Corrections to trivia

From: Sam Ismail <dastar_at_ncal.verio.com>
Date: Wed Oct 7 23:51:31 1998

On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Micral, Mark-8, Scelbi 8H were the first wave. I don't know of any 4004
> micros other than the MCS-4, but I doubt it was especially cheap or widely
> available compared to some of the others, and compared especially to the
> computers that came before.

Ok, I can add the Kenbak-1 to your list and it would be just as irrelevant
as the three you just listed. You just named three computers that barely
made a scratch on the microcomputer industry. The Micral was never sold
outside of France and very few units were sold anyway, so had limited if
any impact on the industry on the whole. The Scelbi-8H sold in limited
numbers and was effectively a failure and the Mark-8 was a magazine
project. I don't see how these examples, however significant on their
own merits (which they definitely are!) support your original argument.

> We have no way of knowing what *would* have happened if Intel hadn't
> invented the 4004 or if MITS hadn't invented the Altair, all we know is
> what *did* happen.

We would have had microprocessor-based computers on our desktop today.
The trend was definitely heading in that direction. Intel merely was in
the right place at the right time. There still would have been a Lee
Felsenstein, a Steve Wozniak and a Ray Holt.

> You seem to be saying the the F14 computer could have been important if
> several events which didn't happen would have happended and if several
> events which did happen hadn't -- that's pointless pseudo-revision.

I'm not saying it could have, I'm saying it WAS and IS. The F14 CADC
happened (independently and prior to the 4004). That is a fact. The
AMI7200 and AMI7300 happened. That is a fact. Several other
microprocessors from several other companies happened. That is a fact.
Even if Intel had never existed, we STILL would have had the microcomputer
revolution of around 1975, and today we would have microprocessor-based
computers on our desks and in our pockets. To speculate otherwise would
be absurd.

> > 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've never read Intel's versions of the events -- all I have to go on are
> artifacts. I'm not aware of any computer artifacts that support the idea
> that somebody else enabled cheap computers to be made before Intel did.

I don't have the Pyramids in my collection, so the Egyptians never built
them. I don't have the Nina, the Pinta or the Santa Maria in my
collection, so Columbus never "discovered America". I don't have an
Apollo rocket in my collection, so America never made it to the moon.

> If you're suggesting that Holt was somehow involved in a "race" or somehow
> influenced Intel to move when they did, that hasn't come through. Holt's
> F14 computer's influence on the microcomputer industry is still completely
> invisible to me. What am I missing? Where do I need to look to find this
> influence?

You seem to have this idea that Intel deliberately acted to create the
microcomputer industry, that they had this grand master scheme that would
culminate in the Altair 8800. This is simply not the case. Intel did
provide training and support to companies to use the 4004 in their
applications, but where is your evidence that they knew this would lead to
cheap computers?

The 4004 was just the first in the succession of many microprocessors from
many manufacturers. Why did the Mark-8 and Scelbi 8H designers choose the
8008? Who knows. What compelling evidence do you have that shows Intel
intended for the 8008 to end up in those computers? An equally important
question is what computers did the other microprocessors being developed
at the time end up in? They had to have gone into something. Just
because you don't have those in your collection, does not mean they were
not built.

> > 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.
>
> Not at all. I'm focusing completely on your argument that Holt did
> something important "first." Your whole argument seems to center on a
> fairly unimportant part of the meaning of the word "microprocessor".

I don't see how that relates to the argument this has evolved into. The
F14 CADC was a microprocessor, arguably a single-chip CPU, that came
before the 4004. That is fact. The first microprocessor was a
significant milestone, whether it ended up evolving into what's on our
desk today or not. Whether the Holt SLF was a "microprocessor" like the
4004 was a year later is obviously hotly contested for many different
reasons. But the fact remains, it exists and was an amazing acheivement.
Accept this and separate it from the rest of your argument and we're
halfway to agreement.

> Let's say that the word "microprocessor" was never coined and that Intel
> just created a CPU called the 4004 that begat the 8008, 8080, Pentium,
> etc. That would seem to completely destroy the relevance of the F14
> computer as far as microcomputers are concerned, but it does nothing to
> deminish the importance of the 4004.

I've never denied the relevance and significance of Intel processors in
the evolution of microcomputers! That is indisputable! The 4004 is
significant as being the first Intel processor that the later 8080 can
trace its lineage to. Fine. But now you seem to be arguing a point that
was never an issue when this debate started. I never argued that the F14
had a direct influence on the subsequent design of microcomputers.
However, it certainly did have an indirect influence which manifested
itself in Holt's later designs that I have outlined previously. You don't
want to acknolwedge this, even though there are examples of this influence
that you can add to your collection (which you need to so heavily rely
upon). I can take your argument above and turn it around, saying that if
Intel had never created a microprocessor there would still have been a
microcomputer revolution.

What I'm trying to say is that this revolution would have happened with or
without Intel, and assigning them all the credit for creating this
industry, or making it possible, or even influencing it is credit not
entirely deserved.

Intel came out the winners; they wanted it the most. But it would have
happened with or without them. You had the 6800, the 6502 and a whole
slew of others. The computers built around those processors were just as
relevant and would have happened anyway.

As it is, Intel scored the most points. I cede that point to you.

> Nobody doubts that computers existed before Intel came along, or that LSI
> was being done by others at the same time or even earlier, but to focus on
> an LSI-based computer that came before the 4004 is to completely miss the
> importance of the 4004. LSI was just a means to an end: cheap computers.
> How much did the F14's computer cost, BTW?

I want to say less than $100 per computer but I think it was actually less
than $100 per chip. Still, that would put it at $600 at the most for the
whole system (6 chips total in the F14 CADC).

As far as focusing on the CADC, as I said, I am doing so ON ITS OWN
MERITS, regardless of the 4004, which has its own significance and merits.
But my point in comparing the two is still valid: the 4004, in light of
the CADC, was not technically significant. I have been arguing this point
(technical significance) all along, and you have been confusing this with
overall historical significance. And I have attempted to show that the
CADC does have relevance to later microcomputers in the form of the work
Ray went on to produce.

> At no point did I mention Intel's long-term success. This discussion all
> along has been about the Big Bang that led eventually to cheap computers
> for all of us. My understanding is that you're saying that the F14
> computer was the Big Bang. Did I misunderstand you? I'm saying that the

Yes. See above.

> 4004 was the Big Bang; that the dust from that explosion still bears the
> Intel imprint is interesting, but that's a different topic.

And I am still arguing that the 4004 was NOT the big bang. I don't want
to put my thumb (at this point) on which Intel product it was. But it may
not in fact even be an Intel product. It very well may be a combination
of products from multiple vendors. I haven't seen any conclusive
arguments to support the 4004 as being the big bang that started the
microcomputer revolution. It was a pop, just like the CADC was a pop.

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 - 23:51:31 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:31:25 BST