Single Board Computers - need their own forum?

[billdeg]

I was thinking about SBC's like the KIM, SYM, Jolt, MEK, 8085 SBC's, TI 9900 101 SBC, etc. They're mostly not pre-Altair, not S-100, they're not all the same processor, or manufacturer. Has there ever been a call for a "Single Board Computers" forum? As a topic of conversation do others here think of SBC's worthy of their own forum?

Bill D

[chuckcmagee]

I don't think the SBCs get enough activity to even worry about it.

[MikeS]

Hey, what about the AIM-65? I definitely feel snubbed...

m

[Terry Yager]

Such a forum would probably degenerate into an endless religious war over what is or is not an sbc, and therefore what is on/off topic. My own notion of an sbc is very flexible, and includes examples such as Kaypro, Xerox 820, etc. I think for now the 'Other' category has it pretty well covered.

--T

[billdeg]

And the Apple II?
...common, you know what I am talking about! SBC's are a pretty well-defined sub category of early microcomputers - bare/kit boards, yes including the AIM 65, plus what I previously mentioned. There were many popular SBC / kit computers more that I could list.

Magazines of the 70's and early 80's like 6502 and Micro were very SBC-centric. Devotees of the genre may be less in numbers compared with the S-100 crowd, but as a genre, this is a pretty well defined segment. Each year at the VCF there are a number of fine examples.

My point isn't to get into the semantics of what is or is not a SBC. I was considering the fact that we have an S-100 bus section yet no SBC section. It seems reasonable to me to at least consider that this category deserves it's own forum. From a sales perspective, I have information to indicate that in '77-78 more SBC kit computers were sold than S-100's of the same era.

But, will I lose sleep if there is no SBC category? No!

[Erik]

I don't personally have a problem with an SBC category. The reason I haven't created one (or chimed in yet) is that I think we're already fragmented enough here. I'm actually trying to think of ways of consolidating sections on the board or eliminating areas altogether.

I like categorizing posts, I think it benefits the community and I think the structure of a board like this lends itself to doing that, but there is such a thing as too much in that regard.

So, what would you do to spruce this place up a little bit? Aside from adding an SBC category what could we do to make the Forums friendlier to our users?

[Aaron Teeling]

If you think about it, almost all computers that were not S-100 were eventually single board computers by the early 80's. I always took the term SBC as the developement kits like the KIM and SYM-1. They too had add on boards for increased functionality so whould they no longer be SBC?

However should we deny SBC their equality in the history books? Will we have to resort to afirmative action policies down the road to correct what could be a preducial catagory selection now? Would it be separate but equal? Does it create segration by de facto or de jure?

Perhaps we should have another discussion on how we feel. I like to talk about I feel and I believe everyone should too.

Is it right to want too talk soley of SBCs? Should SBC have the right to connect with S-100 and modern computers? Does this make them truely SBC or does mean they are now less of a vintage SBC now that they have crossed over to the other side?

I feel the need to start a drum circle. And learn to spell.

Sorry, I couldn't help it. The thread was already going south and I just had to help it along.

Unrelated... Has anyone posted a summary of the VCF West yet. Just wanted to see how it everyone faired.

[billdeg]

REVISED
Erik - To answer your question, just a thought...

Perhaps "genres" could be split into two sections as follows:

1. genres: manufacturers

2. genres: processors, monitors and operating systems

- within the 2nd, you could add a forum for "processors, assembly language, SBC's, and trainers

- the rest of the current genre forums would be moved to one or the other section.

[Terry Yager]

Bill,

I know what you meant by sbc, I have several of them myself, and they are among my favorites. In fact, they are some of the few items which will survive my current (ongoing) liquidation of most of my collection. I just thought I'd play Devil's Advocate. No, my definition wouldn't include an Apple ][, because it cannot (easily) function as a stand-alone board if it's case and other trappings were stripped away. You'd have no means of interacting with it without adding another board, such as a serial port to hang a terminal off from. OTOH, a Kaypro II mainboard can be removed from it's case, jacked-in to a terminal & power supply, and still function, as it has it's serial port (and floppy hardware) on board. Even some S-100 boards are considered sbc's, having processor, I/O and memory all on one board.

--T

[Terry Yager]

Oh, BTW...I used the Kaypro and Xerox as examples because both are considered to be clones of the Ferguson BigBoard, a device I'm sure all of us would agree is a classic sbc in the usual sense of the word.

