How many SIG/M disks where there? - CP/M

This is a discussion on How many SIG/M disks where there? - CP/M ; Mr. Emmanuel Roche, France schrieb: > Hello, Udo! > >> DRI, the guys who designed CP/M obviously had a different opinion than >> you. Imagine, they used much PL/M instead of assembler to write CP/M, >> MP/M and lots of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 118

Thread: How many SIG/M disks where there?

  1. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    Mr. Emmanuel Roche, France schrieb:
    > Hello, Udo!
    >
    >> DRI, the guys who designed CP/M obviously had a different opinion than
    >> you. Imagine, they used much PL/M instead of assembler to write CP/M,
    >> MP/M and lots of applications. Complete sources available, with scripts
    >> ready to compile the whole stuff and build bootable disks and use it.
    >> Want to know the URL, or does google work today for you too?

    >
    > I am afraid that you are mistaken. I have disassembled PL/M code during more
    > than 20 years, now. All application programs from Digital Research were
    > written in PL/M. But all the serious stuff (like the BDOS, GSX, CP/NET and
    > all the versions of CP/M) were written in the assembly language of the
    > processor (the only exception seems to be CP/M-68K, which was written in C).
    > (Have a look to what is now available.)


    CP/M before release 1.4 was written in PL/M completely including CCP,
    BDOS and even the BIOS. CP/M 1.4 CCP and BDOS still written in PL/M,
    only BIOS written in assembler. Starting with 2.0 all 3 components were
    written in assembler. I don't know what you disassembled and I better
    don't ask. With regards to CP/M the PL/M sources are available, they can
    be compiled and they do run.
    More serious stuff from DRI, like MP/M was almost completely written in
    PL/M, the whole kernel and most applications, with exception of the
    XBIOS. Sources are available, can be recompiled and do run.
    I haven't had a look only, I got all the sources, modified them,
    compiled them and used the resulting systems, see signature.
    Of course you have complete sources for CP/NET and GSX, or how do you know?

    >> How many Z80 8bit UNIX's did you use? What are your experiences with
    >> this systems? Are they much slower than CP/M on that same computer, or
    >> maybe 2FAST4YOU? UNIX shell too complicated compared to the extremely
    >> minimalistic CCP?

    >
    > About 10 years ago, after using my Epson QX-10 during 15 years, I wondered
    > if I should switch to some kind of Unix. I studied what was available, then.
    > I felt that Minix was the best. I got the book (1st edition) and, after


    So you never ever used a UNIX on a 8bit CPU, but in your opinion this
    can't be used and C and UNIX are viable on 16bit CPU's only? Interesting...

    > studying it, wrote to Andrew Tanenbaum, since he was in Europe. At the time,


    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. Needed a
    while until 16bit platforms were available for home usage, until then I
    had to use UNIX at home on 8bit systems :-( It was not too bad, because
    at work I had tons of 32bit UNIX equipment to play with. CP/M programs
    didn't run on that machines, but all my 8bit UNIX C programs did run on
    the 32bit machines at work, amazing eh?. Well I changed that 1987 when
    16bit UNIX's were available for home usage and I made CP/M working on
    them, so that I never ever would miss this environment I enjoyed so much
    again ;-) And I managed to keep it with me for more than 20 years now,
    hm, quite a long time when I think about it.

    > I was totally alone in France still using CP/M, and all the magazines
    > talking about CP/M were dying one after the other. Finally, I decided to
    > stay with CP/M Plus. Several years later, Rlee Peters told me that some
    > source code from Digital Research were starting to appear. Now, we have
    > probably everything that survived. "Refinements? My friend, they are up to
    > you!" (Gary Kildall, BYTE magazine) So, since nobody else will do it, I will
    > do a TCP/M.


    No need, was done several times.

    > As I wrote in 2005:
    >
    >> Should I remind you that you can do only 6 things
    >> with a computer, be it a Sinclair ZX-80 or a Connection Machine:
    >> 1) word processing
    >> 2) programming
    >> 3) spread-sheet
    >> 4) database
    >> 5) communications
    >> 6) graphics
    >> As long as those 6 needs are satisfied, the computer is a
    >> useful tool. And there are/were standards for those 6 needs
    >> under CP/M: WordStar is obviously the standard for word
    >> processors; BASIC is obviously the standard for programming,
    >> MultiPlan is obviously the standard for spread-sheet, dBase II
    >> is obviously the standard for database; XMODEM is obviously
    >> the (lowest common denominator) standard for communications;
    >> and finally GSX is obviously the standard graphics system for CP/M.


    Which standards are you talking about, ANSI, IEEE, ISO?????

    > Because of the de facto standard of the Internet for communications, XMODEM
    > needs to be replaced by TCP/IP, if we want to continue to use CP/M yet
    > another 15 years.


    Has been done, CP/M can connect via TCP/IP to the Internet anno domini
    2008. Can be used for another 5-10 years, until V4 gets replaced by V6.
    But I'm sure you will fix that little problem by then.

    >> Good luck, let us know when you're done. Would be great fun to finally
    >> have a 'truly portable' TCP/IP stack. Oh, and have a look at BASIC-E, it
    >> is written in PL/M, so chances are good that you get this one running
    >> everywhere then, NOT.

    >
    > Yes, Adam Dunkels (creator of Contiki and uIP) explains that, because TCP/IP
    > comes from Unix, it is big, slow, and complicated. Hence the need for uIP,
    > which seems to be quite successful, according to the number of Web sites
    > dealing with it (on Linux servers!). He got a Ph.D. Thesis for this.


    Is that the complete thesis or your interpretation of it?

    > As for BASIC-E, it is me who retyped the Thesis describing its inner
    > working, not you...
    >
    > Yours Sincerely,
    > Mr. Emmanuel Roche, France


    That is correct, I read the source code and made it working from the
    sources. So I know how it works without retyping the thesis and I have
    no clue why retyping the thesis would have helped me understanding the
    sources, it's not that complicated. Why did you retype that thesis
    anyway? Does it look better than the original? Should I retype it too?
    If yes then why?

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

  2. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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...

  3. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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


  4. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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.



  5. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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

  6. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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.



  7. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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...

  8. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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...

  9. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    *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.

  10. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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


  11. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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



  12. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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



  13. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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...

  14. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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.


  15. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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

  16. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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


  17. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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


  18. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    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


  19. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    --{ 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.

  20. Re: How many SIG/M disks where there?

    --{ 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.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast