Christian, you and I often disagree on things like this - what something is or isn't, how to describe it - because you and I are of different ages and have different backgrounds. These things, they happened in my early working engineering lifetime; for you they are well before you were born; i think that's a noteworthy difference. We have other differences. These are not criticisms, I'm stating empirical conditions. So you and I will not likely agree, that is a statistical estimate, again not a criticism. So: the previous posting you reference, is likely the thread of Jan 10 2024 "A 4004 Based Microcomputer the Comstar System 4". YOu and I and others posted at length. Web access to the vcf-midatlantic list will provide that content to anyone interested. Comstar apparently made a number of things. IN the prior discussion it emerged that Comstar produced a programming product, and a controlling product. That variety of items was part of the confusion about which thing is/was in discussion, and what to call those things. Whether some of them are controllers, some of them are computers, some are both? Those are just words, descriptors, given by Intel or Comstar or someone for some purpose of communicating something. We can guess at their intentions, based on content we can read retrospectively and individually interpret. From both my first-hand experiences in the 1970's, and my retrospective experiences decades later, I say the following. Lots of things in the 70's era were called "computers", because it was a shorthand way of saying some thing was making decisions and taking actions and producing some kind of information. That was in the way people of the era, were generally aware that "computers" of other sorts, were doing those sorts of things. And, those people who wrote, they wanted to get some kind of idea across to people, in few words, because it suited their purposes. We can guess at those purposes based on context - but to-my-point, I bring a different view of context to the situation, than Christian does, Likely others have their view-of-contexts, and different sets of evidence. But if you Christian insist that if Comstar or Intel calls something "a computer", that makes it a computer in some other ways? or is official in some fashion? that goes from reportage to judgement. Judgement is fine when backed by evidence. If you insist that a literal reference is conclusive, "you win", Intel and Comstar called some things computers, they are the experts, therefore it is so. That's a logic I am guessing you are employing. Myself, I have other "logics" which I consider, and other evidences and interpretations. The quote you post about the bottle-loading machine, is from an Intel ad in Electronics Magazine page 44-45. It does not name the Comstar 4 literally. The three paragraphs about Comstar's product, reference "an Intel micro computer" (more on that shortly) and "The little computer in a 6" x 6" x 1 1/2" space" which apparently is the Comstar product. Do you see a Comstar 4 named device on the photo of the bottling machine? or is the Comstar 4 item you have of that size? The three paragraphs also say "Comstar estimates the micro computer halved the cost of the control portion of this system". Does that mean that Comstar made a control-er? Or did Comstar replace a control-something with a computer-something? The ad itself, has a title in very large letters: "Intel Micro Computers". The two-page ad has four sections titled "Make point of sale terminals", "make compact business machines", "do process control", "do data communications processing". The Comstar product is under "control". Doesn't that suggest, the Comstar is a "process control-ler", if not part of a process controller? The data communications section of the ad, refers to a "Bekins controller" used by Action Communications Systems. Apparently the two companies with direct help from Intel, literally used Intel's SIM4-02 (4004 prototype boards) and "Intel micro computers" (presumably 4004 processor based). Again, Intel refers to controllers made from microprocessors, that's my reasonable interpretation. The other two sections refer to terminals made from Intel micro computers and PROMs, and a "general-purpose data processing machine" (business data entry and sorting, simple accounting) made from INtel micro computers, Intel's PROMs and RAMs. What's the point of the ad? In my opinion, based on my presence as a student electrical engineer at the time the ad was produced, and my subsequent EE knowledge thereafter: The point of the ad was that engineers can use Intel's micro computers - microprocessor chips, PROMs, RAMs, and development tools collectively referenced as MCS-4 and MCS-8 systems - to produce products of the era which previously were made from mechanical or small-scale-digital logic (TTL, DTL chips). Those products were things like point-of-sale terminals, data-processing machines, process controlling machines, and data communication systems. Intel references prior and familiar situations - people worked POS cash-registers, did data entry, ran data comm equipment, and worked in factories using process-controllers. Intel's ad, was talking to engineers of those systems. Not the end users I just mentioned, who would not be reading Electronics, a trade magazine. None of these examples - NONE - are general purpose computers used by end-users entering programs from a selection of programs, to perform a variety of tasks as determined by the end user. NONE! The end-use was determined by engineers/technicians, working for companies which sold the completed product for repetitive use only. The final products, were sold to another company, which employed people for the repetitive use. The day-to-day users of these products, did one thing only - data entry or data-communications or bottle-loading or cafeteria food-sales. Zero - Z-E-R-O - end-user "computing". So I call out the difference between some device that someone in the 1970's called "a computer" of some sort; and the idea about a class of devices that are used "as computers" in the ways I just suggested constitute "computing" by end users. That's my read, my interpretation, the contexts I considered. That's the requested help I provide under the terms given by Christian at the end of his post. I'm not categorically "better at research", that's argumentative. I did put in some time today, a few hours. I bring different things in different quantities "to the table". I regret if my views create some personal friction, which is why I am reluctant to provide them. But I have a point to make about "computers" of that era, which is of considerable interest to me. Regards Herb Johnson still not a bot
Christian Liendo cliendo at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 21:17:24 UTC 2024
I posted about some research on the 4004 based computer that I found and I remember there was some concern that what I had was not in fact a computer, but a controller.
So I have been digging a bit more and I think I found something interesting to support that the Compstar was a "Micro Computer"
Intel used the System 4 in their own advertising calling it a "Micro Computer"
In The Intel MCS 4 User Manual Feb 1973 page 171 and in Electronics Magazine Jan 1973, they promote the 4004 and 8008 and use the System 4 as an example.
http://www.bitsavers.org/components/intel/MCS4/MCS-4_UsersManual_Feb73.pdf
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Electronics/70s/73/Electronics-197...
From the sources:
"An Intel micro computer does all the thinking for this automatic bottle-loading machine. The micro computer, built by Comstar Corporation of Edina, Minnesota, for Conveyor Specialities, tells the machine how to load bottles of different sizes and when to perform each step in the loading process.
So I am still working on this but I don't have a lot of time. If anyone wants to join in or knows someone who is better at research than I would could use the help
Thanks, Chris
-- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA https://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net preserve, recover, restore 1970's computing email: hjohnson AT retrotechnology DOT com or try later herbjohnson AT comcast DOT net