--T

[RichCini]

Bill,

I know what you meant by sbc, I have several of them myself, and they are among my favorites. In fact, they are some of the few items which will survive my current (ongoing) liquidation of most of my collection. I just thought I'd play Devil's Advocate. No, my definition wouldn't include an Apple ][, because it cannot (easily) function as a stand-alone board if it's case and other trappings were stripped away. You'd have no means of interacting with it without adding another board, such as a serial port to hang a terminal off from. OTOH, a Kaypro II mainboard can be removed from it's case, jacked-in to a terminal & power supply, and still function, as it has it's serial port (and floppy hardware) on board. Even some S-100 boards are considered sbc's, having processor, I/O and memory all on one board.

--T

IMHO, the individual message volume would probably be low, but I think the sub-section is warranted. I think that if you put a sticky-message about what defines a single-board computer, we should be OK. The Kaypro, FWIW, I see as a microcomputer rather than a single-board computer.

I would include the KAOS machines (KIM, AIM, OSI and Synertek), random SBCs (like ones from Micromint, Hawthorne Technologies, and Ampro, for example) and maybe even STD-BUS ones (not exactly hobby-oriented, but single-board none the less, and ones using the 8080, Z80 or 6502 are certainly vintage).

[carlsson]

Would trainers like the MPF-I classify as a SBC? The Cosmac Elf?

[billdeg]

Yes. the cosmac elf. "Compute II" magazine and 6502 Journal stuff...

[MikeS]

Being an AIM65 kinda guy you've got my vote; sometimes the reason there isn't much traffic is 'cause there's no forum - chicken & egg...

Then there are also all the little-known low-volume boards; for instance I've got a couple of Bell Engineering 6502 SBCs.

m

[Terry Yager]

Well, there seems to be some interest, so I'll throw in with the 'in favor' crowd, provided that this thread be merged and stuck, so there will be a proper place for such discussions, and the whole forum doesn't degenerate.

--T

[ghost]

Although only new to the board I'd like to chip in on this.

I think SBC is probably the wrong term - most computers of the era (and even most of todays machines) are technically on a single board. A more general rule would be 'if it came with a case it doesn't count'. However that would knock out the original Microbee which came with a case, an unpopulated board and a plastic bag full of components.

I think the intent of the machines was that they appealed more to the electronics hobbyist rather than just the computer hobbyist. That subset would include SBC's, kit computers and homebrew machines.

I like the idea of a separate section for these type of machines (it's my special interest after all) but deciding what is on topic and what's not would be a complex problem. Perhaps it would self police after a while once it found it's footing?

Anyway - that's my 2c :)

[carlsson]

If I understand correctly, single-board computers rarely or never outputs video (perhaps serial I/O) and only occasionally take use of a QWERTY-type keyboard? Or am I thinking too narrow?

[nige the hippy]

afaik...The Nascom(s) had video output, and a qwerty keyboard, but no case, & probably count as an SBC, but AIM 65, micro-professor, Mk14 and most of the microprocessor development kits, certainly should count...

I think Ghost has it in his/her last posting, a machine designed with the electronics rather than the software as the main reason to be.
Probably with a rudimentary user interface & primarily designed to be programmed in machine code/assembler.

[billdeg]

"The 6502/1802 resource"

There was an off-shoot of Compute magazine dedicated to only the SBC, and issue #1 was April 1980.

OSI, KIM, SYM, AIM, ELF

From Editor's Notes -

"Well here it is. I'll cover the highlights of the reasons for compute II for those of you who didn't see the announcement in Issue #3 of Compute. We were bursting at the seams after just three issues, and the logical split in the magazine seemed to be to move the single board machines into a magazine of your own. Everyone ends up with more magazine this way, and we can provide better coverage. Compute II will be a bimonthly , with months of publication alternating with Compute."

On the Goals of compute II (my summarizing):

..basic and machine language tutorials...advanced applications...educators/learning lab computers...6502 boards, 1801 boards, external card case interfaces, keyboard and cassette interfaces...the art of doing it yourself...RS232 connections...transferring programs to and from KIM, OSI, SYM...audio...AD/DA conversion, and so on.

None other than Jim Butterfield is a contributing writer/editor of Compute II. There was no need for the editor to have to explain what the SBC genre was/is. I believe we in 2007 have simply forgotten how "big" these computers were in their time (1975-1985)

Bill


P.S. - I should add - the separate magazine only lasted for three issues, and SBC coverage re-merged with Compute again returning to one magazine.

