eFrom: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 10 May 2000 04:10:09 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 12 Message-ID: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55797 Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? This was a common battle and ironically, today, its sort of deja vu all over again. What was the best Intel 8080 system? What was the best Motorola 6800 system? Eric ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 10 May 00 19:21:46 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 17 Message-ID: <486.165T2325T11616058@sky.bus.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919A7EB.76F0@compuserve.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-307.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news1 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55878 In article mario@klebsch.de (Mario Klebsch) writes: >Sam Yorko writes: > >>From a hardware standpoint, the 6800 was better than the 8080 >>because it only required +5v, while the 8080 required two or >>three power supplies. > >not to mention two non-overlapping clock signals. Argh!!!! And (IIRC) the clocks were not TTL levels. -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 10 May 00 19:24:57 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 16 Message-ID: <531.165T2888T11645777@sky.bus.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <3919b333$0$73584@news.execpc.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-308.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news1 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55880 In article <3919b333$0$73584@news.execpc.com> snevets@execpc.com (Robert J. Stevens) writes: >How about a Z8400A and a Z8420A and a Z8440A . Were they versions of >the Z80??? I have a set Of IMS boards out of a multiuser system that >ran TurboDos back the early 1880's Ah, TurboDOS - what CP/M could have become. I did some work on an IMS box. Those Z-80Bs (6 MHz) ran too fast to play Ladder on. But 1880s? Babbage was so close... -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 11 May 00 17:39:45 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 26 Message-ID: <900.166T2298T10595639@sky.bus.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-718.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news1 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55960 In article dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa) writes: >The real odd duck was a place called Ohio Scientific. They sold >boards that could have a 8080/Z-80, 6800, and a 6502 installed, >and running silmultaneously. They also sold the C3B, a system that contained those boards and a hard drive, for a mere $10K. If I dig through my oldest issues of Byte I could probably find ads for it. Some might still have dried drops of drool on them. >There were some hobbiests ^^^^^^^^^ The spelling is "hobbyist", someone who has a hobby - unless you're using it in a sentence like: "He's the hobbiest person I've ever met." >This country needs a lot of kids that think its more fun to take >the lawnmowers' engine apart than play nintendo. Amen. That one's a keeper. -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 00 11:04:33 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 35 Message-ID: <1236.167T1657T6645318@sky.bus.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <2000May12.072332.26102@lorelei.approve.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-231.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news2 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56136 In article <2000May12.072332.26102@lorelei.approve.se> hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) writes: >In article <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz>, >Don Stokes wrote: > >> Er, did it? I seem to recall that while you could load/save 16 bit >> values into BC and CD, only HL could be used as an indirect address, >> and this was the case on the 8080 and Z80. > > Mnemonic Opcode > --------- ------ > LD (BC),A 02 > LD (DE),A 12 > LD A,(BC) 0A > LD A,(DE) 1A Or STAX B, STAX D, LDAX B, and LDAX D for us 8080 stalwarts. >> Not that many. IX & IY, block operations (LDIR & friends) and the >> shadow register set were the biggies. What else was there? > >Relative jumps, DJNZ, V-flag, in/out with port# in C, bit >set/reset/test, shift/rotate, new interrupt modes, DRAM refresh, >16 bit ADC/SBC, more 16 bit load/stores on BC and DE, single 5V >supply, single phase TTL compatible clock. Plus operation at 4 MHz (later 6 - did it get to 8?). Yes, the Z-80 had a lot to offer over the 8080. I just could never stand those damned Zilog mnemonics. -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 00 08:42:07 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 33 Message-ID: <8fje6s$o98$1@bob.news.rcn.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <900.166T2298T10595639@sky.bus.com> X-Trace: obJHhviczcwKAJkSDlVN1cIavQ5lbWpP17HfiOa2sPE= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 May 2000 11:27:24 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!europa.netcrusader.net!207.172.3.37!