Finites State Machine (OT?)

[Andrew Reilly]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:24:00 +0000, Nick Maclaren wrote:

Like the BBC Micro and IBM PC were evolutionary?

Sure they were evolutionary computer designs. They may well have been
responsible for some sort of revolution, by getting the populace past a
tipping point, but neither design is remarkable, compared to what was
already around at the time (Acorn's own atom, Apple-II, C-64 on the one
hand, and any of a dozen Z-80 SBCs on the other.)

[Actually, about the only really interesting thing about the IBM PC, in
the context of these predecessors, is that it didn't have the video
controller built into the motherboard, and had two alternative plug-ins
available at (or near) launch (VGA and CGI).]

--
Andrew

 

[KR Williams]

In article <c9516g$1pd$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1
@cus.cam.ac.uk says...

In article <MPG.1b1fbc2b37d2a3ac98991d@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
KR Williams <krw@att.biz> writes:
|
|> Kinda like 3x0? Yeah, it's kludgy by today's standards, but
|> it's not the $billions of development costs, nor support costs
|> that keep it going. $Billions in *applications* keep it going.
|> X86 is no different. This is why my bets are on AMD64, rather
|> than Opteron. History has shown that evolution works. Revolution
|> doesn't cut it.

Like the BBC Micro and IBM PC were evolutionary?

I'm not familiar with the BBC Micro, but certainly the PC was
evolutionary. It was just a pile of off-the-shelf parts put
together like any number of predecessor "personal computers". It
only had two things that made it stand out; three letters and a
bomb-proof case. Even IBM had no idea what was in store. Hell,
the PC group was an IBU (Idependant Business Unit(, because it
was viewed as somehow "silly". The "PC" may have started a
revolution, it was in no way "revolutionary". At best it was an
accident.

|> > Itanic is now ten years old and costs are in the billions. And sales
|> > are pathetic. Not even the big boys are any good at predicting the
|> > future.
|
|> You completely misunderstood my comments. Intel bluffed, and
|> almost pulled it off. Others have noticed (both the bluff and
|> the failure to deliver). The market may not be wide open (that
|> revolution thing again), but it's there for those with chips (and
|> not $Billions) to push onto the table.

While they almost pulled it off, it wasn't a bluff. They really
thought that they could do it.

I have no doubt they thought they could do it, but the bluff was
the way it was marketed via the industry mouthpieces (via Intel
marketing). We were told that Itanic would take over the world,
and anyone else doing processor development would die a horrible
death. Sadly, some PHBs listened.

--
Keith

 

[KR Williams]

In article <pan.2004.05.27.22.27.58.316932@areilly.bpc-
users.org>, andrew-newspost@areilly.bpc-users.org says...

On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:24:00 +0000, Nick Maclaren wrote:

Like the BBC Micro and IBM PC were evolutionary?

Sure they were evolutionary computer designs. They may well have been
responsible for some sort of revolution, by getting the populace past a
tipping point, but neither design is remarkable, compared to what was
already around at the time (Acorn's own atom, Apple-II, C-64 on the one
hand, and any of a dozen Z-80 SBCs on the other.)

The "PC" wasn't revolutionary in any context, other than
historical. The 360 was perhaps revolutionary. There was a
grand-scheme behind the 360. The PC was an accident.

[Actually, about the only really interesting thing about the IBM PC, in
the context of these predecessors, is that it didn't have the video
controller built into the motherboard, and had two alternative plug-ins
available at (or near) launch (VGA and CGI).]

MCA (Mono-chrome adapter) and CGA (color graphics adapter). VGA
came later on the PS2's.


--
Keith

 

[Peter Dickerson]

"KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b207231cff1f196989923@news1.news.adelphia.net...

In article <c9516g$1pd$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1
@cus.cam.ac.uk says...

In article <MPG.1b1fbc2b37d2a3ac98991d@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
KR Williams <krw@att.biz> writes:
|
|> Kinda like 3x0? Yeah, it's kludgy by today's standards, but
|> it's not the $billions of development costs, nor support costs
|> that keep it going. $Billions in *applications* keep it going.
|> X86 is no different. This is why my bets are on AMD64, rather
|> than Opteron. History has shown that evolution works. Revolution
|> doesn't cut it.

Like the BBC Micro and IBM PC were evolutionary?

I'm not familiar with the BBC Micro, but certainly the PC was
evolutionary. It was just a pile of off-the-shelf parts put
together like any number of predecessor "personal computers". It
only had two things that made it stand out; three letters and a
bomb-proof case. Even IBM had no idea what was in store. Hell,
the PC group was an IBU (Idependant Business Unit(, because it
was viewed as somehow "silly". The "PC" may have started a
revolution, it was in no way "revolutionary". At best it was an
accident.

