On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
> > ...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.
Oh please. You're saying that none of those machines would have happened
without the Altair? What do you define as the "first wave of cheap
computers"? The week that the Altair came out? All the computers I
mentioned were within a year of the first production model of the Altair.
Altair or not, they would have still been created.
Are you also implying none of those processors would have happened without
the Intel 4004? That's an incredibly narrow review of the history of the
development of microprocessors. As I've stated before, the Intel 4004 was
nothing amazing. Efforts were already under way (concurrently) by other
companies to develop a "microprocessor". TI and AMI were just a couple.
Intel just happened to be one of the first that coupled their technology
with good marketing.
Your sense of "history" seems to be narrowly focused on only what you've
read, and does not at all reflect a comprehensive study of what actually
took place. I'm not claiming to be all-knowing about what happened back
in the early 70s with regard to microprocessor technology and
microcomputer development, but I can tell that I have a greater
understanding of what was really going on back then. I take my knowledge
from first-hand sources who lived it.
If you pay attention, you'll notice some of those first-hand sources
sharing this first-hand information on the list occasionally.
> > 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.
Oh, I get it! Intel's version of the events constitutes the WHOLE story,
and all those "other guys" were silly and insignificant operations that
made NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the progress of personal computing. Give me
a break.
> > 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.
That's how YOU are interpreting my actions. I'm simply trying to explain
to you why the F14 CADC is significant on its own merits, and you're
trying to (unsuccessfully) convince me its not terribly worthy of note.
Intel did a good enough job entrenching their version of history in the
public record, and no manner of arguing on my part will change that, and
in fact, that is not my goal. I'm simply trying to promote the notion
that there is more to this story than just "Intel creates the 4004", which
is what you seem to be stuck on. The next time we get together I'll have
to bring all the notes, articles and documentation I've collected from the
1971-1974 timeframe that demonstrates that there was much more going on
than just Intel and their 4004, and that these other efforts had a far
greater collective influence on the evolution of microprocessors than just
the 4004 alone.
> > 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.
Not at all. They were both LSI processors. A comparison is appropriate.
Yes they had different requirements and applications, but my point was to
refute your argument that the CADC was insignificant in the history of the
development of microprocessors simply because it was not subsequently
commercialized. As I proffered above, the CADC demonstrates that the
possibilities were far greater than what the 4004 presented. The intent
is not to diminish the importance of the 4004 at all, but to simply bring
to awareness that the state of the art had not been pushed to its outer
bounds with the 4004. I believe this is important to note, especially in
a historical context in which one is arguing that an advancement in the
state of the art occurred, which it clearly did not with the 4004.
Your argument seems to be centered on commercial success, in which case
you are giving the 4004 too much credit, since that did not occur until
much later on with the 8080, the 6800 and the 6502.
> 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.
Well, you're not paying attention to what I'm saying, and are instead
trying to characterize my discourse on this subject in your own highly
inflexible presuppositions. It's somewhat insulting.
You've ignored all the references I've made to Ray's accomplishments at
AMI, which is the company he went on to after the F14 project to create
two more microprocessors (AMI7200 and AMI7300), and these creations, based
in part upon his successful CADC design, certainly had an impact on the
state of the art, not to mention the many other efforts going on at the
same time by at least three other companies. These efforts were the early
formation of what was to eventually become the microcomputer industry.
Assigning Intel all the credit for virtually creating the industry is
absurd. It certainly was not obvious back then that Intel would be
grossing $21billion in 1998 and have a virtual monopoly on personal
computing electronics. It was anyone's game. But perhaps I'm assuming
you've studied the history, which doesn't seem to be the case.
And in your defense, I have not offered much in the way of Holt's later
work that included developing the training course for the Intel 4004,
publication of the first microcomputer journal (_The Microcomputer
Digest_), his JOLT, his VIM-1 (later SYM-1) and the prototype computer he
provided to Radio Shack that quite possibly became the TRS-80, all of
which would bolster my argument that the CADC carries tremendous
significance, being his first work and therefore certainly providing some
amount of influence on the designs of his subsequent work.
> 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
Since when is promoting the facts of the past "spin"? Unless you mean
anything that doesn't fit into your narrow historical view is spin?
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 - 19:22:36 BST