Update Re: A 4004 Based Microcomputer the Comstar System 4
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
I'm just going to address some things listed Comstar was a company that automated other people's products. They worked with companies like Warner & Swasey to build custom automation solutions and then went on to pretty much make a 4004 system with various cards to do the same automation. I would argue they are pretty much like the Micral N. Which was also designed for process control. As of 1972 they had one product. The Star 4 which was 4004 based and then came the Star 8 which was 8008 and then the Star 4A which was 4040. They were eventually purchased by Warner and Swasey and became their computer division.
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.
Intel called it a Microcomputer in their advertising It was called a Microcomputer in the ACM titled "Development of a portable compiler for industrial microcomputer systems " It was called a Microcomputer in Electronic’s Magazine July 11th 1974 It was listed as a Microcomputer in "Auerbach Guide to Minicomputers" April 1976 & Winter 1976 - 1977 It was listed as a Microcomputer in Datamation Magazine Dec 1974 It was called a Microcomputer in "A MICROCOMPUTER BASED SUBSTATION CONTROL SYSTEM" The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1975 Engineering, electronics and electrical Page 90 I am defining it in the same manner they are defining it, in the time they are defining it. I did get in touch with Jim Hollenhorst from Agilent who actually worked there and worked on the units. To quote him "Regarding the question of whether the system was a general-purpose computer, the answer in principle is "yes". So if all those publications called it a Microcomputer and the people who worked on also did, then I think I have enough to go with. I hope to have some more photos in 2025 when the Western Reserve Historical Society reopens after a flood. They have a number of Warner & Swasey photos and so I hope to find something useful. On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 1:21 PM Herbert Johnson via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
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
Christian I believe they meant "microcomputer" as in a computing device with a microprocessor embedded, not a micro computer in the personal computing sense. As opposed to a computing device that had a CPU controller card/cards that did the same thing. Other than the microprocessor chip it was no different than devices used for 10 years prior. If microcomputer means "anything with a microprocessor" then yes it was a micro computer. If microcomputer means "a general purpose computer" I'd be less inclined to agree. I think your sources are coming from the old-school definition of microcomputer. Thanks for sharing this info, it's really a fine line definition and worth having the discussion. Bill On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 8:42 PM Christian Liendo via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
I'm just going to address some things listed
Comstar was a company that automated other people's products.
They worked with companies like Warner & Swasey to build custom automation solutions and then went on to pretty much make a 4004 system with various cards to do the same automation.
I would argue they are pretty much like the Micral N. Which was also designed for process control.
As of 1972 they had one product. The Star 4 which was 4004 based and then came the Star 8 which was 8008 and then the Star 4A which was 4040.
They were eventually purchased by Warner and Swasey and became their computer division.
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.
Intel called it a Microcomputer in their advertising It was called a Microcomputer in the ACM titled "Development of a portable compiler for industrial microcomputer systems " It was called a Microcomputer in Electronic’s Magazine July 11th 1974 It was listed as a Microcomputer in "Auerbach Guide to Minicomputers" April 1976 & Winter 1976 - 1977 It was listed as a Microcomputer in Datamation Magazine Dec 1974 It was called a Microcomputer in "A MICROCOMPUTER BASED SUBSTATION CONTROL SYSTEM" The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1975 Engineering, electronics and electrical Page 90
I am defining it in the same manner they are defining it, in the time they are defining it.
I did get in touch with Jim Hollenhorst from Agilent who actually worked there and worked on the units.
To quote him
"Regarding the question of whether the system was a general-purpose computer, the answer in principle is "yes".
So if all those publications called it a Microcomputer and the people who worked on also did, then I think I have enough to go with.
I hope to have some more photos in 2025 when the Western Reserve Historical Society reopens after a flood. They have a number of Warner & Swasey photos and so I hope to find something useful.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 1:21 PM Herbert Johnson via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
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
I never said it was a personal computer. So are only computers that can do business and personal computing "computers"? If I build a computer and make it do process control is it no longer a computer? What I am saying is at the time, industry and computer publications and even Intel called it that. Honestly this whole things came out of a question, was the 4004 used for anything other than a calculator, and it was. I didn't give it a title as a computer, others did. Back in the 70s On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 3:49 AM Bill Degnan via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
Christian I believe they meant "microcomputer" as in a computing device with a microprocessor embedded, not a micro computer in the personal computing sense. As opposed to a computing device that had a CPU controller card/cards that did the same thing. Other than the microprocessor chip it was no different than devices used for 10 years prior.
If microcomputer means "anything with a microprocessor" then yes it was a micro computer. If microcomputer means "a general purpose computer" I'd be less inclined to agree. I think your sources are coming from the old-school definition of microcomputer.
