What are your obstacles to running CP/M?

If you really want CP/M to take off with a wide variety of users,
simply do the following:

[1] Create a VMWare virtual machine and run a good CP/M
emulator in it.

[2] Include a virtual disk drive with all of the abandonware CP/M
programs you can find, every bit of documentation there is, etc.

[3] Put it up for downloading along with the free VMWare player.

One file, runs CP/M without any special configuring, does
everything that can be done under CP/M, runs under Linux
or Windows.

Now *THAT* would remove all obstacles to running CP/M!

Dr. Who? schrieb:[color=blue]
> If you really want CP/M to take off with a wide variety of users,
> simply do the following:
>
> [1] Create a VMWare virtual machine and run a good CP/M
> emulator in it.
>
> [2] Include a virtual disk drive with all of the abandonware CP/M
> programs you can find, every bit of documentation there is, etc.
>
> [3] Put it up for downloading along with the free VMWare player.
>
> One file, runs CP/M without any special configuring, does
> everything that can be done under CP/M, runs under Linux
> or Windows.
>
> Now *THAT* would remove all obstacles to running CP/M!
>[/color]

Exactely. I do run various different UNIX's on a VMware server, to be
able to test z80pack on variate systems, no big deal. For me it is good
enough to run z80pack on UNIX's and under cygwin on Windows. I have no
need for such a VMware appliance and no time to build one, but that sure
would be a worthy project.

Udo Munk
--
The real fun is building it and then using it...

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:19:33 +0000, Dr. Who? wrote:
[color=blue]
> If you really want CP/M to take off with a wide variety of users, simply
> do the following:
>
> [1] Create a VMWare virtual machine and run a good CP/M
> emulator in it.
>
> [2] Include a virtual disk drive with all of the abandonware CP/M
> programs you can find, every bit of documentation there is, etc.
>
> [3] Put it up for downloading along with the free VMWare player.
>
> One file, runs CP/M without any special configuring, does everything
> that can be done under CP/M, runs under Linux or Windows.
>
> Now *THAT* would remove all obstacles to running CP/M![/color]


Except that CP/M is never going to take off with a wide variety of users
ever again. It doesn't do _anything_ at all that can't be done better
with a modern OS. There is not much to be learned from playing with it
either. It is way too primitive to be classed as an operatings system in
its own right (even its author called it just a 'control program' so it
is of little interest for study as an OS.

The programming languages available for CP/M are also of limited
interest. Software development has moved on from procedural programming.

The only interest is historical, and probably the numbers of folk who are
playing around with it now is sufficient.

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:44:48 GMT, "." <dot@dotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:19:33 +0000, Dr. Who? wrote:
>[color=green]
>> If you really want CP/M to take off with a wide variety of users, simply
>> do the following:
>>
>> [1] Create a VMWare virtual machine and run a good CP/M
>> emulator in it.
>>
>> [2] Include a virtual disk drive with all of the abandonware CP/M
>> programs you can find, every bit of documentation there is, etc.
>>
>> [3] Put it up for downloading along with the free VMWare player.
>>
>> One file, runs CP/M without any special configuring, does everything
>> that can be done under CP/M, runs under Linux or Windows.
>>
>> Now *THAT* would remove all obstacles to running CP/M![/color]
>
>
>Except that CP/M is never going to take off with a wide variety of users
>ever again. It doesn't do _anything_ at all that can't be done better
>with a modern OS.[/color]

CP/M was a command line driven operating (or file loading) system

Anybody who really wants to know what that is like can simply run
Linux in command line mode. Don't load any GUIs. Bingo.

Typing is a pain in the ass. Boredom will stike in less than an hour.

If you're troubled by the commands being spelled differently, or by
somewhat different syntax, well, live with it.

Kildall never had the chance to know Torvolds.
I like to think the two would have gotten along very well.

Kildall was a pain in Gate's head. It's nice to know there was
somebody else came along right away to continue to cause
the Gatester to have restless nights. Both Scandanavians.

I want a computer like R2D2. Just tell it what you want and let the
little guy figure out how to give it to you.