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!207-172-216-247 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56158 In article <900.166T2298T10595639@sky.bus.com>, "Charlie Gibbs" wrote: >In article dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa) >writes: > >>The real odd duck was a place called Ohio Scientific. They sold >>boards that could have a 8080/Z-80, 6800, and a 6502 installed, >>and running silmultaneously. > >They also sold the C3B, a system that contained those boards and >a hard drive, for a mere $10K. If I dig through my oldest issues >of Byte I could probably find ads for it. Some might still have >dried drops of drool on them. > >>There were some hobbiests > ^^^^^^^^^ >The spelling is "hobbyist", someone who has a hobby - unless you're >using it in a sentence like: "He's the hobbiest person I've ever met." The one true rule of English spelling is that there is always an exception. > >>This country needs a lot of kids that think its more fun to take >>the lawnmowers' engine apart than play nintendo. > >Amen. That one's a keeper. > Harumph!! Then don't put damn computers in the lawn mower. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 13 May 00 20:26:13 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 18 Message-ID: <768.168T688T12263501@sky.bus.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919A7EB.76F0@compuserve.com> <8fjh19$ph7$1@nina.pacific.net.au> <391D7723.E32759F6@earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-503.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.stanford.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news2 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56223 In article <391D7723.E32759F6@earthlink.net> jchausler@earthlink.net (jchausler) writes: >(What was the AMD 9080?? It seems to plug into an 8080 socket). It was their clone of the 8080. When I built my IMSAI, it worked properly except that the 8080 chip was slightly bad - it treated all conditional returns as unconditional. So I went down to my local electronics supplier and asked for an 8080 chip. The guy behind the counter went into the back and brought out a tube of AMD 9080s (A tube of CPUs! I almost died) and handed me one. "What's this?" I asked. "This isn't an 8080." "Same thing," he said. I put it into my IMSAI and it's running there to this day. -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### From: Steve McKenna Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.532 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 19 Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 09:51:57 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.112.22.234 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news2.rdc1.on.home.com 957952317 24.112.22.234 (Wed, 10 May 2000 02:51:57 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 02:51:57 PDT Organization: @Home Network Canada Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news2.rdc1.on.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55864 I always thought the Motorola was a better design. IIRC it had a linera address space -- you didn't have to mess with registers to get a different memory segments. On 10 May 2000 04:10:09 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: >Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor >systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the >Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? > >This was a common battle and ironically, today, its sort of deja vu all >over again. > >What was the best Intel 8080 system? > >What was the best Motorola 6800 system? > >Eric ###### From: glass2@glass2.lexington.ibm.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 10 May 2000 15:18:59 GMT Organization: IBM Austin Lines: 76 Message-ID: <8fbul3$1a40$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> Reply-To: wa4qal@vnet.ibm.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glass2.cv.lexington.ibm.com X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!an02.austin.ibm.com!ausnews.austin.ibm.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55839 In <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu>, aje9383@osfmail.isc.rit.edu (Andrew Erickson) writes: >In article , >Steve McKenna wrote: >>I always thought the Motorola was a better design. IIRC it had a >>linera address space -- you didn't have to mess with registers to get >>a different memory segments. > >Nor, in defense of Intel, did you for the 8080 (eighty eighty); it also >had a 64K linear address space. Segments came with the 8086/8088 which >Intel decided had to have a larger address space while maintaining some >level of backwards compatibility. And if you limited yourself to a 64K >address space on the 8088 or 8086, you didn't need to worry about those >segment registers, either. > >Motorola didn't try to increase the address space beyond 64K for a true >descendant of the 6800. (The 68000 hardly counts; although some things >are a bit similar to the 6809, it's obviously a completely new design.) >(Okay, Motorola did offer a little MMU for the 6809, but that's not the >same thing, either.) The closest thing I know of is the 65816, sort of >a bigger 6502; and it had segments, too. > >>On 10 May 2000 04:10:09 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: >> >>>Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor >>>systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the >>>Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? > >What about the 8008? Slow, limited, but still availiable. > >I guess I prefer the 6800, but that's based on later development of the >two designs more than on the actual merits of either. The 6800 was the >easier of the two to understand, but the 8080 may have had a small edge >on performance. Maybe. > >Once the 6502 came out, it was far and away the best deal, although