cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles Lord) (07/26/88)
OK, my observations: Graphics: Newman and Sproul (sp?) 1st edition was the early bible of PC graphics Word proc: look for an early Byte article (first year) on Electric Pencil, the first cheap uP WP Spreadsheet: also early Byte, article on Visicalc 1.0, I think by author Stand-alone PCs: Definitely the article series on building the SOL computer, right after the Altair article. This was the first COMPLETE (including video/kbd) PC that was published for homebrew (to my knowledge). Popular Electronics. low-cost terminal: THE machine was the TV Typewriter by Don Lancaster. Was written up repeatedly with new features, mods in Pop Electronics. Also was marketed and sold by Southwest Technical Products (SWTP), the folks that made the 6800 machines. Apple definitely made the lasting inmpression on the field, and S-100 was important (but not stand-alone except with some later terminal cards), but do not ignore the contribution by: Pet SOL Ohio Scientific Radio Shack (first mass marketing with Mod I) Bill Gates - adapted BASIC to 6502, 8080: early work on op systems Digital Research - CP/M with its parents and children(including MS-DOS) MOS Technology - it is no fluke that 6502 was big from beginning. The company was begun by "hackers" of a sort (renegades from Moto.) and they supported us snot-nosed 'kids' who wanted to make small machines. The TIM and KIM chipsets were the forerunners of the all-inclusive ASICs used on almost all PCs. Sorry for spouting off. When you lived through a revolution you sometimes think yourself an authority on it... -- Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Bitnet #include <std.disclamers> #include <cutsey.quote>
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/27/88)
Probably the most unsung player in this history of personal computing is Chuck Peddle. He designed the 6800 first, and then he went on to design the 6502. The 6809 isn't much in use today, but it's descendants, namely the 68000 family, are a very strong force in microcomputers. The 6502 is probably in more computers than any other processor, even today, and though nobody knows why, Apple is still selling lots of machines with essentially the 6502 in them. The 6502's children never really made it big, but the impression of the chip itself is firm. Peddle went on to found Sirius (later Victor), which made a fairly nifty 8086 machine. Unfortunately for them, it was not the right time to make such a machine, since another, slightly larger company decided to make an 8088 system at that time. Peddle also designed the PET. The PET came out the same time as the Apple, and a bit before the TRS-80. It was really the first serious all in one box personal computer, that you could plug in, turn on and use. It was the first actual machine for computer hobbyists who were *not* electronics hobbyists. (The ECD Micromind tried to be this, but never existed.) The ideas around personal computer certainly did germinate long ago, but the people who actually made it happen are the ones who get the history. The story I know best is the story of the micro software industry, because I was part of that, although I can't claim to have been one of the founders! -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (07/27/88)
In article <5458@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles Lord) writes: }Sorry for spouting off. When you lived through a revolution you }sometimes think yourself an authority on it... I guess it is all right if you think of yourself as "lord"... (JOKE! JOKE! TAKE IT EASY!!!! AAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH!) Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt)
jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (07/29/88)
In article <1876@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >and a bit before the TRS-80. It was really the first serious >all in one box personal computer, that you could plug in, turn on and use. Some earlier "all in one box" personal computers: The IBM 8100, a strange semi-portable personal computer circa the late 1970s. A switch on the front panel selected either BASIC or APL. The Viatron Computer, circa 1970. It was supposed to rent for $39 a month. It really existed, but very few were ever made, despite great hype from the manufacturer. Various machines based on the DEC LSI-11 chipset appeared in the late 1970s, including the Terak, a nicely packaged machine with 64K of RAM. John Nagle
nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (07/29/88)
In article <17589@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: >In article <1876@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>and a bit before the TRS-80. It was really the first serious >>all in one box personal computer, that you could plug in, turn on and use. > > Various machines based on the DEC LSI-11 chipset appeared in the late > 1970s, including the Terak, a nicely packaged machine with 64K of RAM. > > John Nagle Yup! And my Terak's still running reliably. It's a real monster though - the box is the size of a small microwave, and contains the 8" floppy drive and 4 or 5 cards for the processor, the 56K RAM and 8K ROM. There's also miles of ribbon cables and a power supply the size of a small planet. I'm still impressed with a 56K machine that could give you an OS, screen editor, filer, pascal compiler and linker on a single 250K disk. I must show the p-System's title bar to somebody who thinks that first came with the Mac... Some months ago, I found the original ads for the Terak in a back-issue of Datamation - summer '79, roughly. Basic machine, 56K RAM, single 250K floppy drive, p-System - $8000. Of course, that's $8000 more than I paid for it... Nick. -- Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!nick ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ...while the builders of the cages sleep with bullets, bars and stone, they do not see your road to freedom that you build with flesh and bone.