Bill

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:35:11 -0600, Bill wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> CP/M was a command line driven operating (or file loading) system[/color]

Thanks for letting us know that.
[color=blue]
> Anybody who really wants to know what that is like can simply run Linux
> in command line mode. Don't load any GUIs. Bingo.[/color]

Hmm very interesting.
[color=blue]
> Typing is a pain in the ass. Boredom will stike in less than an hour.
>
> If you're troubled by the commands being spelled differently, or by
> somewhat different syntax, well, live with it.
>
> Kildall never had the chance to know Torvolds. I like to think the two
> would have gotten along very well.
>
> Kildall was a pain in Gate's head. It's nice to know there was somebody
> else came along right away to continue to cause the Gatester to have
> restless nights. Both Scandanavians.[/color]

Do you think so?
[color=blue]
> I want a computer like R2D2. Just tell it what you want and let the
> little guy figure out how to give it to you.[/color]

That is what wives are for.

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:19:33 +0000, Dr. Who? <who@whoville.gov> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
>
>If you really want CP/M to take off with a wide variety of users,
>simply do the following:
>
>[1] Create a VMWare virtual machine and run a good CP/M
> emulator in it.[/color]

Why?

With MyZ80, and at least umteen other sims and emulators already
available for years, why VMWare?

[color=blue]
>[2] Include a virtual disk drive with all of the abandonware CP/M
> programs you can find, every bit of documentation there is, etc.[/color]

Hey once you have a PC runnig Linux, FreeBSD, Open BSD, or Winders
of some flavor and hooked to the net... download.
[color=blue]
>
>[3] Put it up for downloading along with the free VMWare player.
>
>One file, runs CP/M without any special configuring, does
>everything that can be done under CP/M, runs under Linux
>or Windows.
>
>Now *THAT* would remove all obstacles to running CP/M![/color]

As is the sims are easy to install and use. No need to virtualize
them.


Allison

.. wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Except that CP/M is never going to take off with a wide variety of users
> ever again. It doesn't do _anything_ at all that can't be done better
> with a modern OS.[/color]

That's wrong. You forget scenarions in which you do not own (or can't
use) the monster hardware... e.g. you are using microcontrollers for
controlling hardware, and you have to do limited output (e.g. just text
output, status ...).
Also, CP/M can be very helpful for learning how an operating system is
working.
I am sure not all of the users are just mouse movers with Vista (which
degrades users to dummies, even path names are virtual, and if you get
an error, you will be lost because the operating system decides for you
the amount of information you get about it).

You have to make a relationship between the hardware ressources and the
capabilities of the OS, e.g. CP/M with a modern PC will have a fantastic
speed.

Regards
Peter

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:34:31 +0200, Peter Dassow wrote:
[color=blue]
> . wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> Except that CP/M is never going to take off with a wide variety of
>> users ever again. It doesn't do _anything_ at all that can't be done
>> better with a modern OS.[/color]
>
> That's wrong. You forget scenarions in which you do not own (or can't
> use) the monster hardware... e.g. you are using microcontrollers for
> controlling hardware, and you have to do limited output (e.g. just text
> output, status ...).[/color]

CP/M would be of limited use in such an application, unless you want to
use it as a development system and cross assemble/compile to the
microcontroller. In that case it would be better to use a modern OS as
the development system because programming IDEs are so much better these
days.

You wouldn't need to run CP/M on the microcontroller if you only wanted
to control some hardware, monitor status and display text. It could be a
liability especially with an interrupt driven system. You wouldn't call
BDOS functions from within interrupt handlers.
[color=blue]
> Also, CP/M can be very helpful for learning how an operating system is
> working.[/color]

Not really. It has little resemblance to an operating system.

[color=blue]
> I am sure not all of the users are just mouse movers with Vista (which
> degrades users to dummies, even path names are virtual, and if you get
> an error, you will be lost because the operating system decides for you
> the amount of information you get about it).
>[/color]

Oh I see.
[color=blue]
> You have to make a relationship between the hardware ressources and the
> capabilities of the OS, e.g. CP/M with a modern PC will have a fantastic
> speed.[/color]

That's because it hardly does anything. An 8080 is a little 8 bit CPU,
with no floating point, limited 16 integer arithmetic and can only
address 64K maximum of memory do there is a limit to how much work it can
do regardless of how 'fast' it can run.

