.cite { font-size: 70%;} .ref { vertical-align: super; font-size: 60%;} code {font-size: 100%; font-family: courier, fixed;} In 1977, Commodore released the PET computer, a quirky home computer that combined the processor, a tiny keyboard, a cassette drive for storage, and a trapezoidal screen in a metal unit. The Commodore PET, the Apple II, and Radio Shack's TRS-80 started the home computer market with ready-to-run computers, systems that were called in retrospect the 1977 Trinity. I did much of my early programming on the PET, so when someone offered me a non-working PET a few years ago, I took it for nostalgic reasons. You'd think that a home computer would be easy to repair, but it turned out to be a challenge.1 The chips in early PETs are notorious for failures and, sure enough, we found multiple bad chips. Moreover, these RAM and ROM chips were special designs that are mostly unobtainable now. In this post, I'll summarize how we repaired the system, in case it helps anyone else. When I first powered up the computer, I was greeted with a display full of random characters. This was actually reassuring since it showed that most of the computer was working: not just the monitor, but the video RAM, character ROM, system clock, and power supply were all operational. The Commodore PET started up, but the screen was full of garbage. With an oscilloscope, I examined signals on the system bus and found that the clock, address, and data lines were full of activity, so the 6502 CPU seemed to be operating. However, some of the data lines had three voltage levels, as shown below. This was clearly not good, and suggested that a chip on the bus was messing up the data signals. The scope shows three voltage levels on the data bus. Some helpful sites online7 suggested that if a PET gets stuck before clearing the screen, the most likely cause is a failure of a system ROM chip. Fortunately, Marc has a Retro Chip Tester, a cool device designed to test vintage ICs: not just 7400-series logic, but vintage RAMs and ROMs. Moreover, the tester knows the correct ROM contents for a ton of old computers, so it can tell if a PET ROM has the right contents. The Retro Chip Tester showed that two of the PET's seven ROM chips had failed. These chips are MOS Technologies MPS6540, a 2K×8 ROM with a weird design that is incompatible with standard ROMs. Fortunately, several people make adapter boards that let you substitute a standard 2716 EPROM, so I ordered two adapter boards, assembled them, and Marc programmed the 2716 EPROMs from online data files. The 2716 EPROM requires a bit more voltage to program than Marc's programmer supported, but the chips seemed to have the right contents (foreshadowing). The PET opened, showing the motherboard. The PET's case swings open with an arm at the left to hold it open like a car hood. The first two rows of chips at the front of the motherboard are the RAM chips. Behind the RAM are the seven ROM chips; two have been replaced by the ROM adapter boards. The 6502 processor is the large black chip behind the ROMs, toward the right. With the adapter boards in place, I powered on the PET with great expectations of success, but it failed in precisely the same way as before, failing to clear the garbage off the screen. Marc decided it was time to use his Agilent 1670G logic analyzer to find out what was going on; (Dating back to 1999, this logic analyzer is modern by Marc's standards.) He wired up the logic analyzer to the 6502 chip, as shown below, so we could track the address bus, data bus, and the read/write signal. Meanwhile, I disassembled the ROM contents using Ghidra, so I could interpret the logic analyzer against the assembly code. (Ghidra is a program for reverse-engineering software that was developed by the NSA, strangely enough.) Marc wired up the logic analyzer to the 6502 chip. The logic analyzer provided a trace of every memory access from the 6502 processor, showing what it was executing. Everything went well for a while after the system was turned on: the processor jumped to the reset vector location, did a bit of initialization, tested the memory, but then everything went haywire. I noticed that the memory test failed on the first byte. Then the software tried to get more storage by garbage collecting the BASIC program and variables. Since there wasn't any storage at all, this didn't go well and the system hung before reaching the code that clears the screen. We tested the memory chips, using the Retro Chip Tester again, and found three bad chips. Like the ROM chips, the RAM chips are unusual: MOS Technology 6550 static RAM chip, 1K×4. By removing the bad chips and shuffling the good chips around, we reduced the 8K PET to a 6K PET. This time, the system booted, although there was a mysterious 2×2 checkerboard symbol near the middle of the screen (foreshadowing). I typed in a simple program to print "HELLO", but the results were very strange: four floating-point numbers, followed by a hang. This program didn't work the way I expected. This behavior was very puzzling. I could successfully enter a program into the computer, which exercises a lot of the system code. (It's not like a terminal, where echoing text is trivial; the PET does a lot of processing behind the scenes to parse a BASIC program as it is entered.) However, the output of the program was completely wrong, printing floating-point numbers instead of a string. We also encountered an intermittent problem that after turning the computer on, the boot message would be complete gibberish, as shown below. Instead of the "*** COMMODORE BASIC ***" banner, random characters and graphics would appear. The garbled boot message. How could the computer be operating well for the most part, yet also completely wrong? We went back to the logic analyzer to find out. I figured that the gibberish boot message would probably be the easiest thing to track down, since that happens early in the boot process. Looking at the code, I discovered that after the software tests the memory, it converts the memory size to an ASCII string using a moderately complicated algorithm.2 Then it writes the system boot message and the memory size to the screen. The PET uses a subroutine to write text to the screen. A pointer to the text message is held in memory locations 0071 and 0072. The assembly code below stores the pointer (in the X and Y registers) into these memory locations. (This Ghidra output shows the address, the instruction bytes, and the symbolic assembler instructions.) For the code above, you'd expect the processor to read the instruction bytes 86 and 71, and then write to address 0071. Next it should read the bytes 84 and 72 and write to address 0072. However, the logic analyzer output below showed that something slightly different happened. The processor fetched instruction bytes 86 and 71 from addresses D5AE and D5AF, then wrote 00 to address 0071, as expected. Next, it fetched instruction bytes 84 and 72 as expected, but wrote 01 to address 007A, not 0072! 007A 01 0 This was a smoking gun. The processor had messed up and there was a one-bit error in the address. Maybe the 6502 processor issued a bad signal or maybe something else was causing problems on the bus. The consequence of this error was that the string pointer referenced random memory rather than the desired boot message, so random characters were written to the screen. Next, I investigated why the screen had a mysterious checkerboard character. I wrote a program to scan the logic analyzer output to extract all the writes to screen memory. Most of the screen operations made sense—clearing the screen at startup and then writing the boot message—but I found one unexpected write to the screen. In the assembly code below, the Y register should be written to zero-page address 5e, and the X register should be written to the address 66, some locations used by the BASIC interpreter. However, the logic analyzer output below showed a problem. The first line should fetch the opcode 84 from address d3c8, but the processor received the opcode 8c from the ROM, the instruction to write to a 16-bit address. The result was that instead of writing to a zero-page address, the 6502 fetched another byte to write to a 16-bit address. Specifically, it grabbed the STX instruction (86) and used that as part of the address, writing FF (a checkerboard character) to screen memory at 865E3 instead of to the BASIC data structure at 005E. Moreover, the STX instruction wasn't executed, since it was consumed as an address. Thus, not only did a stray character get written to the screen, but data structures in memory didn't get updated. It's not surprising that the BASIC interpreter went out of control when it tried to run the program. 8C 1 186601 D3C9 5E 1 186602 D3CA 86 1 186603 865E FF 0 We concluded that a ROM was providing the wrong byte (8C) at address D3C8. This ROM turned out to be one of our replacements; the under-powered EPROM programmer had resulted in a flaky byte. Marc re-programmed the EPROM with a more powerful programmer. The system booted, but with much less RAM than expected. It turned out that another RAM chip had failed. Finally, we got the PET to run. I typed in a simple program to generate an animated graphical pattern, a program I remembered from when I was about 134, and generated this output: Finally, the PET worked and displayed some graphics. Imagine this pattern constantly changing. In retrospect, I should have tested all the RAM and ROM chips at the start, and we probably could have found the faults without the logic analyzer. However, the logic analyzer gave me an excuse to learn more about Ghidra and the PET's assembly code, so it all worked out in the end. In the end, the PET had 6 bad chips: two ROMs and four RAMs. The 6502 processor itself turned out to be fine.5 The photo below shows the 6 bad chips on top of the PET's tiny keyboard. On the top of each key, you can see the quirky graphical character set known as PETSCII.6 As for the title, I'm counting the badly-programmed ROM as half a bad chip since the chip itself wasn't bad but it was functioning erratically. The bad chips sitting on top of the keyboard. Follow me on Bluesky (@righto.com) or RSS for updates. (I'm no longer on Twitter.) Thanks to Mike Naberezny for providing the PET. Thanks to TubeTime, Mike Stewart, and especially CuriousMarc for help with the repairs. Some useful PET troubleshooting links are in the footnotes.7 Footnotes and references So why did I suddenly decide to restore a PET that had been sitting in my garage since 2017? Well, CNN was filming an interview with Bill Gates and they wanted background footage of the 1970s-era computers that ran the Microsoft BASIC that Bill Gates wrote. Spoiler: I didn't get my computer working in time for CNN, but Marc found some other computers.  ↩ Converting a number to an ASCII string is somewhat complicated on the 6502. You can't quickly divide by 10 for the decimal conversion, since the processor doesn't have a divide instruction. Instead, the PET's conversion routine has hard-coded four-byte constants: -100000000, 10000000, -100000, 100000, -10000, 1000, -100, 10, and -1. The routine repeatedly adds the first constant (i.e. subtracting 100000000) until the result is negative. Then it repeatedly adds the second constant until the result is positive, and so forth. The number of steps gives each decimal digit (after adjustment). The same algorithm is used with the base-60 constants: -2160000, 216000, -36000, 3600, -600, and 60. This converts the uptime count into hours, minutes, and seconds for the TIME$ variable. (The PET's basic time count is the "jiffy", 1/60th of a second.) ↩ Technically, the address 865E is not part of screen memory, which is 1000 characters starting at address 0x8000. However, the PET's address uses some shortcuts in address decoding, so 865E ends up the same as 825e, referencing the 7th character of the 16th line. ↩ Here's the source code for my demo program, which I remembered from my teenage programming. It simply displays blocks (black, white, or gray) with 8-fold symmetry, writing directly to screen memory with POKE statements. (It turns out that almost anything looks good with 8-fold symmetry.) The cryptic heart in the first PRINT statement is the clear-screen character. My program to display some graphics.  ↩ I suspected a problem with the 6502 processor because the logic analyzer showed that the 6502 read an instruction correctly but then accessed the wrong address. Eric provided a replacement 6502 chip but swapping the processor had no effect. However, reprogramming the ROM fixed both problems. Our theory is that the signal on the bus either had a timing problem or a voltage problem, causing the logic analyzer to show the correct value but the 6502 to read the wrong value. Probably the ROM had a weakly-programmed bit, causing the ROM's output for that bit to either be at an intermediate voltage or causing the output to take too long to settle to the correct voltage. The moral is that you can't always trust the logic analyzer if there are analog faults. ↩ The PETSCII graphics characters are now in Unicode in the Symbols for Legacy Computing block. ↩ The PET troubleshooting site was very helpful. The Commodore PET's Microsoft BASIC source code is here, mostly uncommented. I mapped many of the labels in the source code to the assembly code produced by Ghidra to understand the logic analyzer traces. The ROM images are here. Schematics of the PET are here. ↩↩

