9 Aug
2010
9 Aug
'10
7:42 p.m.
Kind folks,
I'm pretty sure that some here restore and use vintage computers at
least in part in order to be able to play vintage computer games, which
is the only thing that makes this post on topic at all. After a bit of
research on the web, I find that I'm at least 5 or 6 years behind the
times based on some forum discussions of something I just became aware
of just yesterday! What triggered all this was that our daughter showed
up at the house with this little game controller which she says was
bought at WalMart for about USD $20.00. It says "namco" on the front,
"PLUG it in & PLAY TV GAMES" on the back. Says 6VDC on the back too, so
probably 4 AA batteries. It came with batteries, and I haven't opened
it up to explore the insides at all - yet. On the bottom next to the
list of games are copyright dates from 1960 to 1983, the best I can
tell. There is also a copyright notice on the bottom dated 2004 for
JAKKS Pacific, Inc. and a reference to www.jakkstvgames.com.
This little gadget has a joystick, a few pushbutton switches, and
composite video and a sound output. It allows one to play vintage Ms.
Pac-Man, Galaga, Pole Position, Mappy, and Xavious by connecting it to a
standard TV's video and audio inputs. I mention this here because I
just thought it was really cool to be able to play these vintage games,
and some might be in the same uninformed group with me. :-) FWIW, my
daughter says there are a number of other similar units with different
games, and the web seems to confirm this.
Wanting to see if the web site is WOT approved, I googled
jakkstvgames.com and it seems to only be referred to by other web sites.
I finally got brave and typed it in to the Firefox URL entry and was
rewarded with "403 Forbidden" and "You don't have permission to access
/
on this server." Sounds pretty scary to me.
BTW, I have absolutely no connection with this company - whatever it is
- Jakks Pacific? It says it is made in China, of course. The thing is
plastic, but seems to be remarkably well made for something that only
costs 20 bucks. Of course the possibility of hacking it for other
purposes never crossed my mind. ;-)
Later,
Charlie C.
12 Aug
12 Aug
1:04 a.m.
New subject: GAMES IN A MUTHA#$*#^ING STICK! was Re: OT - sort of
There is also a copyright notice on the bottom dated
2004 for
This little gadget has a joystick, a few pushbutton switches, and
composite video and a sound output. It allows one to play vintage Ms.
Pac-Man, Galaga, Pole Position, Mappy, and Xavious by connecting it to a
standard TV's video and audio inputs. I mention this here because I
just thought it was really cool to be able to play these vintage games,
and some might be in the same uninformed group with me. :-) FWIW, my
daughter says there are a number of other similar units with different
games, and the web seems to confirm this.
Wanting to see if the web site is WOT approved, I googled
jakkstvgames.com and it seems to only be referred to by other web sites.
I finally got brave and typed it in to the Firefox URL entry and was
rewarded with "403 Forbidden" and "You don't have permission to access
/
on this server." Sounds pretty scary to me.
BTW, I have absolutely no connection with this company - whatever it is
- Jakks Pacific? It says it is made in China, of course. The thing is
plastic, but seems to be remarkably well made for something that only
costs 20 bucks. Of course the possibility of hacking it for other
purposes never crossed my mind. ;-)
Jakks Pacific was a legit company, but have since folded, near as I can
tell.
Most of those games-in-a-stick systems are based on a variant of the NES-
on-a-chip. This is a very popular architecture for these sorts of toys;
the games are not emulated, but rather reprogrammed. This turns up in that
the games are close, but not quite like, the originals (see, for example,
the Intellivision-in-a-controller).
Curt's Flashback 2 and Jeri's C64 joystick are shining exceptions.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- I don't mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy. -- Samuel Butler ----------------
1:10 p.m.
At 02:42 PM 8/9/2010, Charlie Carothers wrote:
Wanting to see if the web site is WOT approved, I
googled jakkstvgames.com and it seems to only be referred to by other web sites. I
finally got brave and typed it in to the Firefox URL entry and was rewarded with "403
Forbidden" and "You don't have permission to access / on this server."
Sounds pretty scary to me.
Try http://jakks.com/plug-play-tv-games .
They also use TVGames.com.
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
JAKKS Pacific domains at jakks.net
22619 PCH #250
Malibu, CA 90265
US
310-455-6305
Record expires on 16-Dec-2010.
Record created on 16-Dec-2002.
Database last updated on 12-Aug-2010 08:50:57 EDT.
3:32 p.m.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Charlie Carothers <csquared3 at tx.rr.com>wrote:
Of course the possibility of hacking it for other
purposes never crossed
my mind. ;-)
Later,
Charlie C.
There are several models of these all-in-one game consoles. I've heard that
the Intellivision version is actually a full intellivision on an FPGA.
People have hacked it so you can upload any ROM image you want.
3:42 p.m.
Of course
the possibility of hacking it for other purposes never crossed
my mind. ;-)
There are several models of these all-in-one game consoles. I've heard that
the Intellivision version is actually a full intellivision on an FPGA.
People have hacked it so you can upload any ROM image you want. 
3:56 p.m.
The Inty version also had very badly programmed games on top of that, so did the
first Flashback.
________________________________
From: Cameron Kaiser <spectre at floodgap.com>
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 10:42:09 AM
Subject: Re: OT - sort of
Unless this was a later revision, the Inty one was an NES-on-a-chip device
with reprogrammed games.
But Curt's Flashback 2 is definitely the real thing.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- SOFTWARE -- formal evening attire for female computer analysts. ------------
Of course
the possibility of hacking it for other purposes never crossed
my mind. ;-)
There are several models of these all-in-one game consoles. I've heard that
the Intellivision version is actually a full intellivision on an FPGA.
People have hacked it so you can upload any ROM image you want. 
6:23 p.m.
it up to explore the insides at all - yet. On the
bottom next to the
list of games are copyright dates from 1960 to 1983, the best I can
I wonder what the copyright from 1960 covers?
tell. There is also a copyright notice on the bottom
dated 2004 for
JAKKS Pacific, Inc. and a reference to www.jakkstvgames.com.
This little gadget has a joystick, a few pushbutton switches, and
composite video and a sound output. It allows one to play vintage Ms.
Pac-Man, Galaga, Pole Position, Mappy, and Xavious by connecting it to a
standard TV's video and audio inputs. I mention this here because I
just thought it was really cool to be able to play these vintage games,
and some might be in the same uninformed group with me. :-) FWIW, my
daughter says there are a number of other similar units with different
games, and the web seems to confirm this.
I've sene similar units (with different numbers of games) on sale over
here. PAL video output, of course. And rather more expensive than the
equivalent of $20...
Anyway, I'd assuemd (with no evidence, I must add) that the internals
were mostly epoxy-capped chip-on-board things, impossible to modify. So
I've not bought one.
-tony
7:51 p.m.
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Tony Duell wrote:
Anyway, I'd assuemd (with no evidence, I must add)
that the internals
were mostly epoxy-capped chip-on-board things, impossible to modify. So
I've not bought one.
The C-64 DTV that Jeri Ellsworth created actually has room on the board to
add a keyboard and an IEC connector. There may be more, but I don't
recall.
Here's the hack for adding disk drives:
http://picobay.com/dtv_wiki/index.php?title=IEC_port
Here's the keyboard hack:
http://picobay.com/dtv_wiki/index.php?title=Keyboard_port
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
9:31 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
<snip>
it up to
explore the insides at all - yet. On the bottom next to the
list of games are copyright dates from 1960 to 1983, the best I can
I wonder what the copyright from 1960 covers? -tony
I don't recall, and my daughter took it back home with her. I'll ask
her to look tonight and see what she finds. I might have misread the
number as it is sort of engraved/melted into black plastic, and the text
is the same color as the background. It is rather small too and not
very easy to read.
BTW, the batteries ran down while it was here and they are 4 AA's.
Later,
Charlie C.
13 Aug
13 Aug
2:43 a.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
I wonder what the copyright from 1960 covers?
<snip>
-tony
My bad! The combination of poor quality text and my 71 year old eyes
did me in again. :-) My daughter says if you turn it "just so" the Ms.
Pac-Man copyright date does look like 1960, but it is actually 1980.
Yep, that makes a lot more sense. In 1960 I suppose about the only
thing to play a computer game on would have been either a mini or a
mainframe - actually I think it would have had to be a mainframe. Based
on a *very* quick web search, the first PDP-8 shipped in 1964, so if
that was the first mini... Some might say the IBM 1620, introduced in
1959, was a mini but I think that is a stretch.
Just for completeness, here are all the copyright dates as best my
daughter can read them:
Ms. Pac-Man 1980
Galaga 1981
Pole Position 1982
Mappy 1983
Xavious 1982
Later,
Charlie C.
6:18 p.m.
My bad! The combination of poor quality text and my
71 year old eyes
did me in again. :-) My daughter says if you turn it "just so" the Ms.
Pac-Man copyright date does look like 1960, but it is actually 1980.
OK, that makes more sense.
Yep, that makes a lot more sense. In 1960 I suppose
about the only
thing to play a computer game on would have been either a mini or a
mainframe - actually I think it would have had to be a mainframe. Based
on a *very* quick web search, the first PDP-8 shipped in 1964, so if
that was the first mini... Some might say the IBM 1620, introduced in
1959, was a mini but I think that is a stretch.
THe PDP1 was around in the very early 1960s IIRC. And Spacewar, of
course, ran on it. I would class that machine as a mini, but others may not.
-tony
16 Aug
16 Aug
5:22 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
I did not even know there *was* a PDP-1, which is not surprising I guess
as it appears only about 50 were made. Various web sites give dates of
1959/60/61 for its production start. I of course found several
interesting web sites about that machine, including
http://pdp-1.computerhistory.org/pdp-1/ which I want to browse through
in more detail. (Why do people insist on using dark gray characters on
a light gray background??? Arrgggghhh!) From the pictures I've seen so
far of the PDP-1, it does appear to be rather large to fit my mental
image of a mini, FWIW (not much). In some ways I'm reminded of the
SDS-910 which I believe was a bit smaller and I sort of always thought
of as a "midi". Whatever that is...
Later,
Charlie C.
My bad! The
combination of poor quality text and my 71 year old eyes
did me in again. :-) My daughter says if you turn it "just so" the Ms.
Pac-Man copyright date does look like 1960, but it is actually 1980.
OK, that makes more sense.
Yep, that makes a lot more sense. In 1960 I
suppose about the only
thing to play a computer game on would have been either a mini or a
mainframe - actually I think it would have had to be a mainframe. Based
on a *very* quick web search, the first PDP-8 shipped in 1964, so if
that was the first mini... Some might say the IBM 1620, introduced in
1959, was a mini but I think that is a stretch.
THe PDP1 was around in the very early 1960s IIRC. And Spacewar, of
course, ran on it. I would class that machine as a mini, but others may not.
-tony
17 Aug
17 Aug
10:05 a.m.
On 16 August 2010 18:22, Charlie Carothers <csquared3 at tx.rr.com> wrote:
?(Why do people insist on using dark gray characters
on a light
gray background??? ?Arrgggghhh!)
I found that site quite OK, myself, but if such things bother you, use
Readability.
http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/
--
Liam Proven ? Profile & links: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
8:34 p.m.
I did not even know there *was* a PDP-1, which is not
surprising I guess
I can't remember just which of the PDP-n series were actually produced,
but it's more than the PDP-8 and PDP-11 that most people remember these
days.