.. schrieb:[color=blue]
> Except that CP/M is never going to take off with a wide variety of users
> ever again. It doesn't do _anything_ at all that can't be done better
> with a modern OS. There is not much to be learned from playing with it
> either. It is way too primitive to be classed as an operatings system in
> its own right (even its author called it just a 'control program' so it
> is of little interest for study as an OS.[/color]

You forgot one thing here, not everything needs an OS, many devices will
work nicely and more secure with a 'control program'. In the not so far
future our refrigertators, toasters... will have embedded controlers
connected to some sort of inhouse bus. Maybe they will put some Linux OS
on that running Java applications and then you have to reboot your
toaster once a week maybe ;-) Me thinks a more simple control program
will do the job too, and because it is much simpler it will have much
less bugs and run more stable. Do you think all that controllers in your
car helping with stearing, braking and who knows what will run a full
featured OS?
[color=blue]
> The programming languages available for CP/M are also of limited
> interest. Software development has moved on from procedural programming.[/color]

For new development, yes. And it is incredible fun for me watching them
'developers' dragging classes together on a GUI for month without any
result at all sometimes ;-)
Do you have any idea how much old fashioned procedural programmed
software is used in all that data centers still, because it needs
another 200 years to replace that all? I do have an idea about that
because I'm operating such data centers.
[color=blue]
> The only interest is historical, and probably the numbers of folk who are
> playing around with it now is sufficient.[/color]

I do run a web site about the old stuff for fun at
[url]http://www.unix4fun.org/z80pack/[/url]
That web server is running statistics of course. I can tell that the
number of hits and downloads per month is permantely increasing, and the
site is up for quite a while.
What I don't know of course are the reasons causing interest in this old
stuff, so I am not sure if that is for historical interest only.

Udo Munk
--
The real fun is building it and then using it...

.. schrieb:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:34:31 +0200, Peter Dassow wrote:
>[color=green]
>> . wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Except that CP/M is never going to take off with a wide variety of
>>> users ever again. It doesn't do _anything_ at all that can't be done
>>> better with a modern OS.[/color]
>> That's wrong. You forget scenarions in which you do not own (or can't
>> use) the monster hardware... e.g. you are using microcontrollers for
>> controlling hardware, and you have to do limited output (e.g. just text
>> output, status ...).[/color]
>
> CP/M would be of limited use in such an application, unless you want to
> use it as a development system and cross assemble/compile to the
> microcontroller. In that case it would be better to use a modern OS as
> the development system because programming IDEs are so much better these
> days.[/color]

Correct, even the companies that build the first 8080/Z80 systems used
cross development software on larger systems. Not because the OS on that
systems was more modern, but because that larger systems ran much
faster. Come on, you don't need any IDE for 8bit controller programming.
[color=blue]
> You wouldn't need to run CP/M on the microcontroller if you only wanted
> to control some hardware, monitor status and display text. It could be a
> liability especially with an interrupt driven system. You wouldn't call
> BDOS functions from within interrupt handlers.[/color]

Nope, but you could have a look at the CP/M sources and see how several
things were done to make it reliable and portable.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> You have to make a relationship between the hardware ressources and the
>> capabilities of the OS, e.g. CP/M with a modern PC will have a fantastic
>> speed.[/color]
>
> That's because it hardly does anything. An 8080 is a little 8 bit CPU,
> with no floating point, limited 16 integer arithmetic and can only
> address 64K maximum of memory do there is a limit to how much work it can
> do regardless of how 'fast' it can run.[/color]

That little 8bit CPU run the first serious personal computers, remember
;-) The floating point arithmetic even in the 80's could be done with a
FPU, several were available to connect to 8080/Z80. Have a look at
Pascal MT+ and several Fortran compilers, they include support for that
FPU's. And of course there have been solutions to address more than 64k
RAM, same as there are solutions in the 21th century to address more
than 4GB memory with a 32bit CPU. Nothing really new here.
Obviously there still is need for such tiny CPU's, seems that Zilog
still makes versions of the Z80, much more modern of course, with I/O
hardware on the chip to address TCP/IP networks and so on.

Udo Munk
--
The real fun is building it and then using it...

