6 Oct
1998
6 Oct
'98
1:20 a.m.
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
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.
I think this attitude in general carelessly disregards an amazing body of
work. In fact, I think people do care. I'm not so quick to sweep
historical facts underneath the carpet simply as a matter of convenience.
I'd rather know the complete and true story, and not just the easiest one
to remember.
Furthermore, you are are discounting the AMI microprocessors of the
early 70s, which Holt went on to design after the F14 CADC, and the
influence those chips may have had on later designs.
In fact, you are choosing to go along with the popular history written
years ago by a biased reporter that is perpetuated by lazy historians who
simply regurgitate the information they read in the last book rather than
doing real research and finding out there was more to the story, and that
there is history before the popular history. The picture is bigger than
the canvas it was painted on. I want to know what was beyond the frame.
I'm surprised you have this attitude when on the one hand you'd like to
see the HP9830 recognized as the first personal computer, rather than the
Altair 8800. By your own reasoning, the HP9830 wasn't the big bang, so
who cares?
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]
6 Oct
6 Oct
6:30 a.m.
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
I think this attitude in general carelessly disregards
an amazing body of
work. In fact, I think people do care. I'm not so quick to sweep
historical facts underneath the carpet simply as a matter of convenience.
I'd rather know the complete and true story, and not just the easiest one
to remember.
Historical footnotes are always intresting, but it seems to me that to
pronounce "the F15 CADC was first, not the Intel 4004" is a strawman. We
all agree that society was changed by the cheap interactive "personal"
computer. We all know that *all* of the earliest cheap machines were
based on Intel CPUs. This wasn't an accident, and nothing would change
this fact if, say, TI engineers had actually produced a microprocessor
before Intel. The important "firsts" in documenting the personal computer
revolution are commercialization, availability, and price.
I'm not denying that Holt produced a CPU, and it may be important in the
history of military computers. It is irrelevant in the history of the
personal computer unless there was a personal computer designed that
included it or a direct descendant.
I'm surprised you have this attitude when on the
one hand you'd like to
see the HP9830 recognized as the first personal computer, rather than the
Altair 8800. By your own reasoning, the HP9830 wasn't the big bang, so
who cares?
The HP9830 is a historical footnote. It's more relevant than a military
computer because there is documented evidence of the HP influence on early
Apple machines, and the significance of the Apple machines are clear.
There is also evidence that suggests that HP thought about and discounted
the idea of selling the 9830 to a wider audience. To me, this makes it a
pretty interesting footnote. If it had been created in a vacuum and Woz
had worked at IBM instead of HP, it would be a lesser footnote, something
like the MCM machine you mentioned.
I think it's great that Holt got his story out. Footnotes always add
depth, but no chapters need to be rewritten.
-- Doug
7 Oct
7 Oct
4:20 a.m.
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
computer. We all know that *all* of the earliest
cheap machines were
based on Intel CPUs. This wasn't an accident, and nothing would change
Does "we" include anyone outside of "Doug Yowza"? I'd hate to be
included
in the group of people that would accept this fallacy.
What about...
...the KIM-1? (1976, 6502)
...the JOLT? (1975, 6502)
...the COSMAC ELF? (1975)
...the SWTPc 6800? (1975, 6800)
If I didn't kill all those brain cells last night I'd be able to come up
with many, many more that were NOT Intel-based machines.
(You made this one too easy for me.)
this fact if, say, TI engineers had actually produced
a microprocessor
before Intel. The important "firsts" in documenting the personal computer
revolution are commercialization, availability, and price.
That certainly doesn't tell the whole story. The only thing this type of
historical "documentation" serves is a company's marketing efforts.
I'm not denying that Holt produced a CPU, and it
may be important in the
history of military computers. It is irrelevant in the history of the
personal computer unless there was a personal computer designed that
included it or a direct descendant.
I never argued that it was influential in the narrow realm of the history
of the personal computer. I'm arguing that it has significance on its own
merits, and also in the fact that if it had been commercialized, it would
have advanced the development of subsequent microprocessors by five years
(in the estimates of one reviewer, but probably a reasonable assessment).
I think what's relevant is that if you took the 4004, the best that Intel
could produce at the time (1971) and chained 16 of them together, they
still could not even begin to perform at the levels that the CADC had to,
and certainly not within the space, power and temperature limitations
imposed on the product. The CADC shows that much more was possible than
was previously believed for that early era in microprocessor history.
