jan
2004
21 Jan
'04
2:21 p.m.
It's rare that I find a unique and interesting computer these days. This
Mitac LIC-2001A Little Intelligent Computer is one such. Apparently, it
was marketed in Japan because it has the Katakana (I think) character set
painted onto the keycap fronts, but otherwise is a standard QWERTY
keyboard layout.
The back connectors include:
1) Power
2) Joystick (a 16-pin DIP socket mounted on its side!)
3) Tape In
4) Tape Out
5) TV (the jack of an RF modulator)
6) Expansion
7) Drive 1
8) Drive 2
9) Printer
10) Monitor (RCA type jack)
11) 80 Column (RCA type jack)
Now, as I typed this, I started to sense something familiar, especially
when I took into account the pin count on the disk drive connectors, and
especially with the joystick port. I do believe this is an Apple ][+
clone. I opened it up and it has a 6502 and a Z80 onboard, with three
ROMs and lots of RAM chips, sort of like many ][+ clones I've seen (I have
at least a couple or three other ][+ clones with 6502 and Z80 on-board).
I just can't verify this by booting it up because it has a very funky
power connector which requires an external power supply of some sort
(which I didn't get with this).
Anyone ever heard of this? The web turns up empty.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
21 Jan
21 Jan
6:08 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 20:21, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
It's rare that I find a unique and interesting
computer these days. This
Mitac LIC-2001A Little Intelligent Computer is one such. Apparently, it
was marketed in Japan because it has the Katakana (I think) character set
painted onto the keycap fronts, but otherwise is a standard QWERTY
keyboard layout.
The back connectors include:
1) Power
2) Joystick (a 16-pin DIP socket mounted on its side!)
3) Tape In
4) Tape Out
5) TV (the jack of an RF modulator)
6) Expansion
7) Drive 1
8) Drive 2
9) Printer
10) Monitor (RCA type jack)
11) 80 Column (RCA type jack)
Now, as I typed this, I started to sense something familiar, especially
when I took into account the pin count on the disk drive connectors, and
especially with the joystick port. I do believe this is an Apple ][+
clone. I opened it up and it has a 6502 and a Z80 onboard, with three
ROMs and lots of RAM chips, sort of like many ][+ clones I've seen (I have
at least a couple or three other ][+ clones with 6502 and Z80 on-board).
I just can't verify this by booting it up because it has a very funky
power connector which requires an external power supply of some sort
(which I didn't get with this).
Anyone ever heard of this? The web turns up empty.
It is indeed an Apple II clone. I have pics of one on my website,
including the power supply. That's a great find. I'd love to get my
hands on one of those. What other clones do you have, Sellam? Perhaps we
should discuss a trade of some kind. Yes?
E.
22 Jan
22 Jan
3:43 a.m.
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Ernest wrote:
It is indeed an Apple II clone. I have pics of one on
my website,
including the power supply. That's a great find. I'd love to get my
hands on one of those. What other clones do you have, Sellam? Perhaps we
should discuss a trade of some kind. Yes?
Well, we tried before a few times but it never culminated in anything. In
any case, I'm holding on to this.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
24 Jan
24 Jan
3:09 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
I know that this is a bit like comparing apples and oranges but I was
wondering who did what first?
Phoenix produced a legal clone of IBM's system Bios, which enabled other
companies to produced cheaper clones of the IBM PC.
V-tech produced a legal clone of the Apple II+ ROMs, which it used in
the Laser 128 (the only legal clone of the Apple II.)
I'm guessing that Phoenix was first, and Laser followed their example
when it decided to clone Apple's ROM codes. Is this correct? Did Phoenix
set an example for the whole industry?
Thanks.
E.
5:20 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
Is Pheonix really first? What about Compaq??? Did they produce the first
PC clones? What BIOS did they use, is it what Pheonix became?