PDP stood for 'Programmed Data Processor'. The machines were not actually
claled 'computers' in the early days (for they most certainly were
computers), there have been several expllanations as to why..
far of the PDP-1, it does appear to be rather large to
fit my mental
image of a mini, FWIW (not much). In some ways I'm reminded of the
It was nto a small machine, that's certan. But it's unclear just what a
'minicomputer' is :-). I believe the PDP1 did not need an air-conditioned
room, and that is one criterion for distinguishing a mini from a
mainframe.
As an aside, the only machines I _know_ to be minicomputers are the
Philips P800 series. They say 'Minicomputer' on the front panel :-)
-tony
18 Aug
18 Aug
1:03 a.m.
From: Tony Duell
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:35 PM
> I did not even know there *was* a PDP-1, which is
not surprising I guess
I can't remember just which of the PDP-n series
were actually produced,
but it's more than the PDP-8 and PDP-11 that most people remember these
days.
PDP-1: 18 bits, 1960-1964
PDP-2: 24 bits, paper design, never built
PDP-3: 36 bits, one built by a customer (DEC would sell you parts and plans)
an extended PDP-1, unrelated to later 36-bit systems
PDP-4: 18 bits, 1962-1964; 5/8 the power at 2/3 the price. Not popular.
PDP-5: 12 bits, 1962-1964
PDP-6: 36 bits, 1964-1965; 23 built, nearly bankrupted DEC; first commercial
system from any manufacturer with timesharing hardware built in from
the start; intended for AI research (LISP creator John McCarthy
advised on the design) as well as general computing
PDP-7: 18 bits, 1964-1966; DEC's most successful model to that time, first
use of FlipChips
PDP-8: 12 bits, 1965-1967; reimplementation of PDP-5 in FlipChips, first bus
architecture from DEC
PDP-9: 18 bits, 1966-1969; smaller, faster PDP-7
PDP-10: 36 bits, 1967-1970+; FlipChip implementation of PDP-6 architecture
PDP-11: 16 bits, 1969-1990; DEC surrendered to the 8-bit byte IBM disease
PDP-12: 12 bits, 1970?; PDP-8/i with additional LINC capabilities
PDP-14: build-it-yourself
PDP-15: 18 bits, 1970-1975; added index register to PDP-4/7/9 architecture,
capable of addressing up to 128K words
PDP-16: build-it-yourself
They skipped 13, and stopped calling new systems PDP-x. The follow models
of the PDP-10 were christened DECsystem-10 and DECSYSTEM-20 (defined at first
by the processor, and after a customer revolt by the microcode and OS in the
later models).
NB: I didn't bother to go look at the exact dates in Bell, McNamara & Mudge.
Those are close enough for government work.
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.PDPplanet.org/
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
2:43 a.m.
Rich Alderson wrote:
PDP-14: build-it-yourself
It wasn't really build-it-yourself. It was
wire-it-to-industrial-controls-and-program-it-yourself, which isn't that
much different than the PDP-8 and PDP-11 systems intended for lab or
industrial use. The big difference is that the PDP-14 is programmed
using ladder logic; it's basically a PLC.
PDP-16: build-it-yourself
The PDP-16 was build-it-yourself, but wasn't necessarily a computer. It
was called "Register Transfer Modules". It would typically be hardwired
rather than having a stored program. The general approach was
asynchronous logic as previously used in various processors such as the
KA10. Each functional unit sends a pulse to trigger the next unit in
the flow.
However, there was a "standard" PDP-16 computer, the PDP-16/M. I doubt
that they shipped very many, as it was more expensive than a PDP-11/05
but less powerful and DEC had no supporting software.
The follow models of the PDP-10 were christened
DECsystem-10 and
DECSYSTEM-20
Those were the system names; the processor was still called a PDP-10, and the specific
processor models were known by their option names, KA10, KI10, KL10, and KS10.
Eric
9:48 p.m.
From: Eric Smith
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 7:43 PM
Rich Alderson wrote:
> PDP-14: build-it-yourself
[snip]
> PDP-16: build-it-yourself
[snip]
Thanks for expanding. As I noted, I was writing from memory, and I
never did more than a cursory glance at either of those products.
> The follow models of the PDP-10 were christened
DECsystem-10 and
> DECSYSTEM-20
Those were the system names; the processor was still
called a PDP-10,
and the specific processor models were known by their option names,
KA10, KI10, KL10, and KS10.
You know that, and I know that, but most people look at the external
label and go from there. Someone who never heard of a PDP-1 would be
unlikely to think "PDP-10" when confronted with a nameplate that read
"decsystem 10" or "DECSYSTEM 20".
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.PDPplanet.org/
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
17 Aug
17 Aug
6:24 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
From: Tony Duell
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 11:19 AM
> Yep, that makes a lot more sense. In 1960 I
suppose about the only
> thing to play a computer game on would have been either a mini or a
> mainframe - actually I think it would have had to be a mainframe. Based
> on a *very* quick web search, the first PDP-8 shipped in 1964, so if
> that was the first mini... Some might say the IBM 1620, introduced in
> 1959, was a mini but I think that is a stretch.
THe PDP1 was around in the very early 1960s IIRC. And
Spacewar, of
course, ran on it. I would class that machine as a mini, but others may not.
AFAICT, the first customer delivery was in 1960. Spacewar! (the exclamation
point is part of the name) was of course *written* for the PDP-1 at the MIT
AI Lab.
At the time of its introduction, the PDP-1 was not a minicomputer. It was
capable of addressing up to 64K of 18-bit words; even the base configuration
with 4K is the equivalent of a 12K IBM 1401 in memory capacity, and the full
64K is the equivalent of the 32K of 36-bit words available in an IBM 704x or
709x system.
What set the PDP-1 apart was that it was intended as an interactive system,
with the user seated at the console. (DEC continued this focus in the 18-bit
product line until the introduction of RSX on the PDP-15/76 (prior to the port
to the PDP-11 family).) In this regard, it is more similar to the IBM 1130
(introduced in 1965, as the PDP-7 was sweeping into labs everywhere) than to
the contemporary batch-oriented computers.
Arguing that anything before the PDP-8 was a "minicomputer" is revisionism.
IMAO.
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.PDPplanet.org/
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
6:35 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
Remember the forbidden words when dealing with the history of
invention and technology:
"first"
"last"
"only"
"always"
"never"
--
Will
8:25 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
In article <CC28F43ED4708D489ABCF68D06D7F556040A5CC9EA at 505DENALI.corp.vnw.com>,
Rich Alderson <RichA at vulcan.com> writes:
Arguing that anything before the PDP-8 was a
"minicomputer" is revisionism.
IMAO.
I haven't been following this thread. What distinguishes a
minicomputer from the PDP-1? Is it the multiuser capability?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
8:50 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On 8/17/10, Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote:
In article
<CC28F43ED4708D489ABCF68D06D7F556040A5CC9EA at 505DENALI.corp.vnw.com>,
Rich Alderson <RichA at vulcan.com> writes:
I'm a bit curious about the working definition, too. I'm by no means
an expert, but I would have thought that a machine that fell into the
"minicomputer" category would be based on its size and cost
substantially below (like 80-90% below) a mainframe, and interactive
vs batch as the primary method of use. Single-user vs multi-user is
not a defining element IMO. PDP-8s and PDP-11s were both available in
single-user and multi-user configurations (though multi-user PDP-11s
were more ordinary).
Leaving out VLSI machines of the 1970s ("micros") and focusing on the
1960s, I'd say that definition easily includes the PDP-8, about which
I think there is little dissent. I personally would have included the
PDP-1 as well - to me, it's "small" (4 cabinets plus peripherals?),
meant to be used interactively, and (relatively) cheap - $120K in 1960
dollars.
But it all depends on how you define "minicomputer" as to what
specifically falls in the category.
-ethan
Arguing that anything before the PDP-8 was a
"minicomputer" is
revisionism.
IMAO.
I haven't been following this thread. What distinguishes a
minicomputer from the PDP-1? Is it the multiuser capability?
9 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
In article <AANLkTi=RENp1PERbsgCgZg4nkHWqPOVKpaqmROydrTqR at mail.gmail.com>,
Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> writes:
I'm a bit curious about the working definition,
too. I'm by no means
an expert, but I would have thought that a machine that fell into the
"minicomputer" category would be based on its size and cost
substantially below (like 80-90% below) a mainframe, and interactive
vs batch as the primary method of use. Single-user vs multi-user is
not a defining element IMO.
OK, I'll go along with your definition; it seems more thought out than
my stab in the dark.
I'd like to hear Rich Alderson's definition though and why he doesn't
include the PDP-1.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
9:21 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On 8/17/10, Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote:
In article <AANLkTi=RENp1PERbsgCgZg4nkHWqPOVKpaqmROydrTqR at mail.gmail.com>,
Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> writes:
My definition is most likely an amalgam of what I was exposed to
vis-a-vis minis vs mainframes c. 1980, more than anything else. It's
certainly not meant to be the absolute yardstick of what is or is not
a mini, but I think it works for all but the edge cases (which is
where debate creeps in anyway).
... I'm by no means
an expert, but I would have thought that a machine that fell into the
"minicomputer" category would be based on its size and cost...
OK, I'll go along with your definition; it seems more thought out than
my stab in the dark. I'd like to hear Rich Alderson's definition
though and why he doesn't
include the PDP-1.
After reading other reponses in this thread, something I had not
considered is what year the term was first applied - that seems to be
1964, give or take, and applied to the PDP-8.
So perhaps the PDP-1 was a minicomputer before they had the word for
it, but I am far too young to comment if it was then _called_ a
minicomputer, after the word was coined.
-ethan
9:51 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On 17 Aug 2010 at 17:21, Ethan Dicks wrote:
So perhaps the PDP-1 was a minicomputer before they
had the word for
it, but I am far too young to comment if it was then _called_ a
minicomputer, after the word was coined.
I've heard the PB250 and the CDC 160A both called "minicomputers"--
both are substantially smaller in size than the PDP-1. So it's a
judgement call.
My own personal yardstick is that a "minicomputer" is something that
can be run from a single 120V 20A lighting circuit. The PB250
qualifies; the 160A does not--and neither does the PDP-1.
Others may use their own yardsticks.
--Chuck
9:54 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On 8/17/10, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
My own personal yardstick is that a
"minicomputer" is something that
can be run from a single 120V 20A lighting circuit. The PB250
qualifies; the 160A does not--and neither does the PDP-1.
Hmm... I'm not sure the Straight-8 qualifies by that yardstick. 30A
120V circuit, no problem. 20A, I'm not as confident.
Others may use their own yardsticks.
Indeed.
-ethan
10:14 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:54:53 -0400
Subject: Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
On 8/17/10, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Hi
IBM had a series of small computers they called minis that used
water cooling. These where about the size of three standard desk,
end-to-end.
Dwight
My own personal yardstick is that a
"minicomputer" is something that
can be run from a single 120V 20A lighting circuit. The PB250
qualifies; the 160A does not--and neither does the PDP-1.
Hmm... I'm not sure the Straight-8 qualifies by that yardstick. 30A
120V circuit, no problem. 20A, I'm not as confident.
Others may use their own yardsticks.
Indeed.
-ethan
10:22 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On 8/17/10, dwight elvey <dkelvey at hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi
IBM had a series of small computers they called minis that used
water cooling. These where about the size of three standard desk,
end-to-end.
Hmm... of all the judges of "what is a minicomputer", IBM does not
rise to the top of my list. My first impulse is to think that someone
in marketing decided to go after lost sales by saying "see... we have
minicomputers, too". OTOH, I have no knowledge of the machines you
are describing, so perhaps, cooling systems aside, by other criteria,
they _might_ have passed as minicomputers. While liquid cooling was
characteristic of some flavors of mainframes, there were still plenty
of air-cooled mainframes, so I wouldn't make that on its own a
dividing line.
-ethan
10:29 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
In article <AANLkTi=7e7EsiL=31Hcgdv3i40voPnsnpomg35oZbL6w at mail.gmail.com>,
Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> writes:
On 8/17/10, dwight elvey <dkelvey at
hotmail.com> wrote:
How about Series/1?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
Hi
IBM had a series of small computers they called minis that used
water cooling. These where about the size of three standard desk,
end-to-end.
Hmm... of all the judges of "what is a minicomputer", IBM does not
rise to the top of my list.
10:50 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
How about Series/1?
There is a classic Data General ad that ran when IBM was introducing
the S/1 to "legitimize the minicomputer market". The Data General ad
said "The bastards say, welcome".
Bruce Ray may be looking for this ad for a scan.
--
Will
10:57 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
In article <AANLkTi=5hwDMPFjqhobXzRtLja_Q_jDHvC0Fu_+eV-hM at mail.gmail.com>,
William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> writes:
I'd like to see that! :-)
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
How about
Series/1?
There is a classic Data General ad that ran when IBM was introducing
the S/1 to "legitimize the minicomputer market". The Data General ad
said "The bastards say, welcome".
Bruce Ray may be looking for this ad for a scan. 
11:04 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of William Donzelli
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:51 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
I'm almost certain I've seen that ad, which either means (a) Bruce already has it
or (b) I'm older than I realize. -- Ian
How about Series/1?
There is a classic Data General ad that ran when IBM was introducing
the S/1 to "legitimize the minicomputer market". The Data General ad
said "The bastards say, welcome".
Bruce Ray may be looking for this ad for a scan.
--
Will 
18 Aug
18 Aug
2:59 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
There is a
classic Data General ad that ran when IBM was introducing
the S/1 to "legitimize the minicomputer market". The Data General ad
said "The bastards say, welcome".
Bruce Ray may be looking for this ad for a scan.
I'm almost certain I've
seen that ad, which either means (a) Bruce already has it or (b) I'm older than I
realize. -- Ian
3:26 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
Fred Cisin wrote:
Along with it, locate the "welcome" ad that
Apple ran when the 5150 came
out
August 22, 1981 Wall Street Journal:
http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads2/seriouslyIBM_l.jpg
5:35 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
In article <4C6B52E9.2070003 at brouhaha.com>,
Eric Smith <eric at brouhaha.com> writes:
Fred Cisin wrote:
Shit, its disappointing to see the Apple ][ era Apple being so smug
and snotty. I thought they only picked that up after Mac came out.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
Along with it, locate the "welcome" ad
that Apple ran when the 5150 came
out
August 22, 1981 Wall Street Journal:
http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads2/seriouslyIBM_l.jpg 
2:46 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
The correct answer is (b)
(I do not have a copy of the ad)
Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian King" <IanK at vulcan.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 05:04 PM
Subject: RE: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of William Donzelli
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:51 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
I'm almost certain I've seen that ad, which either means (a) Bruce already
has it or (b) I'm older than I realize. -- Ian
How about Series/1?
There is a classic Data General ad that ran when IBM was introducing
the S/1 to "legitimize the minicomputer market". The Data General ad
said "The bastards say, welcome".
Bruce Ray may be looking for this ad for a scan.
--
Will 
17 Aug
17 Aug
11:19 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
How about Series/1?
There is a classic Data General ad that ran when IBM was introducing
the S/1 to "legitimize the minicomputer market". The Data General ad
said "The bastards say, welcome".
Bruce Ray may be looking for this ad for a scan.
--
Will
10:47 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
Hmm... of all the judges of "what is a
minicomputer", IBM does not
rise to the top of my list.
The funny thing is that IBM probably made more minicomputers that
anyone else. They made a *lot* of S/36s and early AS/400s. Even if you
look at the 1400 line - a grey area machine, certainly - IBM knew how
to do volume.
Except IBM marketing called them midrange, not minicomputer.
--
Will
10:39 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On 17 Aug 2010 at 15:14, dwight elvey wrote:
IBM had a series of small computers they called minis
that used
water cooling. These where about the size of three standard desk,
end-to-end.
Is it safe to say that there were no minicomputers called as such
before 1960, simply owing the etymology? The BMC Mini auto dates
from 1960 or so and the miniskirt, from 1966.
With the PDP-1, I wonder if the the "mini" applied more to cost than
physical size.
--Chuck
11:03 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Guzis
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:39 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On 17 Aug 2010 at 15:14, dwight elvey wrote:
This is probably one of the most problematic questions I try to answer, far too often: why
is X a minicomputer and not something else? I think of a minicomputer as a machine
designed to not require an operator staff, designed for direct interaction between the
user and the computer (rather than batch operation), and designed for a *relatively* small
resource footprint (the PDP-1 required a LOT less resources than a 7090). There is a lot
of fuzz around all of these factors. Is a VAX-11 a minicomputer? It takes three-phase
power and was intended to serve as a large timeshared system. There is a mechanism to run
batch jobs. There was a role defined for the "system manager" who maintained
various aspects of the OS environment. However, at the same time IBM's product line
consisted of machines that still cost ten times as much, could NOT be meaningfully
maintained without an operations staff and were fundamentally designed for batch
processing. The VAX-11 was "mini" by comparison. It is feasible for one person
to operate and use a VAX; the question in the context of a VAX-11 is an economic one, not
a question of operational overhead.
Consider that when IBM transistorized the 709, they did NOT build a smaller computer based
on the increased functional density of the transistor. They built a large computer with
more capability. In contrast, the PDP-1 was intended to be small enough that it
wasn't a perceived economic absurdity for it to be used single-user.
For counterpoint, the PDP-10 was never intended to be anything other than a
mainframe-class machine. Its capabilities, capacity and footprint all served as direct
competition to System/360. So DEC != minicomputer, although they were the leading
manufacturer of that class of machine for many years - indeed, until the microcomputer
began overshadowing the mini.
This is an interesting question, and I hope we can have some meaningful dialogue about it
- and maybe even stay on topic. :-) -- Ian
IBM had a series of small computers they called
minis that used
water cooling. These where about the size of three standard desk,
end-to-end.
Is it safe to say that there were no minicomputers called as such
before 1960, simply owing the etymology? The BMC Mini auto dates
from 1960 or so and the miniskirt, from 1966.
With the PDP-1, I wonder if the the "mini" applied more to cost than
physical size.
11:59 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
However, at the same time IBM's product line
consisted of machines that still cost ten times as much, could NOT be meaningfully
maintained without an operations staff and were fundamentally designed for batch
processing.
Compare apples to oranges - when the VAX-11 line was out, IBM had the
4300 line. These machines were specifically designed not to require
operations staff, a big infrastructure, pure batch operation, and so
forth. Burroughs had the 1900 line with pretty much the same low
maintenance ideas going on. The 4300 line was a huge hit for IBM (the
1900 line was so-so for Burroughs).
For counterpoint, the PDP-10 was never intended to be
anything other than a mainframe-class machine. ?Its capabilities, capacity and footprint
all served as direct competition to System/360.
They never managed to get the whole RAS thing right, so the mainframe
shops tended not to pay any attention to the PDP-10 line. They did for
the VAX, but by then DEC had learned a few things about maintenance
and reliability (and power supplies).
So DEC != minicomputer, although they were the leading
manufacturer of that class of machine for many years - indeed, until the microcomputer
began overshadowing the mini.
It is easy for us to think that, in a sort of techie-hacker-academic
way, but when the numbers all shake out, IBM may have had the biggest
slice of the pie. We just tend to ignore all those beige minicomputers
that were doing boring financial jobs in tax accounting shops and
such.
Anyway, the real answer is a machine is what it is.
--
Will
18 Aug
18 Aug
12:12 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On 8/17/10 7:59 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
Compare apples to oranges - when the VAX-11 line was
out, IBM had the
4300 line. These machines were specifically designed not to require
operations staff, a big infrastructure, pure batch operation, and so
forth.
Wow, was the 4300 series really intended to not need an operations
staff? If so, they sure did miss the mark there.
I worked for a company that had a 4341, and frequently visited four
customer sites, with three 4341s and a 4381. (I worked in field service
at the time, unfortunately not for IBM) I think the smallest operations
staff for any of those intended-to-be-operations-staff-free machines was
two employees.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
1:12 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
From: Dave McGuire
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 5:12 PM
On 8/17/10 7:59 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
> Compare apples to oranges - when the VAX-11 line
was out, IBM had the
> 4300 line. These machines were specifically designed not to require
> operations staff, a big infrastructure, pure batch operation, and so
> forth.
Wow, was the 4300 series really intended to not need
an operations
staff? If so, they sure did miss the mark there.
I worked for a company that had a 4341, and frequently
visited four
customer sites, with three 4341s and a 4381. (I worked in field service
at the time, unfortunately not for IBM) I think the smallest operations
staff for any of those intended-to-be-operations-staff-free machines was
two employees.
Ahh, but Dave, the typical IBM mainframe shop required 8-12 operators.
From that point of view, the 4300s were marvels of low
operational staff.
At the University of Chicago, I was friends with the lead graduate student
on the STEM (Scanning Transmission Electron Microscope), the one that made
the IBM logo out of individual gold atoms. Their graphics processor was
a 4361--and they had no professional operations staff at all. The grad
students did the minimal amount to get it running, and that was all.
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.PDPplanet.org/
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
1:34 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
At the University of Chicago, I was friends with the
lead graduate student
on the STEM (Scanning Transmission Electron Microscope), the one that made
the IBM logo out of individual gold atoms. ?Their graphics processor was
a 4361--and they had no professional operations staff at all. ?The grad
students did the minimal amount to get it running, and that was all.
My 4331 came from a shop that was run by a couple of guys, and was
turned off every weekend when they went home. It ran for 25 years and
never had a service call. The IMPL diskette (the boot disk media)
finally wore out - wore thin from being read every Monday - so to boot
the machine, I need to do a song and dance act to fill in some dropped
bits. The 3830 disk control also has an IMPL floppy, and that still
works, but is well on its way out. That box also never broke down
while these guys ran it. The 3420 tape drives were quite reliable, but
towards the end, they had to replace hoses that were drying out. The
3350 disks were the most troublesome, but even there 5 of the 8
spindles are fine.
And the datacenter had a resident cat. It was not exactly the cleanest
computer space I have ever been in.
--
Will
2:33 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On 8/17/10 9:12 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
Point taken. ;)
> Compare
apples to oranges - when the VAX-11 line was out, IBM had the
> 4300 line. These machines were specifically designed not to require
> operations staff, a big infrastructure, pure batch operation, and so
> forth.
Wow, was the 4300 series really intended to not
need an operations
staff? If so, they sure did miss the mark there.
I worked for a company that had a 4341, and
frequently visited four
customer sites, with three 4341s and a 4381. (I worked in field service
at the time, unfortunately not for IBM) I think the smallest operations
staff for any of those intended-to-be-operations-staff-free machines was
two employees.
Ahh, but Dave, the typical IBM mainframe shop required 8-12 operators.
>From that point of view, the 4300s were marvels of low operational staff. At the University of Chicago, I was friends with the
lead graduate student
on the STEM (Scanning Transmission Electron Microscope), the one that made
the IBM logo out of individual gold atoms. Their graphics processor was
a 4361--and they had no professional operations staff at all. The grad
students did the minimal amount to get it running, and that was all.
