< > Micral, Mark-8, Scelbi 8H were the first wave. I don't know of any 40
< > micros other than the MCS-4, but I doubt it was especially cheap or wi
< > available compared to some of the others, and compared especially to t
< > computers that came before.
<
< Ok, I can add the Kenbak-1 to your list and it would be just as irreleva
< as the three you just listed. You just named three computers that barel
Ok then how about mords/modules manufactured and sold with 8008s on them
like the Control Logic L series (there weren't the only ones) for use in
industrial controls. Their cost was not that far off the mark when
compared to an altair with 4k and a PIO.
< We would have had microprocessor-based computers on our desktop today.
< The trend was definitely heading in that direction. Intel merely was i
< the right place at the right time. There still would have been a Lee
< Felsenstein, a Steve Wozniak and a Ray Holt.
And a slew of others. Altair was not a big bang, it was however a
marker or milestone that had to happen if not to MITS then some one else.
I would also contend that if at least two other vendors didn't jump on
S100 in less than 6 months the Altair would be far more obscure.
< 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 microcomput
< revolution of around 1975, and today we would have microprocessor-based
< computers on our desks and in our pockets. To speculate otherwise woul
< be absurd.
The CADC itself was of little direct impact as we never saw it. The
processing, design steps and process experience however were critical to
whoever made them as they gained valuable foundry experience and could
apply that to the next product. Also, since Ray Holt didn't do it alone
there wer a slew of people that also gained experience they could apply
to thing like calculator chips and maybe even the 4004. This makes it
easier to create the next product and also possible to do it less
expensively.
< 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
Technically he didn't. He discoverd the Caribian islands. BUT, by not
falling off the flat earth and finding something out there others would
come and actually touch the Amrican contenents.
< Apollo rocket in my collection, so America never made it to the moon.
Still, it's possible to go and see one. FYI: the rocket was Saturn, the
command module was known as Apollo .
< You seem to have this idea that Intel deliberately acted to create the
< microcomputer industry, that they had this grand master scheme that woul
< 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
< cheap computers?
Their advert in November 1971 electronic news. A quote:
A micro-programable computer on a chip!
Intel Introduced an integreated CPU complete with a 4-but
parallel adder, sixteen 4-bit registers, an accumulator
and a push down stack on one chip. It is one of a family
of four new ICs which comprize the MCS-4 Micro
computer system - the first system to bring you the
power and flexibility of a dedicate general-purpose
computer at low cost in as few as two dual in-line
packages.
Seems they were aimed squarely at the low cost market. They would
introduce the 8008 and 8080 in the same ways.
< The 4004 was just the first in the succession of many microprocessors fr
< many manufacturers. Why did the Mark-8 and Scelbi 8H designers choose t
< 8008? Who knows. What compelling evidence do you have that shows Inte
< intended for the 8008 to end up in those computers? An equally importan
< question is what computers did the other microprocessors being develope
< 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 wer
< not built.
Likely for the same reson I used the 8008 the first time. Intel was
visible and advertized. When I helped pick the 8008 in late '72 I could
point to a working board (MCS-8) and docs to help us newbies. We used
what we knew about and at 200$US each they weren't cheap at all but it
was better than 200 pieces of TTL that had to be wired and tested.
So the Mark-8 Etal had the precedence of visible advertizing, Docs and
availability.
An aside , the docs part was not lost on moto! You could get the 6800
cheap enough and for 25$ more you could get a thick volume of hardware
and software knowlege that made using it easy.
< What I'm trying to say is that this revolution would have happened with
< 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.
What is missed and not mentioned is the small details. INTEL created the
4004 becuase they didn't want another fixed function calculator chip for
only one vendor. This ment they could mass make it and sell to everyone
with higher profit. The 4004 was significant as it had a hardware return
address stack. There are things there that did seperate the micro
computers that would result from the minicomputers that were before.
< > importance of the 4004. LSI was just a means to an end: cheap compute
< > How much did the F14's computer cost, BTW?
<
< I want to say less than $100 per computer but I think it was actually le
< than $100 per chip. Still, that would put it at $600 at the most for th
< whole system (6 chips total in the F14 CADC).
Some perspective... in mil spec design, construction and testing made
it likely several thousand $$$. Even if it were 10k$ per it was cheap
compared to available processors of the time and none fit in that form
factor.
Also the 4004 was *relatively* cheap but the amortized development cost
were still significant and have to be include to be fair.
< > 4004 was the Big Bang; that the dust from that explosion still bears t
< > 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 wan
< to put my thumb (at this point) on which Intel product it was. But it m
< not in fact even be an Intel product. It very well may be a combinatio
< 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.
I'd say there is some reality there. The big bangs were those that would
hit the media and cause ripples down the line.
Using that line of thought... the CPU chip was not the big bang but the
catalyst for the explosion. IE: Altair was not significant due to the
8080 but that it was first of class and more importantly COPIED. Name
one other machine/bus before ALTAIR that would be copied widely and
competitively within one year of introduction!?!
I will add that I doubt Intel saw it as a serious opportunity to sell
chips until after the Pop'tronics cover hit the stands. Reason it would
be little while before the hobby (we were called that) market would be
taken seriously and semiconductor vendors would see the potential of the
early edge of the personal computer/ small desktop computer industry.
That got DEC, IBM and DGs attention though none were sure of what to make
of it. The fact of it was by 1978 there was no question that there wer
more microcomputers (or various types) than all of IBM, DEC and DGs output
to date!
It was the Volkswagons of the computer industry. Tin Lizzie, Ha!
Allison
Received on Thu Oct 08 1998 - 11:29:25 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:31:25 BST