14 Aug
1998
14 Aug
'98
5:44 a.m.
Doug Yowza <yowza(a)yowza.com> wrote:
An an amateur quasi-historian, I think the
misperception about the
Altair's significance is a shame. There are computers that were produced
in similar numbers that are much more interesting, and even more fun to
play with.
Here's what is significant about MITS and the Altair 8800:
It arrived on the scene with a price that firmly fixed in lots of
folks' heads the idea that "I can own a computer." And it was
obviously a useful computer that could be expanded to do real work
just like the real computer in the fishbowl at the office, not
something that could only be appreciated through the lights and
switches on its front panel.
And MITS' hardware was flaky enough that other folks felt encouraged
to build stuff for its bus, and even build other systems using its
bus. That made the Altair bus a de facto standard of its day,
and one that stuck around for the next few days too.
The Altair and the Apple 1 both started at about the
same time, but the
Apple went on to have a much greater impact on "personal" interactive
computing in the form of the Apple ][. IBM's PC was a response to the
Apple ][, and that set the stage for the way things have been ever since.
I'd venture to say that Altair buyers saw the Altair as having the
potential to be this sort of "interactive" machine too. The base
configuration wasn't, but it was clear that you could buy more memory,
a current-loop interface, a Teletype, and run BASIC. And that was the
goal a lot of folks had then. That put you in the big leagues with
the minis that you might be using at work or in school, and put the
user in control of the computer.
That said, I think that if MITS hadn't done it with the Altair,
someone else would have done it soon enough.
-Frank McConnell
14 Aug
14 Aug
10:03 a.m.
On 14 Aug 1998, Frank McConnell wrote:
Here's what is significant about MITS and the
Altair 8800:
It arrived on the scene with a price that firmly fixed in lots of
folks' heads the idea that "I can own a computer." And it was
obviously a useful computer that could be expanded to do real work
just like the real computer in the fishbowl at the office, not
something that could only be appreciated through the lights and
switches on its front panel.
Exactly, the Altair helped kick-off the hobbiest movement by being cheap.
The Mark-8 did this earlier, but it was so slow and buggy that it was
pretty much a non-starter. The Altair was an improvement, but it was also
pretty much a non-starter that fizzled after about 10,000 units. The
Altair was the grandfather of the S-100 bus and CP/M, both of which
fizzled and left only a minor mark on MS-DOS, which didn't fizzle.
Low prices, enabled by the microprocessor, is one of the elements that got
us to where we are today. A high-degree of interactivity is another.
Computer graphics is another. The desktop form-factor is also a strong
survivor. So, if somebody were really looking at collecting Altairs as the
machine that "started it all", I think they have been misled and would be
better off collecting the IBM PC, early Apples, early HP desktops, the
PDP-8, and all of the PDP-1's they can find :-)
If they are looking for a machine that heavily influenced the virtually
extinct hobbiest movement and figured prominently in the corporate history
of Microsoft, then they're right on the mark with the Altair 8800.
-- Doug
9:31 a.m.
Exactly, the Altair helped kick-off the hobbiest
movement by being cheap.
The Mark-8 did this earlier, but it was so slow and buggy that it was
pretty much a non-starter. The Altair was an improvement, but it was also
pretty much a non-starter that fizzled after about 10,000 units. The
Altair was the grandfather of the S-100 bus and CP/M, both of which
fizzled and left only a minor mark on MS-DOS, which didn't fizzle.
I think that to say that the S-100 Bus and CP/M "fizzled" is to seriously
understate the value of both. :) I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that
they were without value, but keep in mind that 6 years of dominance (which
is probably the minimum that one would give to CP/M and the S100) is an
incredibly long time in the fledging personal computer field. True, it
doesn't stand up that well to 15+ years of Microsoft, but it was the
dominate architecture on teh market.
Low prices, enabled by the microprocessor, is one of
the elements that got
us to where we are today. A high-degree of interactivity is another.
Computer graphics is another. The desktop form-factor is also a strong
survivor. So, if somebody were really looking at collecting Altairs as the
machine that "started it all", I think they have been misled and would be
better off collecting the IBM PC, early Apples, early HP desktops, the
PDP-8, and all of the PDP-1's they can find :-)
I don't support these high prices, and I'm another of the collectors who
wants to save and use, rather than simply buy and store their systems. I
don't have, nor do I particularly desire, an Altair (but I do really want a
NeXTCube), but the significance of the Altair and the hobbiest movement
should not be measured in terms of computers sold. :) My view is that the
Altair made it clear to hobiests that they could own a computer, and so
even if they didn't buy one it started them dreaming about one. (And yes,
I know it was not the first). This is much the same as with the Lisa -
people didn't necessarily buy them, and indeed they ignored them in great
numbers - but without the Lisa then I doubt the Macintosh would have been
as successful. First you have the great implementation of a grand concept
that you can never own, and then you follow it with an affordable version.