Nice!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
1:46 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On 8/17/10 6:59 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
It is easy for us to think that, in a sort of
techie-hacker-academic
way, but when the numbers all shake out, IBM may have had the biggest
slice of the pie. We just tend to ignore all those beige minicomputers
that were doing boring financial jobs in tax accounting shops and
such.
Heh. That's very true of IBM today, too, with the POWER family and
zSeries. Very few people realize how much of the midrange market IBM owns.
Doc
20 Aug
20 Aug
3:05 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer - and were there midi's in this galaxy?
Ian King wrote:
comparison. It is feasible for one
person to operate and use a VAX; the question in the context of a VAX-11 is an economic
one, not a question of operational overhead.
-----Original
Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Guzis
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:39 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On 17 Aug 2010 at 15:14, dwight elvey wrote:
This is probably one of the most problematic questions I try to answer, far too often:
why is X a minicomputer and not something else? I think of a minicomputer as a machine
designed to not require an operator staff, designed for direct interaction between the
user and the computer (rather than batch operation), and designed for a *relatively* small
resource footprint (the PDP-1 required a LOT less resources than a 7090). There is a lot
of fuzz around all of these factors. Is a VAX-11 a minicomputer? It takes three-phase
power and was intended to serve as a large timeshared system. There is a mechanism to run
batch jobs. There was a role defined for the "system manager" who maintained
various aspects of the OS environment. However, at the same time IBM's product line
consisted of machines that still cost ten times as much, could NOT be meaningfully
maintained without an operations staff and were fundamentally designed for batch
processing. The VAX-11 was "mini" by IBM had a series of small computers they called
minis that used
water cooling. These where about the size of three standard desk,
end-to-end.
Is it safe to say that there were no minicomputers called as such
before 1960, simply owing the etymology? The BMC Mini auto dates
from 1960 or so and the miniskirt, from 1966.
With the PDP-1, I wonder if the the "mini" applied more to cost than
physical size.
Consider that when IBM transistorized the 709, they did NOT build a smaller computer
based on the increased functional density of the transistor. They built a large computer
with more capability. In contrast, the PDP-1 was intended to be small enough that it
wasn't a perceived economic absurdity for it to be used single-user.
For counterpoint, the PDP-10 was never intended to be anything other than a
mainframe-class machine. Its capabilities, capacity and footprint all served as direct
competition to System/360. So DEC != minicomputer, although they were the leading
manufacturer of that class of machine for many years - indeed, until the microcomputer
began overshadowing the mini.
This is an interesting question, and I hope we can have some meaningful dialogue about it
- and maybe even stay on topic. :-) -- Ian
Am I just all wet thinking that there was a class (admittedly with
rather fuzzy edges) of machines that could logically be called midi's?
I'll admit I really did not keep up with all that was going on in the
computer industry from say 1960 through maybe 1980 (more especially in
the marketing arena) to really know if anyone actually used that
descriptor for *any* system or not. I'm really thinking more
conceptually than anything else I suppose, and thinking about about what
folks like *us* (yeah, I know that covers a bunch of ground) might have
called the various systems. Of the limited set of machines I've
encountered, I always thought of the IBM 1401, the SDS-910, the SCC-660,
and the Datacraft 6024 as midis, at least in some senses, just based on
their size, weight, power and air conditioning requirements, etc. I had
very little contact with the IBM 1410, but I think if you'd asked me at
the time I would have said it was too "big" to be a midi. I might have
waffled on some 1401 installations too mostly based on the number and
size of peripherals. Only when I got to the Microdata 8xx computers
(can't remember the year just now, but certainly well past 1964 -
probably 1970 or later) did I think I was working with a mini.
Later,
Charlie C.
21 Aug
21 Aug
7:14 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer - and were there midi's in this galaxy?
Am I just all wet thinking that there was a class
(admittedly with rather
fuzzy edges) of machines that could logically be called midi's?
The only people that actually used the terms "midicomputer" and
"maxicomputer" were people writing "Introduction to Data Processing"
textbooks of the early 80s. Out in the real world, these terms were
not used, and would probably get someone thrown out of the data center
if mentioned.
--
Will
18 Aug
18 Aug
1:57 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
From: wdonzelli at gmail.com
Hi Will
Looking at newer post, it seems like these were 43xx or something like that.
I recall we had a machine the wasn't called a mini and that number ( as
I recall ) was a 3081. It was quite big.
Dwight
IBM had a series of small computers they called
minis that used
water cooling. These where about the size of three standard desk,
end-to-end.
What machines were these?
--
Will
2:13 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
?Looking at newer post, it seems like these were 43xx
or something like that.
I recall we had a machine the wasn't called a mini and that number ( as
I recall ) was a 3081. It was quite big.
OK a little confusion here.
The 3081 was indeed the water cooled machine. They generally had a
4361 as the service processor. The 4361 was one of these
low-maintenance machines - air cooled, no special power, very
reliable.
--
Will
5:57 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
From: wdonzelli at gmail.com
Hi Will
It could be I'm just suffering from BrainFade. I still recall one of the techs
pulling the covers off the sides and noting that it was unusual for this
series of machines to be water cooled.
I recall seeing the plates with hoses and gaskets. Over the years, it
could have been the 3081 but I knew that was water cooled. It has
been a long time and it wasn't my main area.
Dwight
Looking at newer post, it seems like these were
43xx or something like that.
I recall we had a machine the wasn't called a mini and that number ( as
I recall ) was a 3081. It was quite big.
OK a little confusion here.
The 3081 was indeed the water cooled machine. They generally had a
4361 as the service processor. The 4361 was one of these
low-maintenance machines - air cooled, no special power, very
reliable.
--
Will
6:11 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
?I recall seeing the plates with hoses and gaskets.
Over the years, it
could have been the 3081 but I knew that was water cooled. It has
been a long time and it wasn't my main area.
Yes, definitely the 3081. Plumbing galore.
Here is a picture of a very similar 3084:
http://www.compumagic.com/shop/16MbMainFrame.html
--
Will
8:14 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
In article <AANLkTi=BGJtF=J3b_7pAk9mQiMiGK9pfk8MUH0Bcrrnb at mail.gmail.com>,
William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> writes:
Here is a picture of a very similar 3084:
http://www.compumagic.com/shop/16MbMainFrame.html
Helium filled?!?!? Must have leaked like crazy.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
8:37 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
Helium filled?!?!? ?Must have leaked like crazy.
The Helium was really just a small player in the whole technology of
the TCM. By far, most of the heat was conducted away through the
ceramic substrate and the metal pistons to the water cooled cold
plate.
Also, I do not know if the Helium was pressurized at all, so leakage
may have been pretty slow.
It is too bad so few of these IBM water machines are still around. I
know of only maybe a half dozen. I would still like to get one.
--
Will
11:18 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
what was the basic purpose of the helium?
On 8/18/2010 4:37 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
Helium
filled?!?!? Must have leaked like crazy.
The Helium was really just a small player in the whole technology of
the TCM. By far, most of the heat was conducted away through the
ceramic substrate and the metal pistons to the water cooled cold
plate.
Also, I do not know if the Helium was pressurized at all, so leakage
may have been pretty slow.
It is too bad so few of these IBM water machines are still around. I
know of only maybe a half dozen. I would still like to get one.
--
Will
11:40 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
was thinking along those lines but wasn't sure what the conductivity was
(vice air)
tx
On 8/18/2010 7:27 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
what was the
basic purpose of the helium?
It is pumped into the modules to fill any air gaps. Helium conducts heat
well.
--
Will
11:56 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 MCM Modules
what was the basic purpose of the helium?
On 8/18/2010 4:37 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
>> Helium filled?!?!? Must have leaked like crazy.
> The Helium was really just a small player in the whole technology of
> the TCM. By far, most of the heat was conducted away through the
> ceramic substrate and the metal pistons to the water cooled cold
> plate.
This link has a paper by IBM and Honeywell describing MCM's which
used the helium in discussion here.
All of the other discussions I could find are behind various paywalls (ieee,
elsevier, aip, etc.) which I won't pay for. Thnaks to whoever hindawi is
for putting it where it is in google, and also accessible.
this one is apparantly open for reading
http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/apec/1982/204239.pdf
BTW, I googled for this, and it was on the first page, but there are other
articles
"ibm mcm modules helium"
Jim
19 Aug
19 Aug
2:41 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 MCM Modules
From: jws at jwsss.com
To:
Subject: Re: PDP-1 MCM Modules
Hi
Although there is the heat transfer, we used to use helium in our MCM
packages when at HaL computers. I was always told that we did it for
leak detecting. They had a helium sniffer ( small mass spec ) after sealing the part.
Dwight
what was the basic purpose of the helium?
On 8/18/2010 4:37 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
>> Helium filled?!?!? Must have leaked like crazy.
> The Helium was really just a small player in the whole technology of
> the TCM. By far, most of the heat was conducted away through the
> ceramic substrate and the metal pistons to the water cooled cold
> plate.
This link has a paper by IBM and Honeywell describing MCM's which
used the helium in discussion here.
All of the other discussions I could find are behind various paywalls (ieee,
elsevier, aip, etc.) which I won't pay for. Thnaks to whoever hindawi is
for putting it where it is in google, and also accessible.
this one is apparantly open for reading
http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/apec/1982/204239.pdf
BTW, I googled for this, and it was on the first page, but there are other
articles
"ibm mcm modules helium"
Jim
18 Aug
18 Aug
2:14 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On 8/18/10 9:57 AM, dwight elvey wrote:
Looking at newer post, it seems like these were 43xx or something like that.
I recall we had a machine the wasn't called a mini and that number ( as
I recall ) was a 3081. It was quite big.
I thought the whole 4300 series was air-cooled. The 3090, on the
other hand, is not, and is a fairly big machine.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
IBM had a series of small computers they called minis
that used
water cooling. These where about the size of three standard desk,
end-to-end.
What machines were these? 
2:20 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
Looking at newer post, it seems like these were 43xx
or something like
that. I recall we had a machine the wasn't called a mini and that
number ( as I recall ) was a 3081. It was quite big.
The 4331 which I helped move into the computer center occupied the
floorspace of a single desk, but was a little bit taller, and was an
air-cooled system. I believe the 4341 which later replaced it was the
same size. They were quite heavy, size notwithstanding. :)
The 4381s I met later were double-wide 6' rack cabinets, similar in size
to 3380 dasd cabs, but still air cooled.
De
9:39 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Ethan Dicks wrote:
Hmm... I'm not sure the Straight-8 qualifies by
that yardstick. 30A
120V circuit, no problem. 20A, I'm not as confident.
Ehm, a Straight-8 only needs a few hundred watts (maybe 200W). We run it
together with the Tennecomp tape system from a smallish step-down
transformer without problems. Seems like American current is quite
different from European current ;-)
Christian
2:48 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Chuck Guzis wrote:
My own personal yardstick is that a
"minicomputer" is something that
can be run from a single 120V 20A lighting circuit. The PB250
qualifies; the 160A does not--and neither does the PDP-1.
Others may use their own yardsticks.
Batteries or "battery charger"
Mains outlet
Range/clothes dryer circuit
Industrial service
Three phase Delta
Three Phase "Y"
12:46 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
From: Richard
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:00 PM
In article
<AANLkTi=RENp1PERbsgCgZg4nkHWqPOVKpaqmROydrTqR at mail.gmail.com>,
Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> writes:
> I'm a bit curious about the working
definition, too. I'm by no means
> an expert, but I would have thought that a machine that fell into the
> "minicomputer" category would be based on its size and cost
> substantially below (like 80-90% below) a mainframe, and interactive
> vs batch as the primary method of use. Single-user vs multi-user is
> not a defining element IMO.
OK, I'll go along with your definition; it seems
more thought out than
my stab in the dark.
I'd like to hear Rich Alderson's definition
though and why he doesn't
include the PDP-1.
It's not so much definitional as historical. (I pretty much agree with
Ethan's definition, too.) It's simply that when DEC built the PDP-1,
they were simply trying to build a powerful computer as small as they
could, based on the experience Olsen and Anderson had with the TX-0 and
TX-2 at Lincoln Labs.
When DEC built the PDP-8, it was a reimplementation of the PDP-5 which
was intentionally shrunk into a half-height package. This led to the
designation "minicomputer", where "mini-", as someone suggested, was
in
the Zeitgeist, but this was done in retrospect. DEC called systems like
the PDP-8 "small computers" in its sales literature for many years.
There was a new impetus in the design of small computers at every computer
company, to shrink the box as much as possible and still do the job. All
of Silicon Valley and most of Route 128 saw this as the way to go: Small
but powerful, rather than large with increasing functionality.
From: Richard
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:29 PM
In article
<AANLkTi=7e7EsiL=31Hcgdv3i40voPnsnpomg35oZbL6w at mail.gmail.com>,
Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> writes:
> On 8/17/10, dwight elvey <dkelvey at
hotmail.com> wrote:
>> IBM had a series of small computers they
called minis that used
>> water cooling. These where about the size of three standard desk,
>> end-to-end.
> Hmm... of all the judges of "what is a
minicomputer", IBM does not
> rise to the top of my list.
How about Series/1?
The Series/1 was the first entry by IBM into the minicomputer market as
such. (It was also their first to use ASCII rather than EBCDIC--no one
AFAIK ever *used* ASCII on the 360--which led to its use as the 4994
terminal server, after a Series/1 customer made it clear that it could
do the job.) It was a 16-bit machine introduced at a time when companies
which had been selling minis for years were moving from 16- to 32-bit
"superminis"--most especially the Digital VAX and Data General Eclipse MV.
From: Ian King
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 4:04 PM
> From: Chuck Guzis
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:39 PM
> With the PDP-1, I wonder if the the
"mini" applied more to cost than
> physical size.
That's still a retro view of the PDP-1. It was small and inexpensive at
its introduction, therefore it must have been a mini? I say, no.
Is a VAX-11 a minicomputer?
As someone who was making a living as an applications programmer when the
VAX was announced, and who read _The Soul of a New Machine_ when it was
serialized in _Computerworld_, I can say for certain that the VAX and its
competition were called "superminis" at the time: 32 bit processors, big
address spaces, mainframe-class operating systems, etc. The 4300 family
from IBM were precisely what they were aiming at.
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.PDPplanet.org/
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
1:39 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
The Series/1 was the first entry by IBM into the
minicomputer market as
such.
1620? 1130? 1800? S/3? S/32? S/34?
?(It was also their first to use ASCII rather than
EBCDIC--no one
AFAIK ever *used* ASCII on the 360--which led to its use as the 4994
terminal server, after a Series/1 customer made it clear that it could
do the job.) ?It was a 16-bit machine introduced at a time when companies
which had been selling minis for years were moving from 16- to 32-bit
"superminis"--most especially the Digital VAX and Data General Eclipse MV.
S/1s were slow, the operating systems were a disgrace, but they were
bulletproof, and could beat the crap out of most other minicomputers
when it came to moving data around. This is why the only real win S/1s
ever really had was internally at IBM - they were used in various
communication boxes and front ends (7171, for example), because they
could move data faster than the 3725. They were also used as the
processor in the 7361 Fastdraft CAD system.
--
Will
9:23 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
From: William Donzelli
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 6:40 PM
> The Series/1 was the first entry by IBM into the
minicomputer market as
> such.
1620? 1130? 1800? S/3? S/32? S/34?
None of those were marketed as a minicomputer by IBM. The Series/1 was.
Thus my "as such".
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.PDPplanet.org/
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
9:35 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On 8/18/10 5:29 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
I'd pay real money to see the corporate grey flannel button-down IBM
of that era print or utter that word in pretty much any forum. :)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
None of those
were marketed as a minicomputer by IBM. The Series/1 was.
Thus my "as such".
IBM could have called them squigglethwaps, but they are still pretty
much minicomputers. 
10:40 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
Dave McGuire wrote:
I'd pay real money to see the corporate grey flannel button-down IBM
of that era print or utter that word in pretty much any forum. :)
How about I get my dad to put his suit, badge and pocket protector on
and say it?
Peace... Sridhar
None of those were marketed as a minicomputer by IBM.
The Series/1 was.
Thus my "as such".
IBM could have called them squigglethwaps, but they are still pretty
much minicomputers.
10:47 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On 8/18/10 6:40 PM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I'd pay real money to see the corporate grey flannel button-down IBM
of that era print or utter that word in pretty much any forum. :)
How about I get my dad to put his suit, badge and pocket protector on
and say it?
YES!! DO IT!! 8-) Your dad rocks.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
None of those
were marketed as a minicomputer by IBM. The Series/1
was.
Thus my "as such".
IBM could have called them squigglethwaps, but they are still pretty
much minicomputers.
10:35 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as squigglethwap [was RE: OT - sort of]
> None of those were marketed as a minicomputer by
IBM. ?The Series/1 was.
> Thus my "as such".
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, William Donzelli wrote:
IBM could have called them squigglethwaps, but they
are still pretty
much minicomputers.
Are ALL minicomputers squigglethwaps, or just those from IBM?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
2:41 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Ethan Dicks wrote:
I'm a bit curious about the working definition,
too. I'm by no means
an expert, but I would have thought that a machine that fell into the
"minicomputer" category would be based on its size and cost
. . .
But it all depends on how you define "minicomputer" as to what
specifically falls in the category.
Who originally created the term? marketing??
Can you pick it up and carry it?
Does it have casters, or do you use a handtruck?
Does it require a forklift and a union moving crew?
Can you lose a screw in it?
Can you lose a screwdriver in it?
Can you lose a scope in it?
Can you lose a person in it?
Who are the sides in the most prevalent religious battles?
What do the neighbors say about your collection?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
4:25 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of])
But it all
depends on how you define "minicomputer" as to what
specifically falls in the category.
Who originally created the term? marketing??
4:43 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of])
>> But it all depends on how you define
"minicomputer" as to what
>> specifically falls in the category.
> Who originally created the term? marketing??
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Al Kossow wrote:
The earliest use of the term as we use it today was an
ad in
Datamation announcing the (Varian) Data 520i in April, 1968.
Therefore, the (Varian) Data 520i was the "first" minicomputer, although
there were other computers around that had not been "minicomputers", but
BECAME "minicomputers" when the term became popular.
Before that the class was called "small
computers",
ie. the PDP-8 "Small Computer Handbook".
Fall JCC, December 1968 had several papers using the term
"mini-computer" or "minicomputer".
Spring 1970 JCC is the first time DEC uses the term with the
annoucement of the PDP-11 and the paper "A new architecture
for mini-computers -- the DEC PDP-11"
Therefore, DEC acknowledged the existence of "mini-computers"
prior to the PDP-11 providing a "new architecture" for them.
Thank you for looking up the history of the term!
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
5:31 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of])
On 18 Aug 2010 at 9:25, Al Kossow wrote:
The earliest use of the term as we use it today was an
ad in
Datamation announcing the (Varian) Data 520i in April, 1968.
That would, etymologically speaking, put the term more in the
American "miniskirt" (1966) camp that came over with the Mod
subculture and the Beatles, than the BMC/Morris "Mini (1959) one.
I'd suspected the auto usage was more exclusively British.
Could we say that the minicomputer owes its origins to Carnaby
Street?
--Chuck
9:58 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of])
From: Chuck Guzis
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:31 AM
On 18 Aug 2010 at 9:25, Al Kossow wrote:
> The earliest use of the term as we use it today
was an ad in
> Datamation announcing the (Varian) Data 520i in April, 1968.
That would, etymologically speaking, put the term more
in the
American "miniskirt" (1966) camp that came over with the Mod
subculture and the Beatles, than the BMC/Morris "Mini (1959) one.
I'd suspected the auto usage was more exclusively British.
The miniskirt was introduced under that name by Mary Quant in 1965.
She explicitly stated that the name was influenced by the Mini.
Could we say that the minicomputer owes its origins to
Carnaby
Street?
By 1968 when the term was apparently used in advertising for the first
time (thanks, Al!), far too many things in American marketing had been
labeled "mini", so yeah, probably so.
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.PDPplanet.org/
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
10:49 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of])
On 18 Aug 2010 at 14:58, Rich Alderson wrote:
The miniskirt was introduced under that name by Mary
Quant in 1965.
She explicitly stated that the name was influenced by the Mini.
I stumbled upon an old photograph showing a model wearing a miniskirt
with a BMC Mini. Egad, that was a homely car!
So, were there any micro-minicomputers? Midicomputers? And more to
the point, which was more exciting? The miniskirt or the
minicomputer?
--Chuck
11:21 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of])
you weren't supposed to look at the car!
On 8/18/2010 6:49 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 18 Aug 2010 at 14:58, Rich Alderson wrote:
The miniskirt was introduced under that name by
Mary Quant in 1965.
She explicitly stated that the name was influenced by the Mini.
I stumbled upon an old photograph showing a model wearing a miniskirt
with a BMC Mini. Egad, that was a homely car!
So, were there any micro-minicomputers? Midicomputers? And more to
the point, which was more exciting? The miniskirt or the
minicomputer?
--Chuck
19 Aug
19 Aug
8:35 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
I stumbled upon an old photograph showing a model
wearing a miniskirt
with a BMC Mini. Egad, that was a homely car!
To go totally off-topic. there was a version of the Mini (car) with an
automatic transmission. The transmisison was built in the engine oil
sump, and used the engine oil as the hydraulic fluid. Apparently it
didn't work all that well, but I think it's amazing they got it to work
at all...
[FWIW, the full, official Mini workshop manual is on my bookshelf...]
So, were there any micro-minicomputers? Midicomputers? And more to
Ias a 'MIDIcomputer' a computer with a certain current-loop serial
interface? You know, like the Atari ST ? (Sorry, could NOT resist)
the point, which was more exciting? The miniskirt or
the
minicomputer?
You'rs asking _that_ on classiccmp? Well, cosnidiering I own between 10
and 20 minicomoputers and not one miniskirt I would think the answer for
me is obvious. Now, if you want to ask about what you find inside a
minicomputer .vs. what you find inside a miniskirt, well, that's a
different question. But I think I'd still go for the former...
I was thinking about the commonly used definitions of 'minicomputer' and
'microcomputer. As with all such divisions, there are grey areas.... For
example :
What do you consider the DPP11/23 and PDP11/73 to be? (Remember the CPU
is a small number of custom LSI chips).
And what about the Pro 350 and Pro 380 machines. Point being, they're
desktop boxes abotu the size of a PC, but have the same CPU chips as the
11/23 and 11/73 (F11 and J11 chipsets)
And what about my favourite, the HP9830? It's a desktop all-in-one
machine. But the CPU is lots of small chips. There are 4 boards which are
often considered to be the CPU boards, conitaing about 20 chips each,
mostlu TTL, but with 9 256*4 PROMs. And there are some bits of the CPU
(such as the memroy address and data registers) on other PCBs in the
machine/ So perhaps 100 chips for the CPU in total, the most complex
being things like dual 8-bit SISO shift registers, or the PROMs. By most
defintions. that's a minicomputer, but it sure feels strange calling it
one...