The BBC Micro was a computer designed to go with a TV series by the
venerable BBC in the UK. It was built by Acorn Ltd. The machine had a 2MHz
6502 with 32K of DRAM, and various amounts of ROM that could be banked. It
include various graphics an text video modes in a custom chip. In addition
it had rudimentary networking, Basic in ROM, a multi channel ADC and
expansion bus (aka tube). Acorn went on to develope the Acorn RISC Machine
processor with the chip design side becoming ARM Ltd (the details of which
have long been forgotten). Chris Curry and Herman Hauser were in charge. I
don't know what happened to Chris but Herman is into VC.

|> > Itanic is now ten years old and costs are in the billions. And
sales
|> > are pathetic. Not even the big boys are any good at predicting the
|> > future.
|
|> You completely misunderstood my comments. Intel bluffed, and
|> almost pulled it off. Others have noticed (both the bluff and
|> the failure to deliver). The market may not be wide open (that
|> revolution thing again), but it's there for those with chips (and
|> not $Billions) to push onto the table.

While they almost pulled it off, it wasn't a bluff. They really
thought that they could do it.

I have no doubt they thought they could do it, but the bluff was
the way it was marketed via the industry mouthpieces (via Intel
marketing). We were told that Itanic would take over the world,
and anyone else doing processor development would die a horrible
death. Sadly, some PHBs listened.

--
Keith

 

[Brian Inglis]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 23:04:45 -0400 in comp.arch, KR Williams
<krw@att.biz> wrote:

In article <pan.2004.05.27.22.27.58.316932@areilly.bpc-
users.org>, andrew-newspost@areilly.bpc-users.org says...

[Actually, about the only really interesting thing about the IBM PC, in
the context of these predecessors, is that it didn't have the video
controller built into the motherboard, and had two alternative plug-ins
available at (or near) launch (VGA and CGI).]

MCA (Mono-chrome adapter) and CGA (color graphics adapter). VGA
came later on the PS2's.

MDA (Monochrome display adapter). MCA (Micro-Channel Architecture)
came later on the PS2's.

--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
fake address use address above to reply

 

[KR Williams]

In article <e58fb09dml97be5ortneoi8fc2ssh6l8js@4ax.com>,
Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.Invalid says...

On Thu, 27 May 2004 23:04:45 -0400 in comp.arch, KR Williams
krw@att.biz> wrote:

In article <pan.2004.05.27.22.27.58.316932@areilly.bpc-
users.org>, andrew-newspost@areilly.bpc-users.org says...

[Actually, about the only really interesting thing about the IBM PC, in
the context of these predecessors, is that it didn't have the video
controller built into the motherboard, and had two alternative plug-ins
available at (or near) launch (VGA and CGI).]

MCA (Mono-chrome adapter) and CGA (color graphics adapter). VGA
came later on the PS2's.

MDA (Monochrome display adapter). MCA (Micro-Channel Architecture)
came later on the PS2's.

Nope. MCA was the Mono-Chrome Adapter. MCA was *never* allowed
to be used as an acronym for MicroChannel (the term was already
trade marked).

--
KEith

 

[R. Steve Walz]

KR Williams wrote:

In article <e58fb09dml97be5ortneoi8fc2ssh6l8js@4ax.com>,
Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.Invalid says...
On Thu, 27 May 2004 23:04:45 -0400 in comp.arch, KR Williams
krw@att.biz> wrote:

In article <pan.2004.05.27.22.27.58.316932@areilly.bpc-
users.org>, andrew-newspost@areilly.bpc-users.org says...

[Actually, about the only really interesting thing about the IBM PC, in
the context of these predecessors, is that it didn't have the video
controller built into the motherboard, and had two alternative plug-ins
available at (or near) launch (VGA and CGI).]

MCA (Mono-chrome adapter) and CGA (color graphics adapter). VGA
came later on the PS2's.

MDA (Monochrome display adapter). MCA (Micro-Channel Architecture)
came later on the PS2's.

Nope. MCA was the Mono-Chrome Adapter. MCA was *never* allowed
to be used as an acronym for MicroChannel (the term was already
trade marked).

--
KEith
-----------------

The MTA was the mono text video adapter, the first most primitive PC
video card, no LPT.

LPT card separate.

The CGA was the color graphics adapter used the 6845, no LPT.

The MGP monographics printer adpter was the pre-Hercules 640x200/400
graphics card, LPT, and used the 6845.

Hercules went to 720x348.

Then came the EGA and VGA etc.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Richard Henry]

"Andrew Reilly" <andrew-newspost@areilly.bpc-users.org> wrote in message
newsan.2004.05.27.22.27.58.316932@areilly.bpc-users.org...

On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:24:00 +0000, Nick Maclaren wrote:

Like the BBC Micro and IBM PC were evolutionary?

