IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. E-24, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 1981

Integrating Hardware and Software in a ComputerEngineering Laboratory

JOHN R. GLOVER, JR., MEMBER, IEEE, AND JAMES D. BARGAINER, MEMBER, IEEE

Abstract-A systematic approach to the design of a multipurposecomputer engineering laboratory is presented. An essential ingredientof a successful computer engineering program, and of an effective labo-ratory servicing that program, is that the hardware and software aspectsof the curriculum be truly integrated. The laboratory described here isdesigned around a central resource-sharing minicomputer to which areconnected minimal microcomputer stations. This configuration is pro-posed as the most cost-effective and the most educationally effectiveapproach to the integration of hardware and software in a microcom-puter curriculum.

I. INTRODUCTIONTHE introduction of the microprocessor as an inexpensive,

programmable component in electronic systems, with ap-plications to many areas of our society, has challenged uni-versities to offer an undergraduate program which merges thedisciplines of computer science and electrical engineering. Thenew discipline has come to be called computer engineering,and the way in which these programs have evolved in universi-ties is varied.Computer science departments alone cannot offer computer

engineering because of the lack of course offerings in elec-tronics and engineering design. Therefore, the approach takenin many universities is for the Electrical Engineering Depart-ment and the Computer Science Department to join forces insome way to offer a computer engineering program. The ap-proach taken at the University of Houston and describedherein is to offer a computer engineering program totallywithin the Electrical Engineering Department. It is far easierto increase the amount of software taught in electrical engi-neering than it is to add electronics to computer science.Whichever approach is taken, the key factor in the success

of a program which teaches microcomputer systems design isthe manner in which the hardware and software topics aremerged. It is absolutely essential that the hardware and soft-ware be truly integrated, particularly in the laboratory portionof the curriculum. The very nature of microcomputer designrequires this integration.However, integrating hardware and software in class material

is one thing; integrating the two in the laboratory is muchmore difficult. In most cases, a laboratory for the computerengineering courses is created by simply merging existingdigital hardware laboratories and existing computer program-

Manuscript received June 27, 1980.J. R. Glover, Jr., is with the Department of Electrical Engineering,

University of Houston, Houston, TX 77004.J. D. Bargainer is with the Department of Computer and Engineering

Sciences, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798.

ming facilities, enhanced by some microcomputers and amicrocomputer development system. Depending on the man-ner in which this is done, it can be quite expensive and stillmay not provide the hardware/software environment bestsuited to computer engineering.Some approaches taken at other universities have recently

been reported in this TRANSACTIONS. In [1] the authorsdescribed using a single central minicomputer shared by manyelectrical engineering (EE) laboratories, but a separate micro-computer development system was used for work with micro-processors. The approach taken in [2] of using a single centralminicomputer for all microcomputer development work wassimilar to that described here, but was not as comprehensiveand did not specifically address integrating the hardware andsoftware aspects of the laboratory.The goal of this paper is to propose a design for a multi-

purpose laboratory for computer engineering which can servea large number students in a cost-effective manner, and isoptimally suited for the integration of hardware and softwarein microcomputer design. We will first briefly describe theheavily lab oriented computer engineering curriculum at theUniversity of Houston. We will then describe in detail thelaboratory facilities designed to service that curriculum.

II. OBJECTIVESThe undergraduate computer engineering curriculum and

laboratory were designed with three major objectives in mind.Emphasis on Design and Applications: The major skill

needed by a new computer engineer is the ability to do com-petent design and to apply design techniques to real-world ap-plications. If a graduate cannot truly do both hardware andsoftware design, other knowledge obtained about microcom-puters may still be useful in a management position but is notsufficient in an engineering position. Therefore, the curricu-lum should have a sufficient amount of theory to foster in-novative design, and sufficient laboratory work to illustratereal-world problems and applications.Mix ofHardware and Software: An undergraduate computer

engineering program should provide breadth across hardwareand software topics. By this we do not mean a shallow surveyof the field; for indeed, appropriate topics should be coveredquite thoroughly. However, the computer engineer at thislevel does not need the hardware depth of a computer designernor the software depth of a systems analyst. The programshould maintain a balance between the two, emphasizing thosehardware and software topics necessary for good microcom-puter systems design.

