12 Mar
2014
12 Mar
'14
7 a.m.
Hi Kyle,
Does anyone have any interest in a modern 4004 or 4040
development system?
I posted to the Vintage Computer Forum but didn't get a lot of interest
there. It would be similar in functionality to an Intel Intellec 4, but
will be smaller and will use a keypad with a hex display.
I've got some rudimentary plans thus far, but don't really have an interest
in continuing if there's not a community interest.
--- I for one, am certainly interested! With the 4004 being arguably the first
microprocessor, it is truly the grand-daddy of personal computing!
Steve
12 Mar
12 Mar
8 p.m.
On 03/12/2014 04:00 AM, Steve Lafferty wrote:
--- I for one, am certainly interested! With the 4004
being arguably the first microprocessor, it is truly the grand-daddy of personal
computing!
So how about the TMS1000? Since its program is mask ROM-based, that's a
little harder. Did TI ever make a development (external ROM) version of
the 1000?
--Chuck
13 Mar
13 Mar
12:10 a.m.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
So how about the TMS1000? Since its program is mask
ROM-based, that's a
little harder. Did TI ever make a development (external ROM) version of
the 1000?
Yes, the TMS1099JL (SE-1) was a ROMless eval part for the
TMS1000/1070/1200/1270, and the TMS1098JL (SE-2) was a ROMless eval part
for the TMS1100/1300. They're described in the December 1976 edition of
the _TMS 1000 Series Data Manual_, which can be found with a search.
They're mentioned but not described in detail (i.e., no pinout) in the 1975
_TMS1000 Series MOS/LSI One-Chip Microcomputers Programmer's Reference
Manual_, available on Bitsavers.
Motorola second-sourced the TMS1000, TMS1200, and TMS1099 as the MC141000,
MC141200, and MC141099, respectively, so they are mentioned in the 1978
_MC14 1000 series microcomputer programming reference manual_, available on
Bitsavers.
12:21 a.m.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Eric Smith <spacewar at gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Chuck Guzis
<cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
It occurs to me that the TMS1099 may have been the earliest production IC
to be offered in a 64-pin DIP package. The TMS9900 didn't go into
production until 1976.
So how about the TMS1000? Since its program is
mask ROM-based, that's a
little harder. Did TI ever make a development (external ROM) version of
the 1000?
Yes, the TMS1099JL (SE-1) was a ROMless eval part for the
TMS1000/1070/1200/1270, and the TMS1098JL (SE-2) was a ROMless eval part
for the TMS1100/1300. They're described in the December 1976 edition of
the _TMS 1000 Series Data Manual_, which can be found with a search.
They're mentioned but not described in detail (i.e., no pinout) in the 1975
_TMS1000 Series MOS/LSI One-Chip Microcomputers Programmer's Reference
Manual_, available on Bitsavers.
1:40 a.m.
On 03/12/2014 09:21 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
It occurs to me that the TMS1099 may have been the
earliest production IC
to be offered in a 64-pin DIP package. The TMS9900 didn't go into
production until 1976.
Some of the Rockwell PPS-4/1 parts were bristling with pins, but I don't
recall how many.
--Chuck
2:03 a.m.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2014 09:21 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
It occurs to me that the TMS1099 may have been the earliest production IC
They used 42 pin quad-in-line packages. I don't think Rockwell had any
parts with more pins than that until very late in the 1970s.
to be offered in a 64-pin DIP package. The
TMS9900 didn't go into
production until 1976.
Some of the Rockwell PPS-4/1 parts were bristling with pins, but I don't
recall how many.
8:35 a.m.
On 03/13/2014 02:03 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Chuck Guzis
<cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Yes Rockwell did. The calc chips used in some of the early calcs were
rockwell
and were 42/52 pin dual QIL. I remember the 52 pin parts they were fun to
remove and replace.
Ti was not first unless your talking about the first complete
microcomputer on
a single chip (excluding display drivers).
Allison
On 03/12/2014 09:21 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
It occurs to me that the TMS1099 may have been the earliest production IC
They used 42 pin quad-in-line packages. I don't think Rockwell had any
parts with more pins than that until very late in the 1970s.
to be offered in a 64-pin DIP package. The
TMS9900 didn't go into
production until 1976.
Some of the Rockwell PPS-4/1 parts were bristling with pins, but I don't
recall how many.
9:25 a.m.
What is that controller chip on the early Winchester
controller boards. That was a 64 pin part.
G??X300 or something.
Dwight
----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:35:53 -0400
From: ajp166 at verizon.net
To:
Subject: Re: 4004 Development System
On 03/13/2014 02:03 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Chuck Guzis
<cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Yes Rockwell did. The calc chips used in some of the early calcs were
rockwell
and were 42/52 pin dual QIL. I remember the 52 pin parts they were fun to
remove and replace.
