10 Mar
2019
10 Mar
'19
2:18 p.m.
Back in 1965 Jack Kilby, Jerry Merryman and James Van Tassel at texas
Instruments created an integrated circuit designed to replace the
calulator. Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly underway by
the mid-70s. Vintage/classic computing our hobby goes back that far as us
baby-boomers can attest to.
Happy computing all!
10 Mar
10 Mar
3:10 p.m.
On 3/10/2019 3:18 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
Back in 1965 Jack Kilby, Jerry Merryman and James Van
Tassel at texas
Instruments created an integrated circuit designed to replace the
calulator. Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly underway by
the mid-70s. Vintage/classic computing our hobby goes back that far as us
baby-boomers can attest to.
Happy computing all!
So do have more information on said device?
I am using a 2901 bit slice and that came out in 1975. :)
Ben.
3:59 p.m.
On March 10, 2019 at 6:10 PM ben via cctalk <cctalk
at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 3/10/2019 3:18 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
Here is a little bit of info on it:
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/ti_cal-tech1.html
"He may look dumb but that's just a disguise."? -- Charlie Daniels
"The names of global variables should start with? ? // "? --?https://isocpp.org
Back in 1965 Jack Kilby, Jerry Merryman and James
Van Tassel at texas
Instruments created an integrated circuit designed to replace the
calulator. Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly underway by
the mid-70s. Vintage/classic computing our hobby goes back that far as us
baby-boomers can attest to.
Happy computing all!
So do have more information on said device?
I am using a 2901 bit slice and that came out in 1975. :)
Ben. 
6:30 p.m.
At 06:59 PM 10/03/2019 -0400, you wrote:
That's fascinating, thanks. I'd never heard of it.
The Intel 4004 came out in 1971. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_4004
I'd understood that was the first chip that could be considered a 'processor'
(though it required some support chips to do anything.)
The TI Cal-Tech design was begun in 1965 and they had a working calculator in 1967. I
wonder if the chips in that had any kind of code programmability?
Guy
On March 10, 2019 at 6:10 PM ben via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 3/10/2019 3:18 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
Here is a little bit of info on it:
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/ti_cal-tech1.html Back in 1965 Jack Kilby, Jerry Merryman and James
Van Tassel at texas
Instruments created an integrated circuit designed to replace the
calulator. Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly underway by
the mid-70s. Vintage/classic computing our hobby goes back that far as us
baby-boomers can attest to.
Happy computing all!
So do have more information on said device?
I am using a 2901 bit slice and that came out in 1975. :)
Ben.
8:11 p.m.
On March 10, 2019 at 9:30 PM Guy Dunphy <guykd at
optusnet.com.au> wrote:
At 06:59 PM 10/03/2019 -0400, you wrote:
That's fascinating, thanks. I'd never heard of it.
The Intel 4004 came out in 1971. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_4004
I'd understood that was the first chip that could be considered a 'processor'
(though it required some support chips to do anything.)
The TI Cal-Tech design was begun in 1965 and they had a working calculator in 1967. I
wonder if the chips in that had any kind of code programmability?
Guy
I have seen some claims that this was the first microprocessor -- although not a single
chip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Air_Data_Computer
Will
"He may look dumb but that's just a disguise."? -- Charlie Daniels
"The names of global variables should start with? ? // "? --?https://isocpp.org
On March 10, 2019 at 6:10 PM ben via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 3/10/2019 3:18 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
Here is a little bit of info on it:
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/ti_cal-tech1.html Back in 1965 Jack Kilby, Jerry Merryman and James
Van Tassel at texas
Instruments created an integrated circuit designed to replace the
calulator. Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly underway by
the mid-70s. Vintage/classic computing our hobby goes back that far as us
baby-boomers can attest to.
Happy computing all!
So do have more information on said device?
I am using a 2901 bit slice and that came out in 1975. :)
Ben.
11 Mar
11 Mar
12:35 a.m.
On 3/10/2019 9:11 PM, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:
I have seen some claims that this was the first microprocessor -- although not a single
chip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Air_Data_Computer
Will
I would say it was JUST too early to count as valid microprocessor. I
expect they all were 'hand picked' from the few chips that tested as
working.
