Corrections to trivia

From: Doug Yowza <yowza_at_yowza.com>
Date: Wed Oct 7 14:05:30 1998

On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:

> 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
[...]
> What about...
> ...the KIM-1? (1976, 6502)
> ...the JOLT? (1975, 6502)
> ...the COSMAC ELF? (1975)
> ...the SWTPc 6800? (1975, 6800

Now you're just being disingenuous. Why stop there, keep going and
include the DEC Alpha in your extended definition of earliest. None of
these machines were in the first wave of cheap computers. These all
folowed the Altair, which started the second wave in 1975 using a thrid
generation Intel microprocessor, the 8080.

> That certainly doesn't tell the whole story. The only thing this type of
> historical "documentation" serves is a company's marketing efforts.

If you extend "marketing" to mean product definition, foundry capability,
price structure, excellent documentation (by trivia-inspiring Adam
Osborne, no less), support chip availability, reference platform
availability, training, etc., then you're getting closer to the truth.
Intel made a concerted effort to make microcomputers happen. Others
followed. If somebody else did *that* first, it would be very
interesting to know about.

> 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).

By comparing it to the Intel 4004, and trying specifically to displace the
4004 from its position of "glory" as the first microprocessor, and
complaining that microprocessor history is simply corporate marketing and
press releases, you sure seem to be doing more than simply promoting the
F14 chip(s) on their own merit.

> 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.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The products had vastly different
requirements, vastly different applications, and shouldn't be directly
compared. It's like trying to diminish the work of Henry Ford because
somebody built an airplane that was faster than the Model T six months
prior -- it's a non sequitur.

Now, if you have evidence of Holt's design or implementation or
manufacturing techniques or even evangelical skills having impact on the
industry we all know and love, that would be good stuff for history of the
microcomputer. If you're simply saying that he produced a cool computer
for the Air Force and it allowed planes to fly cheaper faster and better,
then that's cool too, but it's not how you're framing this as I see it.

I don't have trouble with his accomplishments, I have trouble with your
spin. (Although it was a brilliant publicity vehicle for VCF, and you
should be applauded for that, and perhaps offered a position in the White
House.)

-- Doug
Received on Wed Oct 07 1998 - 14:05:30 BST