not >without some very annoying limitations. (One very maddening one is the >eight-bit stack pointer, which effectively prevented easy recursion and >multiple processes.) Still, at one-fourth the cost of anything else, I >think it was pretty neat. > >>>This was a common battle and ironically, today, its sort of deja vu all >>>over again. >>> >>>What was the best Intel 8080 system? > >Weren't most of them more-or-less generic S100 systems? > >>>What was the best Motorola 6800 system? > >(TRS-80s were 6800 based, weren't they? They were okay.) > >-- >Andrew Erickson No, TRS-80s were not 6800 based. I'm not sure if they were Z80, 8080, or some other variant, though (That's going back a LONG time!). Probably one of the most popular items to get people started with microprocessors was the Heathkit ET-3400 trainer (I hope I've got that number correct.). It was a Motorola 6800 based board, with 256 bytes of (static) RAM, a monitor ROM, a hexadecimal keypad, and six 7-segment LEDs. Oh, and it also had a prototype area and brought the bus lines out so you could add additional features (I think the 6820 parallel interface chip was one of the more popular additions, although I played around with the 6850 asynch chip. And, I still have a pile of 2114 chips where I was going to add memory.). Of course, the SWTP-6800 was another box that I lusted after. What were some of the other 6800 based systems? Did anyone else ever get to play with the Motorola development system for the 68xx chips? I think it was called the ExOrciser, or something like that. Dave P.S. Standard Disclaimer: I work for them, but I don't speak for them. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 10 May 2000 15:29:07 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 41 Message-ID: <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55803 Andrew Erickson wrote: : In article , [...] : What about the 8008? Slow, limited, but still availiable. I'm not sure if it was in any SUCCESSFUL systems. I do recall seeing a system with an 8008, name started with an "S" as I recall. : I guess I prefer the 6800, but that's based on later development of the : two designs more than on the actual merits of either. The 6800 was the : easier of the two to understand, but the 8080 may have had a small edge : on performance. Maybe. I don't think that the 8080 had an edge anywhere including performance. The three voltage levels on the 8080 compared to the 6800 +5v really made the 6800 better from a design point-of-view. : Once the 6502 came out, it was far and away the best deal, although not : without some very annoying limitations. (One very maddening one is the : eight-bit stack pointer, which effectively prevented easy recursion and : multiple processes.) Still, at one-fourth the cost of anything else, I : think it was pretty neat. Yes, Wozniak's decision to use the 6502 for the Apple computer. : >>What was the best Intel 8080 system? : Weren't most of them more-or-less generic S100 systems? There was no such thing as "generic S100 system" back then as maybe version of S100 existed. Sol-20 was one of the better ones, IMO. Thiugh the IMSAI was a decent system as well. I think the Z-80 saved the S100 at least until the PC came along. : >>What was the best Motorola 6800 system? : (TRS-80s were 6800 based, weren't they? They were okay.) Nope, Z-80, at least the model 1. The TRS-Color Computers used 6809s. Eric ###### From: korpela@islay.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 10 May 2000 15:39:53 GMT Organization: Cal Berkeley-- Space Sciences Lab Lines: 27 Message-ID: <8fbvs9$g84$1@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: islay.ssl.berkeley.edu X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 957973193 16644 128.32.98.192 (10 May 2000 15:39:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 May 2000 15:39:53 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-xfer.siscom.net!tig-news-siscom-out-1.ihug.net.MISMATCH!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!128.32.206.60.MISMATCH!news-hog.berkeley.edu!agate.berkeley.edu!agate!islay.ssl.berkeley.edu!korpela Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55810 In article , Steve McKenna wrote: [Order rearanged] >On 10 May 2000 04:10:09 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: > >>Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor >>systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the >>Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? > >I always thought the Motorola was a better design. IIRC it had a >linera address space -- you didn't have to mess with registers to get >a different memory segments. Um, I think you're a couple processor generations off. Note it says 6800, not 68000, and 8080, not 8086. Both processors had 64K non-segmented addressing. IMHO, the 8080 was superior in register count, register width, and instruction set. The 6800 had better indexing, but index registers were 8 bits, IIRC. ISTR, that the hardware for interfacing to memory and devices was simpler with the 6800, as well. I couldn't really tell you which had the speed edge (in contemporary processors). Eric -- Eric Korpela | An object at rest can never be korpela@ssl.berkeley.edu | stopped. Click for home page. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: "Ralph Wade Phillips" Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 129.172.150.167 Message-ID: X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Lines: 20 Sender: nntp@news.