0018-9359/81/0200-0022$00.75 © 1981 IEEE

22

23GLOVER AND BARGAINER: INTEGRATING HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE

Integration of Classwork and Lab Work: Essentially all ofthe material appropriate for classwork in computer engineer-ing can and should be directly experienced in some way in thelaboratory. But experiments should go further than just pro-viding experience. They should reinforce design techniquesand other topics which cannot be adequately taught in theclass alone, such as hardware and software debuggingtechniques.One major conclusion drawn from these three objectives is

that the laboratory work is just as essential to the curriculumas the classwork. Therefore, the classwork and the lab workmust be designed together. Every class related to computerengineering must contain lab work which progresses fromcourse to course in the same way as the class material. Andwhenever possible the laboratory exercises should provide anatural blend of hardware and software experience.

III. CURRICULUM

Since the computer engineering program at the University ofHouston is an option taken as part of an electrical engineeringcurriculum, we will limit our discussion to six courses, four re-quired and two elective, directly related to computer engi-neering. These courses are diagrammed in Fig. 1. All courseshave significant laboratory work. The first five of the coursesare 3 hours of lecture, 3 hours of lab, for 4 hours of credit.The sixth course is 2 hours of lecture, 3 hours of lab, for 3hours of credit. The courses and their laboratory work aredescribed briefly below. Given after each course title is athree-letter acronym which will be used to refer to the coursein this paper.

A. Digital Electronics and Logic Design (DLD)Topics include: Switching devices and families, Boolean alge-

bra, combinational logic, multiplexers, ROM, synchronous se-quential circuit analysis and synthesis, and design with MSI.Laboratory work: Ten experiments involving testing of

switching devices and design of circuits with TTL.

B. Mini/MicrocomputerProgramming(MMP)Topics include: Computer organization, machine language,

assemblers, assembly language programming with emphasis oninput/output, data structures, and good programming/docu-mentation techniques. Two specific processors are taught, the8085 microprocessor and the PDP-1 1 minicomputer.Laboratory work: Seven programming exercises, five on the

8085 and two on the PDP-1 1/70. Programs include processinga linked data structure on the PDP-l1 and performing multipleinterrupt I/O on the 8085.

C Mini/Microcomputer Organization (MMO)Topics include: ROM and microprogrammed controllers,

organization of the central processing unit of microprocessorsand minicomputers, the arithmetic unit, the input/output bus,and design using a bit-sliced microprocessor.Laboratory work: A four-phase project in which a stand-

alone system is designed and built using, in turn, a state con-troller, a ROM controller, a microprogram sequencer, and abit-sliced microprocessor. Either the 3000 series or 2900 seriesmicroprocessor is used.

(Electronics) (Introductory FORTRAN) (Linear Systems)

Prerequisite Corequisite - - - - ^

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of computer engineering courses.

D. Mini/Microcomputer Systems (MMS)Topics include: Memory devices, I/O peripherals, I/O inter-

face design, system integration, selection criteria, data acquisi-tion, and data communications.Laboratory work: A multiphase project culminating in the

design of a stand-alone microprocessor-based EPROM-pro-grammed system interfaced to an I/O peripheral. A micro-computer development system with emulation and real-timetrace is used.

E. Digital Signal Processing (DSP)Topics include: Discrete-time systems, sampling theory, data

acquisition, z-transform, sampled-data systems, discreteFourier transform, digital filter design, data simulation, andquantization.Laboratory work: High-level language programming exer-

cises on the PDP-11/70 to perform data acquisition and dis-play, use the fast Fourier transform (FFT), and implementdigital filters.

F. Computer as a Laboratory Instrument (CLI)Topics include: Real-time operating systems, real-time pro-

gramming techniques in control, data acquisition, signal pro-cessing, and signal display.Laboratory work: Four or five programming exercises per-

forming laboratory applications, using both high-level (Fortranand PL/M) and assembly language, and using both stand-alonemicrocomputers and the PDP-1 1/70's real-time operatingsystem.A careful review of these courses will reveal that all except

the DSP course form a sequence in which both the classworkand the lab work flow naturally from course to course. Buteven the DSP course forms part of a sequence with electivesin signal analysis and digital controls not described here. Thecourses provide the graduating student with a comprehensivebackground in computer hardware, software, and applications,and with the practical laboratory experience to back it up.