-tony
11:12 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
What do you consider the DPP11/23 and PDP11/73 to be?
(Remember the CPU is
a small number of custom LSI chips).
Never fear, the DEC marketing crowd "fixed" that one too, they were
"Supermicrosystems", as per the handbook (1986) which covered the MicroVAX
I,II, Micro PDP11/23,73,83.
http://www.science.uva.nl/museum/DEChandbooks.html
20 Aug
20 Aug
5:43 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
OK :-)
But DEC had their own meaning for 'microprocessor' to mean a 'microcoded
control system'. I seem to remember that the control logic of a VT52 and
that of the DMC11, etc are called 'microprocessors' in the DEC manuals,
for all the are built from lots of MSI chips, and there's nothing that
the rest of the world would call a microprocessor (a chip such as a Z80,
6800, 8080, 6502, etc)
And I've still not worked out what to class the HP9830 as ;-)
-tony
What do you consider the DPP11/23 and PDP11/73 to
be? (Remember the CPU is
a small number of custom LSI chips).
Never fear, the DEC marketing crowd "fixed" that one too, they were
"Supermicrosystems", as per the handbook (1986) which covered the MicroVAX
I,II, Micro PDP11/23,73,83.
7:33 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Tony Duell wrote:
But DEC had their own meaning for
'microprocessor' to mean a 'microcoded
control system'. I seem to remember that the control logic of a VT52 and
that of the DMC11, etc are called 'microprocessors' in the DEC manuals,
for all the are built from lots of MSI chips, and there's nothing that
the rest of the world would call a microprocessor (a chip such as a Z80,
6800, 8080, 6502, etc)
IBM used that definition as well. The "PALM" (Put All Logic in
Microcode) board-level processor of the IBM 5100 Portable Computer,
introduced in 1975, was referred to as a microprocessor. It was
implemented primarily from IBM's "Duchess" TTL gate arrays, containing
up to 134 gates each.
7:56 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Tony Duell wrote:
Interesting... I wonder if it was an industry-standard term at the time...
I am tryingf to remember what HP called the control logic board in an
9800 calculator. I can rememebr the part number (09810-66513), but I
don't have the boardswapper guid (why would I need it) that would give
the name. But the term 'microproceesor' seems to ring a bell...
-tony
But DEC had their own meaning for
'microprocessor' to mean a 'microcoded
control system'. I seem to remember that the control logic of a VT52 and
that of the DMC11, etc are called 'microprocessors' in the DEC manuals,
for all the are built from lots of MSI chips, and there's nothing that
the rest of the world would call a microprocessor (a chip such as a Z80,
6800, 8080, 6502, etc)
IBM used that definition as well. The "PALM" (Put All Logic in
21 Aug
21 Aug
12:03 a.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Eric Smith wrote:
Ahem. (Nitpickiness ahead)
I believe that gate array isn't called "Duchess". It's called
"Dutchess", for the county where I live, and where IBM Poughkeepsie and
East Fishkill plants (previously among others) can (could) be found.
Peace... Sridhar
But DEC had
their own meaning for 'microprocessor' to mean a 'microcoded
control system'. I seem to remember that the control logic of a VT52 and
that of the DMC11, etc are called 'microprocessors' in the DEC manuals,
for all the are built from lots of MSI chips, and there's nothing that
the rest of the world would call a microprocessor (a chip such as a Z80,
6800, 8080, 6502, etc)
IBM used that definition as well. The "PALM" (Put All Logic in
Microcode) board-level processor of the IBM 5100 Portable Computer,
introduced in 1975, was referred to as a microprocessor. It was
implemented primarily from IBM's "Duchess" TTL gate arrays, containing
up to 134 gates each.
3:05 a.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
I wrote:
IBM 5100 Portable Computer [...] implemented primarily
from
IBM's "Duchess" TTL gate arrays, containing up to 134 gates each.
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I believe that gate array isn't called
"Duchess". It's called
"Dutchess",
Sorry, I had to save up some "t"s for the immediately following
"TTL".
Eric
20 Aug
20 Aug
8:41 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Tony Duell wrote:
Heh! After looking at hp9830.com for just a bit, I think I see your
problem. There are some really interesting turns of phrase on that page
using forms of the words "calculate" and "compute" in the same
sentence.
Gotta go read that site in more detail when I have a chance. You'd
mentioned it enough times I just had to google and see what it was.
Looks like a quite fascinating machine! I'd love to try lunar lander on
one.
Later,
Charlie C.
On Fri, Aug
20, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
OK :-)
But DEC had their own meaning for 'microprocessor' to mean a 'microcoded
control system'. I seem to remember that the control logic of a VT52 and
that of the DMC11, etc are called 'microprocessors' in the DEC manuals,
for all the are built from lots of MSI chips, and there's nothing that
the rest of the world would call a microprocessor (a chip such as a Z80,
6800, 8080, 6502, etc)
And I've still not worked out what to class the HP9830 as ;-)
-tony
What do you consider the DPP11/23 and PDP11/73 to
be? (Remember the CPU is
a small number of custom LSI chips).
Never fear, the DEC marketing crowd "fixed" that one too, they were
"Supermicrosystems", as per the handbook (1986) which covered the MicroVAX
I,II, Micro PDP11/23,73,83.
21 Aug
21 Aug
8:36 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Heh! After looking at hp9830.com for just a bit, I
think I see your
problem. There are some really interesting turns of phrase on that page
The HP9830 was marketted as a 'calculator', but IMHO it was full-blwon
computer. It has a QWERTY keybaord, an alphanumeric display (albeit one
line of 32 characters, which is a 'window' onto a 96 character logical
line IIRC), and programs in BASIC.
I find it to be an interesting machine. It's certainly a candidate for
the title 'first personal computer' in that it is an all-in-one desktop
machine with ROM BASIC. Put it on a desk, plug it into the mains, turn it
on and start typing BASIC. Pretty amazing for 1973.
As I mentioned earlier, the processor is mostly simple logic chips with a
few ROMs (micorocede and ALU tables). The rest of the machins is also
mostly stnadard chips, the only custom parts are ROMs -- those are very
custom, not just in the programming, but also the decices themeselves
which are HP 512 byte parts (IIRC the chip is 2 256 byte halves, which
can be donded out as either a 512*8 or a 256*16 device -- the 256*16
state machine ROM in, e.g. the 59309 digital clock is one of those).
Anyway, the ROMs are sufficiently odd that replacing them with more
modern parts is non-trivial. The RAMs are standard -- Intel 1103s -- but
now very hard to find. But the machine is otherwise very repairable.
Of course being HP of that period it's very well made and pleasant to
work on.
Bit serial machines are not common anyway, which makes this one
moderately interesting...
using forms of the words "calculate" and
"compute" in the same sentence.
Gotta go read that site in more detail when I have a chance. You'd
mentioned it enough times I just had to google and see what it was.
Looks like a quite fascinating machine! I'd love to try lunar lander on
one.
I don't rememebr a lunar lander for it (there's a very famous one for the
DEC GT40 terminal...), but anyway.
There is some information on the 9830 on http://www.hpmuseum.org/ and
rather more (including downloadable user and service manuals, scheamtics,
etc) on http://www.hpmuseum.net/
-tony
23 Aug
23 Aug
4:06 a.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Tony Duell wrote:
The only reason I think there is one is that the web site page at
http://hp9830.com/hp9830-lander.html is supposed to be a listing of the
program. I know you don't do a lot of web stuff, so if it would be of
any interest to you I think I could copy and paste it into a plain .txt
file and email that to you as an (off list) email attachment. Just let
me know if you would like me to do that. From some of the text at the
top of the page, I think it may need an attached plotter of some sort.
Later,
Charlie C.
--
obfuscatecsquared3 at tx dot rr dot com dot invalid
To email me, eradicate obfuscate and remove dot invalid.
Heh! After
looking at hp9830.com for just a bit, I think I see your
problem. There are some really interesting turns of phrase on that page
The HP9830 was marketted as a 'calculator', but IMHO it was full-blwon
computer. It has a QWERTY keybaord, an alphanumeric display (albeit one
line of 32 characters, which is a 'window' onto a 96 character logical
line IIRC), and programs in BASIC.
I find it to be an interesting machine. It's certainly a candidate for
the title 'first personal computer' in that it is an all-in-one desktop
machine with ROM BASIC. Put it on a desk, plug it into the mains, turn it
on and start typing BASIC. Pretty amazing for 1973.
As I mentioned earlier, the processor is mostly simple logic chips with a
few ROMs (micorocede and ALU tables). The rest of the machins is also
mostly stnadard chips, the only custom parts are ROMs -- those are very
custom, not just in the programming, but also the decices themeselves
which are HP 512 byte parts (IIRC the chip is 2 256 byte halves, which
can be donded out as either a 512*8 or a 256*16 device -- the 256*16
state machine ROM in, e.g. the 59309 digital clock is one of those).
Anyway, the ROMs are sufficiently odd that replacing them with more
modern parts is non-trivial. The RAMs are standard -- Intel 1103s -- but
now very hard to find. But the machine is otherwise very repairable.
Of course being HP of that period it's very well made and pleasant to
work on.
Bit serial machines are not common anyway, which makes this one
moderately interesting...
using forms of the words "calculate"
and "compute" in the same sentence.
Gotta go read that site in more detail when I have a chance. You'd
mentioned it enough times I just had to google and see what it was.
Looks like a quite fascinating machine! I'd love to try lunar lander on
one.
I don't rememebr a lunar lander for it (there's a very famous one for the
DEC GT40 terminal...), but anyway.
There is some information on the 9830 on
http://www.hpmuseum.org/ and
rather more (including downloadable user and service manuals, scheamtics,
etc) on http://www.hpmuseum.net/
-tony
6:10 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Looks like a quite fascinating machine! I'd love
to try lunar lander on
one.
I don't rememebr a lunar lander for it (there's a very famous one for the
DEC GT40 terminal...), but anyway.
http://hp9830.com/hp9830-lander.html is supposed to be
a listing of the
program. I know you don't do a lot of web stuff, so if it would be of
I will take a look. I assume it's in BASIC, and given that the
programming manuals and the manuals for the optional ROMs are available
it shouldn't be too hard to translate it to a more modern BASIC.
any interest to you I think I could copy and paste it
into a plain .txt
file and email that to you as an (off list) email attachment. Just let
me know if you would like me to do that. From some of the text at the
Thanks for the offer, but I'll try to look at the web site myself first ;-)
top of the page, I think it may need an attached
plotter of some sort.
That's entirely possible. The HP9862 plotter was commonly used with these
machines, and there was a 'plotter ROM' which added various statemetns to
the BASIC to control this plotter.
I have the plotter ROM, I have the interface module and cable for the
9862. What I don't have is the plotter itself, nor do I have the
'personality module' that would (I am told) make my much more recent
HP7225 ploter emulate a 9862. But the interface to the plotter is fairly
simple, and I suspect i could make something to conenct to the HP9830
interface. Might be a fun project sometime.
-tony
7:28 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
On 2010 Aug 23, at 11:10 AM, Tony Duell wrote:
The only reason I think there is one is that the web site page at
Oh, there quite probably was. The HP9830 is not a 'natural' for this
sort
of thing because there was no graphical output as standard. I suppose
you
could link up an HP1350 graphics translator (HPIB was available for the
9830 -- in fact I think it was the first desktop machine to have that
interface), but it wasn't a commonly-done thing.
The thermal line printer was a pretty standard piece of equipment with
the 9830, and it was a quick printer. One could do character-based
graphics with it.