Sure they were evolutionary computer designs. They may well have been
responsible for some sort of revolution, by getting the populace past a
tipping point, but neither design is remarkable, compared to what was
already around at the time (Acorn's own atom, Apple-II, C-64 on the one
hand, and any of a dozen Z-80 SBCs on the other.)

[Actually, about the only really interesting thing about the IBM PC, in
the context of these predecessors, is that it didn't have the video
controller built into the motherboard, and had two alternative plug-ins
available at (or near) launch (VGA and CGI).]

The very first IBM PC purchased where I was working at the time (1984) came
with two CRT monitors, one text-based for DOS stuff, the other for the
output of an early schematic-entry program (Futurenet, maybe?). As I
recall, the whole setup cost a little over $3000. For the next 10 years or
so, every PC-type computer purchased by the Engineering department cost a
little over $3000. Of course, the computer delivered for that improved with
every round of purchasing.

The capital equipment acquisition method in that company at that time was
difficult. Anything over $1500 required approval at a rather high level of
corporate politics. It wasn't until 1989 or so that that level of the
approval process was convinced that $3000 was a wise investment to place on
an engineer's desk. The PC's purchased in that interim were approved
bacause thay had some other, higher purpose (such as the schematic-entry
system mentioned above, or as part of a lab measurement systesm, or as
required in a customer contract). A few engineers were clever enough to
build up their office PC's piecemeal from the test equipment and office
supply budgets, providing there was money left and each of the components
was priced under $1500.

The real breakthrough came when we won a contract to "ruggedize" PC's for
the US Army. Suddenly PC components were everywhere around the department,
many supplied free by vendors as demo items.

 

[KR Williams]

In article <40B8224C.593E@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

KR Williams wrote:

In article <e58fb09dml97be5ortneoi8fc2ssh6l8js@4ax.com>,
Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.Invalid says...
On Thu, 27 May 2004 23:04:45 -0400 in comp.arch, KR Williams
krw@att.biz> wrote:

In article <pan.2004.05.27.22.27.58.316932@areilly.bpc-
users.org>, andrew-newspost@areilly.bpc-users.org says...

[Actually, about the only really interesting thing about the IBM PC, in
the context of these predecessors, is that it didn't have the video
controller built into the motherboard, and had two alternative plug-ins
available at (or near) launch (VGA and CGI).]

MCA (Mono-chrome adapter) and CGA (color graphics adapter). VGA
came later on the PS2's.

MDA (Monochrome display adapter). MCA (Micro-Channel Architecture)
came later on the PS2's.

Nope. MCA was the Mono-Chrome Adapter. MCA was *never* allowed
to be used as an acronym for MicroChannel (the term was already
trade marked).

--
KEith
-----------------
The MTA was the mono text video adapter, the first most primitive PC
video card, no LPT.

LPT card separate.

Not from IBM it didn't. The MCA had the LPT port on-board.
....got a "first-day order" PC-'1' unit in the closet behind me.

The CGA was the color graphics adapter used the 6845, no LPT.

.... not in question.

The MGP monographics printer adpter was the pre-Hercules 640x200/400
graphics card, LPT, and used the 6845.

Irrelevant.

Hercules went to 720x348.

Irrelevant.

Then came the EGA and VGA etc.

Irrelevant, but you you forgot the MCGA. ;-)

--
Keith

 

[Brian Inglis]

On Fri, 28 May 2004 22:43:03 -0400 in comp.arch, KR Williams
<krw@att.biz> wrote:

In article <e58fb09dml97be5ortneoi8fc2ssh6l8js@4ax.com>,
Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.Invalid says...
On Thu, 27 May 2004 23:04:45 -0400 in comp.arch, KR Williams
krw@att.biz> wrote:

In article <pan.2004.05.27.22.27.58.316932@areilly.bpc-
users.org>, andrew-newspost@areilly.bpc-users.org says...

[Actually, about the only really interesting thing about the IBM PC, in
the context of these predecessors, is that it didn't have the video
controller built into the motherboard, and had two alternative plug-ins
available at (or near) launch (VGA and CGI).]

MCA (Mono-chrome adapter) and CGA (color graphics adapter). VGA
came later on the PS2's.

MDA (Monochrome display adapter). MCA (Micro-Channel Architecture)
came later on the PS2's.

Nope. MCA was the Mono-Chrome Adapter. MCA was *never* allowed
to be used as an acronym for MicroChannel (the term was already
trade marked).

That may have been the practice inside IBM.
But in all the articles, books, code, and other references from that
time, the Monochrome Display Adapter was the term used and abbreviated
to MDA.
Similarly for Micro Channel Architecture and MCA.
Google searches, and especially hits on acronym lists, support this
widespread usage.

--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
fake address use address above to reply