MULTIPROCESSOR WITH 64 BIT PROCESSING POWER. (Jan, 1983)

MULTIPROCESSOR WITH 64 BIT PROCESSING POWER.

Dazzled by 16-bit and 32-bit machines? When it comes to multiuser applications you’ve got to talk about TOTAL processing power. Not just the number of bits on a single processor.

In our new Betasystem II multiprocessor, we put eight SLAVENETâ„¢ processor boards together to give you 64-bit processing throughput. That’s because the SLAVENET boards work in parallel to gobble up 64 bits of data each cycle.

But that’s not all. Each SLAVENET processor board comes with 128K of RAM, so a fully-populated Betasystem II has 1,088K of on-board RAM. Imagine, over a MEGABYTE of RAM. Run at peak system performance no matter how many users are on-line.

Just plug in processor boards to add up to 16 different users.

Get started with our low-cost single user system and expand to 16 users — without compromising performance — by plugging in more SLAVENET processor boards. Each board handles two users (at the lowest cost per user in the industry) or two simultaneous tasks.

The SLAVENET is a complete S-100 computer with 4Mhz Z-80 CPU, 128K RAM plus parity, software selectable bank-switch boundary, 2K or 4K EPROM, full interrupts and two serial ports.

PASCAL & CP/M The Betasystem II is available with two proven multiprocessor operating systems: IBS p-NETâ„¢ for UCSD Pascalâ„¢ or Fortran software and TURBODOSâ„¢ which gives access to over 2,000 CP/M-based business programs. Both systems let you take full advantage of the speed and power of our multiprocessor hard disk systems.

Up to 1,160 Mbytes on hard disk.

Choose from the latest 5″, 8″ or 14″ Winchester technology — from 5 to 1,160 Mbytes. New 5″ combination models offer up to 40 Mbytes in the base system chassis.

Introducing BACKSTOP!™ Our new, low-cost Videotape Archiving system BACKSTOP lets you use your home video recorder to backup 100 Mbytes of valuable data — on one economical video cassette. Available for all hard disk systems.

Three-year warranty.

We’ve designed the Betasystem II to take around-the-clock operation. We build each one with premium components, a superb cooling system and thoroughly test each system. That’s why our base system carries a full three-year warranty — the longest in the business.

INDEPENDENT BUSINESS SYSTEMS
5915 Graham Ct. Livermore, CA 94550

10 comments
  1. Gregly says: June 6, 20087:20 am

    Wow… calling eight 8-bit processors slaved together a “64-bit” system. That’s a good one. I, too, have made a 64-bit system: sixty-four one-bit processors working in parallel. It’s totally the same thing!

  2. Nick Moffitt says: June 6, 20087:23 am

    Ha! Because eight 8-bit Z-80s totals to 64 bits! Brilliant!

    My co-worker reminds me that the Amiga used to have backup utilities that modulated your data out the PAL port. So you could record your backups to video tapes that would play as a scramble pattern of colored pixels on the screen. Unfortunately you needed a videotoaster to be able to read them back IN…

  3. Jerry says: June 6, 20087:55 am

    “SLAVENET” is a really unfortunate name for anything.

  4. Casandro says: June 6, 20088:43 am

    Ohh those video-backup systems were a niece-market for a while.
    Those ultra-cheap VCRs (VHS, Beta, V2000, etc) were _far_ to unreliable for it and you could get propper data drives for the price of a cheap VCR (eg U-Matic).

  5. nlpnt says: June 6, 20083:09 pm

    Agreed, Jerry! SLAVENET sounds more like 1984 than January, 1983.

  6. Anne says: June 6, 20083:37 pm

    I’m impressed by the 1GB of hard drive space. How many drives did they have to put together for that one? That wasn’t all on ONE drive back then, was it?

  7. Barry Berlin says: June 6, 20085:00 pm

    At least it didn’t come with Windows Vista.

  8. fluffy says: June 6, 200810:02 pm

    So Atari and SNK were just following a precedent when they marketed the Jaguar and the Neo-Geo, then.

  9. roland says: June 7, 20084:59 am

    Can anybody explain, how 8 processor boards with 128K RAM each add up to 1088K?

  10. fluffy says: June 7, 200811:03 am

    There was probably an additional 64k of shared memory between all the processors.

Submit comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.