[email]no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
>
>On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:19:33 +0000, Dr. Who? <who@whoville.gov> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>If you really want CP/M to take off with a wide variety of users,
>>simply do the following:
>>
>>[1] Create a VMWare virtual machine and run a good CP/M
>> emulator in it.[/color]
>
>Why?
>
>With MyZ80, and at least umteen other sims and emulators already
>available for years, why VMWare?[/color]

MyZ80 by itself doesn't give you "One file, runs CP/M without
any special configuring, does everything that can be done under
CP/M, runs under Linux or Windows."
[color=blue][color=green]
>>[2] Include a virtual disk drive with all of the abandonware CP/M
>> programs you can find, every bit of documentation there is, etc.[/color]
>
>Hey once you have a PC runnig Linux, FreeBSD, Open BSD, or Winders
>of some flavor and hooked to the net... download.[/color]

Downloading a bunch of files doesn't give you "One file, runs
CP/M without any special configuring, does everything that can
be done under CP/M, runs under Linux or Windows."
[color=blue][color=green]
>>[3] Put it up for downloading along with the free VMWare player.
>>
>>One file, runs CP/M without any special configuring, does
>>everything that can be done under CP/M, runs under Linux
>>or Windows.
>>
>>Now *THAT* would remove all obstacles to running CP/M![/color]
>
>As is the sims are easy to install and use. No need to virtualize
>them.[/color]

Virtualizing them gives them standardized IO and a standardized
file system, thus attaining the goal of "One file, runs CP/M
without any special configuring, does everything that can be
done under CP/M, runs under Linux or Windows."

On Apr 6, 6:09 pm, Dr. Who? <w...@whoville.gov> wrote:[color=blue]
> MyZ80 by itself doesn't give you "One file, runs CP/M without
> any special configuring, does everything that can be done under
> CP/M, runs under Linux or Windows."[/color]

What is the big deal with one file? One zip in one disk directory
works for most programs distributed for Windows and Linux.

One A.DSK with a menu program with the ability to view catalog files
in A.DSK of what is in all the other .DSK files in the system and
allows selecting the desired file as the C.DSK would then only be the
same cataloging and collating process as the "does everything that can
be done under CP/M".

Then strip down dosemu to just what is necessary to run MyZ80 as the
autoexec.bat file, and it runs under Linux or Windows.

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:09:16 +0000, Dr. Who? <who@whoville.gov> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
>
>no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:[color=green]
>>
>>On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:19:33 +0000, Dr. Who? <who@whoville.gov> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>If you really want CP/M to take off with a wide variety of users,
>>>simply do the following:
>>>
>>>[1] Create a VMWare virtual machine and run a good CP/M
>>> emulator in it.[/color]
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>With MyZ80, and at least umteen other sims and emulators already
>>available for years, why VMWare?[/color]
>
>MyZ80 by itself doesn't give you "One file, runs CP/M without
>any special configuring, does everything that can be done under
>CP/M, runs under Linux or Windows."
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>[2] Include a virtual disk drive with all of the abandonware CP/M
>>> programs you can find, every bit of documentation there is, etc.[/color]
>>
>>Hey once you have a PC runnig Linux, FreeBSD, Open BSD, or Winders
>>of some flavor and hooked to the net... download.[/color]
>
>Downloading a bunch of files doesn't give you "One file, runs
>CP/M without any special configuring, does everything that can
>be done under CP/M, runs under Linux or Windows."
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>[3] Put it up for downloading along with the free VMWare player.
>>>
>>>One file, runs CP/M without any special configuring, does
>>>everything that can be done under CP/M, runs under Linux
>>>or Windows.
>>>
>>>Now *THAT* would remove all obstacles to running CP/M![/color]
>>
>>As is the sims are easy to install and use. No need to virtualize
>>them.[/color]
>
>Virtualizing them gives them standardized IO and a standardized
>file system, thus attaining the goal of "One file, runs CP/M
>without any special configuring, does everything that can be
>done under CP/M, runs under Linux or Windows."
>[/color]

??? Myz80 runs a Z80 that runs CP/M and that is the loader if
you wish for applications. It's all one zipfile. Now if you wanted
to load it with applications thats easier, just populate the emulated
disks with apps and zip the whole mess.. Of course if you prefer
SIMH, Dave Dunfield's Altair/NS* emulator that can be "one file"
too as tehj disks are already there with apps and all. . There are
many other emulators and most of which the install is so minimal
that it's really just copy file(s) to folder and run the exe.

But CP/M is not and never was "one file". it's an OS and utilities
and additionally applications. If you wanted CP/M in a box you
bought a Kaypro or an already integrated system (there were many).

But running all that under VMware... thats an emulator running an
emulator running an OS and so on. No point to it and no advantage
unless your writing yet another z80 CP/M emulator. To me just another
PCism.

