Datapoint 3300 and DEC VT06 terminals

[Allison]

>
>Subject: Datapoint 3300 and DEC VT06 terminals
>   From: "Michael Holley" <swtpc6800 at comcast.net>
>   Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:25:08 -0700
>     To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>I am doing a bit of research on Computer Terminal Corporation  terminals and 
>I am looking for a picture of the Datapoint 3300. I understand that CTC 
>OEMed the terminal to many companies. I have found references to the VT06 
>being the same as the Datapoint 3300. I also found a HP document that list 
>the HP 2600A as be compatible with the 3300. Can anyone clarify this.
>
>The designer of the SWTPC CT-1024 Terminal, Ed Colle, had worked at 
>Datapoint on video terminals.
>
>My area of interest is SWTPC 6800 computers and they have an interesting 
>connection with Datapoint. Both were located in San Antonio, Texas. When 
>SWTPC selected a computer to run their business they selected a Datapoint 
>2200. They liked the way the machine booted up and did not require a front 
>panel with switches. The SWTPC 6800 did not have front panel switches and 
>lights. It booted up with a monitor ROM.
>
>I have some interesting notes from Gary Kay,  the designer of the SWTPC 6800 
>here. (And a good photo of the Datapoint 2200)
>http://www.swtpc.com/mholley/History/SWTPC_History.htm
>
>Michael Holley 


>From a pure economic point of view the front pannel was a very expensive
addition and for the micro world it easily doubled (or more) the hardware
for a base system.  Additionally the hardware was both bulky (switches) and
even in volume costly.  

SWTP by going with a rom monitor made a simpler machine with fewer parts.  The
cost to produce was lower and they also gained in that when roms, and other 
digital parts became cheaper they could pass the saving or reap the profit
where switches and leds didn't drop in cost nearly as fast.  There were a 
bunch of subtle evolutionary ideas in the SWTP systems that were widely adopted
such as standard IO types and addresses.  The effect being the user was 
less likely to have to configure the hardware and more likely to find new
software [especially for similar but not identical systems] that were compatable.
All of this was an outgrowth of how Motorola supported the 6800 vs Intel 
vision.

The offset was with  a front pannel troubleshooting a sick system was often 
easier but was an expensive artifact when not needed. 

Even though 6800 and 6502 based systems where not my forte' I studied them
early on to see why they were so pervasive and largely successful.  I feel 
that their break with the front pannel concept was a jump ahead for them.  
As a result the next system (ca1977) I'd gone with was a NS* horizon to get
away from the switches followed closely with Netronics Explorer8085 for the
resident rom monitor for S100 diagnostic abilities.


Allison