Most people think of machine instructions as the fundamental steps that a computer performs. However, many processors have another layer of software underneath: microcode. With microcode, instead of building the processor's control circuitry from complex logic gates, the control logic is implemented with code known as microcode, stored in the microcode ROM. To execute a machine instruction, the computer internally executes several simpler micro-instructions, specified by the microcode. In this post, I examine the microcode ROM in the original Pentium, looking at the low-level circuitry. The photo below shows the Pentium's thumbnail-sized silicon die under a microscope. I've labeled the main functional blocks. The microcode ROM is highlighted at the right. If you look closely, you can see that the microcode ROM consists of two rectangular banks, one above the other. This die photo of the Pentium shows the location of the microcode ROM. Click this image (or any other) for a larger version. The image below shows a closeup of the two microcode ROM banks. Each bank provides 45 bits of output; together they implement a micro-instruction that is 90 bits long. Each bank consists of a grid of transistors arranged into 288 rows and 720 columns. The microcode ROM holds 4608 micro-instructions, 414,720 bits in total. At this magnification, the ROM appears featureless, but it is covered with horizontal wires, each just 1.5 µm thick. The 90 output lines from the ROM, with a closeup of six lines exiting the ROM. The ROM's 90 output lines are collected into a bundle of wires between the banks, as shown above. The detail shows how six of the bits exit from the banks and join the bundle. This bundle exits the ROM to the left, travels to various parts of the chip, and controls the chip's circuitry. The output lines are in the chip's top metal layer (M3): the Pentium has three layers of metal wiring with M1 on the bottom, M2 in the middle, and M3 on top. The Pentium has a large number of bits in its micro-instruction, 90 bits compared to 21 bits in the 8086. Presumably, the Pentium has a "horizontal" microcode architecture, where the microcode bits correspond to low-level control signals, as opposed to "vertical" microcode, where the bits are encoded into denser micro-instructions. I don't have any information on the Pentium's encoding of microcode; unlike the 8086, the Pentium's patents don't provide any clues. The 8086's microcode ROM holds 512 micro-instructions, much less than the Pentium's 4608 micro-instructions. This makes sense, given the much greater complexity of the Pentium's instruction set, including the floating-point unit on the chip. The image below shows a closeup of the Pentium's microcode ROM. For this image, I removed the three layers of metal and the polysilicon layer to expose the chip's underlying silicon. The pattern of silicon doping is visible, showing the transistors and thus the data stored in the ROM. If you have enough time, you can extract the bits from the ROM by examining the silicon and seeing where transistors are present. A closeup of the ROM showing how bits are encoded in the layout of transistors. Before explaining the ROM's circuitry, I'll review how an NMOS transistor is constructed. A transistor can be considered a switch between the source and drain, controlled by the gate. The source and drain regions (green) consist of silicon doped with impurities to change its semiconductor properties, forming N+ silicon. (These regions are visible in the photo above.) The gate consists of a layer of polysilicon (red), separated from the silicon by a very thin insulating oxide layer. Whenever polysilicon crosses active silicon, a transistor is formed. Diagram showing the structure of an NMOS transistor. Bits are stored in the ROM through the pattern of transistors in the grid. The presence or absence of a transistor stores a 0 or 1 bit.1 The closeup below shows eight bits of the microcode ROM. There are four transistors present and four gaps where transistors are missing. Thus, this part of the ROM holds four 0 bits and four 1 bits. For the diagram below, I removed the three metal layers and the polysilicon to show the underlying silicon. I colored doped (active) silicon regions green, and drew in the horizontal polysilicon lines in red. As explained above, a transistor is created if polysilicon crosses doped silicon. Thus, the contents of the ROM are defined by the pattern of silicon regions, which creates the transistors. Eight bits of the microcode ROM, with four transistors present. The horizontal silicon lines are used as wiring to provide ground to the transistors, while the horizontal polysilicon lines select one of the rows in the ROM. The transistors in that row will turn on, pulling the associated output lines low. That is, the presence of a transistor in a row causes the output to be pulled low, while the absence of a transistor causes the output line to remain high. A schematic corresponding to the eight bits above. The diagram below shows the silicon, polysilicon, and bottom metal (M1) layers. I removed the metal from the left to reveal the silicon and polysilicon underneath, but the pattern of vertical metal lines continues there. As shown earlier, the silicon pattern forms transistors. Each horizontal metal line has a connection to ground through a metal line (not shown). The horizontal polysilicon lines select a row. When polysilicon lines cross doped silicon, the gate of a transistor is formed. Two transistors may share the drain, as in the transistor pair on the left. Diagram showing the silicon, polysilicon, and M1 layers. The vertical metal wires form the outputs. The circles are contacts between the metal wire and the silicon of a transistor.2 Short metal jumpers connect the polysilicon lines to the metal layer above, which will be described next. The image below shows the upper left corner of the ROM. The yellowish metal lines are the top metal layer (M3), while the reddish metal lines are the middle metal layer (M2). The thick yellowish M3 lines distribute ground to the ROM. Underneath the horizontal M3 line, a horizontal M2 line also distributes ground. The grids of black dots are numerous contacts between the M3 line and the M2 line, providing a low-resistance connection. The M2 line, in turn, connects to vertical M1 ground lines underneath—these wide vertical lines are faintly visible. These M1 lines connect to the silicon, as shown earlier, providing ground to each transistor. This illustrates the complexity of power distribution in the Pentium: the thick top metal (M3) is the primary distribution of +5 volts and ground through the chip, but power must be passed down through M2 and M1 to reach the transistors. The upper left corner of the ROM. The other important feature above is the horizontal metal lines, which help distribute the row-select signals. As shown earlier, horizontal polysilicon lines provide the row-select signals to the transistors. However, polysilicon is not as good a conductor as metal, so long polysilicon lines have too much resistance. The solution is to run metal lines in parallel, periodically connected to the underlying polysilicon lines and reducing the overall resistance. Since the vertical metal output lines are in the M1 layer, the horizontal row-select lines run in the M2 layer so they don't collide. Short "jumpers" in the M1 layer connect the M2 lines to the polysilicon lines. To summarize, each ROM bank contains a grid of transistors and transistor vacancies to define the bits of the ROM. The ROM is carefully designed so the different layers—silicon, polysilicon, M1, and M2—work together to maximize the ROM's performance and density. Microcode Address Register As the Pentium executes an instruction, it provides the address of each micro-instruction to the microcode ROM. The Pentium holds this address—the micro-address—in the Microcode Address Register (MAR). The MAR is a 13-bit register located above the microcode ROM. The diagram below shows the Microcode Address Register above the upper ROM bank. It consists of 13 bits; each bit has multiple latches to hold the value as well as any pushed subroutine micro-addresses. Between bits 7 and 8, some buffer circuitry amplifies the control signals that go to each bit's circuitry. At the right, drivers amplify the outputs from the MAR, sending the signals to the row drivers and column-select circuitry that I will discuss below. To the left of the MAR is a 32-bit register that is apparently unrelated to the microcode ROM, although I haven't determined its function. The Microcode Address Register is located above the upper ROM bank. The outputs from the Microcode Address Register select rows and columns in the microcode ROM, as I'll explain below. Bits 12 through 7 of the MAR select a block of 8 rows, while bits 6 through 4 select a row in this block. Bits 3 through 0 select one column out of each group of 16 columns to select an output bit. Thus, the microcode address controls what word is provided by the ROM. Several different operations can be performed on the Microcode Address Register. When executing a machine instruction, the MAR must be loaded with the address of the corresponding microcode routine. (I haven't determined how this address is generated.) As microcode is executed, the MAR is usually incremented to move to the next micro-instruction. However, the MAR can branch to a new micro-address as required. The MAR also supports microcode subroutine calls; it will push the current micro-address and jump to the new micro-address. At the end of the micro-subroutine, the micro-address is popped so execution returns to the previous location. The MAR supports three levels of subroutine calls, as it contains three registers to hold the stack of pushed micro-addresses. The MAR receives control signals and addresses from standard-cell logic located above the MAR. Strangely, in Intel's published floorplans for the Pentium, this standard-cell logic is labeled as part of the branch prediction logic, which is above it. However, carefully tracing the signals from the standard-cell logic shows that is connected to the Microcode Address Register, not the branch predictor. Row-select drivers As explained above, each ROM bank has 288 rows of transistors, with polysilicon lines to select one of the rows. To the right of the ROM is circuitry that activates one of these row-select lines, based on the micro-address. Each row matches a different 9-bit address. A straightforward implementation would use a 9-input AND gate for each row, matching a particular pattern of 9 address bits or their complements. However, this implementation would require 576 very large AND gates, so it is impractical. Instead, the Pentium uses an optimized implementation with one 6-input AND gate for each group of 8 rows. The remaining three address bits are decoded once at the top of the ROM. As a result, each row only needs one gate, detecting if its group of eight rows is selected and if the particular one of eight is selected. Simplified schematic of the row driver circuitry. The schematic above shows the circuitry for a group of eight rows, slightly simplified.3 At the top, three address bits are decoded, generating eight output lines with one active at a time. The remaining six address bits are inverted, providing the bit and its complement to the decoding circuitry. Thus, the 9 bits are converted into 20 signals that flow through the decoders, a large number of wires, but not unmanageable. Each group of eight rows has a 6-input AND gate that matches a particular 6-bit address, determined by which inputs are complemented and which are not.4 The NAND gate and inverter at the left combine the 3-bit decoding and the 6-bit decoding, activating the appropriate row. Since there are up to 720 transistors in each row, the row-select lines need to be driven with high current. Thus, the row-select drivers use large transistors, roughly 25 times the size of a regular transistor. To fit these transistors into the same vertical spacing as the rest of the decoding circuitry, a tricky packing is used. The drivers for each group of 8 rows are packed into a 3×3 grid, except the first column has two drivers (since there are 8 drivers in the group, not 9). To avoid a gap, the drivers in the first column are larger vertically and squashed horizontally. Output circuitry The schematic below shows the multiplexer circuit that selects one of 16 columns for a microcode output bit. The first stage has four 4-to-1 multiplexers. Next, another 4-to-1 multiplexer selects one of the outputs. Finally, a BiCMOS driver amplifies the output for transmission to the rest of the processor. The 16-to-1 multiplexer/output driver. In more detail, the ROM and the first multiplexer are essentially NMOS circuits, rather than CMOS. Specifically, the ROM's grid of transistors is constructed from NMOS transistors that can pull a column line low, but there are no PMOS transistors in the grid to pull the line high (since that would double the size of the ROM). Instead, the multiplexer includes precharge transistors to pull the lines high, presumably in the clock phase before the ROM is read. The capacitance of the lines will keep the line high unless it is pulled low by a transistor in the grid. One of the four transistors in the multiplexer is activated (by control signal a, b, c, or d) to select the desired line. The output goes to a "keeper" circuit, which keeps the output high unless it is pulled low. The keeper uses an inverter with a weak PMOS transistor that can only provide a small pull-up current. A stronger low input will overpower this transistor, switching the state of the keeper. The output of this multiplexer, along with the outputs of three other multiplexers, goes to the second-stage multiplexer,5 which selects one of its four inputs, based on control signals e, f, g, and h. The output of this multiplexer is held in a latch built from two inverters. The second latch has weak transistors so the latch can be easily forced into the desired state. The output from the first latch goes through a CMOS switch into a second latch, creating a flip-flop. The output from the second latch goes to a BiCMOS driver, which drives one of the 90 microcode output lines. Most processors are built from CMOS circuitry (i.e. NMOS and PMOS transistors), but the Pentium is built from BiCMOS circuitry: bipolar transistors as well as CMOS. At the time, bipolar transistors improved performance for high-current drivers; see my article on the Pentium's BiCMOS circuitry. The diagram below shows three bits of the microcode output. This circuitry is for the upper ROM bank; the circuitry is mirrored for the lower bank. The circuitry matches the schematic above. Each of the three blocks has 16 input lines from the ROM grid. Four 4-to-1 multiplexers reduce this to 4 lines, and the second multiplexer selects a single line. The result is latched and amplified by the output driver. (Note the large square shape of the bipolar transistors.) Next is the shift register that processes the microcode ROM outputs for testing. The shift register uses XOR logic for its feedback; unlike the rest of the circuitry, the XOR logic is irregular since only some bits are fed into XOR gates. Three bits of output from the microcode, I removed the three metal layers to show the polysilicon and silicon. Circuitry for testing Why does the microcode ROM have shift registers and XOR gates? The reason is that a chip such as the Pentium is very difficult to test: if one out of 3.1 million transistors goes bad, how do you detect it? For a simple processor like the 8086, you can run through the instruction set and be fairly confident that any problem would turn up. But with a complex chip, it is almost impossible to design an instruction sequence that would test every bit of the microcode ROM, every bit of the cache, and so forth. Starting with the 386, Intel added circuitry to the processor solely to make testing easier; about 2.7% of the transistors in the 386 were for testing. The Pentium has this testing circuitry for many ROMs and PLAs, including the division PLA that caused the infamous FDIV bug. To test a ROM inside the processor, Intel added circuitry to scan the entire ROM and checksum its contents. Specifically, a pseudo-random number generator runs through each address, while another circuit computes a checksum of the ROM output, forming a "signature" word. At the end, if the signature word has the right value, the ROM is almost certainly correct. But if there is even a single bit error, the checksum will be wrong and the chip will be rejected. The pseudo-random numbers and the checksum are both implemented with linear feedback shift registers (LFSR), a shift register along with a few XOR gates to feed the output back to the input. For more information on testing circuitry in the 386, see Design and Test of the 80386, written by Pat Gelsinger, who became Intel's CEO years later. Conclusions You'd think that implementing a ROM would be straightforward, but the Pentium's microcode ROM is surprisingly complex due to its optimized structure and its circuitry for testing. I haven't been able to determine much about how the microcode works, except that the micro-instruction is 90 bits wide and the ROM holds 4608 micro-instructions in total. But hopefully you've found this look at the circuitry interesting. Disclaimer: this should all be viewed as slightly speculative and there are probably some errors. I didn't want to prefix