Thanks for sharing this info, it's really a fine line definition and worth having the discussion. Bill
On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 8:42 PM Christian Liendo via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
I'm just going to address some things listed
Comstar was a company that automated other people's products.
They worked with companies like Warner & Swasey to build custom automation solutions and then went on to pretty much make a 4004 system with various cards to do the same automation.
I would argue they are pretty much like the Micral N. Which was also designed for process control.
As of 1972 they had one product. The Star 4 which was 4004 based and then came the Star 8 which was 8008 and then the Star 4A which was 4040.
They were eventually purchased by Warner and Swasey and became their computer division.
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.
Intel called it a Microcomputer in their advertising It was called a Microcomputer in the ACM titled "Development of a portable compiler for industrial microcomputer systems " It was called a Microcomputer in Electronic’s Magazine July 11th 1974 It was listed as a Microcomputer in "Auerbach Guide to Minicomputers" April 1976 & Winter 1976 - 1977 It was listed as a Microcomputer in Datamation Magazine Dec 1974 It was called a Microcomputer in "A MICROCOMPUTER BASED SUBSTATION CONTROL SYSTEM" The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1975 Engineering, electronics and electrical Page 90
I am defining it in the same manner they are defining it, in the time they are defining it.
I did get in touch with Jim Hollenhorst from Agilent who actually worked there and worked on the units.
To quote him
"Regarding the question of whether the system was a general-purpose computer, the answer in principle is "yes".
So if all those publications called it a Microcomputer and the people who worked on also did, then I think I have enough to go with.
I hope to have some more photos in 2025 when the Western Reserve Historical Society reopens after a flood. They have a number of Warner & Swasey photos and so I hope to find something useful.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 1:21 PM Herbert Johnson via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
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
Then I think it is a microcomputer then too. From the sources you sited, a microcomputer is simply a device with a microprocessor in it. That’s what they meant I believe. I am not debating them or you, just making sure I understood what you meant. Bill On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 6:18 AM Christian Liendo via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
I never said it was a personal computer.
So are only computers that can do business and personal computing "computers"?
If I build a computer and make it do process control is it no longer a computer?
What I am saying is at the time, industry and computer publications and even Intel called it that.
Honestly this whole things came out of a question, was the 4004 used for anything other than a calculator, and it was.
I didn't give it a title as a computer, others did. Back in the 70s
On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 3:49 AM Bill Degnan via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
Christian I believe they meant "microcomputer" as in a computing device with a microprocessor embedded, not a micro computer in the personal computing sense. As opposed to a computing device that had a CPU controller card/cards that did the same thing. Other than the microprocessor chip
it
was no different than devices used for 10 years prior.
If microcomputer means "anything with a microprocessor" then yes it was a micro computer. If microcomputer means "a general purpose computer" I'd be less inclined to agree. I think your sources are coming from the old-school definition of microcomputer.
Thanks for sharing this info, it's really a fine line definition and worth having the discussion. Bill
On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 8:42 PM Christian Liendo via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
I'm just going to address some things listed
Comstar was a company that automated other people's products.
They worked with companies like Warner & Swasey to build custom automation solutions and then went on to pretty much make a 4004 system with various cards to do the same automation.
I would argue they are pretty much like the Micral N. Which was also designed for process control.
As of 1972 they had one product. The Star 4 which was 4004 based and then came the Star 8 which was 8008 and then the Star 4A which was 4040.
They were eventually purchased by Warner and Swasey and became their computer division.
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.
Intel called it a Microcomputer in their advertising It was called a Microcomputer in the ACM titled "Development of a portable compiler for industrial microcomputer systems " It was called a Microcomputer in Electronic’s Magazine July 11th 1974 It was listed as a Microcomputer in "Auerbach Guide to Minicomputers" April 1976 & Winter 1976 - 1977 It was listed as a Microcomputer in Datamation Magazine Dec 1974 It was called a Microcomputer in "A MICROCOMPUTER BASED SUBSTATION CONTROL SYSTEM" The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1975 Engineering, electronics and electrical Page 90
I am defining it in the same manner they are defining it, in the time they are defining it.
I did get in touch with Jim Hollenhorst from Agilent who actually worked there and worked on the units.
To quote him
"Regarding the question of whether the system was a general-purpose computer, the answer in principle is "yes".
So if all those publications called it a Microcomputer and the people who worked on also did, then I think I have enough to go with.
