Corrections to trivia

From: Doug Yowza <yowza_at_yowza.com>
Date: Thu Oct 8 00:42:28 1998

On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:

> 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.

The Kenbak wasn't listed because it didn't use a microprocessor. The
others are considered the first generally available microcomputers,
regardless of how successful they were. I don't think it was a
coincidence that they all used Intel microprocessors.

> 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.

I've got a pyramid for you right here (obscene gesture follows)! It
doesn't have to be *my* artifact, I'd settle for anybody's artifact.
Point me to a generally available general purpose microcomputer that
appeared before all of the ones mentioned above and included a non-Intel
microprocessor.

> 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?

If Eric ever puts his MCS-4 manual up on the web, then you'll see an early
example of an Intel reference platform that shows that the 4004 and
support chips were aimed at exactly that! Even my copy of the MCS-8
manual shows several early design wins, and they even called them
microcomputers back then (before the Micral was out). I've mentioned
these machines on the list before, but I've already forgotten their names
(because I don't have any of them).

> 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).

Is this documented? I'm shocked. They must have produced a bunch of
F14's for the price to have been that low!

> 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

If the F14 computer was really as cheap as you say, then you're right.
I'm sure Intel had a gate budget and a price point they were shooting for,
so if those two parameters are similar for both designs, you've got a
point. Otherwise, you can't judge the "technical significance" of the
4004 by comparing it to, say, a special purpose computer with different
design goals and silicon budgets.

So, what was the gate count for the single-chip F14 CPU? What was the
process? How much silicon did it use? And double-check that price!

-- Doug
Received on Thu Oct 08 1998 - 00:42:28 BST