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access) Organization: Phillips Enterprises X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:44:24 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeeds.nerdc.ufl.edu!clearspring.com!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!xyzzy!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55780 Howdy! Andrew Erickson wrote in message <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu>... > >(TRS-80s were 6800 based, weren't they? They were okay.) Nope, Zilog Z80 based all the way! (Says a gent who learned assembly on the Z80 in his TRS-80 Microcomputer, no model number ... ) The Color Computer had a 6809, and the Model 16 had a 68000, but all others until the PClones had Z80's. RwP ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY From: aje9383@osfmail.isc.rit.edu (Andrew Erickson) NNTP-Posting-Host: grace.isc.rit.edu X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: grace.isc.rit.edu Message-ID: <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> Date: 10 May 2000 10:51:45 -0500 X-Trace: 10 May 2000 10:51:45 -0500, grace.isc.rit.edu Lines: 52 XPident: aje9383 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.21.4.100 XPident: Unknown Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.nyu.edu!news-nysernet-16.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.isc.rit.edu!aje9383 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55753 In article , Steve McKenna wrote: >I always thought the Motorola was a better design. IIRC it had a >linera address space -- you didn't have to mess with registers to get >a different memory segments. Nor, in defense of Intel, did you for the 8080 (eighty eighty); it also had a 64K linear address space. Segments came with the 8086/8088 which Intel decided had to have a larger address space while maintaining some level of backwards compatibility. And if you limited yourself to a 64K address space on the 8088 or 8086, you didn't need to worry about those segment registers, either. Motorola didn't try to increase the address space beyond 64K for a true descendant of the 6800. (The 68000 hardly counts; although some things are a bit similar to the 6809, it's obviously a completely new design.) (Okay, Motorola did offer a little MMU for the 6809, but that's not the same thing, either.) The closest thing I know of is the 65816, sort of a bigger 6502; and it had segments, too. >On 10 May 2000 04:10:09 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: > >>Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor >>systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the >>Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? What about the 8008? Slow, limited, but still availiable. I guess I prefer the 6800, but that's based on later development of the two designs more than on the actual merits of either. The 6800 was the easier of the two to understand, but the 8080 may have had a small edge on performance. Maybe. Once the 6502 came out, it was far and away the best deal, although not without some very annoying limitations. (One very maddening one is the eight-bit stack pointer, which effectively prevented easy recursion and multiple processes.) Still, at one-fourth the cost of anything else, I think it was pretty neat. >>This was a common battle and ironically, today, its sort of deja vu all >>over again. >> >>What was the best Intel 8080 system? Weren't most of them more-or-less generic S100 systems? >>What was the best Motorola 6800 system? (TRS-80s were 6800 based, weren't they? They were okay.) -- Andrew Erickson ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 22 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:56:31 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-8jtv/DjF8KkWHKRT+Mbx/lkLf014fbbcJM1S3UkVGfddMlqL6IGqx52PSy84gNk6U6Ijpfdgp8O/2cv!48pbvEm13Ey1U2IdafbNtg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:56:31 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news6.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55766 On 10 May 2000 10:51:45 -0500, Andrew Erickson wrote: >Once the 6502 came out, it was far and away the best deal, although not >without some very annoying limitations. (One very maddening one is the >eight-bit stack pointer, which effectively prevented easy recursion and >multiple processes.) Still, at one-fourth the cost of anything else, I >think it was pretty neat. Gack. The 6502 was annoyingly limited to someone who was used to working with CPUs that actually had registers on them. The 6502's pitifully small register set was extremely limiting, and a royal pain to deal with. Yes, the 8080 had its faults, many of them. The Z-80 corrected those, compatibly, and was a much more pleasant chip to use, both in hardware design and software. There was a time when I'd use a Z-80 with ROM and a couple of latches to do embedded-micro projects. No RAM at all. Made the glue logic requirements quite trivial. Try THAT with a 6502. >(TRS-80s were 6800 based, weren't they? They were okay.) Z-80, and largely because of their ease of design. ###### From: korpela@islay.