Computers and other hardware containing the 8008 microprocessor

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Thu Nov 11 12:08:42 1999

What you've said here is probably the case. THIS environment is the only
one in which I've ever encountered the claim that the 4004 was in any way
related to the 8008, eexcept for the label. Nevertheless, since I didn't
know much about it then, I probably know even less now.

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: Dwight Elvey <elvey_at_hal.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Computers and other hardware containing the 8008 microprocessor


>"Richard Erlacher" <edick_at_idcomm.com> wrote:
>> Well . . . one version of the story, according to Adam Osborne, in his
book
>> (3-volume set) on microcomputers, was that Datapoint paid for the
>> development of the 8008 for use in this jewel, then concluded that it
wasn't
>> fast enough, so now Intel had a paid-for 8-bit version of their 4004,
which
>> Osborned didn't say was what this was, but one might see a connection,
>> nonetheless.
>
>Hi
> From what I remember, the 8008 and the 4004 were two separate
>projects, developed some in parallel by two separate teams
>that didn't communicate much. The way the 8008 and the 4004
>treat memory is quite different. The ALU is quite different.
>I would say that the 8008 was not just a simple expansion
>of the 4004. Because of the overlap in time, I don't even
>think that any of the concepts, good or bad, of the 4004
>were carried over to the 8008. The 4040 was definitely
>an enhancement of the basic 4004.
>Dwight
>
Received on Thu Nov 11 1999 - 12:08:42 GMT