You're very welcome! I'm thrilled to hear that you found the video helpful for your class. Happy teaching!

Hi @ArneChristianRosenfeldt, I agree, it is interesting that no company was able to integrate an existing processor into less than 3 chips in the early days of microprocessors. There were a few reasons for this, including the fact that the technology wasn't there yet, there wasn't a need for it, and it wasn't cost-effective. As the technology improved and the demand for more powerful microprocessors grew, it became possible to integrate all the components of a processor onto a single chip. The first single-chip microprocessor was the Intel 4004, which was released in 1971. Since then, the size, speed, and power of microprocessors have continued to increase, and today single-chip processors are used in everything from smartphones to supercomputers. It's interesting to think about how different the computer industry might be if companies had been able to integrate microprocessors into fewer chips earlier on. It's possible that we would have seen the development of more powerful and affordable computers much sooner. However, it's also possible that the early days of microprocessors would have been more difficult and expensive. I also think it's interesting to think about the different technologies that were available at the time. TTL and ECL were both faster than the simple gates that Intel and RCA used, but they were also more expensive and more difficult to manufacture. This is why Intel and RCA chose to go with the simpler gates, even though it meant that their processors were slower. It's fascinating to look back at the early days of microprocessors and see how the technology has evolved over time. It's clear that the early pioneers of the industry made some tough choices, but they also made some great decisions that helped to shape the future of computing. Thanks for your comment!

@@OhmazingPhysics I mean that companies like HP, DEC, and IBM did only integrate in the late 80s . Too late to fight the new CPUs from Intel and ARM. Itanium? Gone! Alpha? Gone. Power? Consoles in 2000 was its last breath besides mainframe inertia. Oh, and also power inherited 68k legacy, as did coldFire. Datapoint did not use 8008. Why? MIPS was sold with an external cache to have its Harvard architecture. Only when 4kB could be fitted into the PSX it became somewhat useful and cheap. Maybe in 1985 it was just the design of the future. Contemporary 68k accessed the 16 bit bus every fourth cycle. MIPS accessed its two 32 bit busses every cycle ( okay, not for data, but for code ).

Hey there! Thank you for sharing your comment. Are you asking if there is a limit to how much detail can be stored in a digital signal? If so, the answer is yes. There is a fundamental limit to how much information can be stored in a finite number of bits. This is because each bit can only be a 0 or a 1, so there are only 2^n possible values that can be stored in n bits. In digital systems, such as computers and images, resolution refers to the number of distinct elements or pixels that can be displayed or captured. However, your statement suggests that the actual bit of resolution is infinite, which might be an abstract perspective. In practical terms, digital systems have finite resolutions due to limitations in hardware and software. For example, when it comes to images or displays, resolution is typically specified by the number of pixels horizontally and vertically, such as 1920x1080 (Full HD) or 3840x2160 (4K). This finite resolution determines the level of detail that can be displayed. However, this does not mean that digital signals are inherently limited in their ability to represent reality. In fact, digital signals can be used to represent a wide range of continuous values, such as sound, images, and video. This is done by using a process called quantization, which divides the continuous range of values into a finite number of discrete steps. The number of steps determines the resolution of the digital signal, and the higher the resolution, the more closely the digital signal can approximate the continuous signal. So, while there is a fundamental limit to how much detail can be stored in a digital signal, this limit is not always relevant in practice. In many cases, the resolution of a digital signal is more than good enough to represent the information that it is intended to convey.

Thanks for your comment! I appreciate you taking the time to correct me about the personal computers of the 1970s. You're right, there were a number of personal computers released during that time, and they helped to pave the way for the personal computers that we use today. Some of the first personal computers were the Altair 8800, the Kenbak-1, and the IMSAI 8080. These computers were often sold as kits, which meant that the buyer had to assemble them themselves. They were also very expensive, costing several thousand dollars. In the late 1970s, personal computers began to become more affordable and user-friendly. The Apple II, the Commodore PET, and the TRS-80 were some of the most popular personal computers of the era. These computers were still not as powerful as today's computers, but they were a major step forward in the development of personal computing. So, while it is true that personal computers were still experimental in the 1970s, they were certainly not nonexistent. They laid the foundation for the personal computers that we use today. I've updated my comment to reflect your correction. Thanks again for your feedback!

You're welcome!

Could you be more specific on the type of example you are looking for?