Ti was not first unless your talking about the first complete
microcomputer on
a single chip (excluding display drivers).
Allison On 03/12/2014 09:21 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
It occurs to me that the TMS1099 may have been the earliest production IC
They used 42 pin quad-in-line packages. I don't think Rockwell had any
parts with more pins than that until very late in the 1970s.
to be offered in a 64-pin DIP package. The
TMS9900 didn't go into
production until 1976.
Some of the Rockwell PPS-4/1 parts were bristling with pins, but I don't
recall how many.
12:35 p.m.
On 03/13/2014 06:25 AM, dwight wrote:
What is that controller chip on the early Winchester
controller boards. That was a 64 pin part.
G??X300 or something.
That was the infamous bipolar 8x300 by SMS, later Signetics. I suppose
that the best term would be "microcontroller". Very small instruction
set, weird architecture but not limited to hard disk use. There were a
number of add-on chips, including a floppy controller.
I know about the Rockwell stagger-row packages, but they also came up
with some big DIPs. It took a bit of looking, but here you go:
http://www.cpushack.com/2013/05/06/cpu-of-the-day-rockwell-pps-41-the-other…
I don't know when Rockwell introduced the big DIPs for development, but
I do remember them.
I mention the TMS1000 because it was the first single-chip MCU as far as
I can tell, long before anyone was thinking about MCUs. While the 4004
may have been the first MPU, it required a load of specialized external
support chips to do anything. The National IMP-16 was probably similar
in chip count for a given word width.
--Chuck
4:48 p.m.
What is that controller chip on the early Winchester
controller boards. That was a 64 pin part.
G??X300 or something.
There's the 8X300 bipolar microcotnroller from Philips/Mullard/Signetics
which comes in a 52 pin DIL package (about the only thing I've seen in
said package)
-tony
6:49 p.m.
On 03/13/2014 04:48 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
The Part is 8X300, originally Signetics then SMS made it. Its a 50 pin
part (DIL)
and its a fast (at that time) microcontroller with a distinct Harvard
design and
also RISC in flavor. The basic machine clocked at 150nS and completed an
instruction every 250 nS (really!). The data path was 8bits and the
instruction
word was 14bits.
First used that I know of as controllers for floppies and hard disks.
Allison
What is that
controller chip on the early Winchester
controller boards. That was a 64 pin part.
G??X300 or something.
There's the 8X300 bipolar microcotnroller from
Philips/Mullard/Signetics
which comes in a 52 pin DIL package (about the only thing I've seen in
said package)
-tony
8:03 p.m.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:49 PM, allison <ajp166 at verizon.net> wrote:
The Part is 8X300, originally Signetics then SMS made
it.
Other way around, I think. It was originally designed by SMS.
The basic machine clocked at 150nS and completed an
instruction every 250 nS (really!).
125 ns and 250 ns. In other words, 8 MHz maximum with two clocks per
instruction cycle, for a 4 MHz instruction rate. Much faster than any
other production single chip microprocessor in 1977.
14 Mar
14 Mar
11:34 a.m.
On 03/13/2014 08:03 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:49 PM, allison <ajp166 at
verizon.net> wrote:
SMS was the designer, all the DIE in the SMS300 were in fact Signetics.
At that time Signetics had the foundry and bipolar was their thing that
they
did very well.
No, not 125, I said 150nS! Apparently it took three edges for certain
things and
the clock was 8mhz. The instructions were executed at a rate of one
every 250nS.
The difference in timing was due to some internal pipeline. Also it was
partly due
to the IV interface (their unique IO) and its latency.
To say the 8x300 was very unique only scratches the surface. Its
associated IV
IO parts were equally odd as well.
It was bipolar Schottky **, LSI and fast by any standard for the day.
Until the early
80s it was either that or 6700 or 2900 bit slice or random logic for
speed. At that time
signal processing, floppy or hard disk IO and other tasks requiring high
arithmetic
and logical speed it was the game. Basically other than a small (8bytes
if memory serves)
register file the 8x300 had no ram nor way to address any the
expectation was very little
internal storage of intermediate work before output. So most
programming was input
massage to some small extent and emit while keeping some form of small
history
(for doing a CRC). Often if intermediate storage of large amounts of
data were needed
an IV port would be use to create an address and the other ports would
serve as data
bus under program control. It was awkward but speed made up for it.
There are very few micros that stand out as unusual, The 8x300 was one.