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 10 May 2000 15:56:39 GMT Organization: Cal Berkeley-- Space Sciences Lab Lines: 24 Message-ID: <8fc0rn$gb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: islay.ssl.berkeley.edu X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 957974199 16739 128.32.98.192 (10 May 2000 15:56:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 May 2000 15:56:39 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!agate.berkeley.edu!agate!islay.ssl.berkeley.edu!korpela Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55813 In article <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: >: (TRS-80s were 6800 based, weren't they? They were okay.) > >Nope, Z-80, at least the model 1. Z-80 in the Model 1,2,3,4,4D,4P,12 and probably some others Z-80+68000 in the Model 16 series and later Tandy 6000 series 8085 in the Model 100 series and Model 200 series >The TRS-Color Computers used 6809s. I thought CoCos didn't get 6809s until the CoCo 3. ISTR that the CoCo and CoCo 2 used an earlier 6800 descendant. 6802? 6803? Anyone remember what processor the MicroCoCo used? Z-80? Eric -- Eric Korpela | An object at rest can never be korpela@ssl.berkeley.edu | stopped. Click for home page. ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fc0rn$gb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:00:40 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-Z8D2UANIFLR+H6Q+do7GckQJPwa5ao1Bn5LhHEWgBhDmLFIUViiGYz4pCAemqFWqMJaM5ROJzOkyLAR!RUIyS43xDJ57OksTBQq9eg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:00:40 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!outgoing.news.rcn.net.MISMATCH!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55758 On 10 May 2000 15:56:39 GMT, Eric J. Korpela wrote: >I thought CoCos didn't get 6809s until the CoCo 3. ISTR that the CoCo >and CoCo 2 used an earlier 6800 descendant. 6802? 6803? Nope, they were 6809 from the beginning. >Anyone remember what processor the MicroCoCo used? Z-80? If you mean the MC-10, it used a 6805. (I still have one of these, along with the 16K expansion blob.) ###### From: blackm00@cam.org (Michael Black) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> X-Forwarded: by - (CAM) Lines: 68 Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:10:59 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.168.100.7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@videotron.net X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 957975059 198.168.100.7 (Wed, 10 May 2000 12:10:59 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:10:59 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!nf1.mgmt.sympatico.ca!news1.bellglobal.com!wesley.videotron.net!weber.videotron.net.POSTED!usrh-5-7.hip.cam.org!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55850 In article <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? > > This was a common battle and ironically, today, its sort of deja vu all > over again. > > What was the best Intel 8080 system? > > What was the best Motorola 6800 system? > > Eric You're going to have to go back further in time in order to make that statement. The 8080 and the 6800 had to be available in 1974, though quite expensive. And since that is in some ways before the dawn of time, I couldn't say what other microprocessors might be available (other than the obvious 4004 and 8008 that obviously predated the 8080). In the November (or maybe the October of December) 1975 issue of Byte, there wsa n article about this newcomer that had the terribly exciting feature of being introduced at a price of about $20, when all the other CPUs were still an awful lot more in single quantities. Of course, that CPU was the 6502. It would have been that fall too that Godbout was having a contest to name their new system based on a mystery 16-bit CPU, which turned out to be the PACE from National Semiconductor. In 1976, Popular Electronics ran that series of articles about building the COSMAC Elf. And I must assume the CPU had been around for a while at that point. I can't remember when the Z80 arrived, but without looking I'd say it was in the hobby magazines in 1976. I remember thinking that the next generation from the 8080 had come pretty fast. People were debating upgrading the Z80 so soon after the arrival of the first home computer. Through 1977, when the consumer type computers like the Radio Shack, Commodore and Apple II arrived, if there was a CPU there probably was a system for it. There was a construction article for the Signetics CPU in Radio Electronics, and it was the usual construction article that happened to also be available as a kit. And there was a video game using the Fairchild CPU that someone wanted to turn into a color display or something in Kilobaud that year. If anything, there was a far more diverse situation in the early days than there are now. By twenty years ago, the 8088 and the 68000 were available, and I think there may have even been computers for the hobbyiest using them, such as from Godbout. And if you are rounding things off, twenty years ago could also mean 19 years ago, at which point the IBM hit the scene and plenty changed. You really can't round things off when talking about those early days, because things moved so fast. Things have really slowed down in more recent years, with the real change being how fast a CPU runs and how much memory it takes. Michael ###### From: Steve O'Hara-Smith Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.0-STABLE (i386)) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 17:17:08 +0100 Message-ID: <422cf8.3o.ln@localhost.my.domain> Lines: 7 NNTP-Posting-Host: shell16.ba.best.com X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 957975796 204 sohara@206.184.139.148 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!skynet.be!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!news1.best.com!news3.best.com!nntp1.ba.best.