Stolen designs

Yes to all you said; remember them well.

Replace themwith a 4004...

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:21:05 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" Gave us:

Are you referring to the inband gated synch descrambler in the Feb

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:17:51 -0700, Jim Thompson Gave us:

N O T !!!!

PERHAPS, when the marine layer is rolling in as in in the morning, and a little during "June Gloom".

But for the most part... NOT AT ALL!

No, they had a cheap C-band sat receiver article. the unit used a modified UHF TV tuner module and a block down converter to select the channel. The audio demodulator was tunable, ands drifted. It was published about the same time. I don't know if I still have the magazine on hand.

Honestly Roy...he's coming in from *Arizona*. Can there ever really be less humidity? ;-)

Tim

It isn't Basic that I miss--it's the built-in instrument control smarts. If you wanted to read a counter, for instance, you said "trigger" and then "input".

Nice.

Cheers,

Phil "wallowing in GPIB" Hobbs

less

Jim wasn't here during a Santa Ana wind condition. Places I have worked will shut down electronics assembly lines during those events because the RH gets too low to be within the ESD-protection guidelines. Even benchtop humidifiers can't keep the air up to the legal minimum.

I remember the PC was a radical departure from how IBM did business. We were reeling from the exact copy clones (The 3158 "AS/5" clone copied the microcode, virtually line by line) so when the 4300s came out microcode was "registered IBM confidential". You had to sign a "conditions of employment" non-disclosure to even peek at the code. Suddenly we were selling a PC using off the shelf parts and tyhe microcode listing was shipped with every machine. It was no wonder PC clones were flooding the market within weeks.

It always seemed to me that both Microsoft and Intel were out of the mainstream of computing, which is why we wound up locked into the bizarre, short-sighted kluges we have today. If IBM had picked the 68K and Digital Research...

John

The IBM engineers wanted the 68k - it was vastly better suited for the job. But some suit decided the 68k was too expensive, and the 8088 was cheaper. It didn't matter that it was old-fashioned and a poor design even when it was made, since they didn't plan on selling more than a few thousand machines anyway. The original PC was just a marketing experiment, to help find out what the market really needed - then they would re-design it with a sensible choice of processor.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 06:08:14 -0500, "Tim Williams" Gave us:

I see.

Relative humidity... Whodathunkit.

The strange thing is IBM had plenty of 68k experience. It was the engine in a lot of IBM custom built test equipment and the Personal Terminal (an 80s version of the blackberry) that every field guy carried was 68k based.

Amen to that!

My uncle is *not* humid! Maybe you are thinking of my sister?

Intel was selected for business reasons, not technical ones, nor price.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:45:42 GMT, Robert Baer Gave us:

Sally Rottencrotch? Nawwww....

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:06:43 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs transparently proposed:

Hiya, Numbya. How's the frothing loon biz these days. We don't see much of you anymore.

Yes, the "business reasons" being that Motorola wasn't delivering--and kept slipping--the debut of the 68008. I was designing an RTU (Remote Terminal Unit) at exactly that time, and was forced to the 8088--against my will and preference--for the same reason.

James Arthur