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (07/29/88)
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > The 6809 isn't much in use today, but it's descendants, namely the > 68000 family, are a very strong force in microcomputers. I remember when I first saw a 6809 data sheet. "Wow, this is a really neat chip" was my first impression. Mostly a souped-up 6800, but with a second stack pointer, double-length registers, and some 16-bit add and subtract instructions. What more could you want out of a micro? -- Roy Smith, System Administrator Public Health Research Institute {allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net "The connector is the network"
jps@wucs2.UUCP (James Sterbenz) (07/30/88)
In article <17589@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: > The IBM 8100, a strange semi-portable personal computer circa ^^^^ > the late 1970s. A switch on the front panel selected either > BASIC or APL. I'm sure others will catch this, but the model was the 5100. The 8100 was a supermini marketed for distributed processing applications. The 5100 either emulated a system/370 (for APL) or a system/3 (for BASIC); the switch effectively picked two different instruction set architectures. It was very slow, but considering the date of its release, the size, and the machines emulated, its surprising it ran as well as it did. If you like the APL environment it was farily nice to use. -- James Sterbenz Computer and Communications Research Center Washington University in St. Louis 314-726-4203 INTERNET: jps@wucs1.wustl.edu UUCP: wucs1!jps@uunet.uu.net
cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles Lord) (08/01/88)
Well, I guess your response to my comment must have SOME meritt... -- Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Bitnet #include <std.disclamers> #include <cutsey.quote>
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (08/01/88)
In article <3407@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: <brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: <> The 6809 isn't much in use today, but it's descendants, namely the <> 68000 family, are a very strong force in microcomputers. < < I remember when I first saw a 6809 data sheet. "Wow, this is a <really neat chip" was my first impression. Mostly a souped-up 6800, but <with a second stack pointer, double-length registers, and some 16-bit add <and subtract instructions. What more could you want out of a micro? And the 6809 is in *heavy* use. The Radio Shack Color Computer *still* uses it and people do quite a bit with. Especially those running multi-tasking software under OS-9... -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'. You know... I'd rather be a hacker."