In 1976 my high school had a 9830, it was the first machine I
programmed (still have the exercise program listings). At the same time
I was soldering up boards for a friend assembling an IMSAI. I recall
Lunar Lander from the day, and playing it on one or the other, but
couldn't say for sure which.
Looks like a
quite fascinating machine! I'd love to try lunar
lander on
one.
I don't rememebr a lunar lander for it (there's a very famous one
for the
DEC GT40 terminal...), but anyway.
On the otehr hand there were lunar lander games for
many of the HP
handheld calcualtors with 1-line numeric displays. Something like that
could certainly run on a 9830.
http://hp9830.com/hp9830-lander.html is supposed
to be a listing of
the
program. I know you don't do a lot of web stuff, so if it would be of
I will take a look. I assume it's in BASIC, and given that the
programming manuals and the manuals for the optional ROMs are available
it shouldn't be too hard to translate it to a more modern BASIC.
7:53 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
On 2010 Aug 23, at 11:10 AM, Tony Duell wrote:
Oh, there quite probably was. The HP9830 is not a 'natural' for this
sort
of thing because there was no graphical output as standard. I suppose
you
could link up an HP1350 graphics translator (HPIB was available for the
9830 -- in fact I think it was the first desktop machine to have that
interface), but it wasn't a commonly-done thing.
The thermal line printer was a pretty standard piece of equipment with
Indeed it was. It was the HP9866 (a -A, which is what I have was
upper-case only, a -B could do lower case as well). It has a 7 bit
parallel internface similar in concept to the Centronics interface but on
a 19-pin Mil-spec connector (I forget the type number). There were
interaces for this printer available for many HP machines (heck, it could
even be used with the 68K-based HP9000/200 series some 10 years later),
but the HP9830 had a built-in interface for it (possibly becasue there
was no built-in printer on this machine). The interface is a few logic
chips on the top of the I/O backplane, BTW.
The printer will sit on top of the 9830, and looks like part of the machine.
> Looks like a quite fascinating machine! I'd
love to try lunar
> lander on
> one.
I don't rememebr a lunar lander for it (there's a very famous one
for the
DEC GT40 terminal...), but anyway.
The only reason I think there is one is that the web site page at the 9830, and it was a quick printer. One could do
character-based
graphics with it.
But AFAIK no version of the 9866 allowed dot graphics (in fact I think
that would be impossible, as you suggest the 9866 had a fixed printhead
with some 400 heater elements (5 dot for each of 80 characters) and they
were not evenly spaced (to provide gaps between the characters).
Incidetnally, if anyone has one of these printers, thermal fax paper
works fine in them.
-tony
24 Aug
24 Aug
3:32 a.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Tony Duell wrote:
I will take a look. I assume it's in BASIC, and
given that the
Yes it is, sorry. It only consists of about 80 lines of code. Now
that
I look at it a bit more carefully, there are some calls to things like
SCALE, PLOT, CPLOT, etc. which are said to be included in the "plug-in
Plotter Control ROM". The text also specifies a plotter, though it does
not seem to mention a model number.
programming manuals and the manuals for the optional
ROMs are available
it shouldn't be too hard to translate it to a more modern BASIC.
I totally
agree. I think the calling parameters to the additional
plotter functions are pretty self explanatory. Since I am in the
process of trying to teach myself Visual Basic, maybe that would be a
good project to further my education.
Later,
Charlie C.
6:37 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Tony Duell wrote:
I've taken a look...
It looks like standard HP9830 BASIC, with commands from the plotter ROM.
The user manual for the plotter ROM is available from the Australian
museum site (http://www.hpmuseum.net/) as a .pdf file. That site is not
easy to find your way aroumd, I find the easiest thing to do is to follow
the 'documents' (or is it 'documentation', I forget, but it's pretty
clear)
link from the homepage and read down that list until you find the manual
you want/ The HP9830 plotter ROM is the HP11271 IIRC, so search the list
of manuals for that. It's pretty obvious...
It should then be fairly easy to traslate this program for another
machine. Whether or not you'd want to is another matter. Personally, I
enjoy some old games on the origjnal hardware, but see little interest on
them running on modern machines, or even under emulators. We know youcan
get much 'better' games on modern hardware, the fun is seeing what you
could do with a machine i nthe early 70's. But anyway...
I think there is an HP9830 emulator. Again, I've never run it (I doubt I
have anythign it would run on...). I suspect that would run the program...
-tony
I will take a look. I assume it's in BASIC,
and given that the
Yes it is, sorry. It only consists of about 80 lines of code.
Now that
I look at it a bit more carefully, there are some calls to things like
SCALE, PLOT, CPLOT, etc. which are said to be included in the "plug-in
Plotter Control ROM". The text also specifies a plotter, though it does
not seem to mention a model number. 
20 Aug
20 Aug
9 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
On 08/20/2010 01:43 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
Really they did!
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Tony Duell<ard
at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> What do you consider the DPP11/23 and PDP11/73 to be? (Remember the CPU is
>> a small number of custom LSI chips).
>>
>>
The F11 cpu was considered a microcomputer (PDP-11/23 cpu) as
are the first in that line the LSI-11, also J11, and T-11. That was
DECs designation.
However be careful as DEC systems could be mini or larger in scope built
with microprocessers. MicroVaxII is a an example as would be the
VAX6000.
Never fear,
the DEC marketing crowd "fixed" that one too, they were
"Supermicrosystems", as per the handbook (1986) which covered the MicroVAX
I,II, Micro PDP11/23,73,83.
OK :-)
But DEC had their own meaning for
'microprocessor' to mean a 'microcoded
control system'. I seem to remember that the control logic of a VT52 and
that of the DMC11, etc are called 'microprocessors' in the DEC manuals,
for all the are built from lots of MSI chips, and there's nothing that
the rest of the world would call a microprocessor (a chip such as a Z80,
6800, 8080, 6502, etc)
Ah, not quite. I say that as an ExDEC. There are two problems with
the statement one is when and how the terms were used. When is
very important as it was both the appearance of common use and
the application of it to DEC machines. The how is also the same
thing really but the actual application by others or adoption by marketing
In the early days about 1974 maybe a bit before, it usually implied
microcoded processor or state machine. VT52 never had a CPU
of any form it was all state machine in microcode and random logic.
The first DEC terminal with a CPU actually microcomputer was Vt100.
After the 8080 microprocessor tended to mean a cpu on one chip
or very few for example CDP1800/1801 a two chip predecessor
of the COSMAC CDP1802.
The whole mini- thing started in the exact time frame as the
appearance in the USA of the embarrassing short skirts aptly
named miniskirts. It was a magazine that connected PDP-8 with
mini-computer. It was about 1965-66 that computer packaging
to table top or desk side size was making relatively small machines
like the CDC160 and others. However the mini-attribution was not
assigned to the later generation about the time of the PDP-8i.
The PDP8 was a instruction and mostly compatible but improved
follow on to the all transistor PDP-5 (1963) but much larger than
the first version of the PDP-8 by a factor of three racks. Note the
PDP-5 was almost as large as the PDP1 but was aimed at lower
cost to buy and use.
Also when referring to the PDP-8 a specific machine and family
designation that reaches from 1965 to late 80s and includes
the -8, -8s, -8i, -8e and -8a as major varients of the same design.
However the 8e/f/m version with the Omnibus was the longest running
and highest volume member with the 8a also using he same bus.
The 8f was the smallest of the 8e family with a full front panel
but still having expansion space. The 8a was smaller but lacked
the traditional lights and switches panel.
The demarcation of mini and micro really started to happen in
the mid 70s with CPU on a chip (8080, 6800, 6502 et al).
From a point of view of say 1978.. we called them like this.
PDP-1 was most notable not for small but cheap (relatively) at
under 1,000,000$ (those are 1960 Dollars!).
PDP1 not really classed back then it was considered BIG
and big meant needs forklift to move.
PDP10 mainframe as we IBM 360/370 and Univac1108
PDP8 mini
PDP11 mini, as well as DG nova and CM2000,2100, 2200 series
*by 1972 the number of companies making distinct
machines in the 12/16 bit class was large.
LSI-11 was microcomputer
VAX11/780 first superminicomputer. VAX early on was the 32bit
next step from PDP11 and included compatability mode with PDP-11
to exploit the large pdp-11 base and it's migration to 32bit platform.
See:
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/alt.sys.pdp8/PDP-8_Frequently_Asked_Questions…
Allison
-tony
11:04 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of allison
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:00 PM
To: On-Topic Posts Only
Subject: Re: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as
minicomputer
[snip]
The PDP8 was a instruction and mostly compatible but improved
follow on to the all transistor PDP-5 (1963) but much larger than
the first version of the PDP-8 by a factor of three racks. Note the
PDP-5 was almost as large as the PDP1 but was aimed at lower
cost to buy and use.
[snip]
Allison
One thing I've read is that the PDP-5 was not originally intended to be a general
purpose computer, but rather sort of an I/O coprocessor for the PDP-4. Do you have any
direct knowledge of that assertion?
I also think it's interesting that the program counter in the -5 was originally
location 0 of core memory, requiring a minimum of a read-modify-write cycle for each and
every instruction.... -- Ian
21 Aug
21 Aug
4:13 a.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Allison wrote:
After the 8080 microprocessor tended to mean a cpu on
one chip
or very few for example CDP1800/1801 a two chip predecessor
of the COSMAC CDP1802.
The CDP1801 was the two-chip processor. There wasn't a CDP1800, though
that designation was used to refer to the entire series of chips.
The PDP8 was a instruction and mostly compatible but
improved
follow on to the all transistor PDP-5 (1963) but much larger than
the first version of the PDP-8 by a factor of three racks. Note the
PDP-5 was almost as large as the PDP1 but was aimed at lower
cost to buy and use.
I don't think one can reasonably claim that the PDP-5 was "almost as
large as the PDP-1", nor that it was "larger than the first version of
the PDP-8 by a factor of three racks".
The PDP-1 CPU, 4K of core memory, high-speed reader and punch, occupied
four racks. Reference: DEC Technical Bulletin F-17, "Programmed Data
Processor-1 Maintenance Manual", 1962, page 2-8:
"Dimensions, Standard PDP-1, Heighth 69 1/2 inches, Length 99 inches,
including 17-inc console desk, width 27 inches". Although the manual
also describes one of the four racks as containing "all controls and
standard input-output equipment" (p 2-2), that included the console and
logic necessary to the operation of the CPU, and was not separable.
The PDP-5 CPU and 1K or 4K of core memory occupied a single rack.
Reference: DEC document number F-57, "Programmed Data Processor-5
Maintenance Manual", October 1964, page 1-11: "The standard PDP-5 is
contained in a single DEC computer cabinet 60-1/8 inches high, 47 inches
wide, and 27-1/16 inches deep. A table 30 inches wide and 18 inches deep
is attached to the front of the cabinet." The 47 inch dimension is
actually the dimension perpendicular to the front panel. See figure 1-4
"component locations" and the section "Specifications", both on page
1-12.
The PDP-8 CPU and 4K of core memory occupied a single rack. Reference:
DEC document number F-87, "Programmed Data Processor-8 Maintenance
Manual", February 1966, "Physical Description" (page 1-11): "The
standard PDP-8 is designed for either table-top or cabinet mounting, as
specified by the customer. In the table-top configuration the computer
is a single unit 34-1/16 inches high, 21-1/2 inches wide, and 21-3/4
inches deep."
An expanded PDP-5 or PDP-8 might have two or more cabinets, but then an
expanded PDP-1 will have more than four cabinets.