In some ways those designs seem better developed that the 'consumer'
computer products that came out. I would say the IBM 360 halted any real
progress since the 1960's with packing 4 8 bit BCD/text characters in a
32 bit word. I like 10/20 bits or 12/24 bits as a computer word length
with byte addressing. IBM 360 32 bits 16 word reg file - 16 bit word.
PDP 11 8 word reg file 16 bit word. RISC 16 word reg file - 16 bit
word. RISC 256 word reg file 32 bit word.
Mostly the same format as reg to reg and load/store as the
be the model for most computer languages around 1970 ish. WOW a new
university computer from IBM ( 360 or clone) or a PDP 11 for the lab.
I was just reading somewhere , a single user ? linux machine had 233
threads going. What would that be like multi-user when it starts thrashing?
I think PDP8/e time sharing @ 110 baud got more real work done.
In hindsight, only after the fast 4K x 1 dynamic ram came out did
computing make it from the lab to the public with 16KB for OS
and 32KB+ for user programs. CP/M (8080) and FLEX (6800).
The lack of hefty card edge connectors like for the S100 bus
has me developing a 3 card cpu using 72 pin .156" pitch and
50 pin .156" pitch card edge connectors for a 12/24 bit
CPU. Emulated I/O planned is a TTY (terminal 1200 baud) and RK05
disc (PDP8) on a SDC card. The time frame is 1975 ish
with the advent of 256x8 PROM's and 2901's and 74LS TTL with
250ns 4K DRAMS.
The bare machine is just burned today into a ALTERA DE1 FPGA development
kit. Right now I am looking for few good books on a SIMPLE OS
and a SIMPLE programing language in the 1975 to 1980 time frame.
The catch is for now disk I/O is 12 bit words packed into 2 8 bit
bytes.
While it is TOO late to implement, a 8" floppy could be formatted
using GCR to give 8 512 (12 bit word) sectors per track using ballpark
calulations.
Ben.
9:29 a.m.
On 03/11/2019 02:35 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:
IBM 360 32 bits 16 word reg file - 16 bit word.
While some 360 models had a hardware architecture of 8, 16,
or even 64 bits, all of the 360s (except the model 20, which
was not really a 360) had 16 32-bit registers as the program
saw it.
Jon
12 Mar
12 Mar
5:59 p.m.
On 3/11/2019 10:29 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
On 03/11/2019 02:35 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:
follow a similar
architecture model between different computer
manufactures as there is only a few ways to format your opcodes to fit
into half a word. A bit here, a bit there and WOW you need a bigger
opcode space. Ben.
IBM 360 32 bits 16 word reg file - 16 bit word.
While some 360 models had a hardware architecture of 8, 16, or even 64
bits, all of the 360s (except the model 20, which was not really a 360)
had 16 32-bit registers as the program saw it.
Jon
That needed to say Half Word. The point I was making was you went down
from 36 bits to 32 bits and that loss of word size made everything 
9:12 p.m.
On 3/12/19 5:59 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
That needed to say Half Word. The point I was making
was you went
down from 36 bits to 32 bits and that loss of word size made
everything follow a similar architecture model between different
computer manufactures as there is only a few ways to format your
opcodes to fit into half a word. A bit here, a bit there and WOW you
need a bigger opcode space. Ben.
It depends on how you design your instruction set. On the CDC 6000
series, most instructions were 15 bits (6 bits of opcode + 3 x 3 bits of
registers--a 3-address architecture). Longer instructions were 30 bits.
Because addresses were of 60-bit word granularity, instruction
placement within a 15-bit parcel was important, as you couldn't just to
a quarter-word address. I'd programmed S/360 before the CDC machines
and soon learned that there wasn't a whole lot to be gained with byte
addressability. CDC 6600 COBOL ran faster than the COBOL on a 360/195
(as measured by the Navy Audit Test suite) in spite of the fact that the
6600 has no decimal instructions and is word-addressable--such is the
power of RISC.
--Chuck
10 Mar
10 Mar
10:48 p.m.