I had always thought Lazer was the first Apple Clone??? We used to have
more of those then real Apple ]['s in college back in 84-88
Curt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest" <ernestls(a)comcast.net>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 12:09 PM
Subject: Who was first?
I know that this is a bit like comparing apples and
oranges but I was
wondering who did what first?
Phoenix produced a legal clone of IBM's system Bios, which enabled other
companies to produced cheaper clones of the IBM PC.
V-tech produced a legal clone of the Apple II+ ROMs, which it used in
the Laser 128 (the only legal clone of the Apple II.)
I'm guessing that Phoenix was first, and Laser followed their example
when it decided to clone Apple's ROM codes. Is this correct? Did Phoenix
set an example for the whole industry?
Thanks.
E.
5:46 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Curt vendel wrote:
I had always thought Lazer was the first Apple
Clone??? We used to have
more of those then real Apple ]['s in college back in 84-88
Franklin, I believe, came out with the "first" (as far as is known) Apple
][ clone.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
5:54 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
Ah yes, Franklin!!! Wow, jarring the cobwebs! :-)
Curt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf(a)siconic.com To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and
Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org Sent: Saturday,
January 24, 2004 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Who was first?
Festival
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Curt vendel wrote:
> I had always thought Lazer was the first Apple Clone??? We used to
have
more of those
then real Apple ]['s in college back in 84-88
Franklin, I believe, came out with the "first" (as far as is known) Apple
][ clone.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage
mputers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at
http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
6:05 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Vintage Computer
Festival
Sent: 24 January 2004 19:47
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Who was first?
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Curt vendel wrote:
Aye, and they were the first to get sued by Apple for doing so :)
w
I had always thought Lazer was the first Apple
Clone??? We
used to have
more of those then real Apple ]['s in college
back in 84-88
Franklin, I believe, came out with the "first" (as far as is known) Apple
][ clone. 
8:59 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
Might have been a tie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible says that Columbia came up
with an IBM clone in early 1982.
Steve Weyhrich in his Apple history timeline puts the Franklin 100 (1000?)
in March 1982.
http://apple2history.org/history/appy/ahb3.html
Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Witchy" <witchy(a)binarydinosaurs.co.uk>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: Who was first?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
> [mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Vintage Computer
> Festival
> Sent: 24 January 2004 19:47
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Who was first?
>
>
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Curt vendel wrote:
>
> > I had always thought Lazer was the first Apple Clone??? We
> used to have
> > more of those then real Apple ]['s in college back in 84-88
>
> Franklin, I believe, came out with the "first" (as far as is known)
Apple
][ clone.
Aye, and they were the first to get sued by Apple for doing so :)
w
9:39 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Brian Mahoney
Sent: 24 January 2004 23:00
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Who was first?
Might have been a tie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible says that Columbia came up
with an IBM clone in early 1982.
Here's another one:
http://webpages.charter.net/dperr/trivia.htm
It says the first compatible was the Columbia MPC in June 1982, but doesn't
say why the Compaq portable is well known while the Columbia MPC is a faded
memory. It also leads to a website wanting $20 for a complete timeline. I
think I'll just get a book out the library.
Ah,
http://www.piclist.com/techref/intel/8086.HTM
THAT explains it :) Compaq's was the first BIOS to be 100% IBM-PC
compatible.
cheers
--
Adrian/Witchy
www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - possibly the UK's biggest online computer museum
www.snakebiteandblack.co.uk - ex-monthly gothic shenanigans :o(
10:38 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
Ah,
http://www.piclist.com/techref/intel/8086.HTM
THAT explains it :) Compaq's was the first BIOS to be 100% IBM-PC
compatible.
NO WAY.
99 44/100 % maybe.
"There can NEVER be 100% compatability without copyright infringement."
For example:
The IBM-PC (5150) and subsequent models (XT, AT)
had a byte at FFFF:000E (second to last byte in RAM)
that identified the model. Compaq failed to implement that,
and numerous other MINOR incompatabilities.
