4004 and IC history / was Re: Vintage computer photogallery

[Chuck Guzis]

On 13 Oct 2007 at 7:46, dwight elvey wrote:

> This was what Federico Faggin had stated at a talk he gave at the CHM.
> Packaging was expensive and they'd made volume deals on 16 pin
> packages. 

That's interesting, particularly considering the competition at the 
time, the Rockwell PPS-4 in the funny quad-row package.

We need to be fair, though--none of these (4004, 8008, PPS-4) were 
single-chip microprocessors--they all required additional support 
logic chips that, it could be argued, were just as much a part of the 
microprocessor as what was in the main package.  The act of moving 
the control and sequencing into the same package as the ALU doesn't 
seem like that much of a leap in retrospect.  I've even seen the 
National IMP-16 referred to as a microprocessor in some documents; 
that was definitely a multi-chip configuration.  Something you could 
simply connect a crystal and some RAM to was still in the future.

On 13 Oct 2007 at 2:14, Brent Hilpert wrote:

> This also goes back to mention of the Osborne book last week, the first
> microprocs really being targetted at embedded systems/logic replacement, it
> was just those silly hobbyists trying to make general purpose computing
> systems out of them. It would seem that some saw beyond that, some didn't.

One of the more humiliating memories of mine was stopping by my 
apartment with a (female) co-worker and showing her my just-assembled 
new pride and joy; the MITS Altair.  This would have been 1975.  Her 
response was something to the effect of "I thought you told me you 
had a computer.  THAT'S not a computer; that's a toy with blinking 
lights.  You paid a thousand dollars for THAT?"

What is it that H.L. Mencken said?  "How little it takes to make life 
unbearable: a pebble in the shoe, a cockroach in the spaghetti, a 
woman's laugh."  I was mortified.

Cheers,
Chuck