Need the Name of a "Don Lancaster" type person...
Charles Richmond
ISTR that there was a veteran computer person who was heavy into
the hardware side of the microcomputer revolution. I associated
him with Don Lancaster, because he was a similar type of computer
person. The one I am thinking of... died in the early 2000's.
Can anyone suggest who this might be???
--
+----------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond |
| |
| plano dot net at aquaporin4 dot com |
+----------------------------------------+
Chris Burrows
news:hd4ouk$vhi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>I am having a "senior moment" here...
>
> ISTR that there was a veteran computer person who was heavy into the
> hardware side of the microcomputer revolution. I associated him with Don
> Lancaster, because he was a similar type of computer person. The one I am
> thinking of... died in the early 2000's.
>
> Can anyone suggest who this might be???
>
The first name that jumps into my head is Chuck Peddle. Don't ask me why
.... ;-)
--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com
Michael Black
> I am having a "senior moment" here...
>
> ISTR that there was a veteran computer person who was heavy into the hardware
> side of the microcomputer revolution. I associated him with Don Lancaster,
> because he was a similar type of computer person. The one I am thinking of...
> died in the early 2000's.
>
> Can anyone suggest who this might be???
>
Hal Chamberlin? I think he was part of the Amateur Computing Society.
He was best known for his thick book about computer music, but for a while
he had quite a few articles in Byte about a variety of topics. I think he
had an article in the first issue of Byte.
Michael
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> I am having a "senior moment" here...
>
> ISTR that there was a veteran computer person who was heavy into the
> hardware side of the microcomputer revolution. I associated him with
> Don Lancaster, because he was a similar type of computer person. The
> one I am thinking of... died in the early 2000's.
>
> Can anyone suggest who this might be???
not specifically hardware and mid-2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jef_Raskin
--
40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
William Hamblen
<fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>I am having a "senior moment" here...
>
>ISTR that there was a veteran computer person who was heavy into
>the hardware side of the microcomputer revolution. I associated
>him with Don Lancaster, because he was a similar type of computer
>person. The one I am thinking of... died in the early 2000's.
>
>Can anyone suggest who this might be???
Another Don was Don Tarbell. He passed away about 10 years ago.
Bud
Quadibloc
he is still alive. Unfortunately, though, he has moved on from
computers to selling silver colloid for health purposes.
John Savard
Michael Black
Of course, Wayne was never really an innovator. His role was mostly as
promoter of ideas and of course as a publisher he helped to get new things
out there.
He also promoted himself, so his role in technological advances always
seemed larger than they were.
So in the fifties, he wrote about amateur radio teletype, and that was a
relatively new thing at the time, but I don't think he really did much for
the field, he jumped in early and promoted it. Same with FM repeaters on
the ham bands, and slow scan television for amateur radio in the early
seventies, and even computers. He'd toss out ideas, never really in
depth, and then often later when someone did implement things along those
lines, he'd make much of his "invention". The longer in publishing he
was, the less he was actually writing anything but editorials, and thus
his role had to be limited.
I always thought he tried to have the same role as John W. Campbell in the
world of science fiction. I think they knew each other, certainly
Campbell wrote some articles for "CQ" magazine in the fifties when Wayne
was editor there. Campbell is well known for tossing out ideas to his
writers, and much of the golden age science fiction seems derived from
a basic idea he had. Wayne seemed to have that role, not doing much in
depth but tossing out ideas that others might pursue.
Michael
David Librik
>Of course, Wayne was never really an innovator. His role was mostly as
>promoter of ideas and of course as a publisher he helped to get new things
>out there.
>He also promoted himself, so his role in technological advances always
>seemed larger than they were.
I'll say this for Wayne Green: after he was forced out of 80 Microcomputing,
the content took a nose-dive from articles like "1500 Baud Cassette Driver"
to "From Fahrenheit To Celsius In 6 Languages." I lived and breathed the
TRS-80, but at the end of '82 I cancelled my 80 Micro subscription and went
over to The Alternate Source. Wayne believed in supporting the hobbyist.
