Re: Crosspost: Did the cpu influence the display?

[puritan_2076@yahoo.com]

Bill H wrote:
> ===========================================================
> This message has been cross-posted to a number of revalent usenet
> groups, so please do not start a "My system is better than your system
> flame war".
> ===========================================================

But my system *is* better than your system! Just kidding.

I think the choice of display type and operating system were determined
by the intended market, and the choice of CPU was determined by the OS.

CP/M came out for the 8080  (& later the Z80) because it was used in
the Altair, and it was first so it set the standard. CP/M was chosen
for business because it left so much RAM for big "business" type
applications. 80- collum displays were chozen for business because it's
the standard typewriter width. The Z80 was chosen for business because
it would run CP/M and because it was better (improved later design, got
there before(?) the i8085) and, at least at first, cheaper, than the
8080.

I think the guy who said the 6502 was chosen for the home market
because it was cheaper is probably right, and the home market was also
where color graphics were wanted.

What about the 6800/09? It was at least technicly superior to many
other chips available at the time, and just as good as the rest. Why
was it so rarely used? I've noticed many early 680x computers used the
realitively poor 6847's b&w predecessor. did that have something to do
with it? or was ti just too expensive? or too late?

> ===========================================================
> This message has been cross-posted to a number of revalent usenet
> groups, so please do not start a "My system is better than your system
> flame war".
> ===========================================================

But it *is* better...at least IMHO :)