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (08/01/88)
In article <1876@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > The 6809 isn't much in use today, but it's descendants, namely the > 68000 family, are a very strong force in microcomputers. I guess those hundreds of thousands of Color Computers don't exist? How about the CoCoIII: a multitasking 8 bit machine for under $500 (that's *with* OS9, btw). OS9 is what I wish UNIX was about half the time I'm using UNIX. I think that your dismissal of the 6809 (and its variants) is unwarranted. > The 6502 is probably in more computers than any other processor, even > today, and though nobody knows why, Apple is still selling lots of > machines with essentially the 6502 in them. The 6502's children never > really made it big, but the impression of the chip itself is firm. Simple. Jobs has said that when he was looking for a chip, the 6809 was really expensive, and the 6502 was really cheap. I remember something about Motorola saying (in a memo) that the 6502 was something cheap to fill in the gap between the 6809 and the bottom of the chip market. Check old issues of Byte, etc, and compare the prices of 6809s and 6502s. -- Motorola Skates on Intel's Head! J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ..!bellcore!tness1!/
res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) (08/01/88)
In article <584@etive.ed.ac.uk>, nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes: > In article <17589@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: > >In article <1876@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > >>and a bit before the TRS-80. It was really the first serious > >>all in one box personal computer, that you could plug in, turn on and use. > > Various machines based on the DEC LSI-11 chipset appeared in the late > > 1970s, including the Terak, a nicely packaged machine with 64K of RAM. > Yup! And my Terak's still running reliably. It's a real monster though - the > box is the size of a small microwave, and contains the 8" floppy drive and > 4 or 5 cards for the processor, the 56K RAM and 8K ROM. Another machine from this era that was a real workhorse, but has never been given the acclaim that I feel it deserves is the Radio Shack Model 2. This machine used a Z80A microprocessor running at a stunning 4MHz, had 64K of RAM (expandable in increments of 64K, useful with bank switching), used 8" floppies with about 400K capacity, and proved to be a very reliable, decently performing box. I am retiring my own Model 2 now, after 8 years of serious use, simply because my needs have outgrown its capabilities. Incidently, it was a very well designed machine from the standpoint of growability. It eventually could be upgraded with a 640x240 pixel graphics board, and a 68000 micro with a couple of Megabytes of RAM. In that configuration the Z80A was used as an IOP, sharing a 32K segment of memory with the 68000 for buffer space. All-in-all, a very well designed machine that has never been given its due as a pioneer, first as a Z80A-based desk-top business computer, then as one of the first (if not the first) 16-bit micros (with the 68000 add-on). Rich Strebendt ...!att![iwsl6|ihlpe|ihaxa]!res
scott@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) (08/02/88)
In article <1238@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: > >.... Jobs has said that when he was looking for a chip, the 6809 >was really expensive, and the 6502 was really cheap. I thot Jobs really wanted to use RCA's 1802. ? My Cosmac-clone (anyone remember the BYTE ads for the Quest ELF?) was one of the funnest toys I ever had. 16 absolutely general-purpose 16bit registers, etc. etc... -scott
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (08/02/88)
In article <1238@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: > >[...] Jobs has said that when he was looking for a chip, the 6809 >was really expensive, and the 6502 was really cheap. I remember something >about Motorola saying (in a memo) that the 6502 was something cheap >to fill in the gap between the 6809 and the bottom of the chip market. >Check old issues of Byte, etc, and compare the prices of 6809s and 6502s. I'm amazed that a big corporation would do something with a few-buck part to make life easier for the consumer; alas, the days of personality in personal computing are almost gone. Kudos and Huzza to Motorola. >Motorola Skates on Intel's Head! Just how many motorolae can skate on the head of an intel? --Blair "All of them."
dave@stcns3.stc.oz (Dave Horsfall) (08/02/88)