(Compaq's response to developers was to recommend searching
a range of RAM for the string "COMPAQ")
Compaq loves to claim first in everything, but there were
lots of little companies that preceded them in almost
everything.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
10:54 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Fred Cisin
Sent: 25 January 2004 00:38
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: Who was first?
I knew my post would get a response from you :o))
--
w
Ah,
http://www.piclist.com/techref/intel/8086.HTM
THAT explains it :) Compaq's was the first BIOS to be 100% IBM-PC
compatible.
NO WAY.
99 44/100 % maybe.
"There can NEVER be 100% compatability without copyright infringement."
11:45 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Witchy wrote:
I knew my post would get a response from you :o))
I will concede that Compaq was the first "practical" "large scale"
"commercial" compatible.
But it sure wasn't 100%, and I had owned several DOS machines
and written the first version of XenoCopy before Compaq released
their first model.
I used one of the first Compaqs (on loan from Compaq) when
I added the support for WRITING alien formats to XenoCopy.
I liked the machine a lot. (except the keyboard latches
had too short a throw and the handle was too soft)
Later, PC World used an earlier (1.0) version of XenoCopy
to demonstrate that NOTHING was completely compatible!
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
THAT explains it :) Compaq's was the first BIOS to
be 100% IBM-PC
compatible.
NO WAY.
99 44/100 % maybe.
"There can NEVER be 100% compatability without copyright infringement."
12:02 p.m.
New subject: Who was first?
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Fred Cisin
Sent: 25 January 2004 01:46
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: Who was first?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Witchy wrote:
Sadly that's the one most people care about.
> > THAT explains it :) Compaq's was
the first BIOS to be 100% IBM-PC
> > compatible.
> NO WAY.
> 99 44/100 % maybe.
> "There can NEVER be 100% compatability without copyright
infringement."
I knew my post would get a response from you :o))
I will concede that Compaq was the first "practical" "large scale"
"commercial" compatible. But it sure wasn't 100%, and I had owned several
DOS machines
and written the first version of XenoCopy before Compaq released
their first model.
As I think we all know, it's not the innovators that get the recognition per
se, but the people that make the most noise. I got my first Osborne 1 last
week and there's nothing remarkable about it; hells, it looks like a
repackaged TRS80 Model III. Like you said in an email, it wasn't the first
portable by a long chalk but which one does everyone remember?
--
w
12:35 p.m.
New subject: Who was first?
it wasn't
the first
portable by a long chalk but which one does everyone remember?
Since the first portable was the Hyperion and I have a
basement full of them, I'm hoping that people have long memories.
25 Jan
25 Jan
2:02 p.m.
New subject: Who was first?
Har har, I swear, a brochure with the Royal McBee LGP-30 or is it LGP-21
calls it "portable". One person can carry it (well the CPU cabinet
anyways).
We've had this thread recently... :-)
tomj
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 18:35, Wayne Smith wrote:
I think the first one to "call" itself a "portable" was the
"IBM 5100
Portable Computer" - circa 1975 (although I think there might have been
a 1950s computer that also called itself a "portable" in that you could
move it around on a truck).
-W
it wasn't the first
portable by a long chalk but which one does everyone remember?
Since the first portable was the Hyperion and I have a
basement full of them, I'm hoping that people have long memories.
2 p.m.
New subject: Who was first?
I once had in my hands a nice little Thinkertoys CP/M clamshell
computer, you could fold it in half while it was running! Wish I had
one. Saw it at Ezra Shapiro's office at BYTE in early 80's. I don't
recall anything else about it. Wish I had one though!
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 18:23, Brian Mahoney wrote:
it wasn't
the first
portable by a long chalk but which one does everyone remember?
Since the first portable was the Hyperion and I have a basement full of
them, I'm hoping that people have long memories.
BM
4:28 p.m.
New subject: Who was first?