every statement with "I think that..." but you should pretend it is there. I plan to write more about the implementation of the Pentium, so follow me on Bluesky (@righto.com) or RSS for updates. Peter Bosch has done some reverse engineering of the Pentium II microcode; his information is here. Footnotes and references It is arbitrary if a transistor corresponds to a 0 bit or a 1 bit. A transistor will pull the output line low (i.e. a 0 bit), but the signal could be inverted before it is used. More analysis of the circuitry or ROM contents would clear this up. ↩ When looking at a ROM like this, the contact pattern seems like it should tell you the contents of the ROM. Unfortunately, this doesn't work. Since a contact can be attached to one or two transistors, the contact pattern doesn't give you enough information. You need to see the silicon to determine the transistor pattern and thus the bits. ↩ I simplified the row driver schematic. The most interesting difference is that the NAND gates are optimized to use three transistors each, instead of four transistors. The trick is that one of the NMOS transistors is essentially shared across the group of 8 drivers; an inverter drives the low side of all eight gates. The second simplification is that the 6-input AND gate is implemented with two 3-input NAND gates and a NOR gate for electrical reasons. Also, the decoder that converts 3 bits into 8 select lines is located between the banks, at the right, not at the top of the ROM as I showed in the schematic. Likewise, the inverters for the 6 row-select bits are not at the top. Instead, there are 6 inverters and 6 buffers arranged in a column to the right of the ROM, which works better for the layout. These are BiCMOS drivers so they can provide the high-current outputs necessary for the long wires and numerous transistor gates that they must drive. ↩ The inputs to the 6-input AND gate are arranged in a binary counting pattern, selecting each row in sequence. This binary arrangment is standard for a ROM's decoder circuitry and is a good way to recognize a ROM on a die. The Pentium has 36 row decoders, rather than the 64 that you'd expect from a 6-bit input. The ROM was made to the size necessary, rather than a full power of two. In most ROMs, it's difficult to determine if the ROM is addressed bottom-to-top or top-to-bottom. However, because the microcode ROM's counting pattern is truncated, one can see that the top bank starts with 0 at the top and counts downward, while the bottom bank is reversed, starting with 0 at the bottom and counting upward. ↩ A note to anyone trying to read the ROM contents: it appears that the order of entries in a group of 16 is inconsistent, so a straightforward attempt to visually read the ROM will end up with scrambled data. That is, some of the groups are reversed. I don't see any obvious pattern in which groups are reversed. A closeup of the first stage output mux. This image shows the M1 metal layer. In the diagram above, look at the contacts from the select lines, connecting the select lines to the mux transistors. The contacts on the left are the mirror image of the contacts on the right, so the columns will be accessed in the opposite order. This mirroring pattern isn't consistent, though; sometimes neighboring groups are mirrored and sometimes they aren't. I don't know why the circuitry has this layout. Sometimes mirroring adjacent groups makes the layout more efficient, but the inconsistent mirroring argues against this. Maybe an automated layout system decided this was the best way. Or maybe Intel did this to provide a bit of obfuscation against reverse engineering. ↩

In 1993, Intel released the high-performance Pentium processor, the start of the long-running Pentium line. I've been examining the Pentium's circuitry in detail and I came across a circuit to multiply by three, a complex circuit with thousands of transistors. Why does the Pentium have a circuit to multiply specifically by three? Why is it so complicated? In this article, I examine this multiplier—which I'll call the ×3 circuit—and explain its purpose and how it is implemented. It turns out that this multiplier is a small part of the Pentium's floating-point multiplier circuit. In particular, the Pentium multiplies two 64-bit numbers using base-8 multiplication, which is faster than binary multiplication.1 However, multiplying by 3 needs to be handled as a special case. Moreover, since the rest of the multiplication process can't start until the multiplication by 3 finishes, this circuit must be very fast. If you've studied digital design, you may have heard of techniques such as carry lookahead, Kogge-Stone addition, and carry-select addition. I'll explain how the ×3 circuit combines all these techniques to maximize performance. The photo below shows the Pentium's thumbnail-sized silicon die under a microscope. I've labeled the main functional blocks. In the center is the integer execution unit that performs most instructions. On the left, the code and data caches improve memory performance. The floating point unit, in the lower right, performs floating point operations. Almost half of the floating point unit is occupied by the multiplier, which uses an array of adders to rapidly multiply two 64-bit numbers. The focus of this article is the ×3 circuit, highlighted in yellow near the top of the multiplier. As you can see, the ×3 circuit takes up a nontrivial amount of the Pentium die, especially considering that its task seems simple. This die photo of the Pentium shows the location of the multiplier. Why does the Pentium use base-8 to multiply numbers? Multiplying two numbers in binary is conceptually straightforward. You can think of binary multiplication as similar to grade-school long multiplication, but with binary numbers instead of decimal numbers. The example below shows how 5×6 is computed in binary: the three terms are added to produce the result. Conveniently, each term is either the multiplicand (101 in this case) or 0, shifted appropriately, so computing the terms is easy. i.e. 0×101 101 i.e. 1×101 +101 i.e. 1×101 ――――― 11110 Unfortunately, this straightforward multiplication approach is slow. With the three-bit numbers above, there are three terms to add. But if you multiply two 64-bit numbers, you have 64 terms to add, requiring a lot of time and/or circuitry. The Pentium uses a more complicated approach, computing multiplication in base 8. The idea is to consider the multiplier in groups of three bits, so instead of multiplying by 0 or 1 in each step, you multiply by a number from 0 to 7. Each term that gets added is still in binary, but the number of terms is reduced by a factor of three. Thus, instead of adding 64 terms, you add 22 terms, providing a substantial reduction in the circuitry required. (I'll describe the full details of the Pentium multiplier in a future article.2) The downside to radix-8 multiplication is that multiplying by a number from 0 to 7 is much more complicated than multiplying by 0 or 1, which is almost trivial. Fortunately, there are some shortcuts. Note that multiplying by 2 is the same as shifting the number to the left by 1 bit position, which is very easy in hardware—you wire each bit one position to the left. Similarly, to multiply by 4, shift the multiplicand two bit positions to the left. Multiplying by 7 seems inconvenient, but there is a trick, known as Booth's multiplication algorithm. Instead of multiplying by 7, you add 8 times the number and subtract the number, ending up with 7 times the number. You might think this requires two steps, but the trick is to multiply by one more in the digit to the left, so you get the factor of 8 without an additional step. (A base-10 analogy is that if you want to multiply by 19, you can multiply by 20 and subtract the multiplicand.) Thus, you can get the ×7 by subtracting. Similarly, for a ×6 term, you can subtract a ×2 multiple and add ×8 in the next digit. Thus, the only difficult multiple is ×3. (What about ×5? If you can compute ×3, you can subtract that from ×8 to get ×5.) To summarize, the Pentium's radix-8 Booth's algorithm is a fast way to multiply, but it requires a special circuit to produce the ×3 multiple of the multiplicand. Implementing a fast ×3 circuit with carry lookahead Multiplying a number by three is straightforward in binary: add the number to itself, shifted to the left one position. (As mentioned above, shifting to the left is the same as multiplying by two and is easy in hardware.) Unfortunately, using a simple adder is too slow. The problem with addition is that carries make addition slow. Consider calculating 99999+1 by hand. You'll start with 9+1=10, then carry the one, generating another carry, which generates another carry, and so forth, until you go through all the digits. Computer addition has the same problem: If you're adding two numbers, the low-order bits can generate a carry that then propagates through all the bits. An adder that works this way—known as a ripple carry adder—will be slow because the carry has to ripple through all the bits. As a result, CPUs use special circuits to make addition faster. One solution is the carry-lookahead adder. In this adder, all the carry bits are computed in parallel, before computing the sums. Then, the sum bits can be computed in parallel, using the carry bits. As a result, the addition can be completed quickly, without waiting for the carries to ripple through the entire sum. It may seem impossible to compute the carries without computing the sum first, but there's a way to do it. For each bit position, you determine signals called "carry generate" and "carry propagate". These signals can then be used to determine all the carries in parallel. The generate signal indicates that the position generates a carry. For instance, if you add binary 1xx and 1xx (where x is an arbitrary bit), a carry will be generated from the top bit, regardless of the unspecified bits. On the other hand, adding 0xx and 0xx will never generate a carry. Thus, the generate signal is produced for the first case but not the second. But what about 1xx plus 0xx? We might get a carry, for instance, 111+001, but we might not, for instance, 101+001. In this "maybe" case, we set the carry propagate signal, indicating that a carry into the position will get propagated out of the position. For example, if there is a carry out of the middle position, 1xx+0xx will have a carry from the top bit. But if there is no carry out of the middle position, then there will not be a carry from the top bit. In other words, the propagate signal indicates that a carry into the top bit will be propagated out of the top bit. To summarize, adding 1+1 will generate a carry. Adding 0+1 or 1+0 will propagate a carry. Thus, the generate signal is formed at each position by Gn = An·Bn, where A and B are the inputs. The propagate signal is Pn = An+Bn, the logical-OR of the inputs.3 Now that the propagate and generate signals are defined, some moderately complex logic4 can compute the carry Cn into each bit position. The important thing is that all the carry bits can be computed in parallel, without waiting for the carry to ripple through each bit position. Once each carry is computed, the sum bits can be computed in parallel: Sn = An ⊕ Bn ⊕ Cn. In other words, the two input bits and the computed carry are combined with exclusive-or. Thus, the entire sum can be computed in parallel by using carry lookahead. However, there are complications. Implementing carry lookahead with a parallel prefix adder The carry bits can be generated directly from the G and P signals. However, the straightforward approach requires too much hardware as the number of bits increases. Moreover, this approach needs gates with many inputs, which are slow for electrical reasons. For these reasons, the Pentium uses two techniques to keep the hardware requirements for carry lookahead tractable. First, it uses a "parallel prefix adder" algorithm for carry lookahead across 8-bit chunks.7 Second, it uses a two-level hierarchical approach for carry lookahead: the upper carry-lookahead circuit handles eight 8-bit chunks, using the same 8-bit algorithm.5 The photo below shows the complete ×3 circuit; you can see that the circuitry is divided into blocks of 8 bits. (Although I'm calling this a 64-bit circuit, it really produces a 69-bit output: there are 5 "extra" bits on the left to avoid overflow and to provide additional bits for rounding.) The full ×3 adder circuit under a microscope. The idea of the parallel-prefix adder is to produce the propagate and generate signals across ranges of bits, not just single bits as before. For instance, the propagate signal P32 indicates that a carry in to bit 2 would be propagated out of bit 3, (This would happen with 10xx+01xx, for example.) And G30 indicates that bits 3 to 0 generate a carry out of bit 3. (This would happen with 1011+0111, for example.) Using some mathematical tricks,6 you can take the P and G values for two smaller ranges and merge them into the P and G values for the combined range. For instance, you can start with the P and G values for bits 0 and 1, and produce P10 and G10, the propagate and generate signals describing two bits. These could be merged with P32 and G32 to produce P30 and G30, indicating if a carry is propagated across bits 3-0 or generated by bits 3-0. Note that Gn0 tells us if a carry is generated into bit n+1 from all the lower bits, which is the Cn+1 carry value that we need to compute the final sum. This merging process is more efficient than the "brute force" implementation of the carry-lookahead logic since logic subexpressions can be reused. There are many different ways that you can combine the P and G terms to generate the necessary terms.8 The Pentium uses an approach called Kogge-Stone that attempts to minimize the total delay while keeping the amount of circuitry reasonable. The diagram below is the standard diagram that illustrates how a Kogge-Stone adder works. It's rather abstract, but I'll try to explain it. The diagram shows how the P and G signals are merged to produce each output at the bottom. Each square box at the top generates the P and G signals for that bit. Each line corresponds to both the P and the G signal. Each diamond combines two ranges of P and G signals to generate new P and G signals for the combined range. Thus, the signals cover wider ranges of bits as they progress downward, ending with the Gn0 outputs that indicate carries. A diagram of an 8-bit Kogge-Stone adder highlighting the carry out of bit 6 (green) and out of bit 2 (purple). Modification of the diagram by Robey Pointer, Wikimedia Commons. I've labeled a few of the intermediate signals so you can get an idea of how it works. Circuit "A" combines P7 and G7 with P6 and G6 to produce the signals describing two bits: P76 and G76. Similarly, circuit "B" combines P76 and G76 with P54 and G54 to produce the signals describing four bits: P74 and G74. Finally, circuit "C" produces the final outputs for bit 7: P70 and G70. Note that most of the intermediate results are used twice, reducing the amount of circuitry. Moreover, there are at most three levels of combination circuitry, reducing the delay compared to a deeper network. The key point is the P and G values are computed in parallel so the carry bits can all be computed in parallel, without waiting for the carry to ripple through all the bits. (If this explanation doesn't make sense, see my discussion of the Kogge-Stone adder in the Pentium's