That's significant, and relevant.
The HP9830 is a historical footnote. It's more
relevant than a military
computer because there is documented evidence of the HP influence on early
Apple machines, and the significance of the Apple machines are clear.
There is also evidence that suggests that HP thought about and discounted
the idea of selling the 9830 to a wider audience. To me, this makes it a
I agree with you there.
pretty interesting footnote. If it had been created
in a vacuum and Woz
had worked at IBM instead of HP, it would be a lesser footnote, something
like the MCM machine you mentioned.
How can you consider the MCM a "lesser footnote" than the 9830, when IBM
would have never even produced the 5100 if they didn't view the MCM-70 as
a threat to one of their markets? In that regard, and taking into
consideration the fact that the 5100 was thought to be the first portable*
machine to integrate a display, keyboard and storage device (extremely
significant in the history of portables no less), I think the MCM-70 is a
far greater footnote than the 9830.
* marketed specifically as a portable, unlike the 9830.
I think it's great that Holt got his story out.
Footnotes always add
depth, but no chapters need to be rewritten.
I don't think chapters need to be re-written either. A whole NEW chapter
needs to be added.
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]
7:05 a.m.
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
> computer. We all know that *all* of the earliest cheap machines were
> based on Intel CPUs. This wasn't an accident, and nothing would change
[...]
What about...
...the KIM-1? (1976, 6502)
...the JOLT? (1975, 6502)
...the COSMAC ELF? (1975)
...the SWTPc 6800? (1975, 6800
Now you're just being disingenuous. Why stop there, keep going and
include the DEC Alpha in your extended definition of earliest. None of
these machines were in the first wave of cheap computers. These all
folowed the Altair, which started the second wave in 1975 using a thrid
generation Intel microprocessor, the 8080.
That certainly doesn't tell the whole story. The
only thing this type of
historical "documentation" serves is a company's marketing efforts.
If you extend "marketing" to mean product definition, foundry capability,
price structure, excellent documentation (by trivia-inspiring Adam
Osborne, no less), support chip availability, reference platform
availability, training, etc., then you're getting closer to the truth.
Intel made a concerted effort to make microcomputers happen. Others
followed. If somebody else did *that* first, it would be very
interesting to know about.
I never argued that it was influential in the narrow
realm of the history
of the personal computer. I'm arguing that it has significance on its own
merits, and also in the fact that if it had been commercialized, it would
have advanced the development of subsequent microprocessors by five years
(in the estimates of one reviewer, but probably a reasonable assessment).
By comparing it to the Intel 4004, and trying specifically to displace the
4004 from its position of "glory" as the first microprocessor, and
complaining that microprocessor history is simply corporate marketing and
press releases, you sure seem to be doing more than simply promoting the
F14 chip(s) on their own merit.
I think what's relevant is that if you took the
4004, the best that Intel
could produce at the time (1971) and chained 16 of them together, they
still could not even begin to perform at the levels that the CADC had to,
and certainly not within the space, power and temperature limitations
imposed on the product. The CADC shows that much more was possible than
was previously believed for that early era in microprocessor history.
That's significant, and relevant.
You're comparing apples to oranges. The products had vastly different
requirements, vastly different applications, and shouldn't be directly
compared. It's like trying to diminish the work of Henry Ford because
somebody built an airplane that was faster than the Model T six months
prior -- it's a non sequitur.
Now, if you have evidence of Holt's design or implementation or
manufacturing techniques or even evangelical skills having impact on the
industry we all know and love, that would be good stuff for history of the
microcomputer. If you're simply saying that he produced a cool computer
for the Air Force and it allowed planes to fly cheaper faster and better,
then that's cool too, but it's not how you're framing this as I see it.
I don't have trouble with his accomplishments, I have trouble with your
spin. (Although it was a brilliant publicity vehicle for VCF, and you
should be applauded for that, and perhaps offered a position in the White
House.)
-- Doug
12:22 p.m.
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
Oh please. You're saying that none of those machines would have happened
without the Altair? What do you define as the "first wave of cheap
computers"? The week that the Altair came out? All the computers I
mentioned were within a year of the first production model of the Altair.