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55827 Andrew Erickson wrote: > In article , > Steve McKenna wrote: > (TRS-80s were 6800 based, weren't they? They were okay.) Nope, Z80 based. The Tandy color computer was a 6809 though. ###### From: blackm00@cam.org (Michael Black) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> X-Forwarded: by - (CAM) Lines: 33 Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:20:51 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.168.100.7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@videotron.net X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 957975651 198.168.100.7 (Wed, 10 May 2000 12:20:51 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:20:51 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!blackbush.xlink.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!torn!nf1.mgmt.sympatico.ca!news1.bellglobal.com!wesley.videotron.net!weber.videotron.net.POSTED!usrh-5-7.hip.cam.org!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55851 In article <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: > Andrew Erickson wrote: > : In article , > [...] > : What about the 8008? Slow, limited, but still availiable. > > I'm not sure if it was in any SUCCESSFUL systems. I do recall seeing a > system with an 8008, name started with an "S" as I recall. > It was the Scelbi. It may have been around before the Mark-8, that appeared on the cover of Radio Electronics for August 1974. Scelbi later got out of the hardware business, but sold books about computers and software that I gather was useful at the time. What is "successful"? Before there were home computer kits, there was a limited number of people who had considered owning their own computer. Once the kits starting hitting the market, that small number obviously were the ones who made up most of the customers. Then the companies had to deal with selling the idea of a small computer, before they could sell the computers. Why did the Altair sell so well, and the Mark-8 didn't? I seriously doubt it was an issue of the 8008 being too inferior a CPU. At that date, most people didn't even know what they wanted to do with a computer, let alone know much about them. There had to be some reason, maybe lack of visibility, that put the Mark-8 in the also ran category. I can't get to the article easily to check if it was available as a kit, though I would think it was. And of course it is all relative, since it was my understanding that the Mark-8 was quite popular for the time; it only pales in comparison with what came later. Michael ###### From: nailed_barnacleSPAMFREE@hotmail.com (barnacle) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 17:31:38 GMT Organization: [posted via Easynet Ltd] Lines: 30 Message-ID: <8fc6e0$1k2g$2@quince.news.easynet.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: nbarnes.easynet.co.uk X-Trace: quince.news.easynet.net 957979904 53328 194.154.98.206 (10 May 2000 17:31:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynet.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 May 2000 17:31:44 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!easynet-tele!easynet.net!quince.news.easynet.net!egbert Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55843 In article , blackm00@cam.org (Michael Black) wrote: >By twenty years ago, the 8088 and the 68000 were available, and I >think there may have even been computers for the hobbyiest using them, >such as from Godbout. > >And if you are rounding things off, twenty years ago could also >mean 19 years ago, at which point the IBM hit the scene and plenty >changed. > >You really can't round things off when talking about those early days, >because things moved so fast. > >Things have really slowed down in more recent years, with the real >change being how fast a CPU runs and how much memory it takes. > > Michael Around 20 years ago, we ripped out our existing remote control camera pedestals and replaced them with shiny new ones. These included controller and router panels, each of which used 8086s with forth as a control/diagnostic language. We used to hook up a terminal and play chess with the cameras (when we weren't programming them to dance in the studio!) They also had lots of comms, but we never got round to building a distributed system... -- barnacle http://www.nailed-barnacle.co.uk ###### From: Sam Yorko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:18:19 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 12 Message-ID: <3919A7EB.76F0@compuserve.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55769 Steve McKenna wrote: > > > >What was the best Intel 8080 system? > > > >What was the best Motorola 6800 system? > > > >Eric From a hardware standpoint, the 6800 was better than the 8080 because it only required +5v, while the 8080 required two or three power supplies. Sam ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fc0rn$gb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> Organization: Best Internet Communications, Inc. X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72+ked.01 (05 September 1999) From: bauer@shell3.ba.best.com (Jerry Bauer) Date: 10 May 2000 18:26:57 GMT Lines: 39 Message-ID: <3919a9f1$0$217@nntp1.ba.best.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell3.ba.best.com X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 957983217 217 bauer@206.184.139.134 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news1.best.com!news3.best.com!nntp1.ba.best.