1 Mar
2008
1 Mar
'08
7:14 p.m.
I'm curious why anyone would want a front panel with lights and
switches. Except for some early IBM mainframe stuff, the number of
systems that I've worked with that had no front panel vastly
outnumber the ones that did.
Indeed, the front panel on the MITS 8800 seemed to be a waste of good
components and an anachronism at that. Better to take the costs of
the panel and roll them into a good diagnostic ROM with loader. The
S-100 followup machine that I used, an Integrand box, had only a
reset button on the front panel. I never missed the switches. After
the MITS box, I never owned another system with a blinkenlights-and-
switches front panel.
Just trying to understand.
Cheers,
Chuck
-----REPLY-----
Hi,
I must have missed the whole "front panel on a microcomputer" thing too.
I recall seeing microcomputers with front panels around but never owned one.
It has always seemed to me a good boot ROM with monitor is the way to go.
Vector Graphic did a good job with their Executive Monitor boot ROMs.
I'd rather use a bus probe, logic probe, or VOM when I debug so it can be
removed when the machine is finally working.
That being said, I still think an IMSAI is a cool microcomputer and would
love to get one some day.
Thanks!
Andrew Lynch
1 Mar
1 Mar
7:21 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Andrew Lynch <lynchaj at yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm curious why anyone would want a front panel with lights and
switches. Except for some early IBM mainframe stuff, the number of
systems that I've worked with that had no front panel vastly
outnumber the ones that did.
Indeed, the front panel on the MITS 8800 seemed to be a waste of good
components and an anachronism at that. Better to take the costs of
the panel and roll them into a good diagnostic ROM with loader. The
S-100 followup machine that I used, an Integrand box, had only a
reset button on the front panel. I never missed the switches. After
the MITS box, I never owned another system with a blinkenlights-and-
switches front panel.
Just trying to understand.
Cheers,
Chuck
I never claimed my desire was reasonable, or even thought out. It's
just one of those long standing desires, to interact with a machine as
directly as possible, without a terminal or anything except some
switches between me, the CPU, and the RAM.
Sometimes a desire is a thoughtful one. Sometimes it predates
thought. I've wanted a blinkenlighten machine since I was a very
young child. I still want one enough that I'd gladly get rid of my
minicomputer, my VAXstation, and any number of my other equipment to
get one.
Josef
...whose minicomputer doesn't even have a front panel. :(
--
"I laugh because I dare not cry. This is a crazy world
and the only way to enjoy it is to treat it as a joke."
-- Hilda "Sharpie" Burroughs,
"The Number of the Beast" by Robert A. Heinlein
2 Mar
2 Mar
7:18 a.m.
Hi
If one has a machine that doesn't have ROM and doesn't have
a nice defined bus spec, having a front panel with a way to toggle
in some minimal code is the way to go.
It really wasn't until the creation of the EPROM that it was practical
to develop a ROM based machine.
The cost of a mask ROM was expensive to develop.
The IMSAI and Altair were created just after Intel created the floating
gate EPROM. It was a step the lead to the end of the front panel.
I consider the EPROM to be more significant to computing than the
4004 was. Others were on the way to creating their own uP's. It
was the EPROM that lowered the development cost making even the
shoe string shops able to create products.
Dwight
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
8:23 a.m.
On 2 Mar 2008 at 7:18, dwight elvey wrote:
The cost of a mask ROM was expensive to develop.
The IMSAI and Altair were created just after Intel created the floating
gate EPROM. It was a step the lead to the end of the front panel.
I consider the EPROM to be more significant to computing than the
4004 was. Others were on the way to creating their own uP's. It
was the EPROM that lowered the development cost making even the
shoe string shops able to create products.
EPROM dates from 1971, before the 8080. Even then, the bipolar PROM
was around (PROM dates from 1956, albeit not as an IC). Indeed, my
first front-panel substitute 8080 system used bipolar TTL PROM and
not an UV EPROM.
Cheers,
Chuck
3 Mar
3 Mar
6:57 a.m.
From: cclist at sydex.com
On 2 Mar 2008 at 7:18, dwight elvey wrote:
Hi
I'm quite aware of when the first EPROMs were made. I worked at
Intel for a number of years. What I meant was the use of EPROMs
as a way to debug code. Bipolar PROMs were an expensive way
to debug code for small shops.
Even EPROMs were expensive until the 2716s dropped below
10 in cost. Programming EPROMs didn't get covenient until
the 2732 ( or was it 2764 ) came with the faster programming
algorithms.
There was a transision time before thinking changed and front
panels lost their glitter.
Dwight
_________________________________________________________________
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail?-get your
"fix".
http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx
The cost of a mask ROM was expensive to develop.
The IMSAI and Altair were created just after Intel created the floating
gate EPROM. It was a step the lead to the end of the front panel.
I consider the EPROM to be more significant to computing than the
4004 was. Others were on the way to creating their own uP's. It
was the EPROM that lowered the development cost making even the
shoe string shops able to create products.
EPROM dates from 1971, before the 8080. Even then, the bipolar PROM
was around (PROM dates from 1956, albeit not as an IC). Indeed, my
first front-panel substitute 8080 system used bipolar TTL PROM and
not an UV EPROM.
6138
days inactive
6139
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
cclist＠sydex.com -
dkelvey＠hotmail.com -
josefcub＠gmail.com -
lynchaj＠yahoo.com