Altair or not, they would have still been created.
Are you also implying none of those processors would have happened without
the Intel 4004? That's an incredibly narrow review of the history of the
development of microprocessors. As I've stated before, the Intel 4004 was
nothing amazing. Efforts were already under way (concurrently) by other
companies to develop a "microprocessor". TI and AMI were just a couple.
Intel just happened to be one of the first that coupled their technology
with good marketing.
Your sense of "history" seems to be narrowly focused on only what you've
read, and does not at all reflect a comprehensive study of what actually
took place. I'm not claiming to be all-knowing about what happened back
in the early 70s with regard to microprocessor technology and
microcomputer development, but I can tell that I have a greater
understanding of what was really going on back then. I take my knowledge
Oh, I get it! Intel's version of the events constitutes the WHOLE story,
and all those "other guys" were silly and insignificant operations that
made NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the progress of personal computing. Give me
a break.
That's how YOU are interpreting my actions. I'm simply trying to explain
to you why the F14 CADC is significant on its own merits, and you're
trying to (unsuccessfully) convince me its not terribly worthy of note.
Intel did a good enough job entrenching their version of history in the
public record, and no manner of arguing on my part will change that, and
in fact, that is not my goal. I'm simply trying to promote the notion
that there is more to this story than just "Intel creates the 4004", which
is what you seem to be stuck on. The next time we get together I'll have
to bring all the notes, articles and documentation I've collected from the
1971-1974 timeframe that demonstrates that there was much more going on
than just Intel and their 4004, and that these other efforts had a far
greater collective influence on the evolution of microprocessors than just
the 4004 alone.
Not at all. They were both LSI processors. A comparison is appropriate.
Yes they had different requirements and applications, but my point was to
refute your argument that the CADC was insignificant in the history of the
development of microprocessors simply because it was not subsequently
commercialized. As I proffered above, the CADC demonstrates that the
possibilities were far greater than what the 4004 presented. The intent
is not to diminish the importance of the 4004 at all, but to simply bring
to awareness that the state of the art had not been pushed to its outer
bounds with the 4004. I believe this is important to note, especially in
a historical context in which one is arguing that an advancement in the
state of the art occurred, which it clearly did not with the 4004.
Your argument seems to be centered on commercial success, in which case
you are giving the 4004 too much credit, since that did not occur until
much later on with the 8080, the 6800 and the 6502.
...the
KIM-1? (1976, 6502)
...the JOLT? (1975, 6502)
...the COSMAC ELF? (1975)
...the SWTPc 6800? (1975, 6800
Now you're just being disingenuous. Why stop there, keep going and
include the DEC Alpha in your extended definition of earliest. None of
these machines were in the first wave of cheap computers. These all
folowed the Altair, which started the second wave in 1975 using a thrid
generation Intel microprocessor, the 8080. from first-hand sources who lived it.
If you pay attention, you'll notice some of those first-hand sources
sharing this first-hand information on the list occasionally.
That certainly
doesn't tell the whole story. The only thing this type of
historical "documentation" serves is a company's marketing efforts.
If you extend "marketing" to mean product definition, foundry capability,
price structure, excellent documentation (by trivia-inspiring Adam
Osborne, no less), support chip availability, reference platform
availability, training, etc., then you're getting closer to the truth.
Intel made a concerted effort to make microcomputers happen. Others
followed. If somebody else did *that* first, it would be very
interesting to know about. I never argued
that it was influential in the narrow realm of the history
of the personal computer. I'm arguing that it has significance on its own
merits, and also in the fact that if it had been commercialized, it would
have advanced the development of subsequent microprocessors by five years
(in the estimates of one reviewer, but probably a reasonable assessment).
By comparing it to the Intel 4004, and trying specifically to displace the
4004 from its position of "glory" as the first microprocessor, and
complaining that microprocessor history is simply corporate marketing and
press releases, you sure seem to be doing more than simply promoting the
F14 chip(s) on their own merit. I think
what's relevant is that if you took the 4004, the best that Intel
could produce at the time (1971) and chained 16 of them together, they
still could not even begin to perform at the levels that the CADC had to,
and certainly not within the space, power and temperature limitations
imposed on the product. The CADC shows that much more was possible than
was previously believed for that early era in microprocessor history.