- David Librik
lib...@panix.com
mve...@gmail.com
I would bet that you're thinking of Steve Ciarcia (author of Byte's
"Circuit Cellar", and now publisher of a magazine of the same
name...usually interesting, but not as fun as the Byte articles.)
isw
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> I am having a "senior moment" here...
>
> ISTR that there was a veteran computer person who was heavy into
> the hardware side of the microcomputer revolution. I associated
> him with Don Lancaster, because he was a similar type of computer
> person. The one I am thinking of... died in the early 2000's.
Are you thinking of Jerry Pournelle?
Isaac
Charles Richmond
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> Wayne Green was a name that came to my mind from your post. However,
>> he is still alive. Unfortunately, though, he has moved on from
>> computers to selling silver colloid for health purposes.
>>
>
> promoter of ideas and of course as a publisher he helped to get new
> things out there.
>
Kind of reminds me of Ed Roberts and MITS, seller of calculator
and finally Altair 8800 and Altair 680 computer kits. Roberts went
from one thing to another like Wayne Green and Roberts was *never*
the most technically savvy but usually made money eventually.
Last I heard, Ed Roberts had an MD degree and was practicing
medicine in Georgia.
> He also promoted himself, so his role in technological advances always
> seemed larger than they were.
>
> So in the fifties, he wrote about amateur radio teletype, and that was a
> relatively new thing at the time, but I don't think he really did much
> for the field, he jumped in early and promoted it. Same with FM
> repeaters on the ham bands, and slow scan television for amateur radio
> in the early seventies, and even computers. He'd toss out ideas, never
> really in depth, and then often later when someone did implement things
> along those
> lines, he'd make much of his "invention". The longer in publishing he
> was, the less he was actually writing anything but editorials, and thus
> his role had to be limited.
>
> I always thought he tried to have the same role as John W. Campbell in
> the world of science fiction. I think they knew each other, certainly
> Campbell wrote some articles for "CQ" magazine in the fifties when Wayne
> was editor there. Campbell is well known for tossing out ideas to his
> writers, and much of the golden age science fiction seems derived from
> a basic idea he had. Wayne seemed to have that role, not doing much in
> depth but tossing out ideas that others might pursue.
>
I am *not* conversant enough with science fiction to know who John
W. Campbell is.
I knew that Wayne Green founded "73" magazine, another ham radio
magazine. I did *not* know that Wayne was ever affiliated with
"CQ". Wayne Green was the founder of what we know as BYTE
magazine, but ISTM that for tax purposes the magazine was legally
in his wife's name. Along comes a divorce, and Wayne loses BYTE.
So then he founded "Kilobaud Microcomputing", later just called
"Kilobaud". Also ISTM that Wayne Green founded a magazine
dedicated to the TRS-80 called "80 Micro".
Another very interesting character, but Wayne Green was *not* the
name I was searching for...
Charles Richmond
I subscribed to the first year only of "80 Microcomputing". And I
did *not* even have a TRS-80!!! I thought it was an excellent
hobbyest magazine! Wayne seemed capable enough to climb on a lot
of "horses", but somehow he just could *not* stay on them for the
long run. And his readers are the real losers here...
Charles Richmond
> On Nov 7, 1:30 pm, Charles Richmond <friz...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>> I am having a "senior moment" here...
>>
>> ISTR that there was a veteran computer person who was heavy into
>> the hardware side of the microcomputer revolution. I associated
>> him with Don Lancaster, because he was a similar type of computer
>> person. The one I am thinking of... died in the early 2000's.
>>
>> Can anyone suggest who this might be???
>
> "Circuit Cellar", and now publisher of a magazine of the same
> name...usually interesting, but not as fun as the Byte articles.)
>
I am familiar with Steve Ciarcia. Besides his articles in BYTE and
in his Circuit Cellar magazines, Steve also had a few
interesting books on microcomputer subjects. It was sad when Steve
left BYTE, but then BYTE was turning into an advertising rag and
losing its hobbyest value.