On 25 Jan 2004, Tom Jennings wrote:
I once had in my hands a nice little Thinkertoys CP/M
clamshell
computer, you could fold it in half while it was running! Wish I had
one. Saw it at Ezra Shapiro's office at BYTE in early 80's. I don't
recall anything else about it. Wish I had one though!
As far as I know, Thinkertoys never made a clamshell portable. Morrow
made a clamshell-like portable called the Pivot.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
26 Jan
26 Jan
1:31 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
On 25 Jan 2004, Tom Jennings wrote:
Howard Fullmer designed several other portables for Morrow,
before the Pivot. I don't think any went into production.
Neither Howard nor George are available for questioning.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
I once had in my hands a nice little Thinkertoys
CP/M clamshell
computer, you could fold it in half while it was running! Wish I had
one. Saw it at Ezra Shapiro's office at BYTE in early 80's. I don't
recall anything else about it. Wish I had one though!
As far as I know, Thinkertoys never made a clamshell portable. Morrow
made a clamshell-like portable called the Pivot.
4:34 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Fred Cisin wrote:
The only other I know of is the MD3 Portable, which has a really
interesting wide-aspect CRT and the obligatory two built-in 5.25"
floppies. Basically an Osborne but more interesting looking.
As far as I
know, Thinkertoys never made a clamshell portable. Morrow
made a clamshell-like portable called the Pivot.
Howard Fullmer designed several other portables for Morrow,
before the Pivot. I don't think any went into production. Neither Howard nor George are available for
questioning.
:-(
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
24 Jan
24 Jan
7:43 p.m.
New subject: Who was first?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Witchy wrote:
As I think we all know, it's not the innovators
that get the recognition per
se, but the people that make the most noise. I got my first Osborne 1 last
week and there's nothing remarkable about it; hells, it looks like a
repackaged TRS80 Model III. Like you said in an email, it wasn't the first
portable by a long chalk but which one does everyone remember?
Marketing is everything...
Case in point: MICROSOFT.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
25 Jan
25 Jan
6:02 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
As I think we
all know, it's not the innovators that get the recognition per
se, but the people that make the most noise. I got my first Osborne 1 last
week and there's nothing remarkable about it; hells, it looks like a
repackaged TRS80 Model III. Like you said in an email, it wasn't the first
portable by a long chalk but which one does everyone remember?
Marketing is
everything...
Case in point: MICROSOFT.
24 Jan
24 Jan
9:46 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Brian Mahoney
Sent: 24 January 2004 23:00
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Who was first?
Might have been a tie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible says that Columbia came up
with an IBM clone in early 1982.
And here's a pic :)
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=633
Might've known they'd have one!
--
w
10:37 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Brian Mahoney wrote:
Might have been a tie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible says that Columbia came up
with an IBM clone in early 1982.
Steve Weyhrich in his Apple history timeline puts the Franklin 100 (1000?)
in March 1982.
http://apple2history.org/history/appy/ahb3.html
It's the Franklin 100, which used ROMs copied from an Apple ][+, and
therefore violating Apple's copyrights. The 1000 was the later model that
had the "legal" ROMs.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
25 Jan
25 Jan
1:52 p.m.
New subject: Who was first?
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 14:59, Brian Mahoney wrote:
Might have been a tie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible says that Columbia came up
with an IBM clone in early 1982.
I AM NO EXPERT on this, but I'd like to point out that the meaning of
"compatible" was far more slippery then than now. AFAIK the Phoenix BIOS
was the first true compatible (eg. the number of incompatibilities was
very, very small). The early Compaq machines were considered
"compatible" even though they did not have 100% ROM compatibility, and
the video interface was different. A lot of software in '82 - '84 used
things like int 10h to talk video to 25x80 mono screens, don't forget...
and that's trivial to do (eg. on my Multibuss/TVI-950 MSDOS 3 machine!)
