Talk:Microprocessor development board

Kim-1

Although I know what you mean by putting the Kim-1 in the list, back in the old days, it WAS considered a computer system by lots of hobbyists Lack of a video display controller or a sound-chip was NORMAL back in the 1970s when I started working on computers. Dzubint 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know it was popular for hobbyists, I learned programming on a KIM-1 myself. It was my first working computer after I had tried to throw one together myself from parts. And yes,I did that as a hobbyist! It was the only system at the time I could afford as a schoolboy. That the KIM-1 was so popular for hobbyists does not distract from the fact that it was primarily developed for engineers. I also used the (much more expensive) SDK-85 at school, and at the time there really was not that much difference between a KIM-1 and a SDK-85 in my mind. It was just that the KIM-1 was so much cheaper and had a bigger following, so software was easier to come by, especially tiny Basic. So I disagree, the KIM-1 definitly belongs on this list! Mahjongg 11:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't make myself clear... I didn't mean the Kim-1 shouldn't be on the list, I was arguing that perhaps your definition of microprocessor development boards was a bit too strict. Back when the Kim-1 was out, there were no video display controllers or sound chips anyway (for the most part), so lack of one should not be a defining feature of being on the list. Dzubint 13:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the wording of my definition a bit to make it more clear that it's not the lack of a video interface that defines a microprocessor development board but -anything- that is not necessary to enter an short machine language program, execute it and test the result, and to test whether experimental external hardware works. I hope this helps. I also wrote a bit about the importance of the built-in machine code monitor in ROM. Mahjongg 17:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)