On 11/1/21 1:52 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> On 31/10/2021 19:47, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much
>>>> run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it
>>>> easily.
>>>> The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the
>>>> hobbysist were all using 6502s.
>>> Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they
>>> mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before), which
>>> has a Z80 CPU.
>>
>> Most UK 'home' computers were *not* based on a z80.
>>
>> Sinclair came very late to the party.
>>
>> First micro I saw was altair 8800 - s100 bus. 8080. That was serious
>> . 1974 or thereabouts
>
> "Home computers" are described from any micro as the Altair 8800
> (designed 1974 but showed up in January 1975 to start the craze). True,
> that one had a 8080.
>
>> The Apple 1 was around 1973, 6502 again
>
> It was released 1976. The 6502 itself is from 1975. About 200 Apple 1
> were produced, making it a collector's item today. Only with the Apple 2
> a year later they produced large quantities.
>
>> Then the Apple II, PET and trash 80 came a couple of years later.
>
> 1977.
>
>> Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business.
>
> I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer.
>
>> At that time the split was clear. CP/M was for business and ran on
>> Z80s/8080s.
>
> UK "Home micros" with a Z80 (ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPCs, ...) where not
> shipped with CP/M, although you could probably run it. Did this (in an
> emulator) with the CPC <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStVxf0XlE0>.
>
>> 6502s were for hobbyists writing in basic and assembler.
>
> The UK market (and that's what we're talking here about) saw more Z80
> based ZX (Spectrum, 81/80) machines that Commodore 64s.
>
> But the UK saw also a big number of Acorn computers, which ran a
> 6502. Those, like Apple 2s, were rather expensive that they were mainly
> used in the education sector.
>
> If you check some links of
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_computers> it can be
> noticed that most of the used a Z80.
>
>> As for 6809s - great chip. No one really used it.
>
> The TRS color computer and "clone" Dragon 32/64 did. Latter also sold in
> numbers.
>
> [...]
>
>>> OK, there were many using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the
>>> Oric,
>>> which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day.
>>> But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to
>>> code
>>> in assembler on a 6502 (C64).
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. Wasn't Apple II a 6502 as well?
>
> Yes, but at least in Europe to expensive for the common user. Outside the
> UK most got a C64, while in the UK Spectrums ruled the market.
>
> F'up2 alt.folklore.computers

I remember the ads in magazines and such ... the first
"Small-Office PCs". The bits were fitted into something
the size of a large desk. S-100 mostly, 8" floppy (or
TWO if you were a successful small biz), tape if you
were a cheap-ass, 8008 chip.

The Altair was a "desktop" by comparison, and had the
new and improved 8080 chip. However they were aimed
straight at the student/hobby market and I don't
think anybody ever tried to integrate them in to
a slick "Small Business System". They WERE a sort
of "milestone" though because regular Joes could
actually kind of AFFORD one - the first real
"democratization" of PCs. Apple and Commodore
came along shortly after and blew the Altairs
out of the water.

The 6502 was designed by a bunch of defectors from
the Motorola 6800 series. That caused some legal
issues, they were originally "too like" the 6800s.
More efficient however - and cheaper to make. Soon
edged Motorola pretty much out of the 8-bit PC
market (except for the CoCo).

(Not sure if OS-9 was ever ported to the 6502, but
you COULD run it on a CoCo). OS-9 was quite UNIX-ish
but a lot more space/cycle efficient. It's still
sold - and ain't exactly cheap - mostly for use
in embedded systems, esp those that need to be
close to Real Time)

The TRS-80s were not bad computers at all. They were
one of the next steps for Small Business computers.
The CP/M was a big advantage and the units were
nicely packaged. They were fairly snappy for 8-bitters
too, not "trash" at all. And yes they were fine as
home/hobby/development PCs. Always wanted one, but
could never quite afford one. The final version had
a 68000 co-processor board in there.

The PETs were of the same paradigm as the TRS-80s,
a monitor+keyboard+mainboard in one nicely-styled
box. The first had a CRAP "chicklet" keyboard but
the follow-ons were much nicer. Could never figure
out why they built a nice box with a 99-cent keyboard.
PETs, like the TRS, were aimed at the "Small Business"
market. They offered similar performance, but except
for some one-off efforts I don't think there was a
CP/M-6502. Some dual-board models though from short-
lived companies.

I knew a guy, one of those IQ-200 on-the-edge
people, who had a computer shop, but mostly
made money writing clones of popular computer
games - in MACHINE CODE, BINARY - on a PET.
Said it "gave him a buzz" to do it that way :-)
He wasn't lying, I watched him doing it. He'd
then burn it into ROM cartridges for VIC-20s
and C-64s.

TI-99/4A ... well ... TI ruined it for themselves
by trying Apples thing of making it super-hard for
3rd party developers. Alas the actual 9900 16-bit
chip was BARELY used, 95% of the work was done by
the GPU. The 9900s were kinda strange too - a funky
hardware-based multi-user/multi-tasking setup
which stored register sets and stuff in system
memory because, at the time, it was actually
faster/cheaper than on-chip. "BLWP" - Branch
And Load WorkSpace Pointer" ... I remember
that instruction. It was never meant as a
"small business" PC, and neither were the
VICs/C64s/Ataris ... more "Game Systems Plus".
A few C64s were put to "business" USE however -
for a very long time there was a "local govt
channel" and once in a while it'd crash and
you'd see the C64 ROM BASIC error message :-)

The Brits were also players. The "BBC" computers were
pretty good - and sometimes ahead of US pop-culture
units.

But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great
of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it.
Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the
others went under eventually ... though Commodore
made a fair try with the Amigas. Those STILL have
fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the
Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga
support programs too. I bought the original, but
there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages
that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550
PC (semi)-Clone.

The native 550 graphics were superior,
but I badly needed full IBM-CGA compatibility and
you had to buy a separate board and do some tricky
jumper-wire work to get that. Still a great unit,
and about a third the price of IBM. I might still
have it somewhere, under the pile-o-junk.

Anyway, the IBM clones now dominate. A few years
back DeGaulle airport, Paris, was paralyzed because
it's system for dealing with taxi-way routing went
down. Turned out it was running on a PC clone and
WINDOWS 3.11 for DECADES. Hey, if it ain't broke ...

Always wanted a SAGE computer. Looked like a PC box
but it had 68000 series chips and some kind of
XENIX-related and similar operating systems. Alas,
a small maker, expensive, low-volume, pretty quickly
went under. Too bad. Those WERE meant as "small
business" boxes. Think you can still buy them
on E-Bay, but early BAD experiences with E-Bay
and Musks PayPal put me off of them. However I
have seen working MicroVAX systems for sale there,
they were VERY good systems and the OS was well
ahead of its time, meant for medium-scale orgs
and businesses. Still have the VMS manual, four
inches thick, thin paper, smallish type. ONE day ...