Talk:Electronika BK

Untitled
Anybody remembers what was the canonical name of the first filesystem format (one with 20-char filenames, w/o fat) ?

also, ANDOS was never a most populr OS for BK, so this phrase was removed.


 * ANDOS was the most popular OS for BK in the later years. Second-popular was MK-DOS.--Nixer 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Враньё. МКдос вообще появился очень поздно, и то файловый формат был содран с предыдущей ОС (название которой я увы не помню). Реально весь обмен файлами (в том же клубе БК в свиблово) шёл не на андосовских дисках. Lelik aka LAV
 * Было два наиболее популярных форматов файлов - андосовский и МикроДОС. МК-ДОС использовала формат МикроДОС, как и большинство других систем на БК. Поскольку АНДОС читал этот формат без проблем (а МК-ДОС не могла читать андосовские диски), то обмен файлами производился в формате МикроДОС для совместимости. В то же время, многие программы использовали именно формат АНДОС, например, СУБД BASIS.--Nixer 09:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, K1801 wasn't really a "LSI-11 clone". It was compartible all right (albeit with slight differences, such as lack of MUL command in some versions), but it was a single-crystal CPU, while LSI-11 was a 4-chip set based on Western Digital p-system architecture... --Khathi 15:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although I've yet to see a trustworthy source that says that 1801 was designed from scratch and isn't really 4 LSI-11 chips squeezed into one package or something. Unfortunately all Russian sources just call it "Elektronika-60" Instruction Set and don't disclose anything dramatic about development. Instruction set -wise it can be called a clone and for most people it's as much as they want to know. I'd like to have a dedicated article about 1801 cpu, but unfortunately I can't gather enough information to make a worthy separate article about it, not yet.Svofski 12:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The only source I've ever got on K1801's origins was 4-year-old article in CompuTerra magazine, the very article referenced here, that clearly says that scratch-design is a rumor. But I'd say it's pretty substantivated, as I've happened to locate old Elektronika-60 manual, and its processor was sectioned just like LSI-11 was.
 * About packaging -- well, if was against the grain for Soviet engineers to do something so senseless as to put multiple dies in one package. Modern microelectronic industry does this mainly for marketing purposes, and there wasn't such thing as marketing in Soviet times. And from purely engineering standpoint it puts undue strain to the tindustry, which at the time wasn't all that sophisticated.
 * So I believe that we can call Electronika-60 an 11/03 clone, but BK and DVK are better described as "PDP-11 compartibles", which they were. --Khathi 07:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The other theory I heard is that the whole development of Electronika 60 and its subsequent micros was led by deflectors from west, probably even someone from DEC. Sounds very cloak and dagger to me though, but why not indeed.
 * As for calling it "a compatible", I agree. Svofski 07:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * About defectors -- it's certainly true, the whole Russian microelectronics industry (as well as an institute I tried to get a PhD in, an Institute of Automation and Control Processes in Vladivostok) was founded by Alfred Sarant, an ex-American engineer known in USSR as Philipp Staros. He was a part of Rosenberg spy ring and emigrated to USSR after their arrest, so it was indeed a real cloak and dagger story after all. But this was in early 50'es, when no one heard of DEC yet. ^_^ --Khathi 05:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Staros was indeed a proponent of the Soviet Silicon Valley, but the rest is the urban legend. Staros was not neither an architect nor manager of the project and never worked on Soviet strategy in electronics and microelectronics, though he was very much respected by Communist Party bosses. Good article about Staros and his influence by Burtsev (BESM, Elbrus chief designer): http://www.ipmce.ru/about/press/history/electronic12002/

As for 1801, it was indeed a home made design CPU, developed in NII TT initially as 1801VE1 micro-controller. However, industry badly needed a single chip PDP-11 compatible CPU and NII TT had to implement such, using 1801VE1 by rewriting microcode. Here's a bit of info from Angstrem (manufacturer of 1801 series) website: http://www.angstrem.ru/about/history/80/ I personally asked one of 1801 designers Sergey Shisharin to tell the story of 1801 design. Hopefully he will respond soon and tell us the story. Alex904 (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I also changed the wording about "approximate clones". I think it's better now --- they "share architectural similarities". Calling BK a clone of PDP-11 is a huge stretch. Anyway, peace out. Svofski 07:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, not so much. I'd better agree with original wordings -- after all, even humble BK had one full-fledged Q-bus slot. --Khathi 05:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference is insignificant, especially now that Q-BUS slot has a honourable mention in the next sentence. But I can't really insist, I just thought that "approximate clone" is a bad word combination; if you're feeling strong towards "approx. clone", feel free to restore the original wording. Thanks for the deflector info! Svofski 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

IIRC.. BK Keyboard is not exactly "membrane keyboard", since it uses microswitches covered with paper and plastic overlay. 80.94.171.213 (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Osbk11.png
Image:Osbk11.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Page rework
I've expanded this page a bit, but it's still a work in progress, so please refer your questions/comments here. Next week I plan to add info on the BK history and on gaming/demo community, and put on some inline citations. --Khathi (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't
it was one of the first fully 16-bit home computers in the world

The Heathkit H11 went on the market in 1978. It was an LSI-11 in a box, and thus essentially identical to the BK in processor terms. The only real difference was packaging; the H11 used plug-in Q-Bus boards for most I/O, while the BK mostly had those on the motherboard.

The BK cost around 600R, in an era when the average worker made about 190R per month, so it was 3 to 4 months pay. In comparison, the H11 was $1300 in an era when the average monthly income in the US was 1,500, so it was about one month's pay (in the BK's release year, the US income was 3,000 per month). Fully expanded with the cards that made it equivalent to the BK still resulted in the H11 being significantly less expensive in equivalent purchasing power terms.

There's very few differences in technical terms, and less in market terms; the BK simply cannot claim "first". Maury Markowitz (talk)

Even if you would look at the BK-0010 as a single 16-bit microprocessor personal computer, it won't be the first one, in that case first would likely be TI 99/4 (1979).

Ok, but isn't a clone, knockoff or a failure
It wasn't the first, but it was more commercially successful than the Heathkit(4 years produced v/s 9). Also, comparing wages between soviet union and US is quite weird. In other countries any of two alternatives were several wages, or a unacceptable amount of them because monetary differences and also lower (in local and absolute term) wages(I.E. in my country, in 1980 dollar was held 50:1, but average wage was below 50 dollars). In 1985 dollar and ruble were almost 1:1, so even in dollar terms, the change would allow the electronika BK to be a little bit cheaper than heathkit. Also, it's CPU was even more commercially sucessful and wasn't a clone in any sense.


 * No one said anything about "clone, knockoff or a failure".
 * Here are a few widely available 16-bit or 16/32-bit machines up to the time it was released:
 * H11 - 1978
 * TI-99 - 1979
 * TRS-80 Model 16 - 1982
 * Olivetti M20 - 1982
 * Apple Lisa - 1983
 * Apple Macintosh - 1984
 * Plus any number of Unix workstations and the odd games console.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)