I would accept a bit-slice. as I understand that, you take 8 of them and daisychain them to act on a byte of data. Many early minis used them afaik.
<pre>--Carey</pre> > On 05/31/2024 7:29 PM CDT Brent Hilpert via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > wrote: > > > On 2024May 31,, at 4:37 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk > <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:02 PM Dave Dunfield via cctalk > > <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> Liam Proven wrote: > >>> It needs to have a microprocessor to qualify. > >>> ... No µP = not a PC. > >> > >> Not entirely sure ... > >> http://dunfield.classiccmp.org/primitiv > >> > >> Dave > >> > > > I quite agree. I do believe that a *u*P is the minimum that can be accepted > > to call a PC a microcomputer. Another is that it must be usable, i.e., > > non-programmable, for the average PC owner. Like a car one doesn't need to > > know how it works in order to drive/use a car to get from one place to > > another. One can use a computer to solve a spreadsheet problem in an > > efficient manner without learning the inner-workings of such spreadsheet. > > Happy computing, > > Murray 🙂 > > > With no expectation of changing the opinion of anyone who thinks they have > the definitive definition of ‘first’ or ‘personal’, I will just mention that: > > • the HP9830 (1972), > • Wang 2200 (1973), > • IBM 5100 (1975) > were all: > • single-user, > • desktop (2200 with CPU and PS in pedestal) > • fully integrated (CPU, memory, storage, keyboard and display), > • boot-to-BASIC (or APL for the 5100) > machines. > > None of them used a microprocessor. > > And they all functionally look a lot like the common home/personal computer > of ~10 years later.
