Talk:Logic family

message: I agree with Bisaksen, this article is very out-of-date. CMOS has dominated the industry for the last 20 years but you can't tell that from this page. Digital design is 100% CMOS these-days, with Bipolar famiies only used for analog. TTL dip packaged logic is rarely found anymore in mass market electronics, only used in low volume stuff. Dyl 14:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   You know what to do. Write up this oberservation and put it in the summary page; though there's still a lot of TTL etc., being sold each year.  A reference would be good - do you have an industry article that says no-one is really designing in the bipolar families any more?  And mass market electronics is never representative of the state-of-the-art - if you found an article that says Agilent Technologies hasn't bought any TTL for years, that would be highly interesting and relevant. And provided this is properly noted, I think it's entirely appropriate that an encyclopedia article talk about all the historically important logic families, not just what's used today. After all, the article on Germany talks about a lot more than what happened in 2006 so far.  --Wtshymanski 15:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you look at any PC motherboard or crack open a cellphone, you'll see very little dip packages these days. These items are both mass market AND cutting-edge. Also, in the 1990s, mainframe computers switched to CMOS (away from bipolar ECL) due to lower cooling costs and increasing CMOS frequencies. No, I don't real numbers, but it's relatively obvious as the biggest semiconductor companies these days aren't making their money on dip packages. Yes, an unsubstantiated claim but I don't have the time to do the research.  Dyl 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If DIP packages were so obsolete as you claim, why would they still be made? If no one was buying them, electronics distributors wouldn't sell them and then the companies that produce them wouldn't bother making them either. However since this isn't the case, I'd say DIP packaging must still be in use today. OracleGuy01 08:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the classification that I made was THE classification at that time. I accept that the classification is out of date. But as OLD IS GOLD, we just cant omit the previous work. Just put it in a HISTOR section? --Electron Kid 04:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  NMOS and PMOS are hardly discussed anymore, yet why does RTL and DTL even deserve mention?    As I recall, NMOS was the big thing before CMOS came along.  Most of this old technology will NEVER return for a number of reasons, so only deserves passing interest.  You can't even buy most of this stuff anymore. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The student of CMOS would do well to understand its ancestors.  And why are you replying to 2006 comment now?  Better to start a new section if you have a point to make. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-CMOS families rarely used anymore 

message: There seems to be too much detail in the TL section, with too many references cited. Shouldn't such a discussion be provided in a new page for the topic? The summary alone can be provided here, I think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek22 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've moved the whole works here...it doesn't seem to be a family of ICs, and was out of place where it was.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threshold Logic 

message: Is it true that integrated logic circuits were first introduced in 1962?
And that "the IC version of RTL" and "MECL" were each introduced in 1962?
(Currently one place in the article says "1962", but another place says "1963").
Is there a better name for "the IC version of RTL", to distinguish it from the much earlier "RTL built out of discrete components"?
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is true? What does "introduced" mean? A handful of $1000 chips built for a missile or boxcarloads of gates at 25 cents each made for VAXes and similar products? Check out the Computer Museum reference, and Horowitz and Hill's table. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year introduced 

message: The logic level article is quite stubby and could be replaced by a dictionary definition. It is linked from few other articles. The issue of different logic levels only arises when interfacing between families and so I think "logically" belongs here. Explaining logic levels in a free-standing article needs so much context that I think it's better to explain it in a more comprehensive article, rather than splitting out a paragraph into its own article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Logic level

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of EV6 vs TTL or just a external link? I am not an electrical engineer, but... --Ramu50 (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TTL and EV6 

message: To User:Wtshymanski that reverted edit destroying usefull information on 14:48, 19 January 2010.
I wrote this note in your talk page, but you emptied your page, so I put here the note:
Next time try to be constructive rather that simply reverting usefull edits. Do you know there is a discussion page for the article? For example, the complete list of families that I added have red links, but can be converted to a simple list without links. Good work. More bad you removed the BiCMOS from the table that were not red links. To be usefull to the community try to edit more and revert less--Efa (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Destroying information

message: This article is pretty lousy. I reorganized and fixed some of it but I am still not happy about the contents. I noticed things that don't look good and I list them below.
1. I reorganized the list to respect the chronology of the technologies. I also linked versions of technologies to the main technologies.
2. RTL: RTL section says 1962. However, the table at the bottom says 1963.
3. DTL: "Diode logic goes back as far as ENIAC". I don't know if it should be DL or DTL.
4. TTL: TTL section says 1963. However, the table at the bottom says 1964.
5. CMOS: CMOS section says 1968. However, the table at the bottom says 1970.
6. I moved "The logic level problem" and "Other families" under CMOS. I also moved "Improved versions" under BiCMOS. I did this for consistency.
The chronology of the technologies is very unclear. Somebody should take the initiative and find out when each technology was truly invented or placed on the market for the public.
ICE77 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Diode logic in ENIAC.  WP:SOFIXIT applies. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

text: And don't worry so much about consistency between sections.  Worry about consistency with cited sources instead.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections and comments 

message: DTL was not used in ENIAC.  ENIAC had no transistors. It used vacuum tubes.  DTL stands for Diode Transistor Logic.  ENIAC used Diode Logic with vacuum tubes.  This should be corrected.Thingmaker (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Diode-tube logic?  Crystal diodes, anyway, instead of thermionic diodes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

text: I am not certain what you are saying.  In DTL the T denotes Transistor.  I have no problem claiming ENIAC used Diode Logic and that they worked with Vacuum Tubes like DTL works with Transistors.  Literally the T might denote tube but I believe DTL is commonly accepted as meaning Transistor.  At the very least it would be confusing or misleading to say DTL was used in ENIAC.  If you allow DTL to include Vacuum Tubes then all the logic circuits using T could mean Tube and the T becomes meaningless.  Could it mean Thyristor?  That is an amplifier also.  I doubt if the term DTL was used in the 1940’s.  I know I never heard of it then.  Maybe we should coin a new term DVTL.  Honestly I am not trying to be combative.  I believe this is important and we have an obligation to the readers to make it right.  Let’s work together to get it right, whatever that is.  If the T in TTL, DTL, and RTL means Vacuum Tube OR Transistor then we need a new notation.  Maybe A for amplifier like DAL or TAL.  I am only a very junior member of the Wikipedia club but I am a very senior engineer.  If what I suggest is wrong then you or someone should correct my work.  To make certain you noticed I did change the article.Thingmaker (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you can ignore my comments above.  I just saw you changed my edit.  I have no problem with what you did.  I do think it was  worth saying that ENIAC came  before the discovery of transistors.  My concern for the original article was not about saying vacuum tube diodes did not qualify for DTL.  My concern was only for T meaning Tube in DTL.  I would like to see the "ENIAC before transistors" added but I will let you decide that.  I think it says a lot to say that ENIAC existed that  early.Thingmaker (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Knuth_Don_X4100/PDF_index/k-8-pdf/k-8-r5367-1-ENIAC-circuits.pdf page 758 where it describes implementing the boolean functions. (Also interesting is the 5.7V filament voltage....) Glrx (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: DTL Not ENIAC

message: Can we reliably classify chips based on whether they built on insulator or not? Any sources on that? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any sources call "silicon on insulator" a "logic family" ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silicon on insulator 

message: The article implies that the only DTL TI ever made was secret, but I have a Remex paper tape reader containing a number of 15846 chips.  Are these the secret parts later released to public, or a new series not related to Minuteman? Vintage Dave (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas Instruments 15800 series DTL, same as Minuteman?