It appears that I am in error. I see that micro-electronics or something similar can be used in a computer or computer-like device. If a non-uP machine accomplishes the same result then I bow to being corrected. I want/wish to learn new things. Happy computing, Murray 🙂
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 8:54 PM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > 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. >