In article <17589@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: | | The Viatron Computer, circa 1970. It was supposed to rent for | $39 a month. It really existed, but very few were ever made, | despite great hype from the manufacturer. Was this the famed "kitchen computer", and just one model is on display in a museum somewhere? -- Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel-STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz dave%stcns3.stc.OZ.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.OZ.AU!dave WordStar 4 - The thinking person's word processor
karl@ficc.UUCP (karl lehenbauer#) (08/02/88)
In article <753@applix.UUCP>, scott@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: > My Cosmac-clone (anyone remember the BYTE ads for the Quest ELF?) was > one of the funnest toys I ever had. 16 absolutely general-purpose > 16bit registers, etc. etc... As I recall, the RCA 1802 has eight 16-bit registers. Although they were "general purpose" as there were no architectural restrictions on what registers could be used for what operations, as Intel parts are known for, with its 8-bit accumulator, no multiply or divide instructions and no subroutine call, it was kind of hosed. Moving a register to a register was four instructions (e.g. GLO 4, PLO 5, GHI 4, PHI 5), register-indirect to register and register to register-indirect were about eight. The polyForth environment was awesome considering the part. We sometimes ran two users developing code on a 24 KB system; polyForth was multitasking/multiuser. The 24K system could cross-compile a 48K target. The 1802 achieved a lot of its success by being one of the earliest, if not the earliest, CMOS processor. It's low power consumption made it idea for solar powered applications like satellites and offshore platforms. RCA later came out with an 1804 which, as I understand it (I never saw the part), fixed some of the problems with the chip, but it didn't catch on as it wasn't pin compatible. -- -- +1 713 274 5184, karl@sugar.uu.net (uunet!sugar!karl) -- Ferranti International Controls, 12808 W. Airport Blvd., Sugar Land, TX 77478
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/02/88)
In article <1238@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: >> The 6502 is probably in more computers than any other processor... >... Jobs has said that when he was looking for a chip, the 6809 >was really expensive, and the 6502 was really cheap... Correction: 6800, not 6809. The 6809 did not exist when Jobs was looking for a chip. The 6809 almost got a foot in the door later: it was the original processor for what eventually became the Macintosh. As Don Lancaster has pointed out, the 6502 is an awful chip but MOS Technology did everything else right: they wrote a readable manual, had a cheap and fairly easy-to-use evaluation board (the KIM-1) available, and above all they'd sell you a 6502 over the counter for $20 at a time when Intel and Motorola might graciously condescend to put you on the waiting list to buy one of their chips for $400. One would have hoped that Intel, Motorola, et al, would have *learned* something from this... -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
oconnor@nuke.steinmetz (Dennis M. O'Connor) (08/03/88)
An article by erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) says:
] > The 6502 is probably in more computers than any other processor, even
] > today, and though nobody knows why, Apple is still selling lots of
] > machines with essentially the 6502 in them. The 6502's children never
] > really made it big, but the impression of the chip itself is firm.
Except, of course, the 6510. Which made it into, what is it,
6 million Commodore-64s ? That sounds big to me.
] Simple. Jobs has said that when he was looking for a chip, the 6809
] was really expensive, and the 6502 was really cheap. I remember something
] about Motorola saying (in a memo) that the 6502 was something cheap
] to fill in the gap between the 6809 and the bottom of the chip market.
Motorola would say that. IT'S NOT THEIR CHIP ! Has everyone forgotten ?
The 6500, progenitor of the 6502, was created by MOS Technologies, by
some of the designers of the 6800 who had left Motorola. It was supposed
to be a superior replacement : it was even pin-compatable with the 6800 !
Naturally, Motorola sued them, so they re-did the pinouts and created
the 6502. Then, this other company, Commodore, bought MOS Technologies
to get some in-house silicon capability for its exciting new personal
computer, the VIC-20 !! The VIC-20 ( their's lots of them, or were )
had a 6502. Then later the C64 came out, with an improved version
of the 6502 ( on-chip parallel port is all I remember ) : the 6510.
] J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict
And is it my fault, if MOSTEK and MOS Technologies get confused ?
--
Dennis O'Connor oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa
"Never confuse USENET with something that matters, like PIZZA."
