4 ms·
So... a couple of things: 1. Rhines implies TI never made an 8-bit CPU, but tried to "leapfrog" the industry and go direct to 16-bit. This isn't exactly true.
by retrocryptid 4y ago
So... a couple of things:
1. Rhines implies TI never made an 8-bit CPU, but tried to "leapfrog" the industry and go direct to 16-bit. This isn't exactly true. TI competed with Intel on the Datapoint contract, but didn't win. Intel went on to evolve the 8008 into the 8080 and turn it into a commercial product. But TI shelved it's TMX1795 project. My guess is they already had a nice chip business and didn't need to risk anything on building a "pie in the sky" project like a single-chip microprocessor. I mean, imagine, a CPU on a single chip! How unrealistic!
https://www.righto.com/2015/05/the-texas-instruments-tmx-1795-first.html https://www.righto.com/2015/05/the-texas-instruments-tmx-179...
2. The 9900 series was't a loser by the standards of the day. Sure, it didn't get picked up by IBM, which made it a loser by 1981 standards. But by 1978, it was picking up some design wins because for less than $100k, you could buy a 990 mini-computer with a full-fledged development system (Assembler, Linker, Pascal Compiler, etc.) The 8080 was a lot cheaper in volume, but development was slightly more difficult. Intel's 8080 development systems weren't really that great, though by early 1980 they were light years ahead of TI (you could get an official Intel development system for around $35k IIRC.)
As an interesting aside, Marinchip Systems shipped a S-100 board with a 9900 (9940? 9995?) CPU. But it didn't take off, so they started selling software and changed their name to AutoCAD.
http://www.s100computers.com/Hardware%20Folder/Marinchip/9900%20CPU%20board/9900%20CPU.htm http://www.s100computers.com/Hardware%20Folder/Marinchip/990...
3. The 99105 / 99110 (with a much larger address space) was definitely on the drawing board in '78. IBM probably asked "hey. what chips do you have right now?"
4. Everyone likes to rag on the 9900 for being a memory-to-memory architecture. But in the day, the plan was to put your register file in bipolar memory. This was before we all got the RISC religion, and it wasn't so obviously bad.
5. This article only scratches the surface of the dysfunction that was the TI-99/4. But... the industry learned a lot of what NOT to do by watching TI try to deliver a game console.
But to recap. Sure. The 9900 had some problems. The 9980 kept having more and more problems. But the 9995 wasn't half bad. And the 99105 & 99110 weren't bad at all.
- tomcam 4y agoAnalysis: true Username checks out bigly
- retrocryptid 4y agoAlso... something that's been bugging me for decades. This is WELL before most companies figured out the importance of third-party software developers. In the IBM world, you leased some big iron and got IBM to write custom software for you. If you were a larger firm, you hired a third party firm to write custom software for your business. And if you even larger, you had the funds to keep the coders on staff. By around the mid 70s, DEC was innovating by releasing detailed specs of various PDP's and what we might call open source software through DECUS (DEC Users Group.) But I remember Harris being freaked out when we asked them for anything more than the absolute basics of VOS (their operating system.) Tandy, Apple and Commodore were innovative in that they were happy to publish details of how to write software for their platforms. I guess the new microcomputer upstarts had to innovate. TI seemed to be frightened third parties might make money by writing software for their platform. I remember when I wanted to sell a stupid (by today's standards) game for the 99/4 in the 79-80 time frame they send me a 20 page NDA and a price list for TI-990 systems. My uncle (who worked at TI) got me a flyer for an internal program where you (as a TI employee) could get a bonus for writing 99/4 software, but no royalties. Later versions of the 99/4A had features in ROM to explicitly crash third-party modules. I mention it because there were many, many reasons the 99/4(A) fell into obscurity, but I don't think it was solely based on the 9900 family of chips. The system design of the 99/4 was a bit ham-fisted, but other systems using 9900s seemed to operate fine.