Anyway, the point is that the Altair led to the hobbists, while the
hobbists pushed the tech both in hardware and software, creating the
potential for personal computers to move into new markets. True, this was
a marketing dream of many of the computer companies before the Altair, but
the Altair is definitly one of the most important systems. That's my
opinion, anyway.
As to prices, well I come form a number of collecting backgrounds, and
prices are never increased so much by rarity or actual value, but by
perceived value. When people started thinking Teddy Bears were worth
money, the prices lept ahead - but only in the brands which the collectors
recognised. The Altair is recognised as significant, is relativly
uncommon, and every article on computer history sings it's praises. You
could almost guarentee that the prices would go up.
If only Apple IIc's were worth a fortune - then I could finally get my NeXT. :)
Adam.
11 a.m.
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998, Adam Jenkins wrote:
As to prices, well I come form a number of collecting
backgrounds, and
prices are never increased so much by rarity or actual value, but by
perceived value. When people started thinking Teddy Bears were worth
money, the prices lept ahead - but only in the brands which the collectors
recognised. The Altair is recognised as significant, is relativly
uncommon, and every article on computer history sings it's praises. You
could almost guarentee that the prices would go up.
My point is that the Altair's significance has been way overstated. The
PC is now ubiquitous and has had a profound effect on society. So, let's
say you're an alien from another planet (I hope I'm not giving away any
secrets here), and you see these ubiquitous PCs, and you ask to see their
mother.
Bob brings you an Altair 8800 from 1975. I bring you an HP 9830A from
1972. You look at the machines, the dates, and you sit down and use them
both. And then you vaporize Bob :-)
Sure, terminal-based CP/M systems were deployed for several years
concurrently with interactive desktop Apple ][ systems, but so were
mini-computers and other types of machines. The point is that S-100 and
CP/M died because it basically just brought cheap mini-computers to
businesses. That wasn't a revolution, that was just a continuation of the
dominant paradigm of the 60's and 70's. In my opinion, and in my personal
experience, the revolution was due to affordable desktop machines with
memory-mapped displays and hardwired keyboards, and the Altair wasn't a
big contributor to that mindset.
-- Doug
4:42 p.m.
Adam Jenkins wrote:
Do recall that QDOS was a straightforward CP/M clone and that MS-DOS
to at least version 3.0 _documented_ the CP/M compatible system calls
in the OS they'd bought. CP/M didn't fizzle. When you use a DOS
interface under NT, the command switch character is that which MS-DOS
took from CP/M and Kildall took from DEC.
--
Ward Griffiths <mailto:gram@cnct.com> <http://www.cnct.com/home/gram/>
Bill Gates has this situation where the federal government wants him
convicted for attempting a monopoly. Has Bill considered responding
with a question as to why there's only one Justice Department?
Exactly, the Altair helped kick-off the hobbiest
movement by being cheap.
The Mark-8 did this earlier, but it was so slow and buggy that it was
pretty much a non-starter. The Altair was an improvement, but it was also
pretty much a non-starter that fizzled after about 10,000 units. The
Altair was the grandfather of the S-100 bus and CP/M, both of which
fizzled and left only a minor mark on MS-DOS, which didn't fizzle.
I think that to say that the S-100 Bus and CP/M "fizzled" is to seriously
understate the value of both. :) I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that
they were without value, but keep in mind that 6 years of dominance (which
is probably the minimum that one would give to CP/M and the S100) is an
incredibly long time in the fledging personal computer field. True, it
doesn't stand up that well to 15+ years of Microsoft, but it was the
dominate architecture on teh market.
5:07 p.m.
On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Ward Donald Griffiths III wrote:
Do recall that QDOS was a straightforward CP/M clone
and that MS-DOS
to at least version 3.0 _documented_ the CP/M compatible system calls
in the OS they'd bought. CP/M didn't fizzle.
I remember the CP/M compatible system calls, but I don't remember any
software that used them (perhaps early WordStar?). The thing that allowed
the PC to take off was software that consistently bypassed both DOS and
the BIOS. That's why every system after the PC had to be PC-compatible,
not just MS-DOS compatible, and certainly not CP/M compatible.
When you use a DOS interface under NT, the command
switch character is
that which MS-DOS took from CP/M and Kildall took from DEC.
To this day, I still suffer from the choice of '/' as a command switch,
'\' as a directory separator, and CR/LF as a line terminator. Luckily, ^Z
stopped being a problem when new DOS system calls were introduced (IIRC).
-- Doug
9469
days inactive
9469
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
adam＠merlin.net.au -
fmc＠reanimators.org -
gram＠cnct.com -
yowza＠yowza.com