That's significant, and relevant.
You're comparing apples to oranges. The products had vastly different
requirements, vastly different applications, and shouldn't be directly
compared. It's like trying to diminish the work of Henry Ford because
somebody built an airplane that was faster than the Model T six months
prior -- it's a non sequitur. Now, if you have evidence of Holt's design or
implementation or
manufacturing techniques or even evangelical skills having impact on the
industry we all know and love, that would be good stuff for history of the
microcomputer. If you're simply saying that he produced a cool computer
for the Air Force and it allowed planes to fly cheaper faster and better,
then that's cool too, but it's not how you're framing this as I see it.
Well, you're not paying attention to what I'm saying, and are instead
trying to characterize my discourse on this subject in your own highly
inflexible presuppositions. It's somewhat insulting.
You've ignored all the references I've made to Ray's accomplishments at
AMI, which is the company he went on to after the F14 project to create
two more microprocessors (AMI7200 and AMI7300), and these creations, based
in part upon his successful CADC design, certainly had an impact on the
state of the art, not to mention the many other efforts going on at the
same time by at least three other companies. These efforts were the early
formation of what was to eventually become the microcomputer industry.
Assigning Intel all the credit for virtually creating the industry is
absurd. It certainly was not obvious back then that Intel would be
grossing $21billion in 1998 and have a virtual monopoly on personal
computing electronics. It was anyone's game. But perhaps I'm assuming
you've studied the history, which doesn't seem to be the case.
And in your defense, I have not offered much in the way of Holt's later
work that included developing the training course for the Intel 4004,
publication of the first microcomputer journal (_The Microcomputer
Digest_), his JOLT, his VIM-1 (later SYM-1) and the prototype computer he
provided to Radio Shack that quite possibly became the TRS-80, all of
which would bolster my argument that the CADC carries tremendous
significance, being his first work and therefore certainly providing some
amount of influence on the designs of his subsequent work.
I don't have trouble with his accomplishments, I
have trouble with your
spin. (Although it was a brilliant publicity vehicle for VCF, and you
Since when is promoting the facts of the past "spin"? Unless you mean
anything that doesn't fit into your narrow historical view is spin?
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]
2:23 p.m.
New subject: What was the first Unix micro?
OK, I'm getting tired of the arguments about who made the first
microprocessor. Fine. Maybe God did -- it's called DNA and as an
atheist I don't grant credit to anybody.
Trivia question: who made the first successful mass-produced _and_
mass-marketed (in one system) Unix hardware platform?
--
Ward Griffiths <mailto:gram@cnct.com> <http://www.cnct.com/home/gram/>
When I was crossing the border into Canada, they asked me if I had any
firearms with me. I said "Well, what do you need?" -- Steven Wright
2:32 p.m.
New subject: What was the first Unix micro?
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Ward Donald Griffiths III wrote:
Trivia question: who made the first successful
mass-produced _and_
mass-marketed (in one system) Unix hardware platform?
Man, what a loaded question. Words like "first", "successful", and
"mass-" are the things that start these never-ending arguments.
My answer: none! There hasn't yet been a successful Unix platform!
-- Doug
3:40 p.m.
New subject: What was the first Unix micro?
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Ward Donald Griffiths III wrote:
OK, I'm getting tired of the arguments about who
made the first
microprocessor. Fine. Maybe God did -- it's called DNA and as an
atheist I don't grant credit to anybody.
Oh, ok. God forbid we discuss computer history on this list, Ward. We'll
just go away now so you can fill up the list with your pointless one-line
replies.
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]
2:25 p.m.
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
Oh please. You're saying that none of those
machines would have happened
without the Altair? What do you define as the "first wave of cheap
computers"? The week that the Altair came out? All the computers I
mentioned were within a year of the first production model of the Altair.
Altair or not, they would have still been created.
Micral, Mark-8, Scelbi 8H were the first wave. I don't know of any 4004
micros other than the MCS-4, but I doubt it was especially cheap or widely
available compared to some of the others, and compared especially to the
computers that came before.
We have no way of knowing what *would* have happened if Intel hadn't
invented the 4004 or if MITS hadn't invented the Altair, all we know is
what *did* happen.
