Mr. Emmanuel Roche, France schrieb:
> Found this on the Internet...

Why do you post the stuff instead of just the link?

> Is there a German out there, who could explain us what this is saying?
>
> CPMNET 1.4
.....
It is a status report about the TCP/IP networking interface and software
for KC85 systems (ca. 1984, former GDR). Some configuration and usage
hints. They build a network interface card that is programmed from the
CP/M like system via a PIO and build a TCP/IP stack for it.

> (You may remember that I proposed, several years ago, on the comp.os.cpm
> Newsgroup, that, since the Internet is based on the client/server idea, we
> should make such a "CP/M client" program, which would use an 'IBM Clown" as
> its server, to surf the Net...)
>
> Yours Sincerely,
> Mr. Emmanuel Roche, France

And because no one was listening to you there are Z80 CP/M systems now
connected to the Internet directly, without a server clown. Funny hu?

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

Udo Munk wrote:
(snip)

> So you know that the 1st edition of Minix was implemented on computers
> with a 8088 processor and that Andy also provided an 8088 emulation,
> that was able to run it on larger machines. This 8088 processor was a
> 8bit CPU. Lucky you that you decided to never uses it, I did by the way,
> native on a 8088 system and cross on a 32bit UNIX platform.

The 8088 is a 16 bit CPU with an 8 bit bus interface.

-- glen

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Udo Munk wrote:
> (snip)
>
>> So you know that the 1st edition of Minix was implemented on
>> computers with a 8088 processor and that Andy also provided an
>> 8088 emulation, that was able to run it on larger machines. This
>> 8088 processor was a 8bit CPU. Lucky you that you decided to
>> never uses it, I did by the way, native on a 8088 system and
>> cross on a 32bit UNIX platform.
>
> The 8088 is a 16 bit CPU with an 8 bit bus interface.

As is the 8080, by the way. Lots of 16 bit instructions there.
Can't say the same for the 8008 though.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]:
Try the download section.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:23:15 -0400, CBFalconer
wrote:

>glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> Udo Munk wrote:
>> (snip)
>>
>>> So you know that the 1st edition of Minix was implemented on
>>> computers with a 8088 processor and that Andy also provided an
>>> 8088 emulation, that was able to run it on larger machines. This
>>> 8088 processor was a 8bit CPU. Lucky you that you decided to
>>> never uses it, I did by the way, native on a 8088 system and
>>> cross on a 32bit UNIX platform.
>>
>> The 8088 is a 16 bit CPU with an 8 bit bus interface.
>
>As is the 8080, by the way. Lots of 16 bit instructions there.
>Can't say the same for the 8008 though.

The 8088 has the indentical instruction set and internal registerset
of the 16bit 8086. The other two do not.

MINIX is not Unix.


Allison

no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>>
.... snip ...
>>
>>> The 8088 is a 16 bit CPU with an 8 bit bus interface.
>>
>> As is the 8080, by the way. Lots of 16 bit instructions there.
>> Can't say the same for the 8008 though.
>
> The 8088 has the indentical instruction set and internal
> registerset of the 16bit 8086. The other two do not.

So? That doesn't affect my statement.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]:
Try the download section.

glen herrmannsfeldt schrieb:
> Udo Munk wrote:
> (snip)
>
>> So you know that the 1st edition of Minix was implemented on computers
>> with a 8088 processor and that Andy also provided an 8088 emulation,
>> that was able to run it on larger machines. This 8088 processor was a
>> 8bit CPU. Lucky you that you decided to never uses it, I did by the
>> way, native on a 8088 system and cross on a 32bit UNIX platform.
>
> The 8088 is a 16 bit CPU with an 8 bit bus interface.
>
> -- glen
>

The definition of 8/16 bit CPU's is done with the width of the data bus,
not width of internal registers. If the later would be the case then the
8080 was a 16 but CPU already, because it has 16 bit registers.
The 8088 is a CPU with 8 bit data bus.