--
Dennis O'Connor oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa
"Never confuse USENET with something that matters, like PIZZA."cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles Lord) (08/03/88)
I wish to re-iterate a previous assertion in this discussion that the 6502 came from MOS Technologies, not in any way shape or form associated with MOSTEK, who second-sourced the Z-80 with Zilog. -- Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Bitnet #include <std.disclamers> #include <cutsey.quote>
dre%ember@Sun.COM (David Emberson) (08/03/88)
In article <11697@steinmetz.ge.com>, oconnor@nuke.steinmetz (Dennis M. O'Connor) writes: > > Motorola would say that. IT'S NOT THEIR CHIP ! Has everyone forgotten ? > The 6500, progenitor of the 6502, was created by MOSTek, by some of > the designers of the 6800 who had left Motorola. It was supposed to be > a superior replacement : it was even pin-compatable with the 6800 ! > Naturally, Motorola sued them, so they re-did the pinouts and created > the 6502. Then, this other company, Commodore, bought MOSTek to get > some in-house silicon capability for its exciting new personal > computer, the VIC-20 !! The VIC-20 ( their's lots of them, or were ) > had a 6502. Then later the C64 came out, with an improved version > of the 6502 ( on-chip parallel port is all I remember ) : the 6510. I think you are confusing Mostek, the inventor of the multiplexed address DRAM, with MOS Technology, the company that did the 6502 and was later swallowed by Commodore. Dave Emberson (dre@sun.com)
linimon@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Mark Linimon) (08/03/88)
> The 6500, progenitor of the 6502, was created by MOSTek, by some of > the designers of the 6800 who had left Motorola. > > Dennis O'Connor oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa > "Never confuse USENET with something that matters, like PIZZA." Nearly. It was created by MOS Technology which sometimes confusingly went by MOSTech; I believe they were based in the East. Mostek was a Dallas-based company that is now part of Thompson CSF or whatever the name is after the latest merger. Mostek's fortes were the 68000, the F8, DRAMs, FIFOs, and VMEbus. Mark Linimon Mizar, Inc. uucp: sun!texsun!mizarvme!linimon
" Maynard) (08/03/88)
In article <1193@ficc.UUCP> karl@ficc.UUCP (karl lehenbauer#) writes: >The 1802 achieved a lot of its success by being one of the earliest, if not >the earliest, CMOS processor. It's low power consumption made it idea for >solar powered applications like satellites and offshore platforms. Actually, its popularity in the satellite world (OSCARs 7, 8, and 10 spring immediately to mind - I don't know about commercial satellites) springs more from its inherent radiation-hardness than its low power consumption. As I understand it, RCA didn't set out to design a radiation-hard part; they fell into it. Still, it does have its uses... (this isn't an architectural issue any more; followups to comp.misc only.) -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! | adequately be explained by stupidity. hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- {killer,bellcore}!tness1! | Birthright Party '88: let's get spaced!
hsu@pitstop.UUCP (David Hsu) (08/04/88)
>In article <1876@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >> The 6809 isn't much in use today, but it's descendants, namely the >> 68000 family, are a very strong force in microcomputers. Aren't 6809's still widespread in arcade games? Peddle went one better than selling the 6502 for $20 over the counter...his folks supposedly sold them out of cookie jars. -dave -- David Hsu dhsu@sun.com <standard disclaimer> "Hey - somebody horked our clothes!"
scott@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) (08/04/88)
In article <1193@ficc.UUCP> karl@ficc.UUCP (karl lehenbauer#) writes: >As I recall, the RCA 1802 has eight 16-bit registers. No, there really were 16 16-bit registers. >with its 8-bit accumulator, no multiply or divide instructions and no >subroutine call, it was kind of hosed. Well, actually there were several subroutine call mechanisms to choose from (at least 3)- from a simple SEP (set program counter) to the somewhat involved SCRT (standard-call-and-return-technique). Multiply/divide was unavailable on _any_ micro in '77 or so (even the Z80). I would say that the 1802's big lack was in the area of addressing modes. I'm not sure I would agree it was 'hosed'. >... RCA >later came out with an 1804 which, as I understand it (I never saw the part), >fixed some of the problems with the chip, but it didn't catch on as it >wasn't pin compatible. The 1804 was merely an 1802 with 2k mask ROM, 64 bytes RAM, and a counter. -scott
johnf@geops.UUCP (John Firestone) (08/05/88)
In an article, Karl Lehenbauer writes:
: As I recall, the RCA 1802 has eight 16-bit registers. . . .
As someone who built and programmed an 1802 microcomputer system starting
from a bunch of chips, a surplus teletype, and many pads of paper (boy, I
didn't know what I was getting into), I would like to offer a few corrections
and additions regarding this unusual but neat microprocessor. As I believe
the part is still being sold, I will use the present tense.
