27 Jun
2007
27 Jun
'07
4:53 p.m.
Hi,
The only reason I feel Tony's HP can't be
classified as a
microcomputer is because I was taught that a microcomputer
utilized a microprocessor, and I was taught that the definition
of a microprocessor is a processing solution contained entirely
on one chip. Anything larger (more than one chip) and it's a mini....
That's a bit too inflexible a definition. Just off the top of my head, by
that logic, the i8080 is a minicomputer....which it clearly is not.
Likewise, would you consider a processor made from bit-slice devices to be a
mini?
TTFN - Pete.
28 Jun
28 Jun
3:01 p.m.
Hi,
Why? The 8080 has all the processing functions on one chip. The other
chips used with it are the clock generator and bus interface which IMHO
are not processing functions. You might as well claim that the 6502 ins't
a microprocessor because it needs and external power supply or something.
Actually, my defintion of a microprocessor is a processor which is either
a single chipe _or_ a chipset that is only used to make that processor.
By that definition, the 1801 is a microprocessor (the 2 chips were only
used together to make that processor), a board of TTL is not (those chips
were used to make all sorts of different processors, and indeed other
circuits too.
The only reason I feel Tony's HP can't be
classified as a
microcomputer is because I was taught that a microcomputer
utilized a microprocessor, and I was taught that the definition
of a microprocessor is a processing solution contained entirely
on one chip. Anything larger (more than one chip) and it's a mini....
That's a bit too inflexible a definition. Just off the top of my head, by
that logic, the i8080 is a minicomputer....which it clearly is not.
Likewise, would you consider a processor made from bit-slice devices to be a
mini?
Actually, I would. Those chips are not only used to make that particular
processor.
-tony
6386
days inactive
6387
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
classiccmp＠memory-alpha.org.uk