I picked up some hardware knowledge from Ciarcia's articles, even
though I *never* actually built one. But Steve Ciarcia is *not*
the name I was searching for... And I think (and *hope*) that
Steve is still among the living. :-)
Charles Richmond
I am familiar with Chuck Peddle as the creator of the 6502
microprocessor. In recent years, he has attended some of the
Commodore conventions as a guest of honor.
ISTR that the 6500 and 6501 chips were too close in design to the
Motorola 6800 and resulted in law suits. I guess that the 6502 was
just different enough...
If Zilog and Intel had aggressively priced their 8-bit
microprocessors, they might have had a bigger share of the 8-bit
market. Since the 6502 was sold so cheaply, it ended up in the
Apple II, Atari 400/800, Commodore 64, and some others.
I think Chuck Peddle is still among the living. He is *not* the
name I am searching for...
Charles Richmond
I am *not* familiar with Hal Chamberlin, but he sounds like a very
interesting guy. I have looked up his books and articles on the
'net and hope to learn more about him and his work.
Chamberlin is *not* the name I was searching for...
Charles Richmond
> Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> writes:
>> I am having a "senior moment" here...
>>
>> ISTR that there was a veteran computer person who was heavy into the
>> hardware side of the microcomputer revolution. I associated him with
>> Don Lancaster, because he was a similar type of computer person. The
>> one I am thinking of... died in the early 2000's.
>>
>> Can anyone suggest who this might be???
>
> not specifically hardware and mid-2000
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jef_Raskin
>
Ah, yes. Jef Raskin: he of Apple documentation, original
Macintosh project, and Canon Cat fame. I think he was Apple
employee number 8. It's sad that he lived only to be about 62
years of age. From the standpoint of an "auld fart" like me (and
others), 62 does *not* seem old at all...
Raskin had a lot of interests, but ISTR that one of his big
interests was music. He was *not* the one whose name I am seeking.
Michael Black
Sorry. John W. Campbell was a writer in the early days of science
fiction, writing what was considered "space operas", everything large
and immediate but not so related to science fact. Then he became an
editor of Astounding, probably the leading science fiction magazine,
starting about 1939 and going till his death in 1971. So he was there
when most of the best known authors like Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke
came along, the "golden age". So the authors would visit him, bringing
their latest work for him to consider, they'd sit around talking, and the
authors would have fodder for their next story.
John W. Campbell had an engineering degree, and a ham license, so for a
while he was writing for the ham magazines, often getting ideas from
visiting Bell Labs.
> I knew that Wayne Green founded "73" magazine, another ham radio magazine. I
> did *not* know that Wayne was ever affiliated with "CQ". Wayne Green was the
> founder of what we know as BYTE magazine, but ISTM that for tax purposes the
> magazine was legally in his wife's name. Along comes a divorce, and Wayne
> loses BYTE. So then he founded "Kilobaud Microcomputing", later just called
> "Kilobaud". Also ISTM that Wayne Green founded a magazine dedicated to the
> TRS-80 called "80 Micro".
>
In the fifties, he had a newsletter devoted to radioteletype, which
resulted in him writing a column on the topic for "CQ", which then
resulted in him being editor of the magazine. It may have been the high
point of it, he was bringing in very interesting technical articles, later
it became more of a magazine about operating. There was eventually
dissatisfaction on his part with the publisher, so he left, and then
almost immediately started up "73".
Since he was already publishing, that set him up to start a computer
magazine when the time was right. The story has never been clear, it
was his ex-wife that landed in charge of the new publishing venture (he'd
remarried by then), and even when this has come up here before, it's never
been real clear what happened to lose the magazine.
He had quite an empire at one point, Kilobaud thick but the
computer-specialized magazines even thicker, not just for the Radio Shack
but another smaller one for the Radio Shack Color Computer, one for the
Apple II, probably more. Then about 1983 or 84, he sold them to IDG. Lots
of money. And then he turned around and started more magazines.
> Another very interesting character, but Wayne Green was *not* the name I was
> searching for...
>
No, I was just replying to the post that brought him up. I'm not really
sure who you are talking about, but "Don Lancaster like" is descriptive
even if not definitive.