You seem to be saying the the F14 computer could have been important if
several events which didn't happen would have happended and if several
events which did happen hadn't -- that's pointless pseudo-revision.
Your sense of "history" seems to be narrowly
focused on only what you've
read, and does not at all reflect a comprehensive study of what actually
took place. I'm not claiming to be all-knowing about what happened back
in the early 70s with regard to microprocessor technology and
microcomputer development, but I can tell that I have a greater
understanding of what was really going on back then. I take my knowledge
from first-hand sources who lived it.
Then you've kept this important knowledge hidden from us all. Please tell
us. If there's a bit of Ray Holt in the machine I'm writing this mess
from, I want to know!
Oh, I get it! Intel's version of the events
constitutes the WHOLE story,
and all those "other guys" were silly and insignificant operations that
made NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the progress of personal computing. Give me
a break.
I've never read Intel's versions of the events -- all I have to go on are
artifacts. I'm not aware of any computer artifacts that support the idea
that somebody else enabled cheap computers to be made before Intel did.
If you're suggesting that Holt was somehow involved in a "race" or somehow
influenced Intel to move when they did, that hasn't come through. Holt's
F14 computer's influence on the microcomputer industry is still completely
invisible to me. What am I missing? Where do I need to look to find this
influence?
Your argument seems to be centered on commercial
success, in which case
you are giving the 4004 too much credit, since that did not occur until
much later on with the 8080, the 6800 and the 6502.
Not at all. I'm focusing completely on your argument that Holt did
something important "first." Your whole argument seems to center on a
fairly unimportant part of the meaning of the word "microprocessor".
Let's say that the word "microprocessor" was never coined and that Intel
just created a CPU called the 4004 that begat the 8008, 8080, Pentium,
etc. That would seem to completely destroy the relevance of the F14
computer as far as microcomputers are concerned, but it does nothing to
deminish the importance of the 4004.
Nobody doubts that computers existed before Intel came along, or that LSI
was being done by others at the same time or even earlier, but to focus on
an LSI-based computer that came before the 4004 is to completely miss the
importance of the 4004. LSI was just a means to an end: cheap computers.
How much did the F14's computer cost, BTW?
Assigning Intel all the credit for virtually creating
the industry is
absurd. It certainly was not obvious back then that Intel would be
grossing $21billion in 1998 and have a virtual monopoly on personal
computing electronics. It was anyone's game. But perhaps I'm assuming
you've studied the history, which doesn't seem to be the case.
At no point did I mention Intel's long-term success. This discussion all
along has been about the Big Bang that led eventually to cheap computers
for all of us. My understanding is that you're saying that the F14
computer was the Big Bang. Did I misunderstand you? I'm saying that the
4004 was the Big Bang; that the dust from that explosion still bears the
Intel imprint is interesting, but that's a different topic.
-- Doug
4:51 p.m.
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
I don't have the Pyramids in my collection, so the Egyptians never built
them. I don't have the Nina, the Pinta or the Santa Maria in my
collection, so Columbus never "discovered America". I don't have an
Apollo rocket in my collection, so America never made it to the moon.
I don't see how that relates to the argument this has evolved into. The
F14 CADC was a microprocessor, arguably a single-chip CPU, that came
before the 4004. That is fact. The first microprocessor was a
significant milestone, whether it ended up evolving into what's on our
desk today or not. Whether the Holt SLF was a "microprocessor" like the
4004 was a year later is obviously hotly contested for many different
reasons. But the fact remains, it exists and was an amazing acheivement.
Accept this and separate it from the rest of your argument and we're
halfway to agreement.
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
Ok, I can add the Kenbak-1 to your list and it would be just as irrelevant
as the three you just listed. You just named three computers that barely
made a scratch on the microcomputer industry. The Micral was never sold
outside of France and very few units were sold anyway, so had limited if
any impact on the industry on the whole. The Scelbi-8H sold in limited
numbers and was effectively a failure and the Mark-8 was a magazine
project. I don't see how these examples, however significant on their
own merits (which they definitely are!) support your original argument.
Oh please. You're saying that none of those
machines would have happened
without the Altair? What do you define as the "first wave of cheap
computers"? The week that the Altair came out? All the computers I
mentioned were within a year of the first production model of the Altair.
Altair or not, they would have still been created.
