Re: Foonlies

Lars Brinkhoff wrote: > Al Kossow wrote: >>> SUPERFOONLY DESIGNED 1968-71 >> Was this ever built? > This says the Superfoonly was designed. Doesn't say it was actually > built. Confirmed by Dave Dyer: The original foonly design at Stanford was a paper design; I don't think there were

Re: Foonlies

On 1/31/18 6:25 PM, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote: > > The fourth guy was Dick Helliwell, who was hired by DEC when they licensed > SUDS > from SAIL. I met Dick when we both worked at XKL; he was the major part of > the > effort to make SUDS run on the X Window System, on the KL-10 and

Re: chip technology dead-ends (was: Foonlies)

> On Feb 1, 2018, at 12:40 AM, Mark Linimon via cctalk > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 07:07:23PM -0800, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >> Back in the 70s, 4000-series CMOS was among the slowest logic around. > > I really wish I still had one technical magazine

Re: Foonlies

> From: Rich Alderson > I'm going to disagree with the history Al posted, because Dick himself > told me the story. What was the history according to Dick, if you recall? Would he still be available, to write it as he saw it down himself? Noel

RE: Foonlies

From: Lars Brinkhoff Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:28 AM > Al Kossow wrote: >>> SUPERFOONLY DESIGNED 1968-71 >>> 10,000 TTL IC'S >>> 3 MIPS >> Was this ever built? 10K ICs would have been bigger than the Livermore S-1. > This says the Superfoonly was designed. Doesn't say it was

Re: Foonlies

et> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:23 PM To: Wayne S Subject: Re: Foonlies Triple I / Autologic? Interesting. I remember (from around 1978) III and Autologic as two separate manufacturers of phototypesetting machines, with III rather obscure, very large physically (a small roo

Re: chip technology dead-ends (was: Foonlies)

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 07:07:23PM -0800, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > Back in the 70s, 4000-series CMOS was among the slowest logic around. I really wish I still had one technical magazine that came out during the late 70s/early 80s. (I don't remember which one it was, anymore.) It was

Re: Foonlies

> And, if you went to 74S, Fast or 74AS, you could easily match the ECL > 10K performance. Now, there were a bunch of tricks that you could use with > ECL that helped, like wired-OR instead of adding a tri-state buffer. ECL > had a notable advantage in 1970, but as TTL derivatives continued to >

Re: Foonlies

Wayne S wrote: > Was this the machine that Triple I/Autologic created to digitize old > color film movies? > AFIK, it used lasers to scan the film and create digital color seps > that were recombined later in the process. It was used in the Kate > Winslett / Leonardo DiCaprio remake of "Titanic".

Re: Foonlies

On 01/31/2018 04:26 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > Then again, DEC Western Research Lab in the mid 1980s did an > interesting project to do a full custom single ECL chip > implementation of a MIPS (or Alpha?) CPU, intended to run at 1 GHz. > The CAD system they built for this was quite

Re: Foonlies

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 7:20 PM, Mark Linimon via cctalk > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:00:53AM -0800, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >> An all-ECL redesign (details escape me) resulted in no appreciable >> improvement in performance. > > But I'm sure the local

Re: Foonlies

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:00:53AM -0800, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > An all-ECL redesign (details escape me) resulted in no appreciable > improvement in performance. But I'm sure the local power company appreciated the extra revenue they got from it. (I recently donated the little chunk of

Re: Foonlies

Was this the machine that Triple I/Autologic created to digitize old color film movies? AFIK, it used lasers to scan the film and create digital color seps that were recombined later in the process. It was used in the Kate Winslett / Leonardo DiCaprio remake of "Titanic". Autologic even got

Re: Foonlies

On 1/31/18 12:25 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: > > > On 1/31/18 11:27 AM, Lars Brinkhoff via cctalk wrote: >> There was >> also a fourth whose role (I think) was to build the CAD system which >> was used for the design. He later went to work for DEC. > > SUDS (Stanford University

Re: Foonlies

On 1/31/18 11:27 AM, Lars Brinkhoff via cctalk wrote: > There was > also a fourth whose role (I think) was to build the CAD system which > was used for the design. He later went to work for DEC. SUDS (Stanford University Design System) also used to design the Livermore S-1 Modified

Re: Foonlies

> Jonathan Katz wrote: >> When I asked about Flight of the Navigator many, many moons ago, I >> remember the F1 did the special effects for that movie. That means >> Disney had it for a bit. > Seems it was at Paramount at that time I see now I got an email from Gary Demos 18 years ago. He didn't

Re: Foonlies

Jonathan Katz wrote: > When I asked about Flight of the Navigator many, many moons ago, I > remember the F1 did the special effects for that movie. That means > Disney had it for a bit. Seems it was at Paramount at that time: "Probably the worst moment of my life with the Foonly came after we

Re: Foonlies

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Lars Brinkhoff via cctalk wrote: > > Before I do anything rash, has anyone seriously tried to track down what > happened to the F1 and/or its software? When I asked about Flight of the Navigator many, many moons ago, I remember the F1 did

Re: Foonlies

Al Kossow wrote: > F1 was the machine that Whitney-Demos had, I think, and there was only ever > one of them. Before I do anything rash, has anyone seriously tried to track down what happened to the F1 and/or its software?

Re: Foonlies

On 01/31/2018 12:00 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 01/31/2018 06:00 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: Wow, 10 years later, with faster chips, and still the same speed? That's surprising. I believe that Honeywell went through a similar exercise at one point. An all-ECL redesign

Re: Foonlies

On 01/31/2018 11:43 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: On 1/31/18 12:28 AM, Lars Brinkhoff via cctalk wrote: SUPERFOONLY DESIGNED 1968-71 10,000 TTL IC'S 3 MIPS Was this ever built? 10K ICs would have been bigger than the Livermore S-1. F1 was the machine that Whitney-Demos had, I think, and

Re: Foonlies

On 01/31/2018 06:00 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > Wow, 10 years later, with faster chips, and still the same speed? That's > surprising. I believe that Honeywell went through a similar exercise at one point. An all-ECL redesign (details escape me) resulted in no appreciable improvement

Re: Foonlies

On 1/31/18 12:28 AM, Lars Brinkhoff via cctalk wrote: > SUPERFOONLY DESIGNED 1968-71 > 10,000 TTL IC'S > 3 MIPS Was this ever built? 10K ICs would have been bigger than the Livermore S-1. F1 was the machine that Whitney-Demos had, I think, and there was only ever one of them.

Re: Foonlies

On 01/31/2018 08:00 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: On Jan 31, 2018, at 3:28 AM, Lars Brinkhoff via cctalk wrote: This document seems to imply that the Super Foonly and the Foonly F1 were separate machines. When I've seen them discussed, they always seemed to be

Re: Foonlies

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 3:28 AM, Lars Brinkhoff via cctalk > wrote: > > This document seems to imply that the Super Foonly and the Foonly F1 > were separate machines. When I've seen them discussed, they always > seemed to be uses synonymously. > >

Foonlies

This document seems to imply that the Super Foonly and the Foonly F1 were separate machines. When I've seen them discussed, they always seemed to be uses synonymously. http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp10/KC10_Jupiter/memos/foonly_19840410.pdf SUPERFOONLY DESIGNED 1968-71 10,000 TTL IC'S 3