[ghost]

Ghost is a he for those that are wondering :)

I agree with Nige - the focus on the electronics hobbyist is what separates this class of machines from others (I won't say SBC because not all of them were). I've seen a friend (who was very into amateur radio) convert a 8051 based dot matrix printer controller board into a packet radio decoder (additional hardware to decode the FSK transmissions and an AX.25 stack to handle the protocol as well as reusing the printer control code to generate the text output). Although it's not a real 'vintage computer' I think it something worth talking about in these forums because it uses vintage technology to achieve the goals - not to mention the reverse engineering involved (decoding the original ROM, add extra hardware, adjusting the code to suite his modifications) which is something a lot of vintage computer collectors have to deal with to get the old gear to talk to the new gear.

I guess the point of the new section would be to add a place for those with more of a hardware bent to hang out. Remember, things that start out as completely custom designs (like a slow scan TV - SSTV - receiver) can become plug in modules for unmodified retro systems. The space shuttle still broadcasts SSTV transmissions so it's not altogether pointless. As far as I know the two voyager probes are still transmitting SSTV signals so if you have the right antenna you could pick those up as well.

I've stopped adding to my collection because it is so easy to use emulators these days to run the fun programs that you remember. The machines I collect now are those that are so rare that you can't get emulators, the ones that I have a particular emotional attachment to for whatever reason (if anyone has a NeXT Cube they want to get rid of please let me know) and those that had interesting hardware features that I want to play with.

To me it's not just enough to have a CoCo3 - it's more can I get the CoCo3 to act as a VT100 terminal over ethernet, can I get a CoCo3 to act as a VT220 over ethernet, what about emulating a Tectronix graphics terminal? Before anyone gets excited I have not succeeded in any of these goals - do a google search and you will probably find people who have though.

[billdeg]

SBC's ARE a category of computer sold mostly from 75-85 not a vague way to categorize computers that happen to have one main board. Back then there was no debate as to the definition of which computers were and were not the SBC's.

I posted a specific example of a magazine dedicated specifically to the SBC market. There is no mention of Apples or Tandy model 1's or any other computers that happen to be of one board, or computers that were kits, etc. There are other mags that had regular SBC columns/features. This was a very narrow and specific genre. From the posts associated with this thread clearly the "classic SBC computer" as it was known at the turn of the 80's has been partially forgotten.

Whether this board needs an SBC forum is another matter, but if this is ever implemented, the forum title, as I envision it would therefore be:

Single Board Computers (KIM, AIM, SYM, OSI, Elf, and other 6502/1801 SBC's)

[ghost]

Ok - to the best of my knowledge the term SBC wasn't used until the late 90's, and then it was used to describe 'development boards' that were later used to become full systems (or dedicated systems - the Motorola dev-boards became printer controllers for PostScript enabled printers for example). If you can point me at documentation indicating otherwise I'm more than happy to be proven wrong.

As for the magazine you reference - in your own words 'I should add - the separate magazine only lasted for three issues' - they seemed to have the same problem defining what an 'SBC' was as we do now. Magazines for electronic hobbyists seem to last a lot longer - 'Talking Electronics' in AU after publishing the single board Z80 based machine 'TEC-1' managed to publish a new add on for the device on an average of one every two months - this was in the late 80's. Another magazine 'Electronics Australia' managed to do the same thing for a CHIP-8 based system they published the kit for over a number of years (at least 3 in my memory).

Limiting the 'SBC' forum to 'other 6502/1801' based devices (as well as the long list of mostly 6502 based systems you mention) is effectively saying 'anything based on the 6502 or its predecessors and ancestors'. To me that would fit into the '6502' category our forum host spoke about.

What exactly is it that you are missing out on? What subtopic do you want that is not here? I would like to see some forums that are more hardware related (and I think I've made that pretty clear from previous posts) - what is it that you would like to see ?

[MikeS]

Let's just get on with it, one way or another; I'm tired of these discussions of what's on topic and what's not (especially on other lists) that take up way more bandwidth than the occasional off-topic post would.

Although the most popular ones were 6502 based, that's irrelevant; since they were usually "development" systems, they were available with pretty well all CPUs.

Whether it was available as a bare board (no case or PS) is probably the best criterion FWIW.