Steve Weyhrich in his Apple history timeline puts the Franklin 100 (1000?)
in March 1982.
http://apple2history.org/history/appy/ahb3.html
Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Witchy" <witchy(a)binarydinosaurs.co.uk>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: Who was first?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
> [mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Vintage Computer
> Festival
> Sent: 24 January 2004 19:47
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Who was first?
>
>
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Curt vendel wrote:
>
> > I had always thought Lazer was the first Apple Clone??? We
> used to have
> > more of those then real Apple ]['s in college back in 84-88
>
> Franklin, I believe, came out with the "first" (as far as is known)
Apple
> > ][ clone.
>
> Aye, and they were the first to get sued by Apple for doing so :)
>
> w
>
2:23 p.m.
New subject: Who was first?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Tom Jennings wrote:
I AM NO EXPERT on this, but I'd like to point out
that the meaning of
"compatible" was far more slippery then than now. AFAIK the Phoenix BIOS
was the first true compatible (eg. the number of incompatibilities was
very, very small). The early Compaq machines were considered
"compatible" even though they did not have 100% ROM compatibility, and
the video interface was different. A lot of software in '82 - '84 used
things like int 10h to talk video to 25x80 mono screens, don't forget...
and that's trivial to do (eg. on my Multibuss/TVI-950 MSDOS 3 machine!)
I agree that NOTHING was 100% compatible!
But, I don't understand what your point is,...
The usual video for the Compaq portables was CGA (connected
with a mid-board connector to the internal B&W monitor)
IIRC, it responded pretty much identically to the IBM CGA,
in terms of INT10h, and to direct video writes to segment B800h.
In what ways was its video interface (except for the extra
internal connector) different?
OTOH, the Corona had some noticeable differences,
such as the character attribute of 78h.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
26 Jan
26 Jan
5:41 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 20:23, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Tom Jennings wrote:
> I AM NO EXPERT on this, but I'd like to point out that the meaning of
> "compatible" was far more slippery then than now. AFAIK the Phoenix BIOS
> was the first true compatible (eg. the number of incompatibilities was
> very, very small).
I agree that NOTHING was 100% compatible!
But, I don't understand what your point is,...
That 1982 claims of "compatible" are utterly different than the same
claim today or even 1992. I don't mean nit-picky microscopic differences
(a broad grey zone I admit :-) but will-it-run-95%-out-of-the-box-IBM PC
software. Few did in 84.
The usual video for the Compaq portables was CGA
(connected
with a mid-board connector to the internal B&W monitor)
IIRC, it responded pretty much identically to the IBM CGA,
in terms of INT10h, and to direct video writes to segment B800h.
In what ways was its video interface (except for the extra
internal connector) different?
Unfortunately I cannot think of a hard example, I was going by my
general recollection of incompatiblity in a number of areas, compaq vs.
IBM. It is possible that my recollection is faulty, but we were in the
compatibility business then so my incompatibility-recollections may be
amplified by that.
(It was also the beginning of the end of uPs for me; product development
is sooooo dull to me.)
Also, PSA's BIOS was *for sale*, allowing other manufacturers to get
into the game, so they were sideway-competing with Compaq (we visited
Compaq in TX some time in that period and saw some early laptop, I long
forget the details).
Seigmar Schmidt, a consultant who worked for PSA a lot, and whom I
worked with, did a lot of good work for PSA, and was all around a very
smart and pleasant person to work with. Random googles don't show as
much on him as her deserves.
24 Jan
24 Jan
1:02 p.m.
New subject: Who was first?
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 11:20, Curt vendel wrote:
Is Pheonix really first? What about Compaq??? Did
they produce the first
PC clones? What BIOS did they use, is it what Pheonix became?
I had always thought Lazer was the first Apple Clone??? We used to have
more of those then real Apple ]['s in college back in 84-88.
According to Stan Veit's "History of the Personal Computer:"
"A software company called Phoenix, which had been a division of the
ill-fated Technical Design Labs, was the first to develop a legal MS-DOS
BIOS that did not infringe on IBM's copyrights. They did this by a
process called reverse engineering."
