Historical question, what went wrong with bubble memory?
|
From: TC on 16 Nov 2006 22:49 "Del Cecchi" <cecchinospam(a)us.ibm.com> wrote in message news:4s0s5tFt0gkkU2(a)mid.individual.net... > TC wrote: >> "Del Cecchi" <delcecchiofthenorth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4rstkdFshnfoU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >>>"TC" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>news:D196h.5978$l25.792(a)newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>> >>>><kenney(a)cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>news:NeudndKF1PcyZajYnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >>>> >>>>>I can remember several years when magnetic bubble memory was >>>>>going to be the next big thing, replacing most other forms of >>>>>storage. It then seemed to disappear without trace. Has >>>>>development stopped? >>>>> >>>>>Ken Young >>>> >>>>If you are talking about early 1980's bubble memory technology then the >>>>problem I recall is that it didn't work (at least not reliably). From >>>>what I remember, this was how Intel first learned about the effects of >>>>Alpha particles on memory. All of the other responses about being slow, >>>>alternate technologies, etc. are also true. >>>> >>>>TC >>> >>>You recall wrong. Alpha Particles have no effect on magnetic materials. >>> >>>del cecchi >>> >>>PS are you the TC that posts to sci.med.nutrition? >>> >> >> >> No, I've actually never read that news group. >> >> Regarding bubble memory... I don't recall much about the 1980's but I >> wouldn't have described Intel's bubble memory as a magnetic technology. I >> do know that it didn't work, that it was withdrawn from the market, and >> have been told by Intel FAE's of that era that Alpha particles were to >> blame. I'm not trying to argue the point... only passing on the >> experience, and the source of the comment. >> >> TC > At about the same era, CCDs were being evaluated for possible mass storage > type applications also. They had many of the same characteristics as > bubbles from an application standpoint but were made of silicon and were > more akin to dram from a physics standpoint. > > Glad you are not that TC, he seems like a kook. > > > -- > Del Cecchi > "This post is my own and doesn?t necessarily represent IBM?s positions, > strategies or opinions.? In that case, I'm glad not to be him! I was thinking about the alpha particle claim and I'm wondering if there were shift registers associated with read/write of the bubble memory that may have been implimented in dynamic logic. If that was the case, maybe that is where the alpha particle claim by the Intel FAEs may have made some sense. Still doesn't change the fact that better/cheaper technology came along and beat out bubble memory technology. TC
From: Del Cecchi on 17 Nov 2006 20:20 "TC" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Bja7h.8601$ig4.2979(a)newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Del Cecchi" <cecchinospam(a)us.ibm.com> wrote in message > news:4s0s5tFt0gkkU2(a)mid.individual.net... >> TC wrote: >>> "Del Cecchi" <delcecchiofthenorth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:4rstkdFshnfoU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> >>>>"TC" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>>news:D196h.5978$l25.792(a)newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>>> >>>>><kenney(a)cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>>news:NeudndKF1PcyZajYnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >>>>> >>>>>>I can remember several years when magnetic bubble memory was >>>>>>going to be the next big thing, replacing most other forms of >>>>>>storage. It then seemed to disappear without trace. Has >>>>>>development stopped? >>>>>> >>>>>>Ken Young >>>>> >>>>>If you are talking about early 1980's bubble memory technology then >>>>>the problem I recall is that it didn't work (at least not reliably). >>>>>From what I remember, this was how Intel first learned about the >>>>>effects of Alpha particles on memory. All of the other responses >>>>>about being slow, alternate technologies, etc. are also true. >>>>> >>>>>TC >>>> >>>>You recall wrong. Alpha Particles have no effect on magnetic >>>>materials. >>>> >>>>del cecchi >>>> >>>>PS are you the TC that posts to sci.med.nutrition? >>>> >>> >>> >>> No, I've actually never read that news group. >>> >>> Regarding bubble memory... I don't recall much about the 1980's but I >>> wouldn't have described Intel's bubble memory as a magnetic >>> technology. I do know that it didn't work, that it was withdrawn from >>> the market, and have been told by Intel FAE's of that era that Alpha >>> particles were to blame. I'm not trying to argue the point... only >>> passing on the experience, and the source of the comment. >>> >>> TC >> At about the same era, CCDs were being evaluated for possible mass >> storage type applications also. They had many of the same >> characteristics as bubbles from an application standpoint but were >> made of silicon and were more akin to dram from a physics standpoint. >> >> Glad you are not that TC, he seems like a kook. >> >> >> -- >> Del Cecchi >> "This post is my own and doesn't necessarily represent IBM's >> positions, strategies or opinions." > > In that case, I'm glad not to be him! > > I was thinking about the alpha particle claim and I'm wondering if > there were shift registers associated with read/write of the bubble > memory that may have been implimented in dynamic logic. If that was the > case, maybe that is where the alpha particle claim by the Intel FAEs > may have made some sense. Still doesn't change the fact that > better/cheaper technology came along and beat out bubble memory > technology. > > TC the bubbles were in a film of magnetic material with a pattern on top. Circuits were on a separate chip of Si.
From: CBFalconer on 18 Nov 2006 06:03 Brian Inglis wrote: > Charles Richmond <richchas(a)comcast.net> wrote: > .... snip ... >> >> TI used to advertise the Silent 700 for use by salesmen. "Take >> orders and type them into the bubble memory all day. Then dial up >> the company computer at night and download the day's orders." >> I think it significant that the Silent 700 was aimed to sell to >> more than just programmers. > > Given that an order pad and an answering machine could perform the > same functions, wonder if many were bought for that purpose? > An Apple ][ would have been cheaper and lighter, requiring only a > cassette recorder for storage, and a hotel room TV for display. Apple ][s did not exist. The 8008 did, but just barely. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
From: Peter Flass on 18 Nov 2006 07:14 Brian Inglis wrote: > > Given that an order pad and an answering machine could perform the > same functions, wonder if many were bought for that purpose? > An Apple ][ would have been cheaper and lighter, requiring only a > cassette recorder for storage, and a hotel room TV for display. > This was several years before the first microcomputer was even thought of.
From: Brian Inglis on 18 Nov 2006 11:15
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 06:03:36 -0500 in alt.folklore.computers, CBFalconer <cbfalconer(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Brian Inglis wrote: >> Charles Richmond <richchas(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >... snip ... >>> >>> TI used to advertise the Silent 700 for use by salesmen. "Take >>> orders and type them into the bubble memory all day. Then dial up >>> the company computer at night and download the day's orders." >>> I think it significant that the Silent 700 was aimed to sell to >>> more than just programmers. >> >> Given that an order pad and an answering machine could perform the >> same functions, wonder if many were bought for that purpose? >> An Apple ][ would have been cheaper and lighter, requiring only a >> cassette recorder for storage, and a hotel room TV for display. > >Apple ][s did not exist. The 8008 did, but just barely. TI Silent 700 Portable came out in 1976, Apple ][ in 1977. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis(a)CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca) fake address use address above to reply |