The 1802 actually has sixteen 16-bit registers which are almost completely
interchangeable except that:
- register R0 becomes a DMA data pointer if you use DMA
- register R1 becomes the interrupt service program counter and
register R2 becomes the stack pointer if you use interrupts
- register R0 can not be used with the Load via Rn instruction
as the required opcode is assigned to the IDLE instruction
One of the most powerful features of the 1802's instruction set is that any
of these registers can serve as a program counter or index register and that
it is very easy to switch the working set. This makes it easy to use
coroutines (a single instruction switches back and forth) and to write
instruction emulators and threaded/knotted code interpreters. In fact, often
the best way to program the 1802 is to construct an application-specific,
meta-machine first. Perhaps this is what makes the 1802 seem "weird".
While the 1802 has no multiply and divide instructions, RCA does sell a
compatible multiply/divide chips. By dedicating a register or two as
instruction program counters, workable multiply/divide instructions can be
added to the instruction set.
The main drawbacks of the 1802 are that it does not do instruction pipelining
and that you have to route all data through its 8 bit D-register; start
emulating a lot of instructions and it can become very slow. In some
applications, though, power not speed is important. Since the 1802 is
constructed in classic CMOS, you almost can reduce its power consumption to
whatever level you want by slowing or stopping its clock.
If you weren't in a hurry, the 1802 was a good chip to look at.
John Firestone
Geophysics, AK-50
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (08/05/88)
From article <1238@flatline.UUCP>, by erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend): > In article <1876@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >> The 6502 is probably in more computers than any other processor, even > Simple. Jobs has said that when he was looking for a chip, the 6809 > was really expensive, and the 6502 was really cheap. I remember something As far as I know, the Apple was out for a LONG time before the 6809 came out. I assume you're talking about the 6800 series in general. I think that the COCO was one of the first machines to come out with a 6809 in it, and that was some time 'round 82-83. BTW Motorola didn't make the 6502 It was built by a couple of 'defectors'. -- ------------- Stephen Samuel {ihnp4,ubc-vision,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve or userzxcv@uofamts.bitnet
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (08/06/88)
>HACF # Halt And Catch Fire
Rumor also has it that certain (present-day) military computers have
chips with EXP (explode) instructions (this applies to ROM's as well as
CPU's). This instruction causes some sort of explosive on the chip
to explode, destroying it. Is this rumor true? Considering the
ineptness of military designers, I doubt that it would be much use.drew@sdeggo.UUCP (Drew Dean) (08/07/88)
In article <3247@edm.UUCP>, rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) writes: > From article <1238@flatline.UUCP>, by erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend): > As far as I know, the Apple was out for a LONG time before the 6809 came out. > I assume you're talking about the 6800 series in general. I think that the > COCO was one of the first machines to come out with a 6809 in it, and that was > some time 'round 82-83. > -- As an early Coco owner, I wish to point out that I bought my machine in Oct. 1981 with 32K RAM, using some of the earliest 64K DRAM's I've ever seen. RS used ceramic RAMS in a home computer, probably for the first and last time in history. Oh yeah, the Coco had been out a year when I bought it, so it was released in Sept. 1980, and mine has serial number 4057. It worked great for six years, until I retired last fall for my Mac SE..... (I still have sitting around, because I paid $700 for it, and now it's worth < $50. Too much sentimental value....) Also, the Coco wasn't the first 6809, although it's the only one that ever became popular, that honor rests with Gimix or SWTPC (or some other old company) on the SS-50 bus. (I don't know exactly who, because I was 9 years old at the time (1979), and didn't care a hoot about computers). Drew Dean drew@sdeggo.UUCP FROM Disclaimers IMPORT StandardDisclaimer;
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (08/08/88)
In article <3247@edm.UUCP>, rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) writes: > I think that the > COCO was one of the first machines to come out with a 6809 in it, and that was > some time 'round 82-83. I recall seeing one of the very early 4K CoCo 1s back when I lived in Lisle IL in the summer of 1981. (The particular machine I saw had bad overheating prob- lems, if memory serves.) The designers of the 6809 had a three-part article in Jan-Mar 1979 BYTE (the first and damned near the last time that BYTE ever mentioned the 6809, by the way); the first 6809 machines were probably put out by SWTP (Southwest Tech- nical Products), SSB (Smoke Signal Broadcasting), and Gimix (now GMX)--there was also an outfit called Percom that had a 6809 board way back when. (No doubt Motorola also had *something* with a 6809 on it...:-) Those, I think, dated back at least to 1980. James Jones