IV. DESIGN OF THE LABORATORYBecause laboratory work has been integrated with the class-

work throughout the curriculum, the laboratory facilities arean essential element in the success of the computer engineeringprogram. The sizable investment required to build a suitable

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. E-24, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 1981

laboratory makes it important that the laboratory be designedas a total system, rather than simply evolving as pieces ofequipment are purchased to meet immediate needs. On thesurface, the inexpensive hobby-type microcomputers seem at-tractive; but with proper consideration of the total require-ments of the curriculum, they will many times become thefactor which limits both depth and breadth of the laboratorycurriculum.In this section we will describe the Real-Time Computing

Laboratory at the University of Houston. The laboratory wasdesigned specifically to meet the educational needs of thecomputer engineering program, yet with a secondary purposeof meeting the real-time computing needs of the entire engi-neering college. As discussed later, in many environments asmaller system will be appropriate; but, even on a smallerscale, the same approach should be used to meet the require-ments of an integrated curriculum.

A. Design CriteriaTwo important criteria were used in designing the Real-Time

Computing Laboratory. First, the laboratory is to be a multi-purpose facility in which hardware and software for all sixcourses of the curriculum are collocated in the same labo-ratory. Second, the emphasis is on commonality of equip-ment, operating systems, and programming languages amongthe courses in order to reduce costs and shorten the start-uptime for the students.A major thesis of this paper is that these two criteria imply

a single central minicomputer to which microcomputers andother equipment are attached, and that such a facility is boththe most cost-effective and the most educationally effectivemethod of achieving the objectives of the computer engineer-ing program.

B. Description ofFacilitiesA block diagram of the Real-Time Computing Laboratory is

shown in Fig. 2. Given below is a brief description of each ofthe major components in the laboratory. The advantagesoffered by this type of laboratory are enumerated in Section V.1) PDP-11/70 Minicomputer System: The central minicom-

puter is a Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) PDP-11/70with 512K bytes of memory, a 67M byte moving-head disk,and a 9-track 800/1600 bit/in mag tape system. A 300 lines/min serial printer and a single card reader serve as standardinput/output. Approximately ten CRT's are available for gen-eral student use.The PDP-1 1/70 runs the RSX-1 1M-PLUS multiuser real-time

operating system. The system allows for multiterminal pro-gram development concurrent with high performance real-timedata acquisition and control. The command language of theoperating system uses English-like commands and is quiteeasily and quickly learned by the new user.2) Graphics and Plotting: Four of the CRT terminals are

Tektronix 4006-1 storage graphics display terminals. A lessexpensive alternative to these is the Lear-Siegler ADM-3Aterminal equipped with an add-in card from Digital Researchand Engineering that converts the ADM-3A to a graphicsterminal which is software compatible with a Tektronix 4010.

CARDREADER

PLOTTER

Q:

MAGTAPE DISK

I

PDP-

11/70

SERIAL I PORTS

DATAACQUISITION

EPROMPROGRAMMER

PRINTER GRAPHICS CRT's W/SDK-85's MICROCOMPUDISPLAY

TERDEVELOPMENTSYSTEM

Fig. 2. Block diagram of Real-Time Computing Laboratory.

Fig. 3. Downloading to the front end microcomputer.

The system printer is a Printronix P300 printer/plotter, pro-viding raster hard copy plotting capability. In addition, aCalcomp 1039 drum plotter provides high quality linedrawings.3) Microcomputer Support: A variety of equipment is

available to aid in the hardware and software aspects of micro-computers. Connected to the extension port of the non-graphics CRT's are Intel SDK-85 single-board microcomputerswhich have been enhanced with a programmable RS232C inter-face and a bootstrap loader in EPROM. A simple command tothe PDP-1 1/70 to list an 8085 cross-assembler object file to theCRT can effectively download the object program to theSDK-85 for stand-alone execution. Fig. 3 shows a studentworking with this configuration.When hardware/software integration is required, a Tektronix

8001 microcomputer development system is used. Connectedto a serial port of the PDP-1 1/70, the 8001 provides real-timetrace and 8085 microprocessor in-circuit emulation. Again,

24

GLOVER AND BARGAINER: INTEGRATING HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE

Fig. 4. The satellite microcomputer development system.

programs are crossassembled on the PDP-1 1/70 and down-loaded to the 8001 or to an EPROM programmer. There is noresident assembler or floppy-disk system on the 8001; instead,the PDP-1 1/70 provides all of the multiuser program develop-ment capability necessary.

