Historical question, what went wrong with bubble memory?
|
From: TC on 14 Nov 2006 22:42 "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 I do know that it didn't work, that it was withdrawn from the market, and have been told by Intel FAE's of that era that Alpha particles were to blame.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
From: Gene Wirchenko on 14 Nov 2006 23:41 "David Wade" <g8mqw(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >news:MPG.1fc2fff0bbe48c98989b17(a)news.individual.net... >> In article <4558B57A.1BFB981E(a)comcast.net>, richchas(a)comcast.net >> says... [snip] >> > The Texas Instruments Silent 700 terminal was the only device >> > that I was aware of...that contained a bubble memory module. >> > It also had an acoustic coupler 300 baud modem built in, and >> > used a thermal printing mechanism. >> >> A triple kiss-o-death! >Oddly they were very popular. I am sure we had several for home working, >access to bulletin board type systems and as a portable TTY for servic >use... My mom was a Realtor and used one when the computerised listing service started up in her area. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.
From: Brian Inglis on 15 Nov 2006 01:43 On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:11:04 -0000 in alt.folklore.computers, "David Wade" <g8mqw(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >news:MPG.1fc2fff0bbe48c98989b17(a)news.individual.net... >> In article <4558B57A.1BFB981E(a)comcast.net>, richchas(a)comcast.net >> says... >> > krw wrote: >> > > >> > > In article <ej5ss5$fdu$1(a)panix5.panix.com>, jeffj(a)panix.com says... >> > > > I think FLASH, EEPROM and other non-volatile memories >> > > > were the death of bubble memory, >> > > > particulary when they became 5v only. >> > > >> > > The price crash on the floppy disk was the death knell for bubbles. >> > > Without that mass market they couldn't slide down the technology >> > > curve. >> > > >> > The Texas Instruments Silent 700 terminal was the only device >> > that I was aware of...that contained a bubble memory module. >> > It also had an acoustic coupler 300 baud modem built in, and >> > used a thermal printing mechanism. >> >> A triple kiss-o-death! >> > >Oddly they were very popular. I am sure we had several for home working, >access to bulletin board type systems and as a portable TTY for servic >use... Got long arms hauling the Portable home nights and weekends instead of staying at work; and when finished work, did a bit of long distance browsing over Datapac X.25 network. It was a lot quieter to use late at night than the dot matrix printer on the PC that replaced it: one reason I splurged early on (expensive at the time) B/W HP DeskJet, plus memory and font cartridge addons for bigger buffers, nicer text, and more graphics. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis(a)CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca) fake address use address above to reply
From: Del Cecchi on 15 Nov 2006 11:05 TC wrote: > "Del Cecchi" <delcecchiofthenorth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4rstkdFshnfoU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >>"TC" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>news:D196h.5978$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.?
From: Stephen Fuld on 15 Nov 2006 11:34
Del Cecchi wrote: snip > 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. The company I worked for actually shipped some solid state drums using CCDs. They worked, modulo some intermittent problems, but were overtaken by DRAMs about the time that 16K chips became available. I actually did some evaluation of bubble memory as an alternative to the CCDs, but the bubble's advantage of non-volatility was not enough to overcome its disadvantages. -- - Stephen Fuld (e-mail address disguised to prevent spam) |