I'm not sold. I use VMware so I can run W98se under Linux and have it
totally isolated as N$ stuff is flakey on a good day and is best run
in a protected sandbox. Also so I dont have to dedicate hardware
to winders for the times when I do need it. Then again I do have
hardware for the direct execution of CP/M be it on Kaypro, souped up
AmproLB+ with a large SCSI disk or several S100 Crates with resources.
So maybe the point of your effort is lost on me. For everyone else
running CP/M on winders or Linux is trivial and sufficently cooked as
to not need much to use.

However your trying to point out or otherwise convey something and
maybe the point ofit will be clear with more explanation.

Allison

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 17:26:48 +0200, Udo Munk wrote:

[color=blue]
> You forgot one thing here, not everything needs an OS, many devices will
> work nicely and more secure with a 'control program'. In the not so far
> future our refrigertators, toasters... will have embedded controlers
> connected to some sort of inhouse bus. Maybe they will put some Linux OS
> on that running Java applications and then you have to reboot your
> toaster once a week maybe ;-) Me thinks a more simple control program
> will do the job too, and because it is much simpler it will have much
> less bugs and run more stable. Do you think all that controllers in your
> car helping with stearing, braking and who knows what will run a full
> featured OS?[/color]

Controllers connected to an automobile bus will be using a control
program that suports threading and pre-empting at least. I doubt that an
8 bit controller (even a fast one) is fast enough to take on the jobs
that are needed in a modern automobile. As an example of the speed
required, the SAAB Trionic engine management system monitors the state of
each individual spark plug (via plasma conductivity) and from that infers
the combustion conditions for each combustion cycle. I can't imagine an 8
bit CPU doing that too well.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The programming languages available for CP/M are also of limited
>> interest. Software development has moved on from procedural
>> programming.[/color]
>
> For new development, yes. And it is incredible fun for me watching them
> 'developers' dragging classes together on a GUI for month without any
> result at all sometimes ;-)[/color]

They must be no hoper noobs then :) Seriously, one of the advantages of
modern software development systems is the ability to build and test
incrementally. If I had a team who spent a month 'dragging classes on a
GUI' I would sack them all.
[color=blue]
> Do you have any idea how much old fashioned procedural programmed
> software is used in all that data centers still, because it needs
> another 200 years to replace that all? I do have an idea about that
> because I'm operating such data centers.[/color]

Yes I do. There is no need to fix what isn't broken or what can't be
changed because the sources have long been lost :)

I have been a programmer for 30 years (some of which I spent on CP/M
cross development, Intel MDS in the 'good old days'). Nevertheless I
actually believe the good old days are now. We have wonderfully powerful
hardware and now there are decent programming languages like C# and Java.
[color=blue]
> I do run a web site about the old stuff for fun at
> [url]http://www.unix4fun.org/z80pack/[/url]
> That web server is running statistics of course. I can tell that the
> number of hits and downloads per month is permantely increasing, and the
> site is up for quite a while.
> What I don't know of course are the reasons causing interest in this old
> stuff, so I am not sure if that is for historical interest only.[/color]

Fashion explains it. There is a new demographic of people who grew up on
Macs and Windows who have a hankering for retro computing.

.. wrote:[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> I am sure not all of the users are just mouse movers with Vista (which
>> degrades users to dummies, even path names are virtual, and if you get
>> an error, you will be lost because the operating system decides for you
>> the amount of information you get about it).
>>[/color]
>
> Oh I see.[/color]

No, you don't see. There are 2 points I hardly do not understand.
You didn't use any real name nor any real mail address.
You just want to generate newsgroup traffic without sense.
And you argumented that there are so many better possibilities to
program and to use modern systems. Are you sure I am using a CP/M
computer to work with ? It's a "HOBBY" - you know this word ? No.
I've already spent years of programming UNIX and Windows systems, with
object oriented languages too. But I am still interested in that old,
useless CP/M machines. So what ?
Please leave the newsgroup if you do not have anything to contribute
related with CP/M machines or other non-modern systems. Thank you.

--
* Try [url]http://www.z80.eu[/url] for more infos about CP/M OS and compilers.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:10:49 +0200, Peter Dassow wrote:

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> I am sure not all of the users are just mouse movers with Vista (which
>>> degrades users to dummies, even path names are virtual, and if you get
>>> an error, you will be lost because the operating system decides for
>>> you the amount of information you get about it).
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> Oh I see.[/color]
>
> No, you don't see. There are 2 points I hardly do not understand. You
> didn't use any real name nor any real mail address.[/color]

Why should I put my real email address in a usenet post when I know that
it would just be harvested for spam mail. There is no law that says I
must put my real name and email address in a post.

