On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Jim Kearney wrote:
> But the Intel of the 1969-1979 era was a dynamic and innovative company.
> Look at the 3101, 1101, 4004, 8008, 1702, 2102, 8080, etc. All the other
> companies were playing catch-up.
A significant point to make:
With regards to the 4004, it wasn't terrifically innovative. Many people
who designed LSI circuits of the era considered a "processor on a chip"
the next logical step. By the time Intel did it the technology was
feasible enough to do so without requiring a mammoth effort (3 people did
it). The real envelope pushers were Ray Holt with the CADC (20-bit
serial architecture) circa 1969-1970 and Four Phase Systems with their
AL-1 (8-bit parallel architecture) circa 1968-1969.
Intel's effort was actually mediocre compared to what was possible at the
time of the 4004's development.
There wasn't really any practical application for the CPU-on-a-chip (until
Busicom decided that was the architecture they wanted for their
calculators) and so there was no quick rush to develop one when it became
possible. TI was right on the heels of Intel with their TMS1000.
Other companies quickly followed with microprocessors the following year,
that were far more powerful than anything Intel had (AMI for one).
So to say all the other companies were playing catch-up is misleading. It
could be argued that once the market for such a chip was proven by Intel,
other companies quickly jumped on the bandwagon.
A good website to reference:
http://www.datamath.org/Story/Intel.htm
> The Moore article is indepent of Intel anyway, it was written when he
> was at Fairchild before Intel was even founded.
Moore's Law is definitely significant as it became a self-fulfilling
prophecy that drove the computer industry to try to obey it.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
Received on Fri Oct 04 2002 - 11:11:00 BST