Michael
Charles Richmond
Yes!!! Don Tarbell is the name I just could *not* come up with.
Some kind of mental block, but Don Lancaster seems to occupy some
slot in my brain that prevents me from thinking of Tarbell's name.
The main thing I associate with Don Tarbell is the Tarbell
cassette tape interface. I know, he did a *lot* of other things,
but ISTM that the cassette interface *may* be his widest known
accomplishment. (I do *not* know a lot about him, but I know
enough that I admire his computer-related work.)
Gee... Ten years ago!!! I could have sworn it was only five or so
years. As I get older, time seems to get compressed...
A couple of other names I checked out were Leo J. Scanlon and Sol
Libes. They were both heavily involved in early microcomputer
things, but Don Lancaster and Don Tarbell are the two that I kind
of associate together. (Both named Don... hmmm.)
Michael Black
> Chris Burrows wrote:
>> "Charles Richmond" <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:hd4ouk$vhi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> I am having a "senior moment" here...
>>>
>>> ISTR that there was a veteran computer person who was heavy into the
>>> hardware side of the microcomputer revolution. I associated him with Don
>>> Lancaster, because he was a similar type of computer person. The one I am
>>> thinking of... died in the early 2000's.
>>>
>>> Can anyone suggest who this might be???
>>>
>>
>> The first name that jumps into my head is Chuck Peddle. Don't ask me why
>> .... ;-)
>>
>
> I am familiar with Chuck Peddle as the creator of the 6502 microprocessor. In
> recent years, he has attended some of the Commodore conventions as a guest of
> honor.
>
> ISTR that the 6500 and 6501 chips were too close in design to the Motorola
> 6800 and resulted in law suits. I guess that the 6502 was just different
> enough...
>
The original was a plug-in replacement for the 6800, the internals and the
op-codes were what we know in the 6502. Motorola did think it unfair to
be pin compatible, so Mos Technology modified the pinout (and maybe a bit
of something else) and released the 6502.
> If Zilog and Intel had aggressively priced their 8-bit microprocessors, they
> might have had a bigger share of the 8-bit market. Since the 6502 was sold so
> cheaply, it ended up in the Apple II, Atari 400/800, Commodore 64, and some
> others.
>
But in some ways, that's an illusion. When the Altair 8800 came along, at
about $375, I remember reading some comment about how some people were
buying the whole kit just to get the 8080 CPU, it being as cheap (or
cheaper) than getting a single unit. But by the fall of 1975, Godbout
had a kit of the 8080, the clock driver, 1k of RAM and an eprom for about
fifty dollars, I remember being tempted.
The 6501 and then 6502 was introduced with a single unit price of $20.
That was the difference, it wasn't necessarily cheaper, it was far cheaper
at introduction to buy in single quantities. That was the determining
factor for Steve Wozniak to choose it for the Apple I. I remember the
article in Byte about 2 issues in where they made a big deal about the $20
price, and I remember wanting one right then. I stuck with the "sixes"
until mid-2001, going to a 6809 and then the 68000 until finally I got an
Intel based machine, complete with its "funny mnemonics".
I assume that the 8080 could be had cheaper if you were buying in
quantity, after all the Altair 8800 did have considerable parts and
chassis for that $375. And that the 6502 was cheaper in multiple
quantities too.
Michael
Michael Black
> William Hamblen wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:30:58 -0600, Charles Richmond
>> <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am having a "senior moment" here...
>>>
>>> ISTR that there was a veteran computer person who was heavy into the
>>> hardware side of the microcomputer revolution. I associated him with Don
>>> Lancaster, because he was a similar type of computer person. The one I am
>>> thinking of... died in the early 2000's.
>>>
>>> Can anyone suggest who this might be???
>>
>> Another Don was Don Tarbell. He passed away about 10 years ago.
>>
>
> Yes!!! Don Tarbell is the name I just could *not* come up with. Some kind of
> mental block, but Don Lancaster seems to occupy some slot in my brain that
> prevents me from thinking of Tarbell's name.
