Talk:Programmed Data Processor
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class)|
Chips and internals
DEC was still selling PDP-8 chips by the bushel when I left (involuntarily) in 93 or whenever, and also the J11 (11/70 with MP hooks) chips. Anybody know if that's still happening? If so, it should be added to this article. Also, someone once told me that the PDP-8 was "just like the diagrams in CS-101, so everybody understood it", but since I never took any computer science, I couldn't say. --Ortolan88
- I don't recall DEC ever actually selling PDP-8 chips as such. Intersil and Harris sold the 6100 and 6120, which DEC used in the VT78 and DECmate products. AFAIK, both have been discontinued.
- I don't think the original LSI-11 chip set or the 11/23 chip set were ever offered for sale; they were only available in board-level products and systems. The T11 and J11 chips were sold as chips, but are long since obsolete. I'm not sure about the T11, but the J11 was fabbed by Harris for DEC.
- The T11 and J11 never sold well enough for DEC to bother redesigning them in a more modern semiconductor process, so it became economically unviable to continue production.
- The T11 was used in some Atari coin-operated video games. I've seen the J11 on some VMEbus processor cards, and in PDP-11 emulation boards for PCs. --Brouhaha
CHeaper ? slower, cleaper alternative
PDP-X and Data General NOVA
I heard that the PDP-2 was built
I heard that the PDP-2 was built and there is still some being used commerially
PDP-14 1 bit??
I can't really believe that the PDP-14 was 1-bit. This site:
- They are both right. According to the reference given in the article, "The PDP-14 was a 12 bit machine with a 1 bit register."
- I assume that means that internally, the low-level hardware was a serial computer clocking through one bit at a time, but at the assembly-language level, the instruction set supported 12 bit data values. See also what the Motorola MC14500B says about the PDP-14. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Reason for name PDP
I worked as a software specialist for DEC from Feb 1980 - Jan 1992, and the reason we were told that it was called a PDP, was that for purposes of submitting proposals and other sales documents to the US Government Procurement Office, that the US Government only thought that "computers" were made by IBM. Therefore, we did not make computers, but Programmable Data Processors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdawgaz (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 February 2009
- The Programmed Data Processor (PDP-1) is a high speed, solid state digital computer designed to operate with several types of input-output devices, with no internal machine changes. It is a single address, single instruction, stored program computer with powerful program features.
"Programmable" or "Programmed"?
So is there a source that unequivocally demonstrates whether the first "P" stood for "programmable" or "programmed" originally? (I might think it should have been the former, but that doesn't matter.) —126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Or perhaps the "programmed" used in early documents was replaced later by "programmable", after someone realized that the latter was preferable? (Maybe this page should be called "DEC PDP" instead of "Programmed Data Processor"?) —188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- As noted above, it was "programmed" for the PDP-1. PDP-4: "programmed". PDP-5: "programmed". PDP-6: "programmed". PDP-7: "programmed". PDP-8: "programmed". PDP-9: "programmed", although they don't seem to ever call it the "Programmed Data Processor-9", they just call it a "programmed data processing system". From looking at various PDP-n manuals, they appear to have eventually stopped expanding "PDP" into anything; I guess at that point, "PDP" really meant "computer from DEC". Guy Harris (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
PDP-5 Production Number
Anyone have a source for the second number in "the first computer series with more than 1,000, then 10,000 built"? I'm good with the first one: Rifkin, "Ultimate Entrepreneur", gives "about 1,000" (pg. 59), but I'm somewhat dubious about the second. Noel (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)