All design projects are built on prototyping boards which re-semble DEC dual-wide interface boards. Signals intended forexternal connection are wired to the edge connector of theboard. The boards are plugged into specially made test boxeswhich route the edge connector signals to LED's, switches, aclock, or other external signals. An arrangement such as thisallows the time consuming construction of a project to takeplace outside of the laboratory without tying up the testboxes. A larger number of students can be accommodated atlower cost in this manner. Fig. 4 shows such a microprocessor-based project connected to the 8001 development system.4) Data Acquisition: Multiuser data acquisition capability

is provided by the DEC LPA-1 1K Laboratory Peripheral Ac-celerator. Up to eight users on the PDP-1 1/70 can simulta-neously share 16 A/D channels and 4 D/A channels, each atdifferent sample rates. All data transfers between PDP-11/70memory and the LPA-1 1K are direct memory access. Data ac-quisition users in the DSP and CLI courses can run concur-rently with other time-sharing users doing program develop-ment.

All of the resources described above are collocated in theReal-Time Computing Laboratory distributed among fourinterconnecting rooms as illustrated in Fig. 5. The quantity ofequipment and the choice of a PDP-11/70 are due in part toour goal of serving not only the computer engineering programbut also the entire engineering college's real-time and micro-computer needs. A smaller computer with fewer terminalsmight be more appropriate at another university. The keyfeatures are the nonduplication of equipment, the sharing ofresources among several courses, and the collocation of hard-ware and software facilities.

C. Sharing the CentralMinicomputerAs previously stated, the multipurpose goal of the laboratory

implies design around a single central minicomputer. Indeed,the PDP-1 1/70 is used in all courses except the first (DDL) forthe following purposes:

1) to assemble, link, and run programs in the MMP course;

(a)

(b)Fig. 5. Collocation of facilities: (a) layout of the rooms; (b) view of

the laboratory.

2) to crossassemble and download programs to the SDK-85'sin the MMP course;3) to crossassemble and download programs to EPROM in

the MMO and MMS courses;4) to crossassemble and download programs to the 8001 de-

velopment system in the MMS course;5) to compile, link, and run programs to perform data ac-

quisition on the LPA-1 K, graphics display of signals, FFT's,and digital filtering in the DSP course;6) to allow real-time programming and control of instru-

mentation under RSX-1 IM-PLUS, or to download programsto the SDK-85's in the CLI course;7) to perform similar functions in other electives the

students may take.The use of the same computer and operating system in all

courses ensures that the students do not have to relearn thelaboratory techniques for each course.

D. Administration of the LaboratoryAnother feature of the Real-Time Computing Laboratory is

that of being an "open laboratory." That is, in general, labo-ratory experiments in each course are not restricted to particu-

25

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. E-24, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 1981

lar days and times. The laboratory is open from 10:00 A.M.to 10:00 P.M. on weekdays and from 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.on Saturdays. Students are free to come at any time that fitstheir schedules. At any given time there might be studentsfrom every course working in the laboratory.During all hours when the laboratory is open either the sys-

tem manager or a lab instructor is on duty. It is possible tocover so many hours because so many courses share the labo-ratory. A few graduate students and faculty are given privi-leges to use the laboratory outside of normal operating hours.A microcomputer-controlled digital combination door lock,providing a different combination for each such individual,provides controlled access at these times.

V. ADVANTAGES OF THIS DESIGNA broad range of users can be served by a laboratory such as

the one presented here. First, the laboratory efficiently sup-ports the assembly language programming course and coursesrequiring microcomputer high-level languages such as PL/Mand Pascal. The use of the time-shared host for program de-velopment with code downloaded to the microcomputer fordebugging gives the student the best of both worlds-a power-ful operating system and a stand-alone computer for debuggingand interrupt I/O.Second, the laboratory supports microcomputer develop-

ment systems without the necessity of duplicating peripheralssuch as floppy disks and printers, which would be required forstand-alone systems. Students access the 8001 developmentsystem from the same terminals they use for other work, cre-ate their task, and download it to the trace or emulator con-troller to evaluate their designs.The third group of users consists of those requiring real-time