>
> The main thing I associate with Don Tarbell is the Tarbell cassette tape
> interface. I know, he did a *lot* of other things, but ISTM that the cassette
> interface *may* be his widest known accomplishment. (I do *not* know a lot
> about him, but I know enough that I admire his computer-related work.)
>
I seem to recall that his cassette interface was released under his own
company, certainly it was referred to as "the Tarbell interface". It
was hard to keep track. George Morrow, for instance, had his own company,
but I thought he was behind some of Godbout's designs. Then people like
Lee Felsenstein freelanced, designing things for other companies like
the Sol for Processor Technology and later the original Osborne. I'm not
sure we'd know he was so responsible if there hadn't been history books
written about that period.
> Gee... Ten years ago!!! I could have sworn it was only five or so years. As I
> get older, time seems to get compressed...
>
> A couple of other names I checked out were Leo J. Scanlon and Sol Libes. They
> were both heavily involved in early microcomputer things, but Don Lancaster
> and Don Tarbell are the two that I kind of associate together. (Both named
> Don... hmmm.)
>
Leo Scanlon wrote books, but he seemed a more vague character than some.
Many were participants, he seemed distant. I think Sol Libes was part of
the Amateur Computing Society, it may have been him who wrote the article
about the group in Byte about 1978. I'm pretty sure his interest predated
the microprocessor.
There was also Scelbi, who had an 8008 computer for sale before the Altair
8800 came out. They ran an ad in QST, but I never noticed it until I
heard about it a year or so later, and went back and looked. He soon
decided software was a better business, so he was quite big in software
for the first year or so.
Michael
Joe Pfeiffer
> mve...@pobox.com wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 1:30 pm, Charles Richmond <friz...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>> I am having a "senior moment" here...
>>>
>>> ISTR that there was a veteran computer person who was heavy into
>>> the hardware side of the microcomputer revolution. I associated
>>> him with Don Lancaster, because he was a similar type of computer
>>> person. The one I am thinking of... died in the early 2000's.
>>>
>>> Can anyone suggest who this might be???
>>
>> I would bet that you're thinking of Steve Ciarcia (author of Byte's
>> "Circuit Cellar", and now publisher of a magazine of the same
>> name...usually interesting, but not as fun as the Byte articles.)
>>
>
> I am familiar with Steve Ciarcia. Besides his articles in BYTE and in
> his Circuit Cellar magazines, Steve also had a few interesting books
> on microcomputer subjects. It was sad when Steve left BYTE, but then
> BYTE was turning into an advertising rag and losing its hobbyest
> value.
Sad to see what happened to Byte, and Ciarcia leaving was sad on the
surface -- but instead of a column he's had a whole magazine for decades
now, which is definitely a net win (I'm a subscriber).
> I picked up some hardware knowledge from Ciarcia's articles, even
> though I *never* actually built one. But Steve Ciarcia is *not* the
> name I was searching for... And I think (and *hope*) that Steve is
> still among the living. :-)
As of the most recent reports he is :)
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Michael Black
>
> Sad to see what happened to Byte, and Ciarcia leaving was sad on the
> surface -- but instead of a column he's had a whole magazine for decades
> now, which is definitely a net win (I'm a subscriber).
>
But his leaving didn't kill off Byte, Byte was headed there for some
years.
For a long time, Steve Ciarcia and Jerry Pournelle won the monthly vote
on the best article, something I thought was unfair because they were
columnists. But eventually they changed it, I thought at the time because
here were two people who were unlike the rest of the magazine at that
point, and it looked bad for them to be winning all the time.
Steve's column was the exception by the time he left, the rest of the
construction articles were gone and it was pretty much a "meet the
computer of the month", even worse since by then there wasn't much
besides the Mac andMS-DOS/Windows machines. Having his column in there
at that point looked odd, since it was so different from the rest of
the magazine.