stevew@nsc.nsc.com (Steve Wilson) (08/08/88)
Another comment on the COSMAC. As I recall (memory dims with old age!) the 1802 was fabbed with RCA's SOS (Silicon On Saphire) technology which is where the rad hard feature of the 1802 used in space type applications really came from. Steve Wilson (alias KA6S) National Semiconductor
dhsu@crunchyfrog.Sun.COM (David Hsu) (08/09/88)
In article <235@sdeggo.UUCP> drew@sdeggo.UUCP (Drew Dean) writes: >> -- > RS >used ceramic RAMS in a home computer, probably for the first and last time >in history. Oh come on. Not even close. My aged and trusty Apple ][ came with ceramic Mostek 16k's. Now that I think about it, didn't MOS include a pseudo-HCF instruction in the 6502? Something like 02 or 04? I remember apocryphal stories about it requiring about 20-30 minutes to irreparably cook the chip, 'tho. -dave David Hsu dhsu@sun.com <standard disclaimer> "Son, you got a panty on your head"
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (08/09/88)
In article <3247@edm.UUCP> rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) writes:
<As far as I know, the Apple was out for a LONG time before the 6809 came out.
<I assume you're talking about the 6800 series in general. I think that the
<COCO was one of the first machines to come out with a 6809 in it, and that was
<some time 'round 82-83.
The CoCo came out the same year as the Model 3. That was in 1980...
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."fwb@demon.siemens.com (Frederic W. Brehm) (08/09/88)
In article <5491@nsc.nsc.com> stevew@nsc.UUCP (Steve Wilson) writes: >Another comment on the COSMAC. As I recall (memory dims with old age!) >the 1802 was fabbed with RCA's SOS (Silicon On Saphire) technology which >is where the rad hard feature of the 1802 used in space type applications >really came from. The 1802 came in bulk CMOS and SOS versions. The bulk CMOS version was used in most applications and by Chrysler in every one of their cars for several model years (are they still using them?) The SOS version was used for rad-hard applications. I'm not sure that the bulk version wasn't used in some space applications. It could tolerate more radiation than most, if not all, NMOS and PMOS processors of its time. And now for some more COSMAC trivia: Do you know why each instruction takes 8 clock cycles? Because the ALU is 1-bit wide and each clock pushes one more bit through it. Contrast this with present technology which is sometimes wider inside than outside (like Intel's 8088 and 80386SX or whatever they call it). >Steve Wilson (alias KA6S) >National Semiconductor Fred (no alias) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frederic W. Brehm Siemens Research and Technology Laboratories 105 College Road East Princeton, NJ 08540 (609) 734-3336 uucp: {att!princeton, astrovax, pruxe}!siemens!demon!fwb Internet: fwb@demon.siemens.com "From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere." - Dr. Seuss
chasm@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Charles Marslett) (08/11/88)
In article <720@mcrware.UUCP>, jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) writes: > In article <3247@edm.UUCP>, rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) writes: > > I think that the > > COCO was one of the first machines to come out with a 6809 in it, and that was > > some time 'round 82-83. > > I recall seeing one of the very early 4K CoCo 1s back when I lived in Lisle IL > in the summer of 1981. > The designers of the 6809 had a three-part article in Jan-Mar 1979 BYTE (the > first and damned near the last time that BYTE ever mentioned the 6809, by the > way); the first 6809 machines were probably put out by SWTP (Southwest Tech- > nical Products), SSB (Smoke Signal Broadcasting), and Gimix (now GMX)--there > was also an outfit called Percom that had a 6809 board way back when. > James Jones Actually, in addition to the SS-50 computer built out of a 6809, Percom also sold a disk subsystem for Atari computers (6502 based boxes) that had a 6809 in it -- we did programmed I/O at 500 Mbit (8 inch floppy dat rate) with a 2 MHz chip! The circuit itself was really cheap, too. Charles Marslett STB Systems, Inc. chasm@killer.dallas.tx.us
hwt@leibniz.UUCP (Henry Troup) (08/12/88)
The PET had little impact on the field. I used to sell/program them. At the time they were already weak - max 32K RAM, BASIC only, closed hardware system. (Sounds like the early Mac, but the software wasn't great.) The software that carried PET for two years was a suite of programs for pig farmers, and WordPro (a word processor with dot commands). Henry Troup These are not the opinions of Bell Northern Research, but then, what are?