In my
mind the the others were the 6100 (PDP-8 IO is unlike all micros), the
1802 for
its simplicity and also unusual IO, plus the TI9900 with its CRU IO (IO
address as
variable length bit strings).
Most of the early microcomputers like the tI1000 were very distinct 4bit
data
and 8it instruction Harvard machines. The current PIC12,16 series are a
direct
outgrowth of that.
Allison
The Part is 8X300, originally Signetics then SMS
made it.
Other way around, I think. It was originally designed by SMS.
The basic machine clocked at 150nS and completed an
instruction every 250 nS (really!).
125 ns and 250 ns. In other words, 8 MHz maximum with two clocks per
instruction cycle, for a 4 MHz instruction rate. Much faster than any
other production single chip microprocessor in 1977.
1:49 p.m.
On 03/14/2014 08:34 AM, allison wrote:
No, not 125, I said 150nS! Apparently it took three
edges for
certain things and the clock was 8mhz. The instructions were
executed at a rate of one every 250nS. The difference in timing was
due to some internal pipeline. Also it was partly due to the IV
interface (their unique IO) and its latency.
I dug my databook out and indeed, it's 250nsec/instruction for the 8x300
and 200nsec for the later 8x305. Both, IIRC, ran quite warm--the
external transistor used as a series-pass regulator particularly so.
To say the 8x300 was very unique only scratches the
surface. Its
associated IV IO parts were equally odd as well.
8 instructions, one of which was an unconditional jump, and one
conditional jump that transfered control on the basis of a register not
being zero. There was also an "execute" instruction that allowed for
execution of a single instruction out-of-order.
The data move and operate instructions were very unusual, as they
featured a rotate and mask feature (barrel to provide for
variable-bit-length operations.
There were the left- and right- I/O buses that were essentially 256
(each side) I/O ports. I found it useful to think of the x300 as a sort
of train switching yard. You got things in on one bus, operated on
them, and then pushed them out the other bus. Certain things could be
very efficient--you could move something from one bus to the other in a
single instruction.
No stack or interrupts or call instruction. However, there was a
peripheral chip, the 8x310, that could provide both. It took advantage
of several "do nothing" instructions (e.g. move a register to itself)
for its direction. I've never seen one in the flesh.
I can't say that programming the 8x300 was fun, but it was interesting.
Considering the alternatives, it was a big step forward. The
alternative was using Intel 3000-series bit-slice logic, which was far
less space-efficient--or SSI/MSI TTL. I have an IEEE-488 interface
SA4000 disk controller done that way and the PCB has the same footprint
as the drive. You could fit the same logic on a card about the size of
a typical S100 board using the 8x300.
--Chuck
2:17 p.m.
On Mar 14, 2014 9:43 AM, "allison" <ajp166 at verizon.net> wrote:
On 03/13/2014 08:03 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
You said "The basic machine clocked at 150nS". That's factually incorrect
unless you were running it slow, and then it would execute an instruction
every 300 ns.
It may well be that some things internally took a third oscillator cycle
due to pipelining, overlapped with the first cycle of the next instruction,
but that doesn't change either the clock period or the instruction period.
With a 125 ns clock period, there's no way any synchronous activity inside
the part can take 150 ns, unless you include setup and hold times, which is
not normal practice. (The necessary setup and hold times are accounted for
in the minimum clock period spec.)
Eric
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:49 PM, allison
<ajp166 at verizon.net> wrote:
No, not 125, I said 150nS! Apparently it took three edges for certain
things and
the clock was 8mhz. The instructions were executed at a rate of one
every 250nS. The difference in timing was due to some internal pipeline. The Part is 8X300, originally Signetics then SMS
made it.
Other way around, I think. It was originally designed by SMS.
The basic machine clocked at 150nS and completed an
instruction every 250 nS (really!).
125 ns and 250 ns. In other words, 8 MHz maximum with two clocks per
instruction cycle, for a 4 MHz instruction rate. Much faster than any
other production single chip microprocessor in 1977.
2:48 p.m.
When did Intel 3000 series show up?
Dwight
----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:17:13 -0600
Subject: Re: 4004 Development System
From: spacewar at gmail.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
On Mar 14, 2014 9:43 AM, "allison" <ajp166 at verizon.net> wrote:
On 03/13/2014 08:03 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
You said "The basic machine clocked at 150nS". That's factually incorrect
unless you were running it slow, and then it would execute an instruction
every 300 ns.
It may well be that some things internally took a third oscillator cycle
due to pipelining, overlapped with the first cycle of the next instruction,
but that doesn't change either the clock period or the instruction period.
With a 125 ns clock period, there's no way any synchronous activity inside
the part can take 150 ns, unless you include setup and hold times, which is
not normal practice. (The necessary setup and hold times are accounted for
in the minimum clock period spec.)