operations such as analog-to-digital conversion, real-time con-trol, or signal processing. This support for courses such as theCLI course, the DSP course, or a course in real-time controlrequires more resources than are available on a small micro-computer if the assignments require real-time operations be-yond small homework-type problems. In addition, the hostmachine might serve as the major analog-to-digital conversionfacility in the department or college.The fourth group served by the laboratory are students

studying operating systems. In the Real-Time ComputingLaboratory at Houston, the RSX-1IM-PLUS system can beused as a model in an operating systems course.A fifth group of users can be served if the system serves a

large group such as a department or college as is the case atHouston. Individual laboratories requiring on-line computerresources need only purchase front end processors for theirwork and connect them to the laboratory computer, therebysharing peripherals instead of duplicating them. In most casesthe computation must necessarily be done in the front endprocessor in the remote laboratory; but disk storage, magnetictapes, printers, and other resources on the central laboratorycomputer would be used by the remote laboratory.Obviously, the administration of such a system must be de-

signed carefully because of the wide range of users served. Theconstant danger is to compromise one user by allotting more

resources to another. The advantages, however, make such aunified approach to configuration of both the hardware andthe laboratory space very attractive. Since the full range ofresources, from the powerful operating system with extensiveset of peripherals to the single-board microcomputer, areavailable to the student, each course can be designed to usethose resources which are optimal, and expansion is readilyavailable to any given course. Additionally, sharing equipmentand space by students in the same or in different courses allowsfor a more cost-effective use of the equipment. The cost perresource available per student is reasonable since duplicationof expensive peripherals is reduced while more resources aremade available with less required maintenance. The fact thatequipment is common for a broad range of student users al-lows students in successive courses to learn the particular disci-plines involved without the start-up time which might other-wise be required if equipment were different for differentcourses.Two characteristics of the laboratory which are very im-

portant are the fact that the laboratory assistants can be help-ful to a broad range of students and that students in the labo-ratory observe other work being done. Since the equipment iscommon, the laboratory assistant can help all students withproblems relating to the basic hardware and software in thelaboratory. The difference between students at different levelsis the applications and not the basic system.In addition, since beginning and advanced students are work-

ing in the same laboratory, the more advanced student can beof assistance to the beginning student, and the beginning orintermediate student is exposed to other work being per-formed in the laboratory. This cross-fertilization enhances thelearning experience and increases the morale of the students.An obvious advantage of the open laboratory arrangement isthe scheduling flexibility which is available.

VI. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHESOf course, there are alternatives to the approaches which

were taken at the University of Houston. For teaching assem-bly language programming some schools have run simulatorsinstead of providing front end microcomputers for studentsto use to debug their code. This successfully addresses theproblem of making multiple assembly languages available tothe student; but true input/output programming cannot bedone, and it does not provide the student with exposure to thehardware or to the peripheral devices connected to the com-puter. Additionally, the added memory and CPU require-ments necessary to run the simulators in a multiuser environ-ment may more than offset the very moderate cost of themicroprocessors ($400/8-bit processor including additionalhardware and firmware to facilitate communication with thehost).The other extreme is to use stand-alone microcomputers

without the host machine. This approach makes sense onlyfor laboratories designed to meet a very limited need. It can-not meet the needs of a broad range of courses and leads to asignificant duplication of peripherals. Each microcomputerwill necessarily have a disk (probably a floppy disk) and a

26

GLOVER AND BARGAINER: INTEGRATING HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE

printer and terminal. It must also have an operating system

with editor, assembler, and perhaps a high-level language. Sucha system would cost at least $3500 including a hard copy

terminal. For eight to ten stations, this becomes expensiveand the resources available are severely limited. There is noA/D, no magnetic tape, very limited real time, and an oper-

ating system which is limited. Although the redundancy af-forded by multiple stand-alone stations improves overall re-

liability, the individual units will generally be less reliable thana minicomputer system. Certainly the inexpensive peripheralswill be less reliable. An additional cost would be the require-ment of stand-alone development systems since the inexpen-sive microcomputer systems would not support a developmentsystem as a peripheral. Upper end microcomputers such as

the LSI-I 1 could perform many functions not possible withthe smaller systems, but the cost of 10-12 systems wouldbe too high. This approach is cost-effective only if the breadthand size of the laboratory is restricted.This is not to imply that a machine the size of a PDP 11/70

is necessary to serve as the laboratory host. Indeed, for manylaboratories a medium size or small size minicomputer such as

