CADR vs. LM-2

["Scott B. Layson" <gyro@KESTREL.ARPA>]

   Date: Mon 10 Apr 89 10:34:50-PDT
   From: Wilber@Score.Stanford.EDU (Mike Wilber)

       Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 20:44 EDT
       From: barmar@Think.COM (Barry Margolin)

	   Date: Fri, 7 Apr 89 16:44 EDT
	   From: mkr@philabs.philips.com

	   ...

	   What do all the prefixes mean for x-Machine. (Such as I-Machine,
	   G-Machine, etc..)??

       I = Ivory
       G = Gate-array
       L = LSI ?
       A = ? (LM-2 was the A-Machine)

   well, i won't presume to say what they mean nowadays, but back in '85, my
   salesman told me that they had a four-generation sequence planned out, where
   the then-current generation was called the l-machine, the next generation
   would be called the i-machine, and "it didn't take a lot of cleverness to
   figure out what the next two generations would be called"...

That's cute.  I had never heard it.  Too bad the G-machine got between
the L and the I.

   apropos calling the lm-2 the a-machine, maybe some one can get somewhere with
   the fact that the lm-2 was a reimplementation of the cadr's design, i don't
   know...

"Reimplementation" is too weak.  The LM-2 *was* the CADR for all
practical purposes; all they did is split the CPU (which in the CADR
had been built on one huge wire-wrap panel) up into three or four
boards.  As far as I know, the circuitry was identical; many boards
were interchangeable between the two machines, and they would boot off
the same microcode partitions.  So I think the more accurate word is
"repackaging".

Exactly why the CADR was called the "A-machine", however, I don't
know.

-- Scott