Love that printer controller -> TNC hack BTW ;-)

So, whaddya got?

m
(AIM65 & misc 6502)

[billdeg]

There really is no valid argument against whether or not this market segment existed, just do the research. The sales figures will speak for themselves.

Limiting the SBC's to KIM, AIM, SYM, OSI, Elf, and other 6502/1801 SBC's is exactly what I am calling for. Computer users, publishers, and advertisers of the time knew of and used the term single board computer like we use "linux/windows/mac" today. It was that clear and distinct.

If you want another examples, try "6502 Journal" or "Micro". For that matter Byte, Kilobaud, and all mags from the 70's.

[Terry Yager]

Such a forum would probably degenerate into an endless religious war over what is or is not an sbc, and therefore what is on/off topic. My own notion of an sbc is very flexible, and includes examples such as Kaypro, Xerox 820, etc. I think for now the 'Other' category has it pretty well covered.

--T

Damn! I must be psychic...

--T

[billdeg]

OK no further discussion, I'm just going with what materials I have on hand.

I have a KIM, SYM, VIM, AIM 65, MEK 6800, TI 9900 101.

I am working on the VIM, trying to attach a keyboard and video. I should be done sometime in December.

We're all in this together.

[RichCini]

OK no further discussion, I'm just going with what materials I have on hand.

I have a KIM, SYM, VIM, AIM 65, MEK 6800, TI 9900 101.

I am working on the VIM, trying to attach a keyboard and video. I should be done sometime in December.

We're all in this together.

I'm good with this definition. I didn't even think of the Motorola boards (which I have -- an MECB, which is 68k-based), but maybe a general description of the purpose of the board with a general list of CPUs and an age would suffice, but maybe with an exclusion or two. I don't think the intention is to include 386 stuff in Eurocard or PC/104 format for example, but an Ampro LittleBoard/186 might be OK to include. The Apple II could technically be a self-contained single-board computer (if you remove the case), but it wasn't sold that way. Maybe that's the element missing from the description.

Bill, from experience with the ClassicCmp list, it's too hard to get an exact definition that's going to work for everyone. Rather, some general description, examples and parameters should be good to wrap in 80% of the boards of interest out there.

[billdeg]

what was that quote from Lord of the Rings (and repeated on Babylon 5 by a technomage), something about "that's the trouble with wizards, they're subtle and quick to anger" ... We here, classiccmp, and the like love to haggle and get caught up in the finer details of what we believe to be "the way it is" - I'm just glad there is such a place to debate these kinds of issues. Here's to Erik and vintage-computer.com!

[RichCini]

what was that quote from Lord of the Rings (and repeated on Babylon 5 by a technomage), something about "that's the trouble with wizards, they're subtle and quick to anger" ... We here, classiccmp, and the like love to haggle and get caught up in the finer details of what we believe to be "the way it is" - I'm just glad there is such a place to debate these kinds of issues. Here's to Erik and vintage-computer.com!

Here, here!

[MikeS]

Well, I'll certainly echo the kudos to Erik and the moderators and this list in general.

But as to the haggling over "the finer details" which rarely if ever accomplish anything other than giving folks a place to opine, keep in mind that there are people who only want to contribute or find some hard information and don't have time for that sort of chitchat. I've watched a few people unsub from the cctalk list and/or start their own list (which is usually a loss to the general community), and in fact I seem to recall that this very forum was started at least in part for that reason.

But since this thread is about starting a new category I guess it's OK to have to wade through 29 posts "haggling" over the definition of an SBC while in fact most of us probably have a very clear idea of what it is and essentially agree. At least here one can pick & choose the areas of interest.

Back under my rock...

m

[Dwight Elvey]

Hi
When I get around to it, I expect to connect up
My SYM1 with a KTM2 and a perSYMone FDC-1.
I expect to play with the original disk OS for
it but also I might use the DOS that Dallas has on
his sight.
Dwight

[billdeg]

perSYMone FDC-1 ? I never saw one of those.

[Dwight Elvey]

perSYMone FDC-1 ? I never saw one of those.

It was made especially for the SYM-1 but could have been used
by any of the KIM/SYM/AIM group. It was created by one of the
early SYM groups( I forget the name ). The DOS that came with
it was difficult to use but later DOSes were created.
Dallas has one on his web pages for download.
A later DOS that used other hardware was the CODOS. I've not
seen any of this hardware but I've read about it.
Dwight