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

no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net schrieb:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:23:15 -0400, CBFalconer
> wrote:
>
>> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>>> Udo Munk wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>> So you know that the 1st edition of Minix was implemented on
>>>> computers with a 8088 processor and that Andy also provided an
>>>> 8088 emulation, that was able to run it on larger machines. This
>>>> 8088 processor was a 8bit CPU. Lucky you that you decided to
>>>> never uses it, I did by the way, native on a 8088 system and
>>>> cross on a 32bit UNIX platform.
>>> The 8088 is a 16 bit CPU with an 8 bit bus interface.
>> As is the 8080, by the way. Lots of 16 bit instructions there.
>> Can't say the same for the 8008 though.
>
> The 8088 has the indentical instruction set and internal registerset
> of the 16bit 8086. The other two do not.
>
> MINIX is not Unix.
>
>
> Allison

MINIX was explicitly written to be not UNIX, so that it could be used in
education, without AT&T having control about who is allowed to read,
modify, publish something about it. Lion's book censored by AT&T is one
of the examples, where they tried to get control, the reason why other
solution were needed.

There have been implementations of UNIX's based on the AT&T sources for
the 8088, Microport UNIX, Interactive UNIX, Xenix, to name a few.

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

*Udo Munk* wrote on Fri, 08-07-25 18:24:
>The definition of 8/16 bit CPU's is done with the width of the data bus,
>not width of internal registers.

So for you the 68008 is an 8-bit CPU? I think that's nonsense.
The 8080 does not have 16 bit data registers but the ability to perform
some operations on register pairs. Contrary to e.g. the 68000 its
registers are not equal, there is one main register and that's 8-bit
with another 8 bits for flags.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:31:00 -0400, CBFalconer
wrote:

>no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
>> CBFalconer wrote:
>>> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>>>
>... snip ...
>>>
>>>> The 8088 is a 16 bit CPU with an 8 bit bus interface.
>>>
>>> As is the 8080, by the way. Lots of 16 bit instructions there.
>>> Can't say the same for the 8008 though.
>>
>> The 8088 has the indentical instruction set and internal
>> registerset of the 16bit 8086. The other two do not.
>
>So? That doesn't affect my statement.

Ok then I maintain the Z280 is a 16 bitter as the bus can be
configured as 16bits (hint it's still a Z80).

Further I have DEC T11s, which are base PDP11 look alike,
can we agree PDP-11 is 16bit? Well the T-ll can boot and run with
a 8bit bus (reset boot option). Does that make it a 8bitter?

The 486SLC ran with a 16bit bus for low cost low power systems
I presume you want to make that a 16bitter even though the
archetecture is still 486 32bit.

Point is bus width is not always same as archetecture width.

Allison

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:05:42 +0200, Udo Munk
wrote:

>no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net schrieb:
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:23:15 -0400, CBFalconer
>> wrote:
>>
>>> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>>>> Udo Munk wrote:
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>> So you know that the 1st edition of Minix was implemented on
>>>>> computers with a 8088 processor and that Andy also provided an
>>>>> 8088 emulation, that was able to run it on larger machines. This
>>>>> 8088 processor was a 8bit CPU. Lucky you that you decided to
>>>>> never uses it, I did by the way, native on a 8088 system and
>>>>> cross on a 32bit UNIX platform.
>>>> The 8088 is a 16 bit CPU with an 8 bit bus interface.
>>> As is the 8080, by the way. Lots of 16 bit instructions there.
>>> Can't say the same for the 8008 though.
>>
>> The 8088 has the indentical instruction set and internal registerset
>> of the 16bit 8086. The other two do not.
>>
>> MINIX is not Unix.
>>
>>
>> Allison
>
>MINIX was explicitly written to be not UNIX, so that it could be used in
>education, without AT&T having control about who is allowed to read,
>modify, publish something about it. Lion's book censored by AT&T is one
>of the examples, where they tried to get control, the reason why other
>solution were needed.

Exactly. I also was a round to see copies of Lions book and even got
it from the library system once. AT&T tried to suppress it but it
managed to live.

>There have been implementations of UNIX's based on the AT&T sources for
>the 8088, Microport UNIX, Interactive UNIX, Xenix, to name a few.

Also Venix, I"ve run most of them at one time or an another.

Allison


>
>Udo Munk

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:24:27 +0200, Udo Munk
wrote:

>glen herrmannsfeldt schrieb:
>> Udo Munk wrote:
>> (snip)
>>
>>> So you know that the 1st edition of Minix was implemented on computers
>>> with a 8088 processor and that Andy also provided an 8088 emulation,
>>> that was able to run it on larger machines. This 8088 processor was a
>>> 8bit CPU. Lucky you that you decided to never uses it, I did by the
>>> way, native on a 8088 system and cross on a 32bit UNIX platform.
>>
>> The 8088 is a 16 bit CPU with an 8 bit bus interface.
>>
>> -- glen
>>
>
>The definition of 8/16 bit CPU's is done with the width of the data bus,
>not width of internal registers. If the later would be the case then the
>8080 was a 16 but CPU already, because it has 16 bit registers.
>The 8088 is a CPU with 8 bit data bus.
>

Sorry no, I never heard of that definition.

