"Toy" computers (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Sat Apr 27 02:07:54 2002

see below, plz.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Smith" <csmith_at_amdocs.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 9:04 AM
Subject: RE: "Toy" computers (was Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick_at_idcomm.com]
>
> > > That pretty much describes commodore disk drives, yep. The
>
> > An external IDE drive would be hazardous thing to use because
> > of cable length.
>
> Didn't think of that -- you're probably right.
>
> > > handled all of the complexities of disk I/O, so that the CPU didn't
> > > need to -- so there are good points to them.
>
> > What you may have had, then, is a toy with a computer as a
> > peripheral. That
> > was probably quite a bit after the time reference of 1980.
>
> Actually, I don't remember what CPU was in the 1541 drives, but I
> seem to recall that it was actually more powerful than the computer.
>
> I also remember somebody working on a way to get code into the drive
> to be executed, but that's kind of fuzzy.
>
> > What I am focused on is where the intelligence to run the I/O
> > resides. Once
>
> So does the computer have to come with it, or simply allow space for
> it on the inside of the case?
>
Well, this is not much more than a preference of mine, apparently, but I
prefer my microcomputers to be small, i.e. not much bigger than a couple or
three loaves of sandwich bread next to each other on the table. I prefer to
have the interface to the I/O and memory, and whatever other hardware is
intended to be used with the computer to live within the main box (formerly
called mainframe, not meaning a computer requiring several acres of
floorspace) and that the interfaces be either permanent or removable, but
resident in that box. The peripherals can live outside. It's a convenient
way for microcomputers to work. However, the industry's getting away from
that. In a year or two, I expect PC's intended for typical home use will come
in what Sun and others often nicknamed a "pizza box" enclosure that has
external attachments for a monitor, keyboard, mouse, USB, network, SCSI or
fiberchannel, a printer, a phone line, a couple of serial ports, and nothing
else. The interfaces will, of course, still reside in the box, but you won't
have the liberty of picking and choosing your own as you do now. A technology
upgrade will often mean replacing the whole shootin' match, but with enough
volume that won't be so painful. Since every such computer will be EXACTLY
alike, Billy won't have a problem writing software to work pretty much the
same with all of 'em.
>
> > peripherals made great deal of sense. However, it resulted
> > in ugly and
> > awkward packaging, which was addressed even later with more
> > elegant interface
> > standards, say, by 1986, with the standardization of SCSI.
>
> Well, I certainly won't argue with that.
>
> > > Would you also have considered 9-track tape "mass storage" for the
> > > time?
>
> > I'd tread lightly around that subject, unless your Atari or
> > whatever, had a
> > 9-track drive in '80 or so.
>
> Obviously not, I'm just curious as to whether it would need to
> be some form of "fast" disk-like storage, or if a high-capacity
> tape would be ok.
>
I wouldn't presume to make that choice for you. I'd point out, however, that
if you use tape, you'd get better performance with several drives, just as
with floppy disk, one drive can be a mite tedious.
>
Received on Sat Apr 27 2002 - 02:07:54 BST