division circuit for a different—but maybe still confusing—explanation.) Recursive Kogge-Stone lookahead The Kogge-Stone approach can be extended to 64 bits, but the amount of circuitry and wiring becomes overwhelming. Instead, the Pentium uses a recursive, hierarchical approach with two levels of Kogge-Stone lookahead. The lower layer uses eight Kogge-Stone adders as described above, supporting 64 bits in total. The upper layer uses a single eight-bit Kogge-Stone lookahead circuit, treating each of the lower chunks as a single bit. That is, a lower chunk has a propagate signal P indicating that a carry into the chunk will be propagated out, as well as a generate signal G indicating that the chunk generates a carry. The upper Kogge-Stone circuit combines these chunked signals to determine if carries will be generated or propagated by groups of chunks.9 To summarize, each of the eight lower lookahead circuits computes the carries within an 8-bit chunk. The upper lookahead circuit computes the carries into and out of each 8-bit chunk. In combination, the circuits rapidly provide all the carries needed to compute the 64-bit sum. The carry-select adder Suppose you're on a game show: "What is 553 + 246 + c? In 10 seconds, I'll tell you if c is 0 or 1 and whoever gives the answer first wins $1000." Obviously, you shouldn't just sit around until you get c. You should do the two sums now, so you can hit the buzzer as soon as c is announced. This is the concept behind the carry-select adder: perform two additions—with a carry-in and without--and then supply the correct answer as soon as the carry is available. The carry-select adder requires additional hardware—two adders along with a multiplexer to select the result—but it overlaps the time to compute the sum with the time to compute the carry. In effect, the addition and the carry lookahead operations are performed in parallel, with the multiplexer combining the results from each. The Pentium uses a carry-select adder for each 8-bit chunk in the ×3 circuit. The carry from the second-level carry-lookahead selects which sum should be produced for the chunk. Thus, the time to compute the carry is overlapped with the time to compute the sum. Putting the adder pieces together The image below zooms in on an 8-bit chunk of the ×3 multiplier, implementing an 8-bit adder. Eight input lines are at the top (along with some unrelated wires). Note that each input line splits with a signal going to the adder on the left and a signal going to the right. This is what causes the adder to multiply by 3: it adds the input and the input shifted one bit to the left, i.e. multiplied by two. The top part of the adder has eight circuits to produce the propagate and generate signals. These signals go into the 8-bit Kogge-Stone lookahead circuit. Although most of the adder consists of a circuit block repeated eight times, the Kogge-Stone circuitry appears chaotic. This is because each bit of the Kogge-Stone circuit is different—higher bits are more complicated to compute than lower bits. One 8-bit block of the ×3 circuit. The lower half of the circuit block contains an 8-bit carry-select adder. This circuit produces two sums, with multiplexers selecting the correct sum based on the carry into the block. Note that the carry-select adder blocks are narrower than the other circuitry.10 This makes room for a Kogge-Stone block on the left. The second level Kogge-Stone circuitry is split up; the 8-bit carry-lookahead circuitry has one bit implemented in each block of the adder, and produces the carry-in signal for that adder block. In other words, the image above includes 1/8 of the second-level Kogge-Stone circuit. Finally, eight driver circuits amplify the output bits before they are sent to the rest of the floating-point multiplier. The block diagram below shows the pieces are combined to form the ×3 multiplier. The multiplier has eight 8-bit adder blocks (green boxes, corresponding to the image above). Each block computes eight bits of the total sum. Each block provides P70 and G70 signals to the second-level lookahead, which determines if each block receives a carry in. The key point to this architecture is that everything is computed in parallel, making the addition fast. A block diagram of the multiplier. In the diagram above, the first 8-bit block is expanded to show its contents. The 8-bit lookahead circuit generates the P and G signals that determine the internal carry signals. The carry-select adder contains two 8-bit adders that use the carry lookahead values. As described earlier, one adder assumes that the block's carry-in is 1 and the second assumes the carry-in is 0. When the real carry in value is provided by the second-level lookahead circuit, the multiplexer selects the correct sum. The photo below shows how the complete multiplier is constructed from 8-bit blocks. The multiplier produces a 69-bit output; there are 5 "extra" bits on the left. Note that the second-level Kogge-Stone blocks are larger on the right than the left since the lookahead circuitry is more complex for higher-order bits. The full adder circuit. This is the same image as before, but hopefully it makes more sense at this point. Going back to the full ×3 circuit above, you can see that the 8 bits on the right have significantly simpler circuitry. Because there is no carry-in to this block, the carry-select circuitry can be omitted. The block's internal carries, generated by the Kogge-Stone lookahead circuitry, are added using exclusive-NOR gates. The diagram below shows the implementation of an XNOR gate, using inverters and a multiplexer. The XNOR circuit I'll now describe one of the multiplier's circuits at the transistor level, in particular an XNOR gate. It's interesting to look at XNOR because XNOR (like XOR) is a tricky gate to implement and different processors use very different approaches. For instance, the Intel 386 implements XOR from AND-NOR gates (details) while the Z-80 uses pass transistors (details). The Pentium, on the other hand, uses a multiplexer. An exclusive-NOR gate with the components labeled. This is a focus-stacked image. The diagram above shows one of the XNOR gates in the adder's low bits.11 The gate is constructed from four inverters and a pass-transistor multiplexer. Input B selects one of the multiplexer's two inputs: input A or input A inverted. The result is the XNOR function. (Inverter 1 buffers the input, inverter 5 buffers the output, and inverter 4 provides the complemented B signal to drive the multiplexer.) For the photo, I removed the top two metal layers from the chip, leaving the bottom metal layer, called M1. The doped silicon regions are barely visible beneath the metal. When a polysilicon line crosses doped silicon, it forms the gate of a transistor. This CMOS circuit has NMOS transistors at the top and PMOS transistors at the bottom. Each inverter consists of two transistors, while the multiplexer consists of four transistors. The BiCMOS output drivers The outputs from the ×3 circuit require high current. In particular, each signal from the ×3 circuit can drive up to 22 terms in the floating-point multiplier. Moreover, the destination circuits can be a significant distance from the ×3 circuit due to the size of the multiplier. Since the ×3 signals are connected to many transistor gates through long wires, the capacitance is high, requiring high current to change the signals quickly. The Pentium is constructed with a somewhat unusual process called BiCMOS, which combines bipolar transistors and CMOS on the same chip. The Pentium extensively uses BiCMOS circuits since they reduced signal delays by up to 35%. Intel also used BiCMOS for the Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III, and Xeon processors. However, as chip voltages dropped, the benefit from bipolar transistors dropped too and BiCMOS was eventually abandoned. The schematic below shows a simplified BiCMOS driver that inverts its input. A 0 input turns on the upper inverter, providing current into the bipolar (NPN) transistor's base. This turns on the transistor, causing it to pull the output high strongly and rapidly. A 1 input, on the other hand, will stop the current flow through the NPN transistor's base, turning it off. At the same time, the lower inverter will pull the output low. (The NPN transistor can only pull the output high.) Note the asymmetrical construction of the inverters. Since the upper inverter must provide a large current into the NPN transistor's base, it is designed to produce a strong (high-current) positive output and a weak low output. The lower inverter, on the other hand, is responsible for pulling the output low. Thus, it is constructed to produce a strong low output, while the high output can be weak. The basic circuit for a BiCMOS driver. The driver of the ×3 circuit goes one step further: it uses a BiCMOS driver to drive a second BiCMOS driver. The motivation is that the high-current inverters have fairly large transistor gates, so they need to be driven with high current (but not as much as they produce, so there isn't an infinite regress).12 The schematic below shows the BiCMOS driver circuit that the ×3 multiplier uses. Note the large, box-like appearance of the NPN transistors, very different from the regular MOS transistors. Each box contains two NPN transistors sharing collectors: a larger transistor on the left and a smaller one on the right. You might expect these transistors to work together, but the contiguous transistors are part of two separate circuits. Instead, the small NPN transistor to the left and the large NPN transistor to the right are part of the same circuit. One of the output driver circuits, showing the polysilicon and silicon. The inverters are constructed as standard CMOS circuits with PMOS transistors to pull the output high and NMOS transistors to pull the output low. The inverters are carefully structured to provide asymmetrical current, making them more interesting than typical inverters. Two pullup transistors have a long gate, making these transistors unusually weak. Other parts of the inverters have multiple transistors in parallel, providing more current. Moreover, the inverters have unusual layouts, with the NMOS and PMOS transistors widely separated to make the layout more efficient. For more on BiCMOS in the Pentium, see my article on interesting BiCMOS circuits in the Pentium. Conclusions Hardware support for computer multiplication has a long history going back to the 1950s.13 Early microprocessors, though, had very limited capabilities, so microprocessors such as the 6502 didn't have hardware support for multiplication; users had to implement multiplication in software through shifts and adds. As hardware advanced, processors provided multiplication instructions but they were still slow. For example, the Intel 8086 processor (1978) implemented multiplication in microcode, performing a slow shift-and-add loop internally. Processors became exponentially more powerful over time, as described by Moore's Law, allowing later processors to include dedicated multiplication hardware. The 386 processor (1985) included a multiply unit, but it was still slow, taking up to 41 clock cycles for a multiplication instruction. By the time of the Pentium (1993), microprocessors contained millions of transistors, opening up new possibilities for design. With a seemingly unlimited number of transistors, chip architects could look at complicated new approaches to squeeze more performance out of a system. This ×3 multiplier contains roughly 9000 transistors, a bit more than an entire Z80 microprocessor (1976). Keep in mind that the ×3 multiplier is a small part of the floating-point multiplier, which is part of the floating-point unit in the Pentium. Thus, this small piece of a feature is more complicated than an entire microprocessor from 17 years earlier, illustrating the incredible growth in processor complexity. I plan to write more about the implementation of the Pentium, so follow me on Bluesky (@righto.com) or RSS for updates. (I'm no longer on Twitter.) The Pentium Navajo rug inspired me to examine the Pentium in more detail. Footnotes and references A floating-point multiplication on the Pentium takes three clock cycles, of which the multiplication circuitry is busy for two cycles. (See Agner Fog's optimization manual.) In comparison, integer multiplication (MUL) is much slower, taking 11 cycles. The Nehalem microarchitecture (2008) reduced floating-point multiplication time to 1 cycle. ↩ I'll give a quick outline of the Pentium's floating-point multiplier as a preview. The multiplier is built from a tree of ten carry-save adders to sum the terms. Each carry-save adder is a 4:2 compression adder, taking four input bits and producing two output bits. The output from the carry-save adder is converted to the final result by an adder using Kogge-Stone lookahead and carry select. Multiplying two 64-bit numbers yields 128 bits, but the Pentium produces a 64-bit result. (There are actually a few more bits for rounding.) The low 64 bits can't simply be discarded because they could produce a carry into the preserved bits. Thus, the low 64 bits go into another Kogge-Stone lookahead circuit that doesn't produce a sum, but indicates if there is a carry. Since the datapath is 64 bits wide, but the product is 128 bits, there are many shift stages to move the bits to the right column. Moreover, the adders are somewhat wider than 64 bits as needed to hold the intermediate sums. ↩ The bits 1+1 will set generate, but should propagate be set too? It doesn't make a difference as far as the equations. This adder sets propagate for 1+1 but some other adders do not. The answer depends on if you use an inclusive-or or exclusive-or gate to produce the propagate signal. ↩ The carry Cn at each bit position n can be computed from the G and P signals by considering the various cases: C1 = G0: a carry into bit 1 occurs if a carry is generated from bit 0. C2 = G1 + G0P1: A carry into bit 2 occurs if bit 1 generates a carry or bit 1 propagates a carry from bit 0. C3 = G2 + G1P2 + G0P1P2: A carry into bit 3 occurs if bit 2 generates a carry, or bit 2 propagates a carry generated from bit 1, or bits 2 and 1 propagate a carry generated from bit 0. C4 = G3 + G2P3 + G1P2P3 + G0P1P2P3: A carry into bit 4 occurs if a carry is generated from bit 3, 2, 1, or 0 along with the necessary propagate signals. And so on... Note that the formula gets more complicated for each bit position. The circuit complexity is approximately O(N3), depending on how you measure it. Thus, implementing the carry lookahead formula directly becomes impractical as the number of bits gets large. The Kogge-Stone approach uses approximately O(N log N) transistors, but the wiring becomes excessive for large N since there are N/2 wires of length N/2. Using a tree of Kogge-Stone circuits reduces the amount of wiring. ↩ The 8-bit chunks in the circuitry have nothing to do with bytes. The motivation is that 8 bits is a reasonable size for a chunk, as well as providing a nice breakdown into 8 chunks of 8 bits. Other systems have used 4-bit chunks for carry lookahead (such as minicomputers based on the 74181 ALU chip). ↩ I won't go into the mathematics of merging P and G signals; see, for example, Adder Circuits or Carry Lookahead Adders for additional details. The important factor is that the carry merge operator is associative (actually a monoid), so the sub-ranges can be merged in any order. This flexibility is what allows different algorithms with different tradeoffs. ↩ The idea behind a prefix adder is that we want to see if there is a carry out of bit 0, bits 0-1, bits 0-2, bits 0-3, 0-4, and so forth. These are all the prefixes of the word. Since the prefixes are computed in parallel, it's called a parallel prefix adder. ↩ The lookahead merging process can be implemented in many ways, including Kogge-Stone, Brent-Kung, and Ladner-Fischer, with different tradeoffs. For one example, the diagram below shows that Brent-Kung uses fewer "diamonds" but more layers. Thus, a Brent-Kung adder uses less circuitry but is slower. (You can follow each output upward to verify that the tree reaches the correct inputs.) A diagram of an 8-bit Brent-Kung adder. Diagram by Robey Pointer, Wikimedia Commons.  ↩ The higher-level Kogge-Stone lookahead circuit uses the eight P70 and G70 signals from the eight lower-level lookahead circuits. Note that P70 and G70 indicate that an 8-bit chunk will propagate or generate a carry. The higher-level lookahead circuit treats 8-bit chunks as a unit, while the lower-level lookahead circuit treats 1-bit chunks as a unit. Thus, the higher-level and lower-level lookahead circuits are essentially identical, acting on 8-bit values. ↩ The floating-point unit is built from fixed-width columns, one for each bit. Each column is 38.5 µm wide, so the circuitry in each column must be designed to fit that width. For the most part, the same circuitry is repeated for each of the 64 (or so) bits. The carry-select adder is unusual since it doesn't follow the column width of the rest of the floating-point unit. Instead, it crams 8 circuits into the width of 6.5 regular circuits. This leaves room for one Kogge-Stone circuitry block. ↩ Because there is no carry-in to the lowest 8-bit block of the ×3 circuit, the carry-select circuit is not needed. Instead, each output bit can be computed using an XNOR gate. ↩ The principle of Logical Effort explains that for best performance, you don't want to jump from a small signal to a high-current signal in one step. Instead, a small signal produces a medium signal, which produces a larger signal. By using multiple stages of circuitry, the overall delay can be reduced. ↩ The Booth multiplication technique was described in 1951, while parallel multipliers were proposed in the mid-1960s by Wallace and Dadda. Jumping ahead to higher-radix multiplication, a 1992 paper A Fast Hybrid Multiplier Combining Booth and Wallace/Dadda Algorithms from Motorola discusses radix-4 and radix-8 algorithms for a 32-bit multiplier, but decides that computing the ×3 multiple makes radix-8 impractical. IBM discussed a 32-bit multiplier in 1997: A Radix-8 CMOS S/390 Multiplier. Bewick's 1994 PhD thesis Fast Multiplication: Algorithms and Implementation describes numerous algorithms. For adders, Two-Operand Addition is an interesting presentation on different approaches. CMOS VLSI Design has a good discussion of addition and various lookahead networks. It summarizes the tradeoffs: "Brent-Kung has too many logic levels. Sklansky has too much fanout. And Kogge-Stone has too many wires. Between these three extremes, the Han-Carlson, Ladner-Fischer, and Knowles trees fill out the design space with different compromises between number of stages, fanout, and wire count." The approach used in the Pentium's ×3 multiplier is sometimes called a sparse-tree adder. ↩

What is the origin of the word "mainframe", referring to a large, complex computer? Most sources agree that the term is related to the frames that held early computers, but the details are vague.1 It turns out that the history is more interesting and complicated than you'd expect. Based on my research, the earliest computer to use the term "main frame" was the IBM 701 computer (1952), which consisted of boxes called "frames." The 701 system consisted of two power frames, a power distribution frame, an electrostatic storage frame, a drum frame, tape frames, and most importantly a main frame. The IBM 701's main frame is shown in the documentation below.2 This diagram shows how the IBM 701 mainframe swings open for access to the circuitry. From "Type 701 EDPM [Electronic Data Processing Machine] Installation Manual", IBM. From Computer History Museum archives. The meaning of "mainframe" has evolved, shifting from being a part of a computer to being a type of computer. For decades, "mainframe" referred to the physical box of the computer; unlike modern usage, this "mainframe" could be a minicomputer or even microcomputer. Simultaneously, "mainframe" was a synonym for "central processing unit." In the 1970s, the modern meaning started to develop—a large, powerful computer for transaction processing or business applications—but it took decades for this meaning to replace the earlier ones. In this article, I'll examine the history of these shifting meanings in detail. Early computers and the origin of "main frame" Early computers used a variety of mounting and packaging techniques including panels, cabinets, racks, and bays.3 This packaging made it very difficult to install or move a computer, often requiring cranes or the removal of walls.4 To avoid these problems, the designers of the IBM 701 computer came up with an innovative packaging technique. This computer was constructed as individual units that would pass through a standard doorway, would fit on a standard elevator, and could be transported with normal trucking or aircraft facilities.7 These units were built from a metal frame with covers attached, so each unit was called a frame. The frames were named according to their function, such as the power frames and the tape frame. Naturally, the main part of the computer was called the main frame. An IBM 701 system at General Motors. On the left: tape drives in front of power frames. Back: drum unit/frame, control panel and electronic analytical control unit (main frame), electrostatic storage unit/frame (with circular storage CRTs). Right: printer, card punch. Photo from BRL Report, thanks to Ed Thelen. The IBM 701's internal documentation used "main frame" frequently to indicate the main box of the computer, alongside "power frame", "core frame", and so forth. For instance, each component in the schematics was labeled with its location in the computer, "MF" for the main frame.6 Externally, however, IBM documentation described the parts of the 701 computer as units rather than frames.5 The term "main frame" was used by a few other computers in the 1950s.8 For instance, the JOHNNIAC Progress Report (August 8, 1952) mentions that "the main frame for the JOHNNIAC is ready to receive registers" and they could test the arithmetic unit "in the JOHNNIAC main frame in October."10 An article on the RAND Computer in 1953 stated that "The main frame is completed and partially wired" The main body of a computer called ERMA is labeled "main frame" in the 1955 Proceedings of the Eastern Computer Conference.9 Operator at console of IBM 701. The main frame is on the left with the cover removed. The console is in the center. The power frame (with gauges) is on the right. Photo from NOAA. The progression of the word "main frame" can be seen in reports from the Ballistics Research Lab (BRL) that list almost all the computers in the United States. In the 1955 BRL report, most computers were built from cabinets or racks; the phrase "main frame" was only used with the IBM 650, 701, and 704. By 1961, the BRL report shows "main frame" appearing in descriptions of the IBM 702, 705, 709, and 650 RAMAC, as well as the Univac FILE 0, FILE I, RCA 501, READIX, and Teleregister Telefile. This shows that the use of "main frame" was increasing, but still mostly an IBM term. The physical box of a minicomputer or microcomputer In modern usage, mainframes are distinct from minicomputers or microcomputers. But until the 1980s, the word "mainframe" could also mean the main physical part of a minicomputer or microcomputer. For instance, a "minicomputer mainframe" was not a powerful minicomputer, but simply the main part of a minicomputer.13 For example, the PDP-11 is an iconic minicomputer, but DEC discussed its "mainframe."14. Similarly, the desktop-sized HP 2115A and Varian Data 620i computers also had mainframes.15 As late as 1981, the book Mini and Microcomputers mentioned "a minicomputer mainframe." "Mainframes for Hobbyists" on the front cover of Radio-Electronics, Feb 1978. Even microcomputers had a mainframe: the cover of Radio Electronics (1978, above) stated, "Own your own Personal Computer: Mainframes for Hobbyists", using the definition below. An article "Introduction to Personal Computers" in Radio Electronics (Mar 1979) uses a similar meaning: "The first choice you will have to make is the mainframe or actual enclosure that the computer will sit in." The popular hobbyist magazine BYTE also used "mainframe" to describe a microprocessor's box in the 1970s and early 1980s16. BYTE sometimes used the word "mainframe" both to describe a large IBM computer and to describe a home computer box in the same issue, illustrating that the two distinct meanings coexisted. Definition from Radio-Electronics: main-frame n: COMPUTER; esp: a cabinet housing the computer itself as distinguished from peripheral devices connected with it: a cabinet containing a motherboard and power supply intended to house the CPU, memory, I/O ports, etc., that comprise the computer itself. Main frame synonymous with CPU Words often change meaning through metonymy, where a word takes on the meaning of something closely associated with the original meaning. Through this process, "main frame" shifted from the physical frame (as a box) to the functional contents of the frame, specifically the central processing unit.17 The earliest instance that I could find of the "main frame" being equated with the central processing unit was in 1955. Survey of Data Processors stated: "The central processing unit is known by other names; the arithmetic and ligical [sic] unit, the main frame, the computer, etc. but we shall refer to it, usually, as the central processing unit." A similar definition appeared in Radio Electronics (June 1957, p37): "These arithmetic operations are performed in what is called the arithmetic unit of the machine, also sometimes referred to as the 'main frame.'" The US Department of Agriculture's Glossary of ADP Terminology (1960) uses the definition: "MAIN FRAME - The central processor of the computer system. It contains the main memory, arithmetic unit and special register groups." I'll mention that "special register groups" is nonsense that was repeated for years.18 This definition was reused and extended in the government's Automatic Data Processing Glossary, published in 1962 "for use as an authoritative reference by all officials and employees of the executive branch of the Government" (below). This definition was reused in many other places, notably the Oxford English Dictionary.19 Definition from Bureau of the Budget: frame, main, (1) the central processor of the computer system. It contains the main storage, arithmetic unit and special register groups. Synonymous with (CPU) and (central processing unit). (2) All that portion of a computer exclusive of the input, output, peripheral and in some instances, storage units. By the early 1980s, defining a mainframe as the CPU had become obsolete. IBM stated that "mainframe" was a deprecated term for "processing unit" in the Vocabulary for Data Processing, Telecommunications, and Office Systems (1981); the American National Dictionary for Information Processing Systems (1982) was similar. Computers and Business Information Processing (1983) bluntly stated: "According to the official definition, 'mainframe' and 'CPU' are synonyms. Nobody uses the word mainframe that way." Guide for auditing automatic data processing systems (1961).](mainframe-diagram.jpg "w400") 1967: I/O devices transferring data "independent of the main frame" Datamation, Volume 13. Discusses other sorts of off-line I/O. 1967 Office Equipment & Methods: "By putting your data on magnetic tape and feeding it to your computer in this pre-formatted fashion, you increase your data input rate so dramatically that you may effect main frame time savings as high as 50%." Same in Data Processing Magazine, 1966 Equating the mainframe and the CPU led to a semantic conflict in the 1970s, when the CPU became a microprocessor chip rather than a large box. For the most part, this was resolved by breaking apart the definitions of "mainframe" and "CPU", with the mainframe being the computer or class of computers, while the CPU became the processor chip. However, some non-American usages resolved the conflict by using "CPU" to refer to the box/case/tower of a PC. (See discussion [here](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21336515) and [here](https://superuser.com/questions/1198006/is-it-correct-to-say-that-main-memory-ram-is-a-part-of-cpu).) --> Mainframe vs. peripherals Rather than defining the mainframe as the CPU, some dictionaries defined the mainframe in opposition to the "peripherals", the computer's I/O devices. The two definitions are essentially the same, but have a different focus.20 One example is the IFIP-ICC Vocabulary of Information Processing (1966) which defined "central processor" and "main frame" as "that part of an automatic data processing system which is not considered as peripheral equipment." Computer Dictionary (1982) had the definition "main frame—The fundamental portion of a computer, i.e. the portion that contains the CPU and control elements of a computer system, as contrasted with peripheral or remote devices usually of an input-output or memory nature." One reason for this definition was that computer usage was billed for mainframe time, while other tasks such as printing results could save money by taking place directly on the peripherals without using the mainframe itself.21 A second reason was that the mainframe vs. peripheral split mirrored the composition of the computer industry, especially in the late 1960s and 1970s. Computer systems were built by a handful of companies, led by IBM. Compatible I/O devices and memory were built by many other companies that could sell them at a lower cost than IBM.22 Publications about the computer industry needed convenient terms to describe these two industry sectors, and they often used "mainframe manufacturers" and "peripheral manufacturers." Main Frame or Mainframe? An interesting linguistic shift is from "main frame" as two independent words to a compound word: either hyphenated "main-frame" or the single word "mainframe." This indicates the change from "main frame" being a type of frame to "mainframe" being a new concept. The earliest instance of hyphenated "main-frame" that I found was from 1959 in IBM Information Retrieval Systems Conference. "Mainframe" as a single, non-hyphenated word appears the same year in Datamation, mentioning the mainframe of the NEAC2201 computer. In 1962, the IBM 7090 Installation Instructions refer to a "Mainframe Diag[nostic] and Reliability Program." (Curiously, the document also uses "main frame" as two words in several places.) The 1962 book Information Retrieval Management discusses how much computer time document queries can take: "A run of 100 or more machine questions may require two to five minutes of mainframe time." This shows that by 1962, "main frame" had semantically shifted to a new word, "mainframe." The rise of the minicomputer and how the "mainframe" become a class of