If that were the case a PIC24 is a 0 bit cpu as there is no bus?
[Its a 24bit modified Harvard single chip MPU with 8bit internal data
busses for data and wider busses for instruction and address]

8080, 8085 and Z80 had some 16 bit operations (DAD) but
[it used HL and not the accumulator] the fact that register were
16bits were more an artifact that were data pointers and the
address bus was 16bits. There are very few instructions
that acutally work on 16bit data (z80 added some) but most
instructions were limited to 8bit.

8088 can move both bytes and words and the BIU [Bus Interface Unit]
manages the byte word fetch. The differences in the 8086 and 8088 are
generally limited to the BIU and not the core cpu. That doen't mean
there isn't a speed penalty however. I does mean any code developed
for the 8086 can and does run on 8088 and if there are differneces
it's speed related. This is also true for the 80186 and 80188.

Bus width speaks more to throughput and interfacing concerns
not base archectecture.


Allison

>Udo Munk

no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:24:27 +0200, Udo Munk
> wrote:
>
>> glen herrmannsfeldt schrieb:
>>> Udo Munk wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>> So you know that the 1st edition of Minix was implemented on computers
>>>> with a 8088 processor and that Andy also provided an 8088 emulation,
>>>> that was able to run it on larger machines. This 8088 processor was a
>>>> 8bit CPU. Lucky you that you decided to never uses it, I did by the
>>>> way, native on a 8088 system and cross on a 32bit UNIX platform.
>>> The 8088 is a 16 bit CPU with an 8 bit bus interface.
>>>
>>> -- glen
>>>
>> The definition of 8/16 bit CPU's is done with the width of the data bus,
>> not width of internal registers. If the later would be the case then the
>> 8080 was a 16 but CPU already, because it has 16 bit registers.
>> The 8088 is a CPU with 8 bit data bus.
>>
>
> Sorry no, I never heard of that definition.
>
> If that were the case a PIC24 is a 0 bit cpu as there is no bus?
> [Its a 24bit modified Harvard single chip MPU with 8bit internal data
> busses for data and wider busses for instruction and address]
>
> 8080, 8085 and Z80 had some 16 bit operations (DAD) but
> [it used HL and not the accumulator] the fact that register were
> 16bits were more an artifact that were data pointers and the
> address bus was 16bits. There are very few instructions
> that acutally work on 16bit data (z80 added some) but most
> instructions were limited to 8bit.
>
> 8088 can move both bytes and words and the BIU [Bus Interface Unit]
> manages the byte word fetch. The differences in the 8086 and 8088 are
> generally limited to the BIU and not the core cpu. That doen't mean
> there isn't a speed penalty however. I does mean any code developed
> for the 8086 can and does run on 8088 and if there are differneces
> it's speed related. This is also true for the 80186 and 80188.

And here I always thought it was based on the number of bits in the physical
address space. Noting that this may not agree with the number of bits in the
address bus...

Steven Hirsch wrote:
> no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
>> 8080, 8085 and Z80 had some 16 bit operations (DAD) but [it used
>> HL and not the accumulator] the fact that register were 16bits
>> were more an artifact that were data pointers and the address
>> bus was 16bits. There are very few instructions that acutally
>> work on 16bit data (z80 added some) but most instructions were
>> limited to 8bit.
>>
>> 8088 can move both bytes and words and the BIU [Bus Interface
>> Unit] manages the byte word fetch. The differences in the 8086
>> and 8088 are generally limited to the BIU and not the core cpu.
>> That doen't mean there isn't a speed penalty however. I does
>> mean any code developed for the 8086 can and does run on 8088
>> and if there are differneces it's speed related. This is also
>> true for the 80186 and 80188.
>
> And here I always thought it was based on the number of bits in
> the physical address space. Noting that this may not agree with
> the number of bits in the address bus...

