On 11/2/21 1:05 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 11/1/21 21:13, 1p166 wrote:
>> 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
>
> `    The Apple was outside my price range as well.
>     My Amigas were second hand.
>     Years later I had credit and spent a lot to bring
> the specs on the A2000b up to date with a cool running 68060
> with 64 megabytes of ram, a nice video card, and scan-doubler.
>
>
>>
>>
>>    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.
>
>     Well I was not paying close attention as a friend
> was trying to build a CPM computer in her bedroom. Don't
> know if she ever got it working.  I asked her how much
> memory I would need for word processing, she said 64 KB
> and I grabbed a C=64 at the Pacific Stereo store for $200
> and next week came back for the VIC 1541 floppy drive which
> was about $220.
>>
>>    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.
>
>     Commodore Business Machines was a pioneer of cost
> reduction.
>     I had a C=64 but did not code but did do book keeping
> for a man who had gotten several years behind,
>     I did a lot of work in PaperClip from Batteries
> Included of Canada.
>     The C=128/64 had a chip called an 8502 to run the
> Commodore side of things but CPM ran on a Zilog Z-80A.
> that was built in for the purpose.  I got the OS from
> FOG down in Daly City.  I got hooked on dungeon crawls
> then and when i have time I still play Angband on whatever
> it will run on in my VirtualBox.

There were a number of "dual chip" units back
in the day. They wanted to support the Latest
Stuff, but ALSO wanted to support the CP/M
universe of biz software. The TRS with the
68K chip was perhaps the most powerful of
those dual-chip boxes.

But the 16-bit chips and a lot more memory
made it WAY easy to write vastly superior
apps - and the 8-bit and CP/M universes
collapsed. Not much in the way of dual-chip
endeavours after that (OK there ARE those
Arduinos and maybe you can count the x86+
NVidia setups often used for mining bitcoins).

>>
>>    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.
>
>     Well I did bookkeeping and more on the Amiga
> from the A1000 to the 2000b and wasted a lot of money
> on them.  But they were the best of the time which
> passed about 1995 when the Windows got useful.

IMHO, the Amigas were "gimmicks" to keep up the
Commodore stock prices so the executives could
plunder the company. Nothing Amiga could do that
IBM or Apple couldn't -or couldn't soon- exceed
and the bosses knew it.

Goddamned "Guru Meditations" ... they quickly
forced me in a given direction. Given Apples
"closed box" philosophy I think I chose correctly.

>     The IBM PC had is own problems and eventually
> failed due to faster cheaper clones.

A *business* failure, not a *technical* failure.
As I said, I put my meager paycheck into a CLONE.

> CBM tried to
> build its own PC line but the people in charge were
> not computer users nor knew what they were about.
> Finally a debtor took over the company and used it
> as a Cash Cow and milked it dry and right into bankruptcy.
> The Amiga IP was up for grabs and the right folks
> did not get it.

CBM was doomed. There could only be two "sides".
The big people knew this, and thus took the money
and ran.

>>
>>    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 ...
>
>     If it ain't broke this week wait for the updates
> to take it down.

Heh heh heh ... KNOW what you mean ! :-)

> An important computer with traffic
> control should have been better maintained.

But it didn't NEED to be "maintained". It was
perfect as it was. The problem wasn't software,
the mainboard developed a fault. FAIR chance,
though I'm not 100% sure, they just moved the
same app to a slightly newer motherboard -
a Core-2-Quad or something that could still
run 8/16 code. A VM could also do it. I have
CP/M-86 running in a VM - AND a good 'C'
compiler, for fun.

>     Not clones anymore, x86 computers dominate and
> what do you run Linux on anyway.  Some builders make
> them reliable machines.

Almost all of the clones are good machines. I prefer
ASUS boards these days. Their "B" series are good
solid hardware. Their "ROG-STRIX" are maybe even
better, but a tad more expensive. GOTTA turn off
all those blinky LEDS though !

>>    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 ...
>
>     The Sage was pretty and even more expensive than the
> Amiga.  I looked and looked but never got one.

I lusted ... but my paycheck was too small at
the time. I loved the 68k, but also wanted a
more biz/development OS environment. SAGE had
that.

Now I have a bigger paycheck - but SAGE is gone.
Fortunately Linus stepped in - and some the
BSDs are good too.

Got a bad shock today trying to upgrade my Buster
to Bullseye ... the apt full-upgrade hit an error
halfway through and trashed it. Cannot find any
option that really says "ignore ALL errors and
keep going". Fortunately I'd used gparted to
make a full copy of my existing system. Alas
my Buster is chock-FULL of add-on software
that was meticulously added and tweaked. Really
REALLY don't want to start all over again.
Winders really IS better in this respect, but
maybe ONLY that respect.