computers So far, I've shown how "mainframe" started as a physical frame in the computer, and then was generalized to describe the CPU. But how did "mainframe" change from being part of a computer to being a class of computers? This was a gradual process, largely happening in the mid-1970s as the rise of the minicomputer and microcomputer created a need for a word to describe large computers. Although microcomputers, minicomputers, and mainframes are now viewed as distinct categories, this was not the case at first. For instance, a 1966 computer buyer's guide lumps together computers ranging from desk-sized to 70,000 square feet.23 Around 1968, however, the term "minicomputer" was created to describe small computers. The story is that the head of DEC in England created the term, inspired by the miniskirt and the Mini Minor car.24 While minicomputers had a specific name, larger computers did not.25 Gradually in the 1970s "mainframe" came to be a separate category, distinct from "minicomputer."2627 An early example is Datamation (1970), describing systems of various sizes: "mainframe, minicomputer, data logger, converters, readers and sorters, terminals." The influential business report EDP first split mainframes from minicomputers in 1972.28 The line between minicomputers and mainframes was controversial, with articles such as Distinction Helpful for Minis, Mainframes and Micro, Mini, or Mainframe? Confusion persists (1981) attempting to clarify the issue.29 With the development of the microprocessor, computers became categorized as mainframes, minicomputers or microcomputers. For instance, a 1975 Computerworld article discussed how the minicomputer competes against the microcomputer and mainframes. Adam Osborne's An Introduction to Microcomputers (1977) described computers as divided into mainframes, minicomputers, and microcomputers by price, power, and size. He pointed out the large overlap between categories and avoided specific definitions, stating that "A minicomputer is a minicomputer, and a mainframe is a mainframe, because that is what the manufacturer calls it."32 In the late 1980s, computer industry dictionaries started defining a mainframe as a large computer, often explicitly contrasted with a minicomputer or microcomputer. By 1990, they mentioned the networked aspects of mainframes.33 IBM embraces the mainframe label Even though IBM is almost synonymous with "mainframe" now, IBM avoided marketing use of the word for many years, preferring terms such as "general-purpose computer."35 IBM's book Planning a Computer System (1962) repeatedly referred to "general-purpose computers" and "large-scale computers", but never used the word "mainframe."34 The announcement of the revolutionary System/360 (1964) didn't use the word "mainframe"; it was called a general-purpose computer system. The announcement of the System/370 (1970) discussed "medium- and large-scale systems." The System/32 introduction (1977) said, "System/32 is a general purpose computer..." The 1982 announcement of the 3804, IBM's most powerful computer at the time, called it a "large scale processor" not a mainframe. IBM started using "mainframe" as a marketing term in the mid-1980s. For example, the 3270 PC Guide (1986) refers to "IBM mainframe computers." An IBM 9370 Information System brochure (c. 1986) says the system was "designed to provide mainframe power." IBM's brochure for the 3090 processor (1987) called them "advanced general-purpose computers" but also mentioned "mainframe computers." A System 390 brochure (c. 1990) discussed "entry into the mainframe class." The 1990 announcement of the ES/9000 called them "the most powerful mainframe systems the company has ever offered." The IBM System/390: "The excellent balance between price and performance makes entry into the mainframe class an attractive proposition." IBM System/390 Brochure By 2000, IBM had enthusiastically adopted the mainframe label: the z900 announcement used the word "mainframe" six times, calling it the "reinvented mainframe." In 2003, IBM announced "The Mainframe Charter", describing IBM's "mainframe values" and "mainframe strategy." Now, IBM has retroactively applied the name "mainframe" to their large computers going back to 1959 (link), (link). Mainframes and the general public While "mainframe" was a relatively obscure computer term for many years, it became widespread in the 1980s. The Google Ngram graph below shows the popularity of "microcomputer", "minicomputer", and "mainframe" in books.36 The terms became popular during the late 1970s and 1980s. The popularity of "minicomputer" and "microcomputer" roughly mirrored the development of these classes of computers. Unexpectedly, even though mainframes were the earliest computers, the term "mainframe" peaked later than the other types of computers. N-gram graph from Google Books Ngram Viewer. Dictionary definitions I studied many old dictionaries to see when the word "mainframe" showed up and how they defined it. To summarize, "mainframe" started to appear in dictionaries in the late 1970s, first defining the mainframe in opposition to peripherals or as the CPU. In the 1980s, the definition gradually changed to the modern definition, with a mainframe distinguished as being large, fast, and often centralized system. These definitions were roughly a decade behind industry usage, which switched to the modern meaning in the 1970s. The word didn't appear in older dictionaries, such as the Random House College Dictionary (1968) and Merriam-Webster (1974). The earliest definition I could find was in the supplement to Webster's International Dictionary (1976): "a computer and esp. the computer itself and its cabinet as distinguished from peripheral devices connected with it." Similar definitions appeared in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1976, 1980). A CPU-based definition appeared in Random House College Dictionary (1980): "the device within a computer which contains the central control and arithmetic units, responsible for the essential control and computational functions. Also called central processing unit." The Random House Dictionary (1978, 1988 printing) was similar. The American Heritage Dictionary (1982, 1985) combined the CPU and peripheral approaches: "mainframe. The central processing unit of a computer exclusive of peripheral and remote devices." The modern definition as a large computer appeared alongside the old definition in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1983): "mainframe (1964): a computer with its cabinet and internal circuits; also: a large fast computer that can handle multiple tasks concurrently." Only the modern definition appears in The New Merriram-Webster Dictionary (1989): "large fast computer", while Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989): "mainframe. a large high-speed computer with greater storage capacity than a minicomputer, often serving as the central unit in a system of smaller computers. [MAIN + FRAME]." Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1991) and Random House College Dictionary (2001) had similar definitions. The Oxford English Dictionary is the principal historical dictionary, so it is interesting to see its view. The 1989 OED gave historical definitions as well as defining mainframe as "any large or general-purpose computer, exp. one supporting numerous peripherals or subordinate computers." It has seven historical examples from 1964 to 1984; the earliest is the 1964 Honeywell Glossary. It quotes a 1970 Dictionary of Computers as saying that the word "Originally implied the main framework of a central processing unit on which the arithmetic unit and associated logic circuits were mounted, but now used colloquially to refer to the central processor itself." The OED also cited a Hewlett-Packard ad from 1974 that used the word "mainframe", but I consider this a mistake as the usage is completely different.15 Encyclopedias A look at encyclopedias shows that the word "mainframe" started appearing in discussions of computers in the early 1980s, later than in dictionaries. At the beginning of the 1980s, many encyclopedias focused on large computers, without using the word "mainframe", for instance, The Concise Encyclopedia of the Sciences (1980) and World Book (1980). The word "mainframe" started to appear in supplements such as Britannica Book of the Year (1980) and World Book Year Book (1981), at the same time as they started discussing microcomputers. Soon encyclopedias were using the word "mainframe", for example, Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia (1983), Encyclopedia Americana (1983), and World Book (1984). By 1986, even the Doubleday Children's Almanac showed a "mainframe computer." Newspapers I examined old newspapers to track the usage of the word "mainframe." The graph below shows the usage of "mainframe" in newspapers. The curve shows a rise in popularity through the 1980s and a steep drop in the late 1990s. The newspaper graph roughly matches the book graph above, although newspapers show a much steeper drop in the late 1990s. Perhaps mainframes aren't in the news anymore, but people still write books about them. Newspaper usage of "mainframe." Graph from newspapers.com from 1975 to 2010 shows usage started growing in 1978, picked up in 1984, and peaked in 1989 and 1997, with a large drop in 2001 and after (y2k?). The first newspaper appearances were in classified ads seeking employees, for instance, a 1960 ad in the San Francisco Examiner for people "to monitor and control main-frame operations of electronic computers...and to operate peripheral equipment..." and a (sexist) 1966 ad in the Philadelphia Inquirer for "men with Digital Computer Bkgrnd [sic] (Peripheral or Mainframe)."37 By 1970, "mainframe" started to appear in news articles, for example, "The computer can't work without the mainframe unit." By 1971, the usage increased with phrases such as "mainframe central processor" and "'main-frame' computer manufacturers". 1972 had usages such as "the mainframe or central processing unit is the heart of any computer, and does all the calculations". A 1975 article explained "'Mainframe' is the industry's word for the computer itself, as opposed to associated items such as printers, which are referred to as 'peripherals.'" By 1980, minicomputers and microcomputers were appearing: "All hardware categories-mainframes, minicomputers, microcomputers, and terminals" and "The mainframe and the minis are interconnected." By 1985, the mainframe was a type of computer, not just the CPU: "These days it's tough to even define 'mainframe'. One definition is that it has for its electronic brain a central processor unit (CPU) that can handle at least 32 bits of information at once. ... A better distinction is that mainframes have numerous processors so they can work on several jobs at once." Articles also discussed "the micro's challenge to the mainframe" and asked, "buy a mainframe, rather than a mini?" By 1990, descriptions of mainframes became florid: "huge machines laboring away in glass-walled rooms", "the big burner which carries the whole computing load for an organization", "behemoth data crunchers", "the room-size machines that dominated computing until the 1980s", "the giant workhorses that form the nucleus of many data-processing centers", "But it is not raw central-processing-power that makes a mainframe a mainframe. Mainframe computers command their much higher prices because they have much more sophisticated input/output systems." Conclusion After extensive searches through archival documents, I found usages of the term "main frame" dating back to 1952, much earlier than previously reported. In particular, the introduction of frames to package the IBM 701 computer led to the use of the word "main frame" for that computer and later ones. The term went through various shades of meaning and remained fairly obscure for many years. In the mid-1970s, the term started describing a large computer, essentially its modern meaning. In the 1980s, the term escaped the computer industry and appeared in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and newspapers. After peaking in the 1990s, the term declined in usage (tracking the decline in mainframe computers), but the term and the mainframe computer both survive. Two factors drove the popularity of the word "mainframe" in the 1980s with its current meaning of a large computer. First, the terms "microcomputer" and "minicomputer" led to linguistic pressure for a parallel term for large computers. For instance, the business press needed a word to describe IBM and other large computer manufacturers. While "server" is the modern term, "mainframe" easily filled the role back then and was nicely alliterative with "microcomputer" and "minicomputer."38 Second, up until the 1980s, the prototype meaning for "computer" was a large mainframe, typically IBM.39 But as millions of home computers were sold in the early 1980s, the prototypical "computer" shifted to smaller machines. This left a need for a term for large computers, and "mainframe" filled that need. In other words, if you were talking about a large computer in the 1970s, you could say "computer" and people would assume you meant a mainframe. But if you said "computer" in the 1980s, you needed to clarify if it was a large computer. The word "mainframe" is almost 75 years old and both the computer and the word have gone through extensive changes in this time. The "death of the mainframe" has been proclaimed for well over 30 years but mainframes are still hanging on. Who knows what meaning "mainframe" will have in another 75 years? Follow me on Bluesky (@righto.com) or RSS. (I'm no longer on Twitter.) Thanks to the Computer History Museum and archivist Sara Lott for access to many documents. Notes and References The Computer History Museum states: "Why are they called “Mainframes”? Nobody knows for sure. There was no mainframe “inventor” who coined the term. Probably “main frame” originally referred to the frames (designed for telephone switches) holding processor circuits and main memory, separate from racks or cabinets holding other components. Over time, main frame became mainframe and came to mean 'big computer.'" (Based on my research, I don't think telephone switches have any connection to computer mainframes.) Several sources explain that the mainframe is named after the frame used to construct the computer. The Jargon File has a long discussion, stating that the term "originally referring to the cabinet containing the central processor unit or ‘main frame’." Ken Uston's Illustrated Guide to the IBM PC (1984) has the definition "MAIN FRAME A large, high-capacity computer, so named because the CPU of this kind of computer used to be mounted on a frame." IBM states that mainframe "Originally referred to the central processing unit of a large computer, which occupied the largest or central frame (rack)." The Microsoft Computer Dictionary (2002) states that the name mainframe "is derived from 'main frame', the cabinet originally used to house the processing unit of such computers." Some discussions of the origin of the word "mainframe" are here, here, here, here, and here. The phrase "main frame" in non-computer contexts has a very old but irrelevant history, describing many things that have a frame. For example, it appears in thousands of patents from the 1800s, including drills, saws, a meat cutter, a cider mill, printing presses, and corn planters. This shows that it was natural to use