I'm sure everyone recongnizes that fact. What's important is getting past
that point, i.e. settling what the definition is going to be. In the case
of the early video cards, for the S-100, they weren't generally used as the
console interface. In fact I don't know of a graphics card that was, though
on toward '82-83 there were a few with some of the more "capable" graphics
support chips like the NEC 7220 or that "BIG" Hitachi graphics chip, though
I never saw one except at a trade show.
Some of these were pretty demanding applications which quickly pointed up
the weakness in using 8-bit computers for multi-plane graphics. They also
pointed up the fact that decent high resolution color monitors cost about as
much as a house . . . well, not quite, but you get the idea. If you bought
one, you'd better keep the box, because you'd need a place to live when your
wife found out . . .
In any case, the dual-console (text/graphics) model was the default.
The personal computer definition, IMHO, doesn't require that there be a
dedicated video circuit, but does require one be tolerant of it, at least at
the low end, because a lot of fairly potent "video-toy" types were pretty
weak-kneed computers, and thus were touted as being for home use. You might
say these were definitely personal, but you might also call their
characterization as computers into question.
I think it's a little shallow to quibble over whether the video was built in
or removable when the system wouldn't really do much without some sort of
video interface to effect the console function. As I recall, there was a
board by VIDEX (?) for the Apple-][ which allowed you to present an 80x24
console, but didn't support graphics. The normal Apple graphics could be
shown, though, by means of a separate monitor attached to the normal video
output.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard_at_p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, April 23, 1999 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: The "FIRST PC" and personal timelines (Was: And what were the
80s
>> The issue of "integral part" is different. I didn't mean that the S-100
>> machines had no video capability, I mean that it wasn't an integral part
of
>> the system because you had to install it. A manufacturer (like SOL? I
>> think) might install the video for you and sell the result as a
package --
>> that's an interesting borderline case. But S-100 is clearly different
from
>> a single board (like the Apple ][ motherboard) in which the video
circuitry
>> can't be easily changed or removed.
>
>You do realise that this definition implies that the IBM PC is not a
>'personal computer' :-). On all the 'classic' IBM PC-family machines, and
>on a lot of clones, the video system was an _optional_ plug-in card. I
>think there's even a way to configure machines without a video card if
>you're clever...
>
>-tony
>
Received on Fri Apr 23 1999 - 19:56:38 BST