On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
> computer. We all know that *all* of the earliest cheap machines were
> based on Intel CPUs. This wasn't an accident, and nothing would change
Does "we" include anyone outside of "Doug Yowza"? I'd hate to be included
in the group of people that would accept this fallacy.
What about...
...the KIM-1? (1976, 6502)
...the JOLT? (1975, 6502)
...the COSMAC ELF? (1975)
...the SWTPc 6800? (1975, 6800)
If I didn't kill all those brain cells last night I'd be able to come up
with many, many more that were NOT Intel-based machines.
(You made this one too easy for me.)
> this fact if, say, TI engineers had actually produced a microprocessor
> before Intel. The important "firsts" in documenting the personal computer
> revolution are commercialization, availability, and price.
That certainly doesn't tell the whole story. The only thing this type of
historical "documentation" serves is a company's marketing efforts.
> I'm not denying that Holt produced a CPU, and it may be important in the
> history of military computers. It is irrelevant in the history of the
> personal computer unless there was a personal computer designed that
> included it or a direct descendant.
I never argued that it was influential in the narrow realm of the history
of the personal computer. I'm arguing that it has significance on its own
merits, and also in the fact that if it had been commercialized, it would
have advanced the development of subsequent microprocessors by five years
(in the estimates of one reviewer, but probably a reasonable assessment).
I think what's relevant is that if you took the 4004, the best that Intel
could produce at the time (1971) and chained 16 of them together, they
still could not even begin to perform at the levels that the CADC had to,
and certainly not within the space, power and temperature limitations
imposed on the product. The CADC shows that much more was possible than
was previously believed for that early era in microprocessor history.
That's significant, and relevant.
> The HP9830 is a historical footnote. It's more relevant than a military
> computer because there is documented evidence of the HP influence on early
> Apple machines, and the significance of the Apple machines are clear.
> There is also evidence that suggests that HP thought about and discounted
> the idea of selling the 9830 to a wider audience. To me, this makes it a
I agree with you there.
> pretty interesting footnote. If it had been created in a vacuum and Woz
> had worked at IBM instead of HP, it would be a lesser footnote, something
> like the MCM machine you mentioned.
How can you consider the MCM a "lesser footnote" than the 9830, when IBM
would have never even produced the 5100 if they didn't view the MCM-70 as
a threat to one of their markets? In that regard, and taking into
consideration the fact that the 5100 was thought to be the first portable*
machine to integrate a display, keyboard and storage device (extremely
significant in the history of portables no less), I think the MCM-70 is a
far greater footnote than the 9830.
* marketed specifically as a portable, unlike the 9830.
> I think it's great that Holt got his story out. Footnotes always add
> depth, but no chapters need to be rewritten.
I don't think chapters need to be re-written either. A whole NEW chapter
needs to be added.
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar_at_siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See
http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
Received on Wed Oct 07 1998 - 11:20:18 BST