However, he doesn't give a date for when it was done. He also mentions
that "several early clone manufacturers, including Columbia Computer
Company, were successfully sued by IBM for copying their BIOS."
I can't get a solid fix on when V-tech copied Apple's ROMS, either. Both
the Laser 3000 and the Compaq Portable were introduced in late 1982. I
guess that probably neither followed the proceedure of the other, in
terms of avoiding lawsuits. They both happened so close together, in
terms of dating that it's hard to know.
6:12 p.m.
New subject: Who was first?
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 11:20, Curt vendel wrote:
Is Pheonix really first? What about Compaq??? Did
they produce the first
PC clones? What BIOS did they use, is it what Pheonix became?
The early Compaq's were NOT fully IBM PC compatible.
Hell, I had a multibuss MSDOS machine that did all the main int 0xxh
calls that PC BIOS suppported, including "memory mapped video", on my
TVI terminal. Real compatibility was hard.
There were all sorts of weird copy-protection schemes that relied on
strange side effects of the IBM PC to work, like absoluete execution
times and other horrors that made it all difficult. This is the stuff
that PSA solved. THey earned their money.
5:45 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Ernest wrote:
I know that this is a bit like comparing apples and
oranges but I was
wondering who did what first?
Phoenix produced a legal clone of IBM's system Bios, which enabled other
companies to produced cheaper clones of the IBM PC.
V-tech produced a legal clone of the Apple II+ ROMs, which it used in
the Laser 128 (the only legal clone of the Apple II.)
I'm guessing that Phoenix was first, and Laser followed their example
when it decided to clone Apple's ROM codes. Is this correct? Did Phoenix
set an example for the whole industry?
I'm not sure (my guess is Phoenix since the Laser didn't come out until
around 1983/84) but I'm pretty sure "cleanroom" reverse engineering has
been around longer than that.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
5:53 a.m.
New subject: Who was first?
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Ernest
Sent: 24 January 2004 17:10
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Who was first?
I know that this is a bit like comparing apples and oranges but I was
wondering who did what first?
Phoenix produced a legal clone of IBM's system Bios, which enabled other
companies to produced cheaper clones of the IBM PC.
Phoenix? I thought it was Compaq in 1982-3 when they spent several million
dollars making a non-copyright infringing compatible BIOS for the Compaq
Portable?
Again, I could be wrong :)
cheers
--
Adrian/Witchy
www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - possibly the UK's biggest online computer museum
www.snakebiteandblack.co.uk - ex-monthly gothic shenanigans :o(
6:06 p.m.
New subject: Who was first?
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 09:09, Ernest wrote:
I'm guessing that Phoenix was first, and Laser
followed their example
when it decided to clone Apple's ROM codes. Is this correct? Did Phoenix
set an example for the whole industry?
I worked for Phoenix precisely at that time, and in fact turned down the
work (I had done all their "portable BIOS" stuff that preceded it) and
moved to San Francisco.
What they did was to find "virgins", programmers who had never seen the
IBM PC Tech Ref, nor even had written 808x code! They found some TI 9900
programmers (who wrote appropriately odd-looking code, I hear :-)
Someone pored over the Tech Ref and created an "interface specification"
from it. eg call points, charset tables, irq vectors,
etc. This spec was
given to the programmers who wrote the code, and another bunch
that
tested.
THe REAL issue was legal -- plausible deniability. Absolutly and utterly
NO CHEATING was done and they could prove it in court. It wasnt' jsut
that PSA was worried about suit, but their customers would be reluctant
to buy it without such an assurance.
I believe the project started in 1983. Preliminary work could have been
1982.
21 Jan
21 Jan
6:19 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 20:21, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
I just can't verify this by booting it up because
it has a very funky
power connector which requires an external power supply of some sort
(which I didn't get with this).
I wonder if a regular Apple II power supply would work for that system?