As for not seeing. Your comment on mouse moving and virtual path names
and error handling just doesn't make any sense. That is why I said "I
see".
[color=blue]
> You just want to
> generate newsgroup traffic without sense. And you argumented that there
> are so many better possibilities to program and to use modern systems.
> Are you sure I am using a CP/M computer to work with ? It's a "HOBBY" -
> you know this word ? No. I've already spent years of programming UNIX
> and Windows systems, with object oriented languages too. But I am still
> interested in that old, useless CP/M machines.[/color]

If I wasn't interested in CP/M I wouldn't be posting in here would I?
[color=blue]
> So what ?
> Please leave the newsgroup if you do not have anything to contribute
> related with CP/M machines or other non-modern systems. Thank you.[/color]

I will leave the group when I feel like it and not when you tell me to
Petey.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:36:27 GMT, "." <dot@dotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> As an example of the speed
>required, the SAAB Trionic engine management system monitors the state of
>each individual spark plug (via plasma conductivity) and from that infers
>the combustion conditions for each combustion cycle. I can't imagine an 8
>bit CPU doing that too well.[/color]

Seems to me the RCA-designed 1802 has been reportedly used by
BMW for fuel injection control somewhat recently.

Mechanical stuff, like automobiles, are a whole lot slower than even
8-bit controllers. It depends mostly on the resolution you need for
the job. And how fast you want the feedback system to respond.

Marketing hype is usually more important (as a rational) then
performance.

Bill

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:51:02 GMT, "." <dot@dotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Why should I put my real email address in a usenet post when I know that
>it would just be harvested for spam mail.[/color]

And that's a problem?

I've used the same email address for around 12 years.

Maybe if you don't know how to control incoming email there's
a gap in your understanding of how things work.

I won't discuss details in public, but draw out a diagram of
how email gets to you. And then see what resources might
be available for you to use at each 'node' along the way.

You oughta have some control at the last two or three anyway.

Bill

.....whoa! boy is that weird! My wife just called and said she had
over 4,000 spams this morning! I've left their service with GoDaddy,
instead of micro-managing it myself through an independant ISP

Looks like I better take some of my own advice!

On Apr 7, 10:25 am, Bill <B...@sunsouthwest.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> Seems to me the RCA-designed 1802 has been reportedly used by
> BMW for fuel injection control somewhat recently.[/color]
[color=blue]
> Mechanical stuff, like automobiles, are a whole lot slower than even
> 8-bit controllers. It depends mostly on the resolution you need for
> the job. And how fast you want the feedback system to respond.[/color]

Precisely. If with a fuzzy logic control, a resolution from false to
true in 128/ths is ample for the precision of the feedback and for
control of the part, and if the control network is a 4-bit bus or a
serial bus, and working directly on an 8-bit datastream gets the job
done, why would there be any technical reason for a 16-bit controller?

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:25:48 -0500, Bill wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:36:27 GMT, "." <dot@dotmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> As an example of the speed
>>required, the SAAB Trionic engine management system monitors the state
>>of each individual spark plug (via plasma conductivity) and from that
>>infers the combustion conditions for each combustion cycle. I can't
>>imagine an 8 bit CPU doing that too well.[/color]
>
> Seems to me the RCA-designed 1802 has been reportedly used by BMW for
> fuel injection control somewhat recently.[/color]

And Bosch used 8048 based microcontrollers in their LH 2.x engine
management systems.[color=blue]
> Mechanical stuff, like automobiles, are a whole lot slower than even
> 8-bit controllers. It depends mostly on the resolution you need for the
> job. And how fast you want the feedback system to respond.[/color]

That is if you are just measuring crankshaft rotation and air flow.
[color=blue]
> Marketing hype is usually more important (as a rational) then
> performance.
>[/color]
The example I mentioned of the Trionic controller, could not possibly be
done by an 1802. These engines do not use a knock sensor. Immediately
after the combustion cycle has quenched, the controller reactivates the
spark plug and then analyses the conductivity of the plasma which then
forms around the spark gap, from this it can determine if combustion was
normal or not. This is done separately for each spark plug.