dennisg@felix.UUCP (Dennis Griesser) (08/12/88)
In article <1238@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: >Simple. Jobs has said that when he was looking for a chip, the 6809 >was really expensive, and the 6502 was really cheap. I remember something >about Motorola saying (in a memo) that the 6502 was something cheap >to fill in the gap between the 6809 and the bottom of the chip market. >Check old issues of Byte, etc, and compare the prices of 6809s and 6502s. You have your time line mixed up. The 6809 did not exist at the time that the Apple II was born. I can believe that Jobs found Motorola too expensive, but the contender was the 6800, not the 6809. Motorola made the 6800. After artistic differences, some Motorola engineers went to MOS Technology and built the 6502. Motorola didn't build the 6809 for some time. The first common computer to use the 6809 was the original CoCo. I remember leafing through the CoCo technical manual when it first came out. My immediate impression was that it looked like a Motorola applications note!
peter@stca77.stc.oz (Peter Jeremy) (08/17/88)
In article <720@mcrware.UUCP> jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) writes: >The designers of the 6809 had a three-part article in Jan-Mar 1979 BYTE (the >first and damned near the last time that BYTE ever mentioned the 6809, by the >way); Pity that, that 6809 looked like a great processor. It just didn't have enough new goodies to make up for its lack of backward compatibility with anything. > [ stuff about early 6809 machines deleted ] Intel "liked" the 6809 - they used it as their standard against which to compare the 8088. And funnily enough Intel found that a 5MHz 8088 would outperform a 2MHz 6809 :-). Rather a case of comparing apples and oranges. -- Peter Jeremy (VK2PJ) peter%stca77@stcns3.stc.oz Alcatel-STC Australia ...!munnari!stcns3.stc.oz!stca77!peter 41 Mandible St peter%stca77@stcns3.stc.oz@uunet.UU.NET ALEXANDRIA NSW 2015
dhsu@crunchyfrog.Sun.COM (David Hsu) (08/18/88)
In article <121@leibniz.UUCP> hwt@leibniz.UUCP (Henry Troup) writes: > >The PET had little impact on the field. I used to sell/program them. >At the time they were already weak - max 32K RAM, BASIC only, closed >hardware system... This seems hardly fair. The PET actually made a reasonable dent in the educational market simply because it was the cheapest, fairly child-proof, self-contained BASIC-running machine you could buy. It was something of a hit with elementary school PTAs that took up collections to buy computers. I think the APF might have given it a run for its money had they bothered to write a BASIC for it. Anything fancier than 8k and a cassette was too luxurious for most schools anyway until '79 or so. My guess is that the PET was more crippled by the original rectangular alphabetically-arranged keyboard than anything else, and Commodore's delay let the competition emerge. -dave David Hsu dhsu@sun.com <standard disclaimer> "Feh."
smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) (08/19/88)
Does (also kind of long) referring to the size of the original or the number of responses? Just joking, friends.