On 3/10/2019 7:30 PM, Guy Dunphy via cctalk wrote:
Looking at the vintage calculator page, I would give the "FAR EAST" my
vote for the first processor type chips. Everything was in-house
development you can say they all came out at the same time. Look at TTL
pre 1970 4 gate logic, after 1970 74181 alu 7416x 4 bit counters 7489
16x4 RAM. About 1973 Tristate logic and 32x8 , 256x4 PROMS.
Here is a
little bit of info on it:
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/ti_cal-tech1.html
That's fascinating, thanks. I'd never heard of it.
The Intel 4004 came out in 1971. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_4004
I'd understood that was the first chip that could be considered a 'processor'
(though it required some support chips to do anything.)
The TI Cal-Tech design was begun in 1965 and they had a working calculator in 1967. I
wonder if the chips in that had any kind of code programmability?
Guy
11 Mar
11 Mar
1:49 a.m.
On 2019-Mar-10, at 3:59 PM, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:
> On 3/10/2019 3:18 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk
wrote:
>> Back in 1965 Jack Kilby, Jerry Merryman and James Van Tassel at texas
>> Instruments created an integrated circuit designed to replace the
>> calulator. Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
>> beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly underway by
>> the mid-70s. Vintage/classic computing our hobby goes back that far as us
>> baby-boomers can attest to.
. . .
Here is a little bit of info on it:
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/ti_cal-tech1.html
On 2019-Mar-10, at 10:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
On 3/10/2019 7:30 PM, Guy Dunphy via cctalk wrote:
>> Here is a little bit of info on it:
>> http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/ti_cal-tech1.html
> That's fascinating, thanks. I'd never heard of it.
> The Intel 4004 came out in 1971. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_4004
> I'd understood that was the first chip that could be considered a
'processor' (though it required some support chips to do anything.)
> The TI Cal-Tech design was begun in 1965 and they had a working calculator in 1967. I
wonder if the chips in that had any kind of code programmability?
Looking at the vintage calculator page, I would give
the "FAR EAST" my vote for the first processor type chips. Everything was
in-house development you can say they all came out at the same time. Look at TTL
pre 1970 4 gate logic, after 1970 74181 alu 7416x 4 bit counters 7489 16x4 RAM. About
1973 Tristate logic and 32x8 , 256x4 PROMS.
If you read the link provided by Will, the Cal-tech was four ICs, not one.
It was a forward-thinking lab R&D project which you would expect to be ahead of the IC
technology on the market.
It would be several more years, ca. 1971 before the complete logic for a calculator was
stuffed onto one chip and available on the market,
so coincident in time with the 4004.
There was the TMS-0100 series from TI , single-chip calculators, 1971.
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/ti/tms0100
TI and others did produce some calculator chip-sets (calc on several dedicated LSI chips)
for the market prior to the single-chip implementations.
No, the first 'processor-type' chips didn't come out of the 'far
east'.
The Japanese were producing calculators with hard-wired / random logic / dedicated
state-machine architectures in the late 60s.
With the advent of LSI, they came to the Americans to get chips designed, resulting in one
case in the 4004.
See also the TMS1795 (1971) and TMS1000 (1974).
Rockwell was another of the big players.
8:21 a.m.
On 03/11/2019 04:49 AM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk wrote:
On 2019-Mar-10, at 3:59 PM, Will Cooke via cctalk
wrote:
First I prefix thing with how many of you were over the age of 8 or 10
at the time of the introduction of the calculator?
OK, I was well over that by then.? I started in Jr high with a slipstick
(slide rule) as an early techno geek
so I got to see the industry develop and yes the desk sized computers
were easily early on but the
key thing is pocket calculator just like the Pocket transistor radio.?
Each were of similar level of
change. radios weren't a new idea but mass produced and cheap? pocket
sized was.? So the pocket
calculator was big and when the cost got under 50$ then everyone wanted
it.? I was an early adopter
of the Ti 8 digit 4 banger (-+/*) (TMS103) and took that to college in
the very early 70s.? After that I'd
seen and gotten to use the famous HP65 (then about 650$).? It was a very
different market and use
for the pocket calc than the desktop calc.? The biggest part of the
desktop was printing, the
transactional record of what was done.