I stopped getting Byte about a 1990, maybe a year after Steve's column
disappeared. At one point I started discarding the least usefull
of the issues, so I went from the latest back. The latest ones had
very little worth saving, then there was a period when there were articles
worth saving, but it wasn't worth keeping the magazines intact (so I
pulled out the articles I wanted and scrapped the rest). Then from 1986
or maybe '85, there was enough content that it was simpler to keep the
magazines intact. So I guess I have most of the issues from 1975 to 1985,
which was when the magazine was in its prime. It's worth noting that some
issues are not intact, the spines got broken from rereading or at some
point the issues were so big it was really hard to read them without
damaging the spine.
Michael
Peter Flass
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>>
>> Sad to see what happened to Byte, and Ciarcia leaving was sad on the
>> surface -- but instead of a column he's had a whole magazine for decades
>> now, which is definitely a net win (I'm a subscriber).
>>
> But his leaving didn't kill off Byte, Byte was headed there for some years.
>
> For a long time, Steve Ciarcia and Jerry Pournelle won the monthly vote
> on the best article, something I thought was unfair because they were
> columnists. But eventually they changed it, I thought at the time because
> here were two people who were unlike the rest of the magazine at that
> point, and it looked bad for them to be winning all the time.
>
> Steve's column was the exception by the time he left, the rest of the
> construction articles were gone and it was pretty much a "meet the
> computer of the month", even worse since by then there wasn't much
> besides the Mac andMS-DOS/Windows machines. Having his column in there
> at that point looked odd, since it was so different from the rest of
> the magazine.
So I'm not the only one who felt that way. I think when the founder got
forced out in favor of his ex-wife might have been the beginning of the
end. After I ended my subscription they called me and asked me why, and
I said it was because the direction of the magazine had changed, but
maybe I sugar-coated it too much.
>
> I stopped getting Byte about a 1990, maybe a year after Steve's column
> disappeared. At one point I started discarding the least usefull
> of the issues, so I went from the latest back. The latest ones had
> very little worth saving, then there was a period when there were
> articles worth saving, but it wasn't worth keeping the magazines intact
> (so I
> pulled out the articles I wanted and scrapped the rest). Then from 1986
> or maybe '85, there was enough content that it was simpler to keep the
> magazines intact. So I guess I have most of the issues from 1975 to 1985,
> which was when the magazine was in its prime. It's worth noting that
> some issues are not intact, the spines got broken from rereading or at
> some point the issues were so big it was really hard to read them without
> damaging the spine.
>
Some time later my wife finally prevailed on me to toss out my
collection of at least ten years worth, probably a lot more. Too bad, I
don't know what they'd be worth on ebay by now. I kept only the IBM PC
and PS2/OS2 issue. At least I kept my collection of Analog from issue
one (plus a few Astoundings) up through JWC's tenure and beyond.
jmfbahciv
> I am having a "senior moment" here...
>
> ISTR that there was a veteran computer person who was heavy into the
> hardware side of the microcomputer revolution. I associated him with Don
> Lancaster, because he was a similar type of computer person. The one I
> am thinking of... died in the early 2000's.
>
> Can anyone suggest who this might be???
>
DEC types.
/BAH
danny burstein
>> not specifically hardware and mid-2000
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jef_Raskin
>Ah, yes. Jef Raskin: he of Apple documentation, original
>Macintosh project, and Canon Cat fame. I think he was Apple
>employee number 8. It's sad that he lived only to be about 62
>years of age. From the standpoint of an "auld fart" like me (and
>others), 62 does *not* seem old at all...
>Raskin had a lot of interests, but ISTR that one of his big
>interests was music. He was *not* the one whose name I am seeking.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> Ah, yes. Jef Raskin: he of Apple documentation, original Macintosh
> project, and Canon Cat fame. I think he was Apple employee number
> 8. It's sad that he lived only to be about 62 years of age. From the
> standpoint of an "auld fart" like me (and others), 62 does *not* seem
> old at all...
>
> Raskin had a lot of interests, but ISTR that one of his big interests
> was music. He was *not* the one whose name I am seeking.
in the early 80s, my brother was regional apple rep. (claimed it was the
largest sized region in conus). when he came to town ... i would
frequently get to go to business dinners with him ... and get into
animated discussion with some of the other people around the table;
including arguments about design of unannounced machines ... like the
MAC.