the phrase "main frame" when describing something constructed from frames. Telephony uses a Main distribution frame or "main frame" for wiring, going back to 1902. Some people claim that the computer use of "mainframe" is related to the telephony use, but I don't think they are related. In particular, a telephone main distribution frame looks nothing like a computer mainframe. Moreover, the computer use and the telephony use developed separately; if the computer use started in, say, Bell Labs, a connection would be more plausible. IBM patents with "main frame" include a scale (1922), a card sorter (1927), a card duplicator (1929), and a card-based accounting machine (1930). IBM's incidental uses of "main frame" are probably unrelated to modern usage, but they are a reminder that punch card data processing started decades before the modern computer. ↩ It is unclear why the IBM 701 installation manual is dated August 27, 1952 but the drawing is dated 1953. I assume the drawing was updated after the manual was originally produced. ↩ This footnote will survey the construction techniques of some early computers; the key point is that building a computer on frames was not an obvious technique. ENIAC (1945), the famous early vacuum tube computer, was constructed from 40 panels forming three walls filling a room (ref, ref). EDVAC (1949) was built from large cabinets or panels (ref) while ORDVAC and CLADIC (1949) were built on racks (ref). One of the first commercial computers, UNIVAC 1 (1951), had a "Central Computer" organized as bays, divided into three sections, with tube "chassis" plugged in (ref ). The Raytheon computer (1951) and Moore School Automatic Computer (1952) (ref) were built from racks. The MONROBOT VI (1955) was described as constructed from the "conventional rack-panel-cabinet form" (ref). ↩ The size and construction of early computers often made it difficult to install or move them. The early computer ENIAC required 9 months to move from Philadelphia to the Aberdeen Proving Ground. For this move, the wall of the Moore School in Philadelphia had to be partially demolished so ENIAC's main panels could be removed. In 1959, moving the SWAC computer required disassembly of the computer and removing one wall of the building (ref). When moving the early computer JOHNNIAC to a different site, the builders discovered the computer was too big for the elevator. They had to raise the computer up the elevator shaft without the elevator (ref). This illustrates the benefits of building a computer from moveable frames. ↩ The IBM 701's main frame was called the Electronic Analytical Control Unit in external documentation. ↩ The 701 installation manual (1952) has a frame arrangement diagram showing the dimensions of the various frames, along with a drawing of the main frame, and power usage of the various frames. Service documentation (1953) refers to "main frame adjustments" (page 74). The 700 Series Data Processing Systems Component Circuits document (1955-1959) lists various types of frames in its abbreviation list (below) Abbreviations used in IBM drawings include MF for main frame. Also note CF for core frame, and DF for drum frame, From 700 Series Data Processing Systems Component Circuits (1955-1959). When repairing an IBM 701, it was important to know which frame held which components, so "main frame" appeared throughout the engineering documents. For instance, in the schematics, each module was labeled with its location; "MF" stands for "main frame." Detail of a 701 schematic diagram. "MF" stands for "main frame." This diagram shows part of a pluggable tube module (type 2891) in mainframe panel 3 (MF3) section J, column 29. The blocks shown are an AND gate, OR gate, and Cathode Follower (buffer). From System Drawings 1.04.1. The "main frame" terminology was used in discussions with customers. For example, notes from a meeting with IBM (April 8, 1952) mention "E. S. [Electrostatic] Memory 15 feet from main frame" and list "main frame" as one of the seven items obtained for the $15,000/month rental cost.  ↩ For more information on how the IBM 701 was designed to fit on elevators and through doorways, see Building IBM: Shaping an Industry and Technology page 170, The Interface: IBM and the Transformation of Corporate Design page 69. This is also mentioned in "Engineering Description of the IBM Type 701 Computer", Proceedings of the IRE Oct 1953, page 1285. ↩ Many early systems used "central computer" to describe the main part of the computer, perhaps more commonly than "main frame." An early example is the "central computer" of the Elecom 125 (1954). The Digital Computer Newsletter (Apr 1955) used "central computer" several times to describe the processor of SEAC. The 1961 BRL report shows "central computer" being used by Univac II, Univac 1107, Univac File 0, DYSEAC and RCA Series 300. The MIT TX-2 Technical Manual (1961) uses "central computer" very frequently. The NAREC glossary (1962) defined "central computer. That part of a computer housed in the main frame." ↩ This footnote lists some other early computers that used the term "main frame." The October 1956 Digital Computer Newsletter mentions the "main frame" of the IBM NORC. Digital Computer Newsletter (Jan 1959) discusses using a RAMAC disk drive to reduce "main frame processing time." This document also mentions the IBM 709 "main frame." The IBM 704 documentation (1958) says "Each DC voltage is distributed to the main frame..." (IBM 736 reference manual) and "Check the air filters in each main frame unit and replace when dirty." (704 Central Processing Unit). The July 1962 Digital Computer Newsletter discusses the LEO III computer: "It has been built on the modular principle with the main frame, individual blocks of storage, and input and output channels all physically separate." The article also mentions that the new computer is more compact with "a reduction of two cabinets for housing the main frame." The IBM 7040 (1964) and IBM 7090 (1962) were constructed from multiple frames, including the processing unit called the "main frame."11 Machines in IBM's System/360 line (1964) were built from frames; some models had a main frame, power frame, wall frame, and so forth, while other models simply numbered the frames sequentially.12 ↩ The 1952 JOHNNIAC progress report is quoted in The History of the JOHNNIAC. This memorandum was dated August 8, 1952, so it is the earliest citation that I found. The June 1953 memorandum also used the term, stating, "The main frame is complete." ↩ A detailed description of IBM's frame-based computer packaging is in Standard Module System Component Circuits pages 6-9. This describes the SMS-based packaging used in the IBM 709x computers, the IBM 1401, and related systems as of 1960. ↩ IBM System/360 computers could have many frames, so they were usually given sequential numbers. The Model 85, for instance, had 12 frames for the processor and four megabytes of memory in 18 frames (at over 1000 pounds each). Some of the frames had descriptive names, though. The Model 40 had a main frame (CPU main frame, CPU frame), a main storage logic frame, a power supply frame, and a wall frame. The Model 50 had a CPU frame, power frame, and main storage frame. The Model 75 had a main frame (consisting of multiple physical frames), storage frames, channel frames, central processing frames, and a maintenance console frame. The compact Model 30 consisted of a single frame, so the documentation refers to the "frame", not the "main frame." For more information on frames in the System/360, see 360 Physical Planning. The Architecture of the IBM System/360 paper refers to the "main-frame hardware." ↩ A few more examples that discuss the minicomputer's mainframe, its physical box: A 1970 article discusses the mainframe of a minicomputer (as opposed to the peripherals) and contrasts minicomputers with large scale computers. A 1971 article on minicomputers discusses "minicomputer mainframes." Computerworld (Jan 28, 1970, p59) discusses minicomputer purchases: "The actual mainframe is not the major cost of the system to the user." Modern Data (1973) mentions minicomputer mainframes several times. ↩ DEC documents refer to the PDP-11 minicomputer as a mainframe. The PDP-11 Conventions manual (1970) defined: "Processor: A unit of a computing system that includes the circuits controlling the interpretation and execution of instructions. The processor does not include the Unibus, core memory, interface, or peripheral devices. The term 'main frame' is sometimes used but this term refers to all components (processor, memory, power supply) in the basic mounting box." In 1976, DEC published the PDP-11 Mainframe Troubleshooting Guide. The PDP-11 mainframe is also mentioned in Computerworld (1977). ↩ Test equipment manufacturers started using the term "main frame" (and later "mainframe") around 1962, to describe an oscilloscope or other test equipment that would accept plug-in modules. I suspect this is related to the use of "mainframe" to describe a computer's box, but it could be independent. Hewlett-Packard even used the term to describe a solderless breadboard, the 5035 Logic Lab. The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) used HP's 1974 ad for the Logic Lab as its earliest citation of mainframe as a single word. It appears that the OED confused this use of "mainframe" with the computer use. 1974 Sci. Amer. Apr. 79. The laboratory station mainframe has the essentials built-in (power supply, logic state indicators and programmers, and pulse sources to provide active stimulus for the student's circuits)." --> Is this a mainframe? The HP 5035A Logic Lab was a power supply and support circuitry for a solderless breadboard. HP's ads referred to this as a "laboratory station mainframe."  ↩↩ In the 1980s, the use of "mainframe" to describe the box holding a microcomputer started to conflict with "mainframe" as a large computer. For example, Radio Electronics (October 1982), started using the short-lived term "micro-mainframe" instead of "mainframe" for a microcomputer's enclosure. By 1985, Byte magazine had largely switched to the modern usage of "mainframe." But even as late as 1987, a review of the Apple IIGC described one of the system's components as the '"mainframe" (i.e. the actual system box)'. ↩ Definitions of "central processing unit" disagreed as to whether storage was part of the CPU, part of the main frame, or something separate. This was largely a consequence of the physical construction of early computers. Smaller computers had memory in the same frame as the processor, while larger computers often had separate storage frames for memory. Other computers had some memory with the processor and some external. Thus, the "main frame" might or might not contain memory, and this ambiguity carried over to definitions of CPU. (In modern usage, the CPU consists of the arithmetic/logic unit (ALU) and control circuitry, but excludes memory.) ↩ Many definitions of mainframe or CPU mention "special register groups", an obscure feature specific to the Honeywell 800 computer (1959). (Processors have registers, special registers are common, and some processors have register groups, but only the Honeywell 800 had "special register groups.") However, computer dictionaries kept using this phrase for decades, even though it doesn't make sense for other computers. I wrote a blog post about special register groups here. ↩ This footnote provides more examples of "mainframe" being defined as the CPU. The Data Processing Equipment Encyclopedia (1961) had a similar definition: "Main Frame: The main part of the computer, i.e. the arithmetic or logic unit; the central processing unit." The 1967 IBM 360 operator's guide defined: "The main frame - the central processing unit and main storage." The Department of the Navy's ADP Glossary (1970): "Central processing unit: A unit of a computer that includes the circuits controlling the interpretation and execution of instructions. Synonymous with main frame." This was a popular definition, originally from the ISO, used by IBM (1979) among others. Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary of Data Processing Terms (1970) defined: "main frame: The basic or essential portion of an assembly of hardware, in particular, the central processing unit of a computer." The American National Standard Vocabulary for Information Processing (1970) defined: "central processing unit: A unit of a computer that includes the circuits controlling the interpretation and execution of instructions. Synonymous with main frame." ↩ Both the mainframe vs. peripheral definition and the mainframe as CPU definition made it unclear exactly what components of the computer were included in the mainframe. It's clear that the arithmetic-logic unit and the processor control circuitry were included, while I/O devices were excluded, but some components such as memory were in a gray area. It's also unclear if the power supply and I/O interfaces (channels) are part of the mainframe. These distinctions were ignored in almost all of the uses of "mainframe" that I saw. An unusual definition in a Goddard Space Center document (1965, below) partitioned equipment into the "main frame" (the electronic equipment), "peripheral equipment" (electromechanical components such as the printer and tape), and "middle ground equipment" (the I/O interfaces). The "middle ground" terminology here appears to be unique. Also note that computers are partitioned into "super speed", "large-scale", "medium-scale", and "small-scale." Definitions from Automatic Data Processing Equipment, Goddard Space Center, 1965. "Main frame" was defined as "The central processing unit of a system including the hi-speed core storage memory bank. (This is the electronic element.)  ↩ This footnote gives some examples of using peripherals to save the cost of mainframe time. IBM 650 documentation (1956) describes how "Data written on tape by the 650 can be processed by the main frame of the 700 series systems." Univac II Marketing Material (1957) discusses various ways of reducing "main frame time" by, for instance, printing from tape off-line. The USAF Guide for auditing automatic data processing systems (1961) discusses how these "off line" operations make the most efficient use of "the more expensive main frame time." ↩ Peripheral manufacturers were companies that built tape drives, printers, and other devices that could be connected to a mainframe built by IBM or another company. The basis for the peripheral industry was antitrust action against IBM that led to the 1956 Consent Decree. Among other things, the consent decree forced IBM to provide reasonable patent licensing, which allowed other firms to build "plug-compatible" peripherals. The introduction of the System/360 in 1964 produced a large market for peripherals and IBM's large profit margins left plenty of room for other companies. ↩ Computers and Automation, March 1965, categorized computers into five classes, from "Teeny systems" (such as the IBM 360/20) renting for $2000/month, through Small, Medium, and Large systems, up to "Family or Economy Size Systems" (such as the IBM 360/92) renting for $75,000 per month. ↩ The term "minicomputer" was supposedly invented by John Leng, head of DEC's England operations. In the 1960s, he sent back a sales report: "Here is the latest minicomputer activity in the land of miniskirts as I drive around in my Mini Minor", which led to the term becoming popular at DEC. This story is described in The Ultimate Entrepreneur: The Story of Ken Olsen and Digital Equipment Corporation (1988). I'd trust the story more if I could find a reference that wasn't 20 years after the fact. ↩ For instance, Computers and Automation (1971) discussed the role of the minicomputer as compared to "larger computers." A 1975 minicomputer report compared minicomputers to their "general-purpose cousins." ↩ This footnote provides more on the split between minicomputers and mainframes. In 1971, Modern Data Products, Systems, Services contained .".. will offer mainframe, minicomputer, and peripheral manufacturers a design, manufacturing, and production facility...." Standard & Poor's Industry Surveys (1972) mentions "mainframes, minicomputers, and IBM-compatible peripherals." Computerworld (1975) refers to "mainframe and minicomputer systems manufacturers." The 1974 textbook "Information Systems: Technology, Economics, Applications" couldn't decide if mainframes were a part of the computer or a type of computer separate from minicomputers, saying: "Computer mainframes include the CPU and main memory, and in some usages of the term, the controllers, channels, and secondary storage and I/O devices such as tape drives, disks, terminals, card readers, printers, and so forth. However, the equipment for storage and I/O are usually called peripheral devices. Computer mainframes are usually thought of as medium to large scale, rather than mini-computers." Studying U.S. Industrial Outlook reports provides another perspective over time. U.S. Industrial Outlook 1969 divides computers into small, medium-size, and large-scale. Mainframe manufacturers are in opposition to peripheral manufacturers. The same mainframe vs. peripherals opposition appears in U.S. Industrial Outlook 1970 and U.S. Industrial Outlook 1971. The 1971 report also discusses minicomputer manufacturers entering the "maxicomputer market."30 1973 mentions "large computers, minicomputers, and peripherals." U.S. Industrial Outlook 1976 states, "The distinction between mainframe computers, minis, micros, and also accounting machines and calculators should merge into a spectrum." By 1977, the market was separated into "general purpose mainframe computers", "minicomputers and small business computers" and "microprocessors." Family Computing Magazine (1984) had a "Dictionary of Computer Terms Made Simple." It explained that "A Digital computer is either a "mainframe", a "mini", or a "micro." Forty years ago, large mainframes were the only size that a computer could be. They are still the largest size, and can handle more than 100,000,000 instructions per second. PER SECOND! [...] Mainframes are also called general-purpose computers." ↩ In 1974, Congress held antitrust hearings into IBM. The thousand-page report provides a detailed snapshot of the meanings of "mainframe" at the time. For instance, a market analysis report from IDC illustrates the difficulty of defining mainframes and minicomputers in this era (p4952). The "Mainframe Manufacturers" section splits the market into "general-purpose computers" and "dedicated application computers" including "all the so-called minicomputers." Although this section discusses minicomputers, the emphasis is on the manufacturers of traditional mainframes. A second "Plug-Compatible Manufacturers" section discusses companies that manufactured only peripherals. But there's also a separate "Minicomputers" section that focuses on minicomputers (along with microcomputers "which are simply microprocessor-based minicomputers"). My interpretation of this report is the terminology is in the process of moving from "mainframe vs. peripheral" to "mainframe vs. minicomputer." The statement from Research Shareholders Management (p5416) on the other hand discusses IBM and the five other mainframe companies; they classify minicomputer manufacturers separately. (p5425) p5426 mentions "mainframes, small business computers, industrial minicomputers, terminals, communications equipment, and minicomputers." Economist Ralph Miller mentions the central processing unit "(the so-called 'mainframe')" (p5621) and then contrasts independent peripheral manufacturers with mainframe manufacturers (p5622). The Computer Industry Alliance refers to mainframes and peripherals in multiple places, and "shifting the location of a controller from peripheral to mainframe", as well as "the central processing unit (mainframe)" p5099. On page 5290, "IBM on trial: Monopoly tends to corrupt", from Harper's (May 1974), mentions peripherals compatible with "IBM mainframe units—or, as they are called, central processing computers." ↩ The influential business newsletter EDP provides an interesting view on the struggle to separate the minicomputer market from larger computers. Through 1968, they included minicomputers in the "general-purpose computer" category. But in 1969, they split "general-purpose computers" into "Group A, General Purpose Digital Computers" and "Group B, Dedicated Application Digital Computers." These categories roughly corresponded to larger computers and minicomputers, on the (dubious) assumption that minicomputers were used for a "dedicated application." The important thing to note is that in 1969 they did not use the term "mainframe" for the first category, even though with the modern definition it's the obvious term to use. At the time, EDP used "mainframe manufacturer" or "mainframer"31 to refer to companies that manufactured computers (including minicomputers), as opposed to manufacturers of peripherals. In 1972, EDP first mentioned mainframes and minicomputers as distinct types. In 1973, "microcomputer" was added to the categories. As the 1970s progressed, the separation between minicomputers and mainframes became common. However, the transition was not completely smooth; 1973 included a reference to "mainframe shipments (including minicomputers)." To specific, the EDP Industry Report (Nov. 28, 1969) gave the following definitions of the two groups of computers: Group A—General Purpose Digital Computers: These comprise the bulk of the computers that have been listed in the Census previously. They are character or byte oriented except in the case of the large-scale scientific machines, which have 36, 48, or 60-bit words. The predominant portion (60% to 80%) of these computers is rented, usually for $2,000 a month or more. Higher level languages such as Fortran, Cobol, or PL/1 are the primary means by which users program these computers. Group B—Dedicated Application Digital Computers: This group of computers includes the "mini's" (purchase price below $25,000), the "midi's" ($25,000 to $50,000), and certain larger systems usually designed or used for one dedicated application such as process control, data acquisition, etc. The characteristics of this group are that the computers are usually word oriented (8, 12, 16, or 24-bits per word), the predominant number (70% to 100%) are purchased, and assembly language (at times Fortran) is the predominant means of programming. This type of computer is often sold to an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for further system integration and resale to the final user. These definitions strike me as rather arbitrary. ↩ In 1981 Computerworld had articles trying to clarify the distinctions between microcomputers, minicomputers, superminicomputers, and mainframes, as the systems started to overlay. One article, Distinction Helpful for Minis, Mainframes said that minicomputers were generally interactive, while mainframes made good batch machines and network hosts. Microcomputers had up to 512 KB of memory, minis were 16-bit machines with 512 KB to 4 MB of memory, costing up to $100,000. Superminis were 16- to 32-bit machines with 4 MB to 8 MB of memory, costing up to $200,000 but with less memory bandwidth than mainframes. Finally, mainframes were 32-bit machines with more than 8 MB of memory, costing over $200,000. Another article Micro, Mini, or Mainframe? Confusion persists described a microcomputer as using an 8-bit architecture and having fewer peripherals, while a minicomputer has a 16-bit architecture and 48 KB to 1 MB of memory. ↩ The miniskirt in the mid-1960s was shortly followed by the midiskirt and maxiskirt. These terms led to the parallel construction of the terms minicomputer, midicomputer, and maxicomputer. The New York Times had a long article Maxi Computers Face Mini Conflict (April 5, 1970) explicitly making the parallel: "Mini vs. Maxi, the reigning issue in the glamorous world of fashion, is strangely enough also a major point of contention in the definitely unsexy realm of computers." Although midicomputer and maxicomputer terminology didn't catch on the way minicomputer did, they still had significant use (example, midicomputer examples, maxicomputer examples). The miniskirt/minicomputer parallel was done with varying degrees of sexism. One example is Electronic Design News (1969): "A minicomputer. Like the miniskirt, the small general-purpose computer presents the same basic commodity in a more appealing way." ↩ Linguistically, one indication that a new word has become integrated in the language is when it can be extended to form additional new words. One example is the formation of "mainframers", referring to companies that build mainframes. This word was moderately popular in the 1970s to 1990s. It was even used by the Department of Justice in their 1975 action against IBM where they described the companies in the systems market as the "mainframe companies" or "mainframers." The word is still used today, but usually refers to people with mainframe skills. Other linguistic extensions of "mainframe" include mainframing, unmainframe, mainframed, nonmainframe, and postmainframe. ↩ More examples of the split between microcomputers and mainframes: Softwide Magazine (1978) describes "BASIC versions for micro, mini and mainframe computers." MSC, a disk system manufacturer, had drives "used with many microcomputer, minicomputer, and mainframe processor types" (1980). ↩ Some examples of computer dictionaries referring to mainframes as a size category: Illustrated Dictionary of Microcomputer Terminology (1978) defines "mainframe" as "(1) The heart of a computer system, which includes the CPU and ALU. (2) A large computer, as opposed to a mini or micro." A Dictionary of Minicomputing and Microcomputing (1982) includes the definition of "mainframe" as "A high-speed computer that is larger, faster, and more expensive than the high-end minicomputers. The boundary between a small mainframe and a large mini is fuzzy indeed." The National Bureau of Standards Future Information Technology (1984) defined: "Mainframe is a term used to designate a medium and large scale CPU." The New American Computer Dictionary (1985) defined "mainframe" as "(1) Specifically, the rack(s) holding the central processing unit and the memory of a large computer. (2) More generally, any large computer. 'We have two mainframes and several minis.'" The 1990 ANSI Dictionary for Information Systems (ANSI X3.172-1990) defined: mainframe. A large computer, usually one to which other computers are connected in order to share its resources and computing power. Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (1991) defined "mainframe computer" as "A high-level computer designed for the most intensive computational tasks. Mainframe computers are often shared by multiple users connected to the computer via terminals." ISO 2382 (1993) defines a mainframe as "a computer, usually in a computer center, with extensive capabilities and resources to which other computers may be connected so that they can share facilities." The Microsoft Computer Dictionary (2002) had an amusingly critical definition of mainframe: "A type of large computer system (in the past often water-cooled), the primary data processing resource for many large businesses and organizations. Some mainframe operating systems and solutions are over 40 years old and have the capacity to store year values only as two digits." ↩ IBM's 1962 book Planning a Computer System (1962) describes how the Stretch computer's circuitry was assembled into frames, with the CPU consisting of 18 frames. The picture below shows how a "frame" was, in fact, constructed from a metal frame. In the Stretch computer, the circuitry (left) could be rolled out of the frame (right)  ↩ The term "general-purpose computer" is probably worthy of investigation since it was used in a variety of ways. It is one of those phrases that seems obvious until you think about it more closely. On the one hand, a computer such as the Apollo Guidance Computer can be considered general purpose because it runs a variety of programs, even though the computer was designed for one specific mission. On the other hand, minicomputers were often contrasted with "general-purpose computers" because customers would buy a minicomputer for a specific application, unlike a mainframe which would be used for a variety of applications. ↩ The n-gram graph is from the Google Books Ngram Viewer. The curves on the graph should be taken with a grain of salt. First, the usage of words in published books is likely to lag behind "real world" usage. Second, the number of usages in the data set is small, especially at the beginning. Nonetheless, the n-gram graph generally agrees with what I've seen looking at documents directly. ↩ More examples of "mainframe" in want ads: A 1966 ad from Western Union in The Arizona Republic looking for experience "in a systems engineering capacity dealing with both mainframe and peripherals." A 1968 ad in The Minneapolis Star for an engineer with knowledge of "mainframe and peripheral hardware." A 1968 ad from SDS in The Los Angeles Times for an engineer to design "circuits for computer mainframes and peripheral equipment." A 1968 ad in Fort Lauderdale News for "Computer mainframe and peripheral logic design." A 1972 ad in The Los Angeles Times saying "Mainframe or peripheral [experience] highly desired." In most of these ads, the mainframe was in contrast to the peripherals. ↩ A related factor is the development of remote connections from a microcomputer to a mainframe in the 1980s. This led to the need for a word to describe the remote computer, rather than saying "I connected my home computer to the other computer." See the many books and articles on connecting "micro to mainframe." ↩ To see how the prototypical meaning of "computer" changed in the 1980s, I examined the "Computer" article in encyclopedias from that time. The 1980 Concise Encyclopedia of the Sciences discusses a large system with punched-card input. In 1980, the World Book article focused on mainframe systems, starting with a photo of an IBM System/360 Model 40 mainframe. But in the 1981 supplement and the 1984 encyclopedia, the World Book article opened with a handheld computer game, a desktop computer, and a "large-scale computer." The article described microcomputers, minicomputers, and mainframes. Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia (1983) was in the middle of the transition; the article focused on large computers and had photos of IBM machines, but mentioned that future growth is expected in microcomputers. By 1994, the World Book article's main focus was the personal computer, although the mainframe still had a few paragraphs and a photo. This is evidence that the prototypical meaning of "computer" underwent a dramatic shift in the early 1980s from a mainframe to a balance between small and large computers, and then to the personal computer. ↩