Micral, Mark-8, Scelbi 8H were the first wave. I don't know of any 4004
micros other than the MCS-4, but I doubt it was especially cheap or widely
available compared to some of the others, and compared especially to the
computers that came before. We have no way of knowing what *would* have happened
if Intel hadn't
invented the 4004 or if MITS hadn't invented the Altair, all we know is
what *did* happen.
We would have had microprocessor-based computers on our desktop today.
The trend was definitely heading in that direction. Intel merely was in
the right place at the right time. There still would have been a Lee
Felsenstein, a Steve Wozniak and a Ray Holt.
You seem to be saying the the F14 computer could have
been important if
several events which didn't happen would have happended and if several
events which did happen hadn't -- that's pointless pseudo-revision.
I'm not saying it could have, I'm saying it WAS and IS. The F14 CADC
happened (independently and prior to the 4004). That is a fact. The
AMI7200 and AMI7300 happened. That is a fact. Several other
microprocessors from several other companies happened. That is a fact.
Even if Intel had never existed, we STILL would have had the microcomputer
revolution of around 1975, and today we would have microprocessor-based
computers on our desks and in our pockets. To speculate otherwise would
be absurd.
Oh, I get it!
Intel's version of the events constitutes the WHOLE story,
and all those "other guys" were silly and insignificant operations that
made NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the progress of personal computing. Give me
a break.
I've never read Intel's versions of the events -- all I have to go on are
artifacts. I'm not aware of any computer artifacts that support the idea
that somebody else enabled cheap computers to be made before Intel did. If you're suggesting that Holt was somehow
involved in a "race" or somehow
influenced Intel to move when they did, that hasn't come through. Holt's
F14 computer's influence on the microcomputer industry is still completely
invisible to me. What am I missing? Where do I need to look to find this
influence?
You seem to have this idea that Intel deliberately acted to create the
microcomputer industry, that they had this grand master scheme that would
culminate in the Altair 8800. This is simply not the case. Intel did
provide training and support to companies to use the 4004 in their
applications, but where is your evidence that they knew this would lead to
cheap computers?
The 4004 was just the first in the succession of many microprocessors from
many manufacturers. Why did the Mark-8 and Scelbi 8H designers choose the
8008? Who knows. What compelling evidence do you have that shows Intel
intended for the 8008 to end up in those computers? An equally important
question is what computers did the other microprocessors being developed
at the time end up in? They had to have gone into something. Just
because you don't have those in your collection, does not mean they were
not built.
Your argument
seems to be centered on commercial success, in which case
you are giving the 4004 too much credit, since that did not occur until
much later on with the 8080, the 6800 and the 6502.
Not at all. I'm focusing completely on your argument that Holt did
something important "first." Your whole argument seems to center on a
fairly unimportant part of the meaning of the word "microprocessor". Let's say that the word "microprocessor"
was never coined and that Intel
just created a CPU called the 4004 that begat the 8008, 8080, Pentium,
etc. That would seem to completely destroy the relevance of the F14
computer as far as microcomputers are concerned, but it does nothing to
deminish the importance of the 4004.
I've never denied the relevance and significance of Intel processors in
the evolution of microcomputers! That is indisputable! The 4004 is
significant as being the first Intel processor that the later 8080 can
trace its lineage to. Fine. But now you seem to be arguing a point that
was never an issue when this debate started. I never argued that the F14
had a direct influence on the subsequent design of microcomputers.
However, it certainly did have an indirect influence which manifested
itself in Holt's later designs that I have outlined previously. You don't
want to acknolwedge this, even though there are examples of this influence
that you can add to your collection (which you need to so heavily rely
upon). I can take your argument above and turn it around, saying that if
Intel had never created a microprocessor there would still have been a
microcomputer revolution.
What I'm trying to say is that this revolution would have happened with or
without Intel, and assigning them all the credit for creating this
industry, or making it possible, or even influencing it is credit not
entirely deserved.
Intel came out the winners; they wanted it the most. But it would have
happened with or without them. You had the 6800, the 6502 and a whole
slew of others. The computers built around those processors were just as
relevant and would have happened anyway.
As it is, Intel scored the most points. I cede that point to you.
Nobody doubts that computers existed before Intel came
along, or that LSI
was being done by others at the same time or even earlier, but to focus on
an LSI-based computer that came before the 4004 is to completely miss the
importance of the 4004. LSI was just a means to an end: cheap computers.