the PDP 11/44 or LSI 11/23 would be adequate depending on

the number of students using the laboratory at any one timeand on the other resources available. Two seemingly contra-

dictory approaches might be taken to build the laboratory insteps with minimal expenditure. The first approach would beto begin with a small minicomputer with multiuser and real-time capabilities along with a few front end microcomputers,and offer the assembly language and microcomputer systems

courses. As the program is enriched to the point where real-time and laboratory applications are added, the crossassem-

bler for the first two courses can be moved to the universitymainframe to make more minicomputer resources available to

the advanced students.The second approach would be initially to purchase only

the small front end microcomputers and start with the assem-

bly language and microcomputer courses on the universitymainframe. The local minicomputer can be added in a secondphase to provide the real-time capabilities for the advancedcourses.

Since the Real-Time Computing Laboratory was specifiednew support for microcomputers has come out. Motorolahas recently begun delivering single-board microcomputersbuilt around their MC68000 processor. These boards include32K bytes RAM, parallel I/O, and two RS232C serial ports.A ROM monitor provides download and debugging capabili-ties. Motorola also provides crossassemblers and simulators,which are written in Fortran and designed to run on PDP-land IBM 370 machines. The MC68000 is a very powerfulprocessor and, with the monitor and crossassemblers, is veryattractive for the programming stations in place of the SDK-85boards. It is significantly more expensive but offers a muchricher instruction set, greater memory size, and higher speed.This makes it attractive for advanced applications as well as theprogramming courses. A laboratory incorporating some ofthese enhancements is presently being built at Baylor Univer-sity to support the computer science and computer engineer-

ing curricula. This laboratory is constructed around a

PDP-1 1/44 host with Motorola MC68000 microcomputers andADM-3A terminals with the added graphics capability.

VII. CONCLUSIONSWe have come to two basic conclusions concerning the de-

velopment of a computer engineering prograrm. First, it isessential that there be an integration of hardware and softwaretopics, as well as lecture and laboratory material. Second, thecost-effective laboratory configuration which permits thegreatest breadth is one consisting of a host time-shared com-puter downloading to minimal microcomputers at each pro-gramming station. The details of the implementation will varydepending on equipment available and the number of studentsto be served. But this configuration is superior to the use ofsimulators without the microcomputers and to stand-alonemicrocomputer systems. Whether or not the university centralcomputer can be used as the host depends on the requirementsfor other real-time capabilities and on the local environment.

REFERENCES[11 E. Hoyer, M. Jong, and R. Stork, "An integrated approach to

minicomputers and microcomputers in electrical engineering labo-ratories," IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. E-22, pp. 123-127, May 1979.

(2] D. Thomas, "A laboratory environment for introduction ofmicroprocessor systems in the electrical engineering curriculum:methodology and experiences," IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. E-22, pp.105-109, May 1979.

John R. Glover, Jr. (S'67-M'68-S'72-M'74)was born in Savannah, GA, on July 22, 1945.He received the B.A. and M.E.E. degrees fromRice University, Houston, TX, in 1967 and1968, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree inelectrical engineering from Stanford Univer-sity, Stanford, CA, in 1975.From 1971 to 1974 he was a National Sci-

ence Foundation Fellow. From 1970 to 1971he was an Electronics Engineer with the U.S.Army Security Agency, Arlington Hall Station,

VA. In 1973 and 1974 he was an Instructor in Electrical Engineeringat Stanford University. In 1975 he joined the Department of ElectricalEngineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, as an Assistant Pro-fessor, and he is presently Director of the Engineering Real-Time Com-puting Laboratory. His current research interests are in the areas ofminicomputer/microcomputer applications and adaptive signalprocessing.

James D. Bargainer (S'55-M'66) received theB.S.E.E. degree from Lamar University, Beau-mont, TX, the M.S.E.E. degree from North-western University, Evanston, IL, and the Ph.D.degree from the University of Texas, Austin.From 1966 to 1979 he was with the Depart-

ment of Electrical Engineering, University ofA | C gHouston, Houston, TX, where he and John

Glover were responsible for developing thecomputer engineering option. He is presentlya Professor and Chairman of the Department of

Computer and Engineering Sciences, Baylor University, Waco, TX. Hisresearch interests include pattern recognition and automatic faultdetection.

27