The key is we (users and market) went from slide rules in about 69-70 to
calculators in 71-72 and
they were everywhere by 74 and prices dropping very fast.
As to microcomputers and calculators I see them on the parallel path as
they both required the same
technologies to be present to be able to make wither but one was market
driven and the other was
technology driven.? The calculator is however become a dead end in that
it never advanced beyond
a point then it was a computer.? Its utility however is every cell phone
has one.
The CADC Central air data computer was the fly by wire for the F14 and
was a multi-chip system
and programmable, making it the first LSI micro.? The question of single
chip is moot as it was the
later 70s with TMS1000, F8, and 8048 that would put all of the computer
functions on one chip.
The 8080/6502/6800/and friends were all multichip to realize even a
simple functioning system.
Oddly science fiction had computers but calculators were not part of
their forecast..? I know of
only one example that had pocket/portable calculator.
Allison
> On 3/10/2019 3:18 PM, Murray McCullough via
cctalk wrote:
>> Back in 1965 Jack Kilby, Jerry Merryman and James Van Tassel at texas
>> Instruments created an integrated circuit designed to replace the
>> calulator. Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
>> beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly underway by
>> the mid-70s. Vintage/classic computing our hobby goes back that far as us
>> baby-boomers can attest to.
. . .
Here is a little bit of info on it:
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/ti_cal-tech1.html
On 2019-Mar-10, at 10:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
On 3/10/2019 7:30 PM, Guy Dunphy via cctalk
wrote:
Looking at the
vintage calculator page, I would give the "FAR EAST" my vote for the first
processor type chips. Everything was in-house development you can say they all came out at
the same time. Look at TTL
pre 1970 4 gate logic, after 1970 74181 alu 7416x 4 bit counters 7489 16x4 RAM. About
1973 Tristate logic and 32x8 , 256x4 PROMS.
If you read the link provided by Will, the Cal-tech was four ICs, not one.
It was a forward-thinking lab R&D project which you would expect to be ahead of the
IC technology on the market.
It would be several more years, ca. 1971 before the complete logic for a calculator was
stuffed onto one chip and available on the market,
so coincident in time with the 4004.
There was the TMS-0100 series from TI , single-chip calculators, 1971.
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/ti/tms0100
TI and others did produce some calculator chip-sets (calc on several dedicated LSI chips)
for the market prior to the single-chip implementations.
No, the first 'processor-type' chips didn't come out of the 'far
east'.
The Japanese were producing calculators with hard-wired / random logic / dedicated
state-machine architectures in the late 60s.
With the advent of LSI, they came to the Americans to get chips designed, resulting in
one case in the 4004.
See also the TMS1795 (1971) and TMS1000 (1974).
Rockwell was another of the big players.
Here is a
little bit of info on it:
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/ti_cal-tech1.html
That's fascinating,
thanks. I'd never heard of it.
The Intel 4004 came out in 1971. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_4004
I'd understood that was the first chip that could be considered a 'processor'
(though it required some support chips to do anything.)
The TI Cal-Tech design was begun in 1965 and they had a working calculator in 1967. I
wonder if the chips in that had any kind of code programmability? 
11 Mar
11 Mar
1:50 a.m.
On 2019-Mar-10, at 5:16 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
On 3/10/19 2:18 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk
wrote:
It's not an out-to-lunch suggestion.
The digital pocket calculator was the first mass-market digital electronic device to be
put in the hands of the consumer.
Yes, all of us here know there were digital computers and other digital electronic devices
around many years before,
but the digital pocket calculator has a significant place at the beginnings of the
transition to the ubiquity of such technology in everyday life,
as opposed to being behind-the-scenes in business, labs, and industry.
One can argue the transition would have happened without the pocket-calculator market -
just how influential it was in driving the innovation can be debated - but the historical
fact is it was there,
and a large market in the context.
Historians, though not all, credit this
development as the
beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly underway by
the mid-70s.
Scotty, more power to the Reality Distortion Field! 