How much did the F14's computer cost, BTW?
I want to say less than $100 per computer but I think it was actually less
than $100 per chip. Still, that would put it at $600 at the most for the
whole system (6 chips total in the F14 CADC).
As far as focusing on the CADC, as I said, I am doing so ON ITS OWN
MERITS, regardless of the 4004, which has its own significance and merits.
But my point in comparing the two is still valid: the 4004, in light of
the CADC, was not technically significant. I have been arguing this point
(technical significance) all along, and you have been confusing this with
overall historical significance. And I have attempted to show that the
CADC does have relevance to later microcomputers in the form of the work
Ray went on to produce.
At no point did I mention Intel's long-term
success. This discussion all
along has been about the Big Bang that led eventually to cheap computers
for all of us. My understanding is that you're saying that the F14
computer was the Big Bang. Did I misunderstand you? I'm saying that the
Yes. See above.
4004 was the Big Bang; that the dust from that
explosion still bears the
Intel imprint is interesting, but that's a different topic.
And I am still arguing that the 4004 was NOT the big bang. I don't want
to put my thumb (at this point) on which Intel product it was. But it may
not in fact even be an Intel product. It very well may be a combination
of products from multiple vendors. I haven't seen any conclusive
arguments to support the 4004 as being the big bang that started the
microcomputer revolution. It was a pop, just like the CADC was a pop.
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]
5:42 p.m.
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
Ok, I can add the Kenbak-1 to your list and it would
be just as irrelevant
as the three you just listed. You just named three computers that barely
made a scratch on the microcomputer industry. The Micral was never sold
outside of France and very few units were sold anyway, so had limited if
any impact on the industry on the whole. The Scelbi-8H sold in limited
numbers and was effectively a failure and the Mark-8 was a magazine
project. I don't see how these examples, however significant on their
own merits (which they definitely are!) support your original argument.
The Kenbak wasn't listed because it didn't use a microprocessor. The
others are considered the first generally available microcomputers,
regardless of how successful they were. I don't think it was a
coincidence that they all used Intel microprocessors.
I don't have the Pyramids in my collection, so the
Egyptians never built
them. I don't have the Nina, the Pinta or the Santa Maria in my
collection, so Columbus never "discovered America". I don't have an
Apollo rocket in my collection, so America never made it to the moon.
I've got a pyramid for you right here (obscene gesture follows)! It
doesn't have to be *my* artifact, I'd settle for anybody's artifact.
Point me to a generally available general purpose microcomputer that
appeared before all of the ones mentioned above and included a non-Intel
microprocessor.
You seem to have this idea that Intel deliberately
acted to create the
microcomputer industry, that they had this grand master scheme that would
culminate in the Altair 8800. This is simply not the case. Intel did
provide training and support to companies to use the 4004 in their
applications, but where is your evidence that they knew this would lead to
cheap computers?
If Eric ever puts his MCS-4 manual up on the web, then you'll see an early
example of an Intel reference platform that shows that the 4004 and
support chips were aimed at exactly that! Even my copy of the MCS-8
manual shows several early design wins, and they even called them
microcomputers back then (before the Micral was out). I've mentioned
these machines on the list before, but I've already forgotten their names
(because I don't have any of them).
I want to say less than $100 per computer but I think
it was actually less
than $100 per chip. Still, that would put it at $600 at the most for the
whole system (6 chips total in the F14 CADC).
Is this documented? I'm shocked. They must have produced a bunch of
F14's for the price to have been that low!
As far as focusing on the CADC, as I said, I am doing
so ON ITS OWN
MERITS, regardless of the 4004, which has its own significance and merits.
But my point in comparing the two is still valid: the 4004, in light of
the CADC, was not technically significant. I have been arguing this point
(technical significance) all along
If the F14 computer was really as cheap as you say, then you're right.
I'm sure Intel had a gate budget and a price point they were shooting for,
so if those two parameters are similar for both designs, you've got a
point. Otherwise, you can't judge the "technical significance" of the
4004 by comparing it to, say, a special purpose computer with different
design goals and silicon budgets.
So, what was the gate count for the single-chip F14 CPU? What was the
process? How much silicon did it use? And double-check that price!
