80"s Technology and CBM

[carlsson]

Out of curiosity, I went to the History Channel website. They have uploaded some short clips, but neither of those seems to match the episode discussed here. The longest clip is just over four minutes of which 3.5 minutes describe the history of computing from Blaise Pascal to the 1960's, only with short glimpses of modern personal computers so that can't be it. Probably it is an episode not available from the homepage. I haven't checked other video sites though.

Quite possibly this article could be relevant, although it doesn't seem to be written by folks at the History Channel. Of course if anyone producing a documentary based it on IBM, Apple, Compaq, Microsoft and a bit of UNIX, there would not be any room for Commodores. ;-)
http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=219014

 

[Chuck(G)]

A hobbyist will be able to rebuild a working Apple II out of stock parts for many years to come, but the C64 and Ami mark a turning point in proprietary chip fab, integrated design and miniaturization that cannot be naively reproduced. The designs that made these popular will also make them very hard to keep on into the future now that the home computer war is lost. At least the 64 has a firmer hold in history than the ami.

The proprietary chip design was going on in the mainframe world long before CBM got around to it. Even in such stuff as terminals, custom gate arrays had found a home (custom logic ICs go back to the 1960s). What custom logic needs to be practical is volume--and the C64 and like were able to get it. Indeed, there's even custom logic in the IBM 5150 (take a look at the floppy controller board and IBM's hybrid ICs).

Nowadays, however, one can roll one's own custom logic thanks to FPGA and CPLD technology. Even the SID may eventually give way to duplication with mixed-signal FPGAs becoming more common. What's lacking are the original design documents.

 

[Kludgy]

Good perspective. I am resonating with a later period.

 

[SUCCESS]

I'm having a little difficulty following your line of reasoning, but here goes. MOS Technology was not purchased by CBM until they'd fallen on hard times--and it didn't take them long with their pricing. ISTR that CBM bought MOS Tech around 1976 (the 6502 came out in 1975).

Pricing isn't a matter "lying" or "telling the truth". If it were just a matter similar to selling turnips (Price = Cost of goods + Profit), we'd have thousands of successful semiconductor firms. The problem is that you have to build in enough profit so that you can fund future development--and reworking a fab is very expensive--without impacting your sales. MOS Technology severely missed that mark and priced their product too low. While they could make a small profit, they couldn't advance production and R&D to bring out a future competitive product. Add to that the collapse of the domestic market for calculators and watches and the combination was lethal.



No, the basic engineering on your 8051 was done in the early 80's by Intel. Freescale has its own problems not related to pricing or technical issues. It was the target of an LBO by Blackstone and so has a huge debt burden, which affects their ability to raise further capital for R&D. Freescale is actually beating market expectations.

Target markets are another thing. Freescale appears to be concentrating on high-end applications, which your little 8051 chip can't touch.

AJAAJAJAJ. I've never said that an 8051 core is likely to beat a 32 Bit Power PC or an automotive MCP555 with 2 TPUS.
But the 8051 I'm using is one instruction per cicle (80515). It's the improved Intel classic.
The MIPS througthput is superb for an 8 bit micro. And most embeed applications fits (at least have fitted) in 8 bit micros.
That's what I'm talking, and where the biggest portfolio is offered. I've worked in embeed apps and never seen a system using a 32 bit procesor/micro. So ... I don't know if working on high end micros is profiteable for a silicon company at that moment and thinking in the embeed market, of course. Computing is completely different thing.
I've used Freescale 8bit, Silabs 8bit, Microchip 14,16 and 18F and even the 32 bit MCP555 from freescale. Also with an ARM7 core from Atmel. Let me say that many people hate Freescale because it keeps discontinuing parts, turning old designs in sh*t.
If you wrote an app, you need to migrate to the modern equiv part. And they are not in the pole position rigth now ....
The new extreme low power micros are the trend ... and Texas started two years before its competitors ... Again, this are not high end micros

Perhaps your are rigth with MOS, that the low price caused a long term financial break ... Thinking in that way makes sense ... but still think that Motorola 6800 price was driven by it's market hegemony during the first time .. until other competitors started to appear.

 

[Chuck(G)]

The new extreme low power micros are the trend ... and Texas started two years before its competitors ... Again, this are not high end micros

If you're talking about the MSP430, yes, it's a friendly architecture, but the von Neumann model puts it at a distinct disadvantage with a 16-bit address space. I can address 65K of RAM with an AVR and still have a pile of program space. All of this may be neither here nor there. I suspect that the ARM Cortex M0 designs will eventually take over where PICs and AVRs now live.

Perhaps your are rigth with MOS, that the low price caused a long term financial break ... Thinking in that way makes sense ... but still think that Motorola 6800 price was driven by it's market hegemony during the first time .. until other competitors started to appear.

The 6800 was never more than an also-ran. It would have died much earlier if it weren't for its microcontroller incarnations like the 68HC11.

 

[mark66j]

I'm a software developer and did my first real programming (not counting one college course) on a C64, and I've met quite a few other programmers who cut their teeth there, too.

People often forget that the Apple II and the early PC were relatively expensive machines when they came out, more than many of us could afford. Commodore also had better technology in many ways, for instance the ease of connecting peripherals compared to the jumble of interfaces on the early PC.

I think one reason Commodore gets short shrift is that Jack Tramiel made a lot of enemies over the years...

 

[MikeS]

I'm a software developer and did my first real programming (not counting one college course) on a C64, and I've met quite a few other programmers who cut their teeth there, too.

People often forget that the Apple II and the early PC were relatively expensive machines when they came out, more than many of us could afford. Commodore also had better technology in many ways, for instance the ease of connecting peripherals compared to the jumble of interfaces on the early PC.

I think one reason Commodore gets short shrift is that Jack Tramiel made a lot of enemies over the years...

...And IBM and Apple are the only ones still around with money to spend supporting TV programs...

They probably used the 64 because it was easier to find a working one than an old PC or Apple.