I hope to have some more photos in 2025 when the Western Reserve Historical Society reopens after a flood. They have a number of Warner & Swasey photos and so I hope to find something useful.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 1:21 PM Herbert Johnson via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
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
History is discussed, debated and overall interesting. These conversations including Herb's i think are good. I very much respect you and Herb and I honestly appreciate both of your input. I have known you both since at least 2007 and we don't always agree but I'm glad we can discuss these things together. We love this stuff and are passionate about it., I wouldn't want it any other way. On Sat, Dec 28, 2024, 10:24 AM Bill Degnan via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
Then I think it is a microcomputer then too. From the sources you sited, a microcomputer is simply a device with a microprocessor in it. That’s what they meant I believe. I am not debating them or you, just making sure I understood what you meant. Bill
On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 6:18 AM Christian Liendo via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
I never said it was a personal computer.
So are only computers that can do business and personal computing "computers"?
If I build a computer and make it do process control is it no longer a computer?
What I am saying is at the time, industry and computer publications and even Intel called it that.
Honestly this whole things came out of a question, was the 4004 used for anything other than a calculator, and it was.
I didn't give it a title as a computer, others did. Back in the 70s
On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 3:49 AM Bill Degnan via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
Christian I believe they meant "microcomputer" as in a computing device with a microprocessor embedded, not a micro computer in the personal computing sense. As opposed to a computing device that had a CPU controller card/cards that did the same thing. Other than the microprocessor chip
it
was no different than devices used for 10 years prior.
If microcomputer means "anything with a microprocessor" then yes it was a micro computer. If microcomputer means "a general purpose computer" I'd be less inclined to agree. I think your sources are coming from the old-school definition of microcomputer.
Thanks for sharing this info, it's really a fine line definition and worth having the discussion. Bill
On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 8:42 PM Christian Liendo via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
I'm just going to address some things listed
Comstar was a company that automated other people's products.
They worked with companies like Warner & Swasey to build custom automation solutions and then went on to pretty much make a 4004 system with various cards to do the same automation.
I would argue they are pretty much like the Micral N. Which was also designed for process control.
As of 1972 they had one product. The Star 4 which was 4004 based and then came the Star 8 which was 8008 and then the Star 4A which was 4040.
They were eventually purchased by Warner and Swasey and became their computer division.
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.
Intel called it a Microcomputer in their advertising It was called a Microcomputer in the ACM titled "Development of a portable compiler for industrial microcomputer systems " It was called a Microcomputer in Electronic’s Magazine July 11th 1974 It was listed as a Microcomputer in "Auerbach Guide to Minicomputers" April 1976 & Winter 1976 - 1977 It was listed as a Microcomputer in Datamation Magazine Dec 1974 It was called a Microcomputer in "A MICROCOMPUTER BASED SUBSTATION CONTROL SYSTEM" The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1975 Engineering, electronics and electrical Page 90
I am defining it in the same manner they are defining it, in the time they are defining it.
I did get in touch with Jim Hollenhorst from Agilent who actually worked there and worked on the units.
To quote him
"Regarding the question of whether the system was a general-purpose computer, the answer in principle is "yes".
So if all those publications called it a Microcomputer and the people who worked on also did, then I think I have enough to go with.
I hope to have some more photos in 2025 when the Western Reserve Historical Society reopens after a flood. They have a number of Warner & Swasey photos and so I hope to find something useful.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 1:21 PM Herbert Johnson via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
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
This is a fascinating 4004 find. Products with the 4004 are uncommon outside of the famous Busicom! So cool! Your find needs to get added to various lists of 4004 applications such as: https://www.howtogeek.com/766783/the-microprocessor-is-50-celebrating-the-in... The Busicom 141-PF Desktop Calculator (1971) The Intel SIM-4 Development System (1972) The Intel Intellec 4 Development System (1973) Bally Alley arcade bowling simulator (1974) A prototype Bally Flicker pinball machine (1974) Wang 1222 word processor (1975) A Compuvote computerized voting machine (1976) I hope folks help with research into the Comstar equipment. Perhaps we can still locate a Comstar System 4. I'm interested! Maybe I can help. On 12/28/2024 11:14 AM, Christian Liendo via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
History is discussed, debated and overall interesting.
These conversations including Herb's i think are good. I very much respect you and Herb and I honestly appreciate both of your input. I have known you both since at least 2007 and we don't always agree but I'm glad we can discuss these things together.
We love this stuff and are passionate about it., I wouldn't want it any other way.
On Sat, Dec 28, 2024, 10:24 AM Bill Degnan via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
Then I think it is a microcomputer then too. From the sources you sited, a microcomputer is simply a device with a microprocessor in it. That’s what they meant I believe. I am not debating them or you, just making sure I understood what you meant. Bill
On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 6:18 AM Christian Liendo via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
I never said it was a personal computer.
So are only computers that can do business and personal computing "computers"?
If I build a computer and make it do process control is it no longer a computer?
What I am saying is at the time, industry and computer publications and even Intel called it that.
Honestly this whole things came out of a question, was the 4004 used for anything other than a calculator, and it was.