You'd have to change the connector on the power supply but that would be
fairly simple. You might also have to change the power setting from 110
to 220 but most of those old power supplies had a switch for that. It
would be worth a try -and simple to do.
10:13 p.m.
On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 04:21, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
It's rare that I find a unique and interesting
computer these days. This
Mitac LIC-2001A Little Intelligent Computer is one such. Apparently, it
was marketed in Japan because it has the Katakana (I think) character set
painted onto the keycap fronts, but otherwise is a standard QWERTY
keyboard layout.
hehe I posted on the list about one not so long ago; I have one too :-)
Possibly Japanese, possibly Chinese by the way.
I just can't verify this by booting it up because
it has a very funky
power connector which requires an external power supply of some sort
(which I didn't get with this).
Aha. For some *totally* unknown reason, mine came with both UK and US
power supplies. I *think* I kept the US power supply even though I don't
need it - if I can find it I can look into postage for you.
I had two backplane units with Apple bus connectors on them; these plug
into the expansion connector on the back of the Mitac and give it a
proper bus for connecting standard Apple cards. Shout if you don't have
that and I can have a look for my spare.
I don't normally throw stuff out (especially not without offering it to
the list first) but I have been doing a lot of thinning-down of stuff
this last year, so no guarantees I have either any more :(
The usenet posts below suggest I still had at least the second bus
expansion board in the middle of last year though..
Anyone ever heard of this? The web turns up empty.
http://tinyurl.com/yq2ah
prior to that the only info I could find on the web was that the darn
thing existed :)
cheers
Jules
10:33 p.m.
Luckily I knew where the machine + the UK PSU was as I'd only moved
those a few weeks ago :)
Plug on the PSU side is as follows:
+-------------------+
+-------------------+
| |
| O x O O O |
| |
+-------------------+
-12 nc GND +12 +5
cheers
Jules
22 Jan
22 Jan
3:51 a.m.
On 22 Jan 2004, Jules Richardson wrote:
Luckily I knew where the machine + the UK PSU was as
I'd only moved
those a few weeks ago :)
Plug on the PSU side is as follows:
+-------------------+
+-------------------+
| |
| O x O O O |
| |
+-------------------+
-12 nc GND +12 +5
Hmm, seems to be a standard ][+ supply. I'd still like the "official"
supply though :)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
3:50 a.m.
On 22 Jan 2004, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 04:21, Vintage Computer Festival
wrote:
Excellent!
It's rare that I find a unique and
interesting computer these days. This
Mitac LIC-2001A Little Intelligent Computer is one such. Apparently, it
was marketed in Japan because it has the Katakana (I think) character set
painted onto the keycap fronts, but otherwise is a standard QWERTY
keyboard layout.
hehe I posted on the list about one not so long ago; I have one too :-) Possibly Japanese, possibly Chinese by the way.
I'm leaning towards Korean now. In fact, I was thinking Korean from the
get go but that didn't jibe with my knowledge of Apple ][ clone history,
but I'd just never heard of a Korean Apple ][ clone before. I'll wager
it's Korean, which would make it even funkier.
Aha. For some *totally* unknown reason, mine came with
both UK and US
power supplies. I *think* I kept the US power supply even though I don't
need it - if I can find it I can look into postage for you.
Ah, excellent!
I had two backplane units with Apple bus connectors on
them; these plug
into the expansion connector on the back of the Mitac and give it a
proper bus for connecting standard Apple cards. Shout if you don't have
that and I can have a look for my spare.
I do not have that either and would certainly be grateful for one to
complete this system.
The usenet posts below suggest I still had at least
the second bus
expansion board in the middle of last year though..
