5 Oct
1998
5 Oct
'98
1:39 p.m.
< We haven't established a precise definition for microprocessor, but wha
< you seem to be talking about is a microcontroller, which is a complete
< system on a chip (i.e., CPU, memory, and I/O).
Ah, your catching on.
CPU: central processing unit... says nothing about memory or IO.
The CPU is an 8080.
Microprocessor: Actually is a systems level concept and is generally
refers to the whole box. The Altair8800 Microcomputer.
Microcontroller: see above! The IMSAI IMP-48 microcontroller uses the
Intel 8035 as its core.
The F8 (NOT the 3870) had bits and piices of the CPU scattered between a
minimum of two chips.
The 1800/1801 did the same as it was too much for one piece of silicon
at the time of design.
< AFAIK, the first true microcontroller (CPU, memory, and I/O on one monol
< IC) was the Intel 8048.
BZZT! TI TMS1000 and NEC uCOM4 both predate it.
So the F14 CADC is a microcomputer. The LSI-11 is a microcomputer.
The Z80 is a CPU as is the 80586.
Allison
5 Oct
5 Oct
2:34 p.m.
allisonp(a)world.std.com (Allison J Parent) wrote:
The F8 (NOT the 3870) had bits and piices of the CPU
scattered between a
minimum of two chips.
No, it didn't. The entire F8 CPU was on a single chip. If you added a second
chip that contained only ROM and I/O, you had a functional system.
4:15 p.m.
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Allison J Parent wrote:
So the F14 CADC is a microcomputer. The LSI-11 is a
microcomputer.
The Z80 is a CPU as is the 80586.
I think this is the most intelligent description to be applied since I got
involved in this whole debate earlier this year.
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
4:33 p.m.
So the F14
CADC is a microcomputer. The LSI-11 is a microcomputer.
The Z80 is a CPU as is the 80586.
I think this is the most intelligent description to be applied since I got
involved in this whole debate earlier this year.
7:21 p.m.
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
You mean avoiding the issue altogether? I think it's always good to name
things. Microprocessor is a useful name. What isn't always useful is to
try to define "first".
Who's avoiding the issue? I think "microcomputer" most aptly defines what
the F14 chip set is, taken as a whole. The 4004, the equivalent of the
F14 CADC's SLF, also needed a bunch of support chips to make it useful
(4001, 4002, 4003, etc. not to mention a bunch of TTL, which the CADC did
NOT need, requiring only the chips in its basic set) and therefore,
putting it all together, was a "microcomputer". I still think the SLF is
a "microprocessor", and quite likely the first even though you think
that's not important (there's gotta be a Big Bang somewhere).
So the F14 CADC is a microcomputer. The LSI-11 is a
microcomputer.
The Z80 is a CPU as is the 80586.
I think this is the most intelligent description to be applied since I got
involved in this whole debate earlier this year. To me, "microprocessor" means something that
was heavily influenced by the
4004 or its relatives, and that's a useful distinction. Is there a better
word for that?
That's ludicrous, since as I explained in a previous message, the
single-chip CPU was simply the next step. There was nothing really
special about the 4004 that "influenced" later designs. It was one of
many. In fact, there were all sorts of designs coming out around the time
of the 4004, 4040, 8008, etc. in the 1971-1974 timeframe. Most of them
were way better than Intel's efforts. Intel just happened to have the
most staying power, which is why we have the Pentium II today and not the
10th generation 6502, or F8, or AMI 7200, etc.
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
7:51 p.m.
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
I still think the SLF is
a "microprocessor", and quite likely the first even though you think
that's not important (there's gotta be a Big Bang somewhere).
The Big Bang was named Babbage. Intel supplied the ammunition for a
revolution: cheap computers. The high level of integration was what
enabled them to make it cheap, and they commercialized it. The level of
integration is the salient feature of the chip, but not the main feature
of the important event.
Babbage was not the first to come up with the idea of a computer, but you
can trace the development of modern computers back to him. You can't do
anything like that with Holt's chip -- it had no influence. Maybe there
were other Big Bangs before The Big Bang, but if they didn't create a
Universe, nobody cares.
-- Doug
11:16 p.m.
New subject: Amiga stories
Hi
I run an Amiga webpage and would be very interested in
any stories that people have relating to the Amiga, the
famous people involved, interviews and images.
Regards,
Gareth Knight
Amiga Interactive Guide
http://welcome.to/aig
6 Oct
6 Oct
6:27 a.m.
Sam wrote:
Who's avoiding the issue? I think
"microcomputer" most aptly defines what
the F14 chip set is, taken as a whole. The 4004, the equivalent of the
F14 CADC's SLF, also needed a bunch of support chips to make it useful
(4001, 4002, 4003, etc. not to mention a bunch of TTL, which the CADC did
NOT need, requiring only the chips in its basic set)
What bunch of TTL? If you could get by with registers (of which there were
16), you only needed a 4004 and the ROM chip to make a useful system. If you
needed more ROM, RAM, or I/O, you just added the appropriate 400x chips.
9575
days inactive
9576
days old
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
allisonp＠world.std.com -
dastar＠ncal.verio.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
kh240463＠cr10m.staffs.ac.uk -
yowza＠yowza.com