I didn't give it a title as a computer, others did. Back in the 70s
On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 3:49 AM Bill Degnan via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
Christian I believe they meant "microcomputer" as in a computing device with a microprocessor embedded, not a micro computer in the personal computing sense. As opposed to a computing device that had a CPU controller card/cards that did the same thing. Other than the microprocessor chip
it
was no different than devices used for 10 years prior.
If microcomputer means "anything with a microprocessor" then yes it was a micro computer. If microcomputer means "a general purpose computer" I'd be less inclined to agree. I think your sources are coming from the old-school definition of microcomputer.
Thanks for sharing this info, it's really a fine line definition and worth having the discussion. Bill
On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 8:42 PM Christian Liendo via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
I'm just going to address some things listed
Comstar was a company that automated other people's products.
They worked with companies like Warner & Swasey to build custom automation solutions and then went on to pretty much make a 4004 system with various cards to do the same automation.
I would argue they are pretty much like the Micral N. Which was also designed for process control.
As of 1972 they had one product. The Star 4 which was 4004 based and then came the Star 8 which was 8008 and then the Star 4A which was 4040.
They were eventually purchased by Warner and Swasey and became their computer division.
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.
Intel called it a Microcomputer in their advertising It was called a Microcomputer in the ACM titled "Development of a portable compiler for industrial microcomputer systems " It was called a Microcomputer in Electronic’s Magazine July 11th 1974 It was listed as a Microcomputer in "Auerbach Guide to Minicomputers" April 1976 & Winter 1976 - 1977 It was listed as a Microcomputer in Datamation Magazine Dec 1974 It was called a Microcomputer in "A MICROCOMPUTER BASED SUBSTATION CONTROL SYSTEM" The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1975 Engineering, electronics and electrical Page 90
I am defining it in the same manner they are defining it, in the time they are defining it.
I did get in touch with Jim Hollenhorst from Agilent who actually worked there and worked on the units.
To quote him
"Regarding the question of whether the system was a general-purpose computer, the answer in principle is "yes".
So if all those publications called it a Microcomputer and the people who worked on also did, then I think I have enough to go with.
I hope to have some more photos in 2025 when the Western Reserve Historical Society reopens after a flood. They have a number of Warner & Swasey photos and so I hope to find something useful.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 1:21 PM Herbert Johnson via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
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
-- Douglas Crawford VCF Mid-Atlantic Museum Mgr InfoAge Science & History Museums 2201 Marconi Road Wall, NJ 07719
I think your second post, answers your first post's question, just fine. So what help were you asking for? The question and answer I mean are, quoting you:
some concern that what I had was not in fact a computer, but a controller.
your answered yourself with
[if these sources] called it a Microcomputer > then I think I have enough to go with.
So why ask a question you already answered? and - why did I respond to someone, when I already knew we would not agree? That part, was my fault, I took the bait. So, my apologies to my list colleagues for a private fight conducted in public, which ends now. Herb Johnson still not a bot On 12/27/2024 8:41 PM, Christian Liendo wrote:
I'm just going to address some things listed
Comstar was a company that automated other people's products.
They worked with companies like Warner & Swasey to build custom automation solutions and then went on to pretty much make a 4004 system with various cards to do the same automation.
I would argue they are pretty much like the Micral N. Which was also designed for process control.
As of 1972 they had one product. The Star 4 which was 4004 based and then came the Star 8 which was 8008 and then the Star 4A which was 4040.
They were eventually purchased by Warner and Swasey and became their computer division.
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.
Intel called it a Microcomputer in their advertising It was called a Microcomputer in the ACM titled "Development of a portable compiler for industrial microcomputer systems " It was called a Microcomputer in Electronic’s Magazine July 11th 1974 It was listed as a Microcomputer in "Auerbach Guide to Minicomputers" April 1976 & Winter 1976 - 1977 It was listed as a Microcomputer in Datamation Magazine Dec 1974 It was called a Microcomputer in "A MICROCOMPUTER BASED SUBSTATION CONTROL SYSTEM" The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1975 Engineering, electronics and electrical Page 90
I am defining it in the same manner they are defining it, in the time they are defining it.
I did get in touch with Jim Hollenhorst from Agilent who actually worked there and worked on the units.
To quote him
"Regarding the question of whether the system was a general-purpose computer, the answer in principle is "yes".
So if all those publications called it a Microcomputer and the people who worked on also did, then I think I have enough to go with.
I hope to have some more photos in 2025 when the Western Reserve Historical Society reopens after a flood. They have a number of Warner & Swasey photos and so I hope to find something useful.
-- 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
participants (5)
-
Bill Degnan -
Christian Liendo -
Dmitry _ -
Douglas Crawford -
Herbert Johnson