Eric On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:49 PM, allison
<ajp166 at verizon.net> wrote:
No, not 125, I said 150nS! Apparently it took three edges for certain
things and
the clock was 8mhz. The instructions were executed at a rate of one
every 250nS. The difference in timing was due to some internal pipeline. The Part is 8X300, originally Signetics then SMS
made it.
Other way around, I think. It was originally designed by SMS.
The basic machine clocked at 150nS and completed an
instruction every 250 nS (really!).
125 ns and 250 ns. In other words, 8 MHz maximum with two clocks per
instruction cycle, for a 4 MHz instruction rate. Much faster than any
other production single chip microprocessor in 1977.
4:01 p.m.
On 03/14/2014 12:21 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 03/14/2014 11:48 AM, dwight wrote:
Well, announced 73, officially released 74. It depends on what you call
"showing up". But the actual early production 3000 series packages
carry a 1974 copyright.
If Intel operated in 1973 the way it operated 5 or 6 years later,
extensive pre-production and in-house fab was done for selected parties
early on.
Both TI and Signetics offered the parts as well. Did Fairchild?
--Chuck
When did Intel 3000 series show up?
Dwight
1973.
6:54 p.m.
Probably not Fairchild. They had their own Macrologic bipolar bitslice
parts, and later CMOS.
I never heard of TI (or anyone other than Signetics) second-sourcing the
Intel 3000 series.
7:28 p.m.
On 03/14/2014 03:54 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
Probably not Fairchild. They had their own Macrologic
bipolar bitslice
parts, and later CMOS.
I never heard of TI (or anyone other than Signetics) second-sourcing the
Intel 3000 series.
Have a gander:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/3002/
Or just look in section 6 of the 1984 Signetics Bipolar LSI Data Manual.
I may have had a brain fart with TI, offering its own line 4 bit slice
components (SN74S48x), although I suspect that the bipolar memory
business was more lucrative.
Signetics also second-=sourced some of the Fairchild Macrologic series,
such as the 9401 CRC generator.
--Chuck
13 Mar
13 Mar
3:12 p.m.
On Mar 13, 2014 6:40 AM, "allison" <ajp166 at verizon.net> wrote:
Yes Rockwell did. The calc chips used in some of the early calcs were
rockwell
and were 42/52 pin dual QIL. I remember the 52 pin parts they were fun to
remove and replace.
Ti was not first unless your talking about the first complete
microcomputer on
a single chip (excluding display drivers).
I have no idea what a "dual QIL" is, but Rockwell having 52-pin QUIPs does
not in any way refute the idea that the TMS1099 in 1975 might have been the
first production IC in a 64-pin DIP.
On 03/13/2014 02:03 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/12/2014 09:21 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>>
>> It occurs to me that the TMS1099 may have been the earliest
production
IC
>>> to be offered in a 64-pin DIP package.
The TMS9900 didn't go into
>>> production until 1976.
>>>
>> Some of the Rockwell PPS-4/1 parts were bristling with pins, but I
don't
recall how many.
They used 42 pin quad-in-line packages. I don't think Rockwell had any
parts with more pins than that until very late in the 1970s.
14 Mar
14 Mar
10:51 a.m.
On 03/13/2014 03:12 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Mar 13, 2014 6:40 AM, "allison"
<ajp166 at verizon.net> wrote:
Yes Rockwell did. The calc chips used in some of the early calcs were
rockwell
and were 42/52 pin dual QIL. I remember the 52 pin parts they were fun to
remove and replace.
Ti was not first unless your talking about the first complete
microcomputer on
a single chip (excluding display drivers). I have no idea what a "dual
QIL" is, but Rockwell having 52-pin QUIPs does
not in any way refute the idea that the TMS1099 in 1975 might have been the
first production IC in a 64-pin DIP.
QIL was a .050 spaced DIL with stagger bent leads so that every other
pin was .100 apart.
Allison
On 03/13/2014 02:03 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/12/2014 09:21 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>>
>> It occurs to me that the TMS1099 may have been the earliest
production
IC
>>> to be offered in a 64-pin DIP
package. The TMS9900 didn't go into
>>> production until 1976.
>>>
>> Some of the Rockwell PPS-4/1 parts were bristling with pins, but I
don't
recall how many.
They used 42 pin quad-in-line packages. I don't think Rockwell had any
parts with more pins than that until very late in the 1970s.
3733
days inactive
3735
days old
23 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
ajp166＠verizon.net -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
dkelvey＠hotmail.com -
spacewar＠gmail.com -
steve＠tronola.com