In conclusion, the PDP-8 was about half the size of the PDP-5, and the
PDP-5 was about a quarter of the size of the PDP-1.
Eric
4:33 a.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
An interesting question comes to mind:
Are there any minicomputers that are currently produced? If so, what
makes them a minicomputer?
--Chuck
4:42 a.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Chuck wrote:
An interesting question comes to mind:
Are there any minicomputers that are currently produced?
IBM System p, which is a POWER7 platform integrating what was known as
System i, formerly known as iSeries, and before that, AS/400, which was
largely derived from the even earlier System/38.
If so, what makes them a minicomputer?
History? Or that it doesn't fit very well in either the minicomputer or
mainframe categories?
6:34 a.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
On 20 Aug 2010 at 22:42, Eric Smith wrote:
IBM System p, which is a POWER7 platform integrating
what was known as
System i, formerly known as iSeries, and before that, AS/400, which
was largely derived from the even earlier System/38.
Does IBM call it a minicomputer in its marketing literature? I'm
just wondering if the mainframe, mini and micro terms are vanishing.
After all, *everything* is a microcomputer nowadays, isn't it?
--Chuck
If so, what makes them a minicomputer?
History? Or that it doesn't fit very well in either the minicomputer
or mainframe categories?
6:51 a.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
On 2010 Aug 20, at 11:34 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 20 Aug 2010 at 22:42, Eric Smith wrote:
Well, I occasionally have to grit my teeth when I hear 'mainframe'
applied to more or less anything that is not a home/personal computer.
For the most part, from the lay perspective these days, it seems there
are just 'computers' (the thing on the table in front of you), and
'servers' (the thing at the other end of the ADSL/cable/phone/network
connection).
IBM System p, which is a POWER7 platform
integrating what was known as
System i, formerly known as iSeries, and before that, AS/400, which
was largely derived from the even earlier System/38.
Does IBM call it a minicomputer in its marketing literature? I'm
just wondering if the mainframe, mini and micro terms are vanishing.
After all, *everything* is a microcomputer nowadays, isn't it?
If so, what makes them a minicomputer?
History? Or that it doesn't fit very well in either the minicomputer
or mainframe categories?
5:40 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Brent Hilpert wrote:
Well, I occasionally have to grit my teeth when I hear
'mainframe'
applied to more or less anything that is not a home/personal computer.
particularly when it gets called a "main frame"
7:11 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
After all, *everything* is a microcomputer nowadays,
isn't it?
Pretty much, yes. I suppose the "youngest" mini architecture is the
RS/6000, since it originally was made of multiple gate arrays (seven
maybe?).
--
Will
7:49 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010, William Donzelli wrote:
Pretty much, yes. I suppose the "youngest"
mini architecture is the
RS/6000, since it originally was made of multiple gate arrays (seven
maybe?).
ISTR the RS/6000 (68000?) being called a microcomputer. But it was out of
my price range.
7:54 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Pretty much,
yes. I suppose the "youngest" mini architecture is the
RS/6000, since it originally was made of multiple gate arrays (seven
maybe?).
ISTR the RS/6000 (68000?) being called a microcomputer. But it was out of
my price range.
9:29 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
> ISTR the RS/6000 (68000?) being called a
microcomputer. But it was out of
> my price range.
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
RS/6000 is POWER.
Right
I don'tknow how I managed to conflate the RS/6000 with the CS-9000?
11:52 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010, William Donzelli wrote:
RS/6000 isn't 68k based. It's POWER-based. The "R" in
"RS/6000" stands
for "RISC".
Peace... Sridhar
Pretty much, yes. I suppose the
"youngest" mini architecture is the
RS/6000, since it originally was made of multiple gate arrays (seven
maybe?).
ISTR the RS/6000 (68000?) being called a microcomputer. But it was out of
my price range.
7:12 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Does IBM call it a minicomputer in its marketing
literature? I'm
just wondering if the mainframe, mini and micro terms are vanishing.
After all, *everything* is a microcomputer nowadays, isn't it?
There are still quite a few mainframes that I would have trouble calling
a microcomputer. Even the machines with multiple microprocessors
running in lock-step. The processor is the board with the multiple
microprocessors and the lock-stepping and result-comparison hardware.
Peace... Sridhar
10:45 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at gmail.com>wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
This time, Intel marketing to the rescue...
Does IBM call it a minicomputer in its marketing
literature? I'm
just wondering if the mainframe, mini and micro terms are vanishing.
After all, *everything* is a microcomputer nowadays, isn't it?
There are still quite a few mainframes that I would have trouble calling a
microcomputer. Even the machines with multiple microprocessors running in
lock-step. The processor is the board with the multiple microprocessors and
the lock-stepping and result-comparison hardware.
From Intel 432 System Summary; Manager's
Perspective, 1981
"The Intel 432 is a microcomputer family.", first line, page 1.
and later from page 2:
"The goal of the 432 is to significantly reduce the life-cycle costs of
complex microcomputer applications. Toward this end, the 432 introduces a
new computer technology, an integrated system of hardware, software and
methodology. The technology of the 432 preserves the traditional
microprocessor virtues of low cost, small physical size and low power
consumption. Like a mainframe family, it offers a 32-bit architecture and
spans a range of performance. In other important ways, the 432 resembles no
computer of the past. Considered as a whole, its new technology constitutes
a breakthrough in computer system design. To emphasize that this technology
is inadequately described by conventional computer 'classifications,' the
Intel 432 is called the Micromainframe family."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_iAPX_432
You can just tell they were excited about this product.
cheers,
nigel (self appointed #2 iAPX 432 fanboi, after Eric Smith, titular #1
fanboi)
8:41 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
Never fear, the DEC marketing crowd "fixed"
that one too, they were
"Supermicrosystems", as per the handbook (1986) which covered the MicroVAX
I,II, Micro PDP11/23,73,83.
OK :-)
In the early days about 1974 maybe a bit before, it
usually implied
microcoded processor or state machine. VT52 never had a CPU
That makes sense..
FWWI, I did look in the HP9830 'service' manual. The CPU control board --
the board containing the microcode ROMs, serquencer, etc is refered to as
the 'micro-processosr' by HP. Perhaps the hyphen makes a difference :-)
of any form it was all state machine in microcode and
random logic.
Just as the defintions of mainframe, minicomputer, and microcomputer are
somewhat blurred, I find it very hard to put a dividing line betwee
'state machine' and 'processor' :-)
-tony
21 Aug
21 Aug
8:50 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Tony Duell wrote:
Certainly not. It's clearly closely related to the HP9810, HP9820 and
HP9821 calculators
Ther HP9810 is a 3-level stack RPN calculator, designed to replace the
9100. It displays all 3 stack levels on 7-segment LED displays, with a
similar digit size ot those used in early HP handheld machines (they are
not quite the same dispalys, the pin bending is different IIRC).
The HP9920 is an algerbraic-notation calculator with a 1 line 16
character alphanumeric display
Both these machines use magnetic cards for storage and have a built-in
card reader. And space for an optional thermal printer (that seems to be
almost always ftited). They only have the simple functions (+,-,*,/,sqrt
IIRC, but are user-programamble. There are optional ROM modules to add
other functions -- the 'maths' ROM, adding SIN/COS/TAN, etc is farily common.
As I mentioned in another message, the 9830 is a BASIC-programmed
computer/ It uses tape cassettes for storage, and has a built-in
interface for the 9866 thermal printer (there is no internal printer).
The HP9821 -- the only model in the range that I don't own (and in fact
have never seen) is essentally an HP9820 with a tape drive rather than
the card reader. It can take the internal thermal printer IRIC.
All these machines use the same bit-serial 16 bit processor board set
with the same microcode/ So I think they're closely related.
-tony
And I've still not worked out what to class
the HP9830 as ;-)
I thought that you had already established that
as being in a class by itself. 
18 Aug
18 Aug
6:48 p.m.
New subject: Origin of the term minicomputer (was Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer [wasRE: OT - sort of])
>> But it all depends on how you define
"minicomputer" as to what
>> specifically falls in the category.
>
> Who originally created the term? marketing??
Dunno if it's correct, but I was always taught in compsci classes at UMR
that the definition of micro/mini/mainframe was technical and precise and
that any misuse of the categorization was an attempt by marketing people to
make their system look more attractive, or users who didn't understand the
terminology. I suspect the teacher was being a bit too precise. Anyways,
their definition was that a micro was a computer on a single chip, a mini
was a computer on multiple chips or boads, and that a mainframe was
"something larger", with multiple chassis making up the cpu itself.
I always thought that was a fair description, but of course I can already
find (what I feel are) some exceptions to it :)
Jay
17 Aug
17 Aug
8:37 p.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
--- On Tue, 8/17/10, Rich Alderson <RichA at vulcan.com> wrote:
Arguing that anything before the PDP-8 was a
"minicomputer"
is revisionism.
IMAO.
The PDP-8 is probably as good a place as any to demarcate the
beginnings of the minicomputer. It was apparently the machine
for which the term "minicomputer" was coined. Prior to the
PDP-8, however, there was a recognizable class of "small"
scientifically-oriented computers with shorter word lengths
than their mainframe-class brethren, lower cost, and typically
used in small configurations, e.g., SDS 910/920, 3C DDP-24,
DEC-PDP1/PDP4, and even smaller serial-memory machines like
the Recomp II, Packard-Bell 250, Bendix G-15, and the LGP-30.
--Bill
20 Aug
20 Aug
5:47 a.m.
New subject: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
The story I heard, whilst working at DEC, was that somebody in engineering
took a holiday in the UK. When he came back and was asked what it was like.
He talked about mini cars and mini skirts. Somebody else said 'any mini
computers? 'No' came the reply 'but we could call our new small system a
minicomputer I guess.'
Regards
?
Rod Smallwood
?
?????ANSI X12 - EANCOM - TRADACOMS
?
EDI Consulting Ltd
?
Phone? 0118 971 4436
Email?? rodsmallwood at btconnect.com
?
-----Original Message-----
From: cctech-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctech-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of William Maddox
Sent: 17 August 2010 21:38
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: PDP-1 as minicomputer [was RE: OT - sort of]
--- On Tue, 8/17/10, Rich Alderson <RichA at vulcan.com> wrote:
Arguing that anything before the PDP-8 was a
"minicomputer"
is revisionism.
IMAO.
The PDP-8 is probably as good a place as any to demarcate the
beginnings of the minicomputer. It was apparently the machine
for which the term "minicomputer" was coined. Prior to the
PDP-8, however, there was a recognizable class of "small"
scientifically-oriented computers with shorter word lengths
than their mainframe-class brethren, lower cost, and typically
used in small configurations, e.g., SDS 910/920, 3C DDP-24,
DEC-PDP1/PDP4, and even smaller serial-memory machines like
the Recomp II, Packard-Bell 250, Bendix G-15, and the LGP-30.
--Bill
5241
days inactive
5256
days old
115 comments
32 participants
participants (32)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
ajp166＠verizon.net -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bruce＠Wild-Hare.com -
cc＠informatik.uni-stuttgart.de -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
csquared3＠tx.rr.com -
dkelvey＠hotmail.com -
doc＠vaxen.net -
drb＠msu.edu -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
hilpert＠cs.ubc.ca -
IanK＠vulcan.com -
jbmcb1＠gmail.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
jws＠jwsss.com -
legalize＠xmission.com -
lproven＠gmail.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
nigel.d.williams＠gmail.com -
oltmansg＠bellsouth.net -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
RichA＠vulcan.com -
rodsmallwood＠btconnect.com -
shumaker＠att.net -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com -
wmaddox＠pacbell.net