Torfinn Ingolfsen
> As of the most recent reports he is :)
And there is still a circuit cellar around: http://www.circuitcellar.com/
(no, not exactly the same thing)
--
Torfinn Ingolfsen,
Norway
Joe Pfeiffer
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> As of the most recent reports he is :)
>
> And there is still a circuit cellar around: http://www.circuitcellar.com/
> (no, not exactly the same thing)
I'm a subscriber.
Charles Richmond
I have a lot of respect for some "DEC types", BAH. I only became
aware of Alan Kotok via the book _Hackers_. Kotok was a great
computer person indeed, and another one that died *way* too young.
I really liked DEC computers prior to the introduction of the VAX.
:-( In college, I especially like programming on the DEC-20. I
was fortunate enough to be able to work with an LSI-11 that belong
to the biomedical engineering department.
Eric Chomko
My guess was Forrest Mims of Radio Shack fame, but like Ciarcia he is
very much alive.
Morten Reistad
The 6502 is also a lot easier to interface to, as long as you stick
with static ram. You can run the clock completely to dc and restart,
and timings are very predictable.
I have built a lot of circuitry around the 6502; and written the
appropriate assembly code for it. There was a time when I could read
a program straight out of a hex dump; I always had to stop at the
branches, which were relatively addressed, and "off-by-2" .
You can actually run two 6502s on the same bus, on inverted clocks and
a few '244/'245 buffers.
They will each take a half-tick on the bus. Very useful for debugging.
-- mrr
Charles Richmond
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> You can actually run two 6502s on the same bus, on inverted clocks and
> a few '244/'245 buffers.
>
> They will each take a half-tick on the bus. Very useful for debugging.
>
Could this "back-to-back" arrangement of processors for
debugging... also be done with MC68k's??? I have *never* seen it
done, but ISTM that I read somewhere it was possible.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> Morten Reistad wrote:
> >
> > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
> >
> > You can actually run two 6502s on the same bus, on inverted clocks and
> > a few '244/'245 buffers.
> >
> > They will each take a half-tick on the bus. Very useful for debugging.
> >
>
> Could this "back-to-back" arrangement of processors for
> debugging... also be done with MC68k's??? I have *never* seen it
> done, but ISTM that I read somewhere it was possible.
I have seen it done, a friend of mine set up a company to build and
market a dual 68000 box built that way. He got as far as a prototype board
before getting swamped with other work.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
William Hamblen
<fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> You can actually run two 6502s on the same bus, on inverted clocks and
>> a few '244/'245 buffers.
>>
>> They will each take a half-tick on the bus. Very useful for debugging.
>>
>
>Could this "back-to-back" arrangement of processors for
>debugging... also be done with MC68k's??? I have *never* seen it
>done, but ISTM that I read somewhere it was possible.
You couldn't do virtual memory on a 68000 because it couldn't restart
an instruction (that took a 68010 or better). A workaround was to run
two 68000s in parallel with clocks out of phase. When the leading
68000 encountered an address exception the trailing 68000 would be
halted before it could execute the offending instruction. You would
page or swap and then start the halted processor. The AT&T Unix PC
was a machine that did this as best I recall.
Bud
Morten Reistad
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> You can actually run two 6502s on the same bus, on inverted clocks and
>> a few '244/'245 buffers.
>>
>> They will each take a half-tick on the bus. Very useful for debugging.
>>
>
>Could this "back-to-back" arrangement of processors for
>debugging... also be done with MC68k's??? I have *never* seen it
>done, but ISTM that I read somewhere it was possible.
It should be, but I haven't seen a proof. It would require some
more glue logic though, more signals to be handled. And the processor
design would have to be able to cope with the small delays. I am
not sure all the 68k's could do that.
But you could plopin a 6502 easlily, and just clock it to get
the cycles noone else uses. It is completely static , so you
can strobe it along, and then effectively halt it for a minute,
and then continue.
As far as I can read the diagrams, this was how the Z80/6502
common designs worked.
-- mrr
Al Kossow
> It should be, but I haven't seen a proof.
Apollo DN400 series workstations.