Funny, this discussion didn't come up when I Googled on it. I guess I
should start getting used to checking Google Groups as well, but I would
think they would show relevant hits to Usenet discussions in their search
results.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Anyone ever heard of this? The web turns up
empty.
http://tinyurl.com/yq2ah
prior to that the only info I could find on the web was that the darn
thing existed :)
6:26 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Vintage Computer
Festival
Sent: 22 January 2004 17:51
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Mitac LIC-2001A Little Intelligent Computer
Funny, this discussion didn't come up when I Googled on it. I guess I
should start getting used to checking Google Groups as well, but I would
think they would show relevant hits to Usenet discussions in their search
results.
They do, and you'd be amazed at the things you can turn up! Quite a lot of
my info has come grom google groups....all it takes is someone like you or
me to ask a question on a relevant ng and it's archived, so even if nobody
answers the question you've got a good chance of getting hold of the OP.
Mind, GG goes right back to the beginning doesn't it, so sometimes contact
might be impossible :)
cheers
w
3:18 a.m.
I have a mitac laptop here somewhere.... from the 386 days....
ed sharpe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf(a)siconic.com>
To: "Classic Computers Mailing List" <cctech(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:21 PM
Subject: Mitac LIC-2001A Little Intelligent Computer
It's rare that I find a unique and interesting computer these days. This
Mitac LIC-2001A Little Intelligent Computer is one such. Apparently, it
was marketed in Japan because it has the Katakana (I think) character set
painted onto the keycap fronts, but otherwise is a standard QWERTY
keyboard layout.
The back connectors include:
1) Power
2) Joystick (a 16-pin DIP socket mounted on its side!)
3) Tape In
4) Tape Out
5) TV (the jack of an RF modulator)
6) Expansion
7) Drive 1
8) Drive 2
9) Printer
10) Monitor (RCA type jack)
11) 80 Column (RCA type jack)
Now, as I typed this, I started to sense something familiar, especially
when I took into account the pin count on the disk drive connectors, and
especially with the joystick port. I do believe this is an Apple ][+
clone. I opened it up and it has a 6502 and a Z80 onboard, with three
ROMs and lots of RAM chips, sort of like many ][+ clones I've seen (I have
at least a couple or three other ][+ clones with 6502 and Z80 on-board).
I just can't verify this by booting it up because it has a very funky
power connector which requires an external power supply of some sort
(which I didn't get with this).
Anyone ever heard of this? The web turns up empty.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
Festival
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage
mputers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at
http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
3:54 a.m.
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, ed sharpe wrote:
I have a mitac laptop here somewhere.... from the 386
days....
Yep, me too. I just got one in the other day. I decided to keep it
because it was just the slightest bit out of the ordinary.
BTW, you have the Reply-To: set in your mailer as well.
(I'm going to pick you guys off one at a time until I've got you all... ;)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
5 a.m.
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Doc Shipley wrote:
On Jan 22, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Vintage Computer
Festival wrote:
Hmm, you seem to be OK. >:)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, ed sharpe wrote:
BTW, you have the Reply-To: set in your mailer as well.
(I'm going to pick you guys off one at a time until I've got you
all... ;)
<cough>netcop<cough>
11:56 a.m.
New subject: ^^^^ what reply to explain?****Re: Mitac LIC-2001A Little Intelligent Computer
^^^^ what reply to explain?****
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf(a)siconic.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: Mitac LIC-2001A Little Intelligent Computer
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, ed sharpe wrote:
Festival
I have a mitac laptop here somewhere.... from
the 386 days....
Yep, me too. I just got one in the other day. I decided to keep it
because it was just the slightest bit out of the ordinary.
BTW, you have the Reply-To: set in your mailer as well.
(I'm going to pick you guys off one at a time until I've got you all... ;)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage
mputers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at
http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
7638
days inactive
7643
days old
44 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
brianmahoney＠look.ca -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
curt＠atarimuseum.com -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
ernestls＠attbi.com -
ernestls＠comcast.net -
esharpe＠uswest.net -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
tomj＠wps.com -
vcf＠siconic.com -
wayne.smith＠charter.net -
witchy＠binarydinosaurs.co.uk