And there you are. If you vote for register size, go to top left.
If you vote for external data buss size, go to top right. If you
vote for arithmetic capability, go to bottom left. If you vote for
memory space, go to bottom right. For anything else stay in the
center and yell.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]:
Try the download section.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:11:14 -0400, CBFalconer
wrote:

>Steven Hirsch wrote:
>> no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>
>>> 8080, 8085 and Z80 had some 16 bit operations (DAD) but [it used
>>> HL and not the accumulator] the fact that register were 16bits
>>> were more an artifact that were data pointers and the address
>>> bus was 16bits. There are very few instructions that acutally
>>> work on 16bit data (z80 added some) but most instructions were
>>> limited to 8bit.
>>>
>>> 8088 can move both bytes and words and the BIU [Bus Interface
>>> Unit] manages the byte word fetch. The differences in the 8086
>>> and 8088 are generally limited to the BIU and not the core cpu.
>>> That doen't mean there isn't a speed penalty however. I does
>>> mean any code developed for the 8086 can and does run on 8088
>>> and if there are differneces it's speed related. This is also
>>> true for the 80186 and 80188.
>>
>> And here I always thought it was based on the number of bits in
>> the physical address space. Noting that this may not agree with
>> the number of bits in the address bus...
>
>And there you are. If you vote for register size, go to top left.
>If you vote for external data buss size, go to top right. If you
>vote for arithmetic capability, go to bottom left. If you vote for
>memory space, go to bottom right. For anything else stay in the
>center and yell.

OK I can also laugh at it too. IT's not that big a deal but the
definintion I've used was fostered with Osborne (or before)
and also the vendors who we all know never lie.

However there are CPUs like the 6809, 68K and a few others
where the line between 8/16/32bits was a bit fuzzier.


Allison

Steven Hirsch wrote:
(snip, someone wrote)

>>> The definition of 8/16 bit CPU's is done with the width of the data
>>> bus, not width of internal registers. If the later would be the case
>>> then the 8080 was a 16 but CPU already, because it has 16 bit registers.
>>> The 8088 is a CPU with 8 bit data bus.
(snip)

> And here I always thought it was based on the number of bits in the
> physical address space. Noting that this may not agree with the number
> of bits in the address bus...

My personal rule is the geometric mean of the data bus width,
address bus width, ALU width, and primary internal register width.

It can be any of those depending on what you are trying to do.

-- glen

Udo Munk wrote:
(snip)

> The definition of 8/16 bit CPU's is done with the width of the data bus,
> not width of internal registers. If the later would be the case then the
> 8080 was a 16 but CPU already, because it has 16 bit registers.
> The 8088 is a CPU with 8 bit data bus.

As I said before, data bus width, address bus width, ALU width,
and register width can all be important.

The 8080 A register is 8 bits, and most operations only work on A.

The 8088 AX register is 16 bits. Most operations work on AX.

Address bus tends to be less useful of a measure, as it doesn't
correlate so well. The 4004 didn't have a four bit address bus
for obvious reasons. ALU width and primary register width tend
to be the same, and are usually the most important indicators.

For 64 bit processors, address width (not necessarily address bus)
tends to be most important. It isn't that hard to do 64 bit
math on most 32 bit processors, though a little slower.
For large address space, 64 bits is pretty significant, though.

-- glen

no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
(snip)

> However there are CPUs like the 6809, 68K and a few others
> where the line between 8/16/32bits was a bit fuzzier.

The 6809 Motorola called the missing link between 8 and 16
bit processors. All the complicated addressing modes, and
more 16 bit arithmetic than most 8 bit processors, but otherwise
it looks more like an 8 bit processor.

I might say the 68008 is more questionable than some of
the others.

-- glen

--{ no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net a plopé ceci: }--

> The 486SLC ran with a 16bit bus for low cost low power systems
> I presume you want to make that a 16bitter even though the
> archetecture is still 486 32bit.

The 486SLC have a 16b bus ? Like the 386sx ?

> Point is bus width is not always same as archetecture width.

Ant think about the 68008

--
please describe web 2.0 to me in 2 sentences or less.
you make all the content. they keep all the revenue.

--{ no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net a plopé ceci: }--

> The 486SLC ran with a 16bit bus for low cost low power systems
> I presume you want to make that a 16bitter even though the
> archetecture is still 486 32bit.

The 486SLC have a 16b bus ? Like the 386sx ?

> Point is bus width is not always same as archetecture width.

And think about the 68008

--
please describe web 2.0 to me in 2 sentences or less.
you make all the content. they keep all the revenue.