-- Doug
8 Oct
8 Oct
12:51 p.m.
New subject: First Microprocessor (was Re: Corrections to trivia)
Not to beat a dead horse or anything....
Does anybody know where I can find a copy of David Hyatt's 1970
microprocessor patent? (This is the one that was thrown out after TI and
Intel took him to court in 1996).
Some related patents of interest:
Gary Boone of TI, filed Aug 1971
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&patent_number=3757306
Ulbe Faber of Burroughs, filed Nov 1972
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&patent_number=3878514
Ted Hoff of Intel, filed Jan 1973
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&patent_number=3821715
The Intel patent includes scans of the original docs.
-- Doug
9 Oct
9 Oct
7:13 a.m.
New subject: First Microprocessor (was Re: Corrections to trivia)
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
Does anybody know where I can find a copy of David
Hyatt's 1970
microprocessor patent? (This is the one that was thrown out after TI and
Intel took him to court in 1996).
His name is Gilbert Hyatt.
Try:
4942516 : Single chip integrated circuit computer architectur
Issued: Jul 17, 1990
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&patent_number=4942516
Also,
4121284 : Computerized system for operator interaction
Issued: Oct. 17, 1978
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&patent_number=4121284
(interesting to me because it was filed in my home town)
The first "personal computer"?
5594908 : Computer system having a serial keyboard, a serial display, and
a dynamic memory with memory refresh
Issued: Jan. 14, 1997
Now before you scoff, this one is really interesting because some machines
were allegedly built in 1970 (but based on a two-sided PCB prototype of
the Hyatt "microprocessor"). It was called the Contourama IV, and was
built by Micro Computer Inc., a start-up that Hyatt spear-headed in 1968
(and was dissolved in 1971). Apparently it was the size of a small
refrigerator. It never worked very well and the start-up failed
disastrously. That's all the information I have, which I got from an
article in West magazine, December 2, 1990 (the article is several pages
long and is mainly about Hyatt's microprocessor patent).
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]
11:05 p.m.
New subject: First Microprocessor (was Re: Corrections to trivia)
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
4942516 : Single chip integrated circuit computer
architectur
Issued: Jul 17, 1990
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&patent_number=4942516
That's the one. So, what was the story with Hyatt? My understanding is
that nobody holds a valid patent for the microprocessor.
Here's a NY Times article from 1990 when Hyatt attempted to collect
royalties based on his 1968 work:
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~me179/topics/patents/case6articles/case6article1.…
Here's an interview with Ted Hoff, including an analysis of the Hyatt
patent:
http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/hasrg/histsci/silicon%20genesis/tedbody-n…
I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like Hyatt's patent was thrown out on a
technicality:
<<
As reported at 52 BNA's PTCJ 209, on May 10, 1996, the
Commissioner of the PTO held that the prevailing applicant and
prior inventor of an invention for a computer on an integrated
circuit chip was properly denied a judgment because he elected to
convert his application into a statutory invention registration.
Claims in a Gilbert Hyatt patent 4,942,516 for a computer on a chip
were declared invalid in an interference proceeding in September,
1995. Gary Boone of Texas Instruments, Inc. provoked an
interference with the Hyatt patent by copying claims of the '516
patent into his pending application, which claimed a priority date
of July 1971.
>
-- Doug
6:43 a.m.
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
If the F14 computer was really as cheap as you say,
then you're right.
I'm sure Intel had a gate budget and a price point they were shooting for,
so if those two parameters are similar for both designs, you've got a
point. Otherwise, you can't judge the "technical significance" of the
4004 by comparing it to, say, a special purpose computer with different
design goals and silicon budgets.
The CADC was not special purpose. It could be programmed to do all sorts
of stuff, just like the 4004 was. The design goal from the onset was to
make it general purpose so that the design could be re-used in all sorts
of aerospace projects. This is explained in many of Holt's papers on the
design. He also talked about during his VCF presentation.
So, what was the gate count for the single-chip F14
CPU? What was the
process? How much silicon did it use? And double-check that price!
http://www.microcomputerhistory.com has all these answers and more.
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]
9574
days inactive
9578
days old
14 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
dastar＠ncal.verio.com -
gram＠cnct.com -
yowza＠yowza.com