3:42 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 4:50 AM Brent Hilpert via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Not sure why this suddenly became a thing to
debate, but I will add that
the multifunction function 1960s calculators were called "desktop
computers" by publishers then
https://www.vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread_record.cfm?id=536
Also, I did an talk at HOPE on the subject of the how the early handheld
calculator class fit into the development of micro computers a few years
later. The talk was my take on the subject anyway.
Bottom line, one should avoid putting the modern 2019 definition a
microcomputer/personal computer into what people were talking about in the
mid 60s into the 70s "small/personal/microcomputer".
Also, the significance of the single chip vs multi chip or single board
CPU...is independent of the intended use or capacity/capabilities of the
computer they went into. Over time the significance of a "single chip" CPU
will fade. Modern computers no longer rely on this approach anyway, it was
only a blip in time that "single chip cou" mattered as much.
My opinion of course
Bill
Bill
On 2019-Mar-10, at 5:16 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk
wrote:
It's not an out-to-lunch suggestion.
The digital pocket calculator was the first mass-market digital electronic
device to be put in the hands of the consumer.
Yes, all of us here know there were digital computers and other digital
electronic devices around many years before,
but the digital pocket calculator has a significant place at the
beginnings of the transition to the ubiquity of such technology in everyday
life,
as opposed to being behind-the-scenes in business, labs, and industry.
One can argue the transition would have happened without the
pocket-calculator market -
just how influential it was in driving the innovation can be debated - but
the historical fact is it was there,
and a large market in the context.
Reading this thread...
On 3/10/19 2:18 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk
wrote:
> Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
> beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly
underway by
the
mid-70s.
Scotty, more power to the Reality Distortion Field! 
3:57 a.m.
Talking of calculators, my first full time job was selling HP calculators
and Apple computers which was appropriate, but not necessary for my second
full time job as a calculator. Yes my job title was calculator, where I did
actuarial calculations on insurance products for variations.
So I went from selling them, to being one :)
//m
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 9:43 pm, Bill Degnan via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 4:50 AM Brent Hilpert via cctalk
<
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Not sure why this suddenly became a thing
to debate, but I will add that
the multifunction function 1960s calculators were called "desktop
computers" by publishers then
https://www.vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread_record.cfm?id=536
Also, I did an talk at HOPE on the subject of the how the early handheld
calculator class fit into the development of micro computers a few years
later. The talk was my take on the subject anyway.
Bottom line, one should avoid putting the modern 2019 definition a
microcomputer/personal computer into what people were talking about in the
mid 60s into the 70s "small/personal/microcomputer".
Also, the significance of the single chip vs multi chip or single board
CPU...is independent of the intended use or capacity/capabilities of the
computer they went into. Over time the significance of a "single chip" CPU
will fade. Modern computers no longer rely on this approach anyway, it was
only a blip in time that "single chip cou" mattered as much.
My opinion of course
Bill
Bill
--
*Blog: RetroRetrospective ? Fun today with yesterday's gear??..
<http://www.jongleur.co.uk/blogs/>*
*Podcast*: *Retro Computing Roundtable <http://rcrpodcast.com/>* (Co-Host)
On 2019-Mar-10, at 5:16 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk
wrote:
It's not an out-to-lunch suggestion.
The digital pocket calculator was the first mass-market digital
electronic
On 3/10/19 2:18 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk
wrote:
> Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
> beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly
underway by
the
mid-70s.
Scotty, more power to the Reality Distortion Field! device to be put in the hands of the consumer.
Yes, all of us here know there were digital computers and other digital
electronic devices around many years before,
but the digital pocket calculator has a significant place at the
beginnings of the transition to the ubiquity of such technology in
everyday
life,
as opposed to being behind-the-scenes in business, labs, and industry.
One can argue the transition would have happened without the
pocket-calculator market -
just how influential it was in driving the innovation can be debated -
but
the historical fact is it was there,
and a large market in the context.
Reading this thread...
1894
days inactive
1897
days old
15 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
allisonportable＠gmail.com -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bhilpert＠shaw.ca -
billdegnan＠gmail.com -
c.murray.mccullough＠gmail.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
elson＠pico-systems.com -
guykd＠optusnet.com.au -
Michael＠jongleur.co.uk -
wrcooke＠wrcooke.net