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55788 In article , Jay Maynard wrote: >On 10 May 2000 15:56:39 GMT, Eric J. Korpela > wrote: >>I thought CoCos didn't get 6809s until the CoCo 3. ISTR that the CoCo >>and CoCo 2 used an earlier 6800 descendant. 6802? 6803? > >Nope, they were 6809 from the beginning. > >>Anyone remember what processor the MicroCoCo used? Z-80? > >If you mean the MC-10, it used a 6805. (I still have one of these, along >with the 16K expansion blob.) You mipsledded "6803". The 6803 was a microprocessor subset of the 6801, which adopted several of the features of the 6809. The 6805 was a very low-end microcontroller. The 6801 was a high-end microcontroller. (In this context, a microcontroller is a microprocessor with on-chip program and data memory, and on-chip peripherals.) The 6809 microprocessor was kinda cool -- it tried to stake out a middle ground between 8-bitters and 16-bitters. It also had hardware multiply, a rare feature at the time. The thing that _made_ the COCOs was the 6883 SAM (Sequential Address Multiplexer) chip. It duplexed the dynamic system RAM between the processor and the video, and handled RAM refresh. In the Apple ][, Steve Wozniak did this with 74XX-series counters and gates, and mangled the video address space to reduce chip count, i.e. cost. In the Apple //e, Walt Broedner did this with a custom circuit, retaining the mangled mapping for compatibility. Jerry Randal Bauer ###### From: "Adam Atkinson" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 10 May 2000 18:28:23 +0000 Organization: Collegio Pierpaoli, Montaguzzo Lines: 15 Message-ID: <568.165T1194T11083451ghira@mistral.co.uk> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fc0rn$gb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: d224-5.dial.mistral.co.uk X-Trace: localhost.localdomain 957979946 27364 195.184.224.5 (10 May 2000 17:32:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@mistral-uk.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 May 2000 17:32:26 GMT X-No-Ahbou: yes X-Newsreader: THOR 2.6a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!do.de.uu.net!newsfeed.esat.net!diablo.theplanet.net!peer.news.th.u-net.net!u-net!insnet.net!nntp.mistral.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55831 On 10-May-00 15:56:39, Eric J. Korpela said: >>The TRS-Color Computers used 6809s. >I thought CoCos didn't get 6809s until the CoCo 3. ISTR that the CoCo >and CoCo 2 used an earlier 6800 descendant. 6802? 6803? I had a Dragon32, which seemed to all intents and purposes to be a Tandy CoCo in a different box, and it definitely had a 6809E. -- Adam Atkinson (ghira@mistral.co.uk) Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your own home. (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman) ###### From: pete@fenelon.com (Pete Fenelon) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbul3$1a40$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990216 ("Styrofoam") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.13 (i586)) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 19:35:30 +0100 Message-ID: Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: man-054.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Trace: news.zetnet.co.uk 957984398 31673 news@194.247.41.67 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!nyc-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!master.news.zetnet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55767 glass2@glass2.lexington.ibm.com wrote: >>(TRS-80s were 6800 based, weren't they? They were okay.) >> >>-- >>Andrew Erickson > No, TRS-80s were not 6800 based. I'm not sure if they were Z80, 8080, or > some other variant, though (That's going back a LONG time!). The classic TRS-80s were Z80-based. However, there was the Model 16 (68000 running Xenix, Z80 doing I/O), the Color Computer (6809, a lovely CPU but a rather nasty machine) and the MC10 which used one of the microcontroller-y 680x chips (I think a 6803?). However, the CoCo and the MC10 came rather later. pete -- pete@fenelon.com "We ask ourselves what will become of Evil Gazebo?" (HMHB) ###### From: pete@fenelon.com (Pete Fenelon) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fc0rn$gb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <568.165T1194T11083451ghira@mistral.co.uk> User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990216 ("Styrofoam") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.13 (i586)) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 19:36:41 +0100 Message-ID: Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Host: man-054.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Trace: news.zetnet.co.uk 957984400 31673 news@194.247.41.67 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!peernews.manap.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!master.news.zetnet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55770 Adam Atkinson wrote: > I had a Dragon32, which seemed to all intents and purposes to be a > Tandy CoCo in a different box, and it definitely had a 6809E. With, if I remember rightly, just enough changes made to the BASIC and the ROM entry points to make CoCo software not run without a bit of munging.... And that bloody awful keyboard and uppercase only display. pete -- pete@fenelon.com "We ask ourselves what will become of Evil Gazebo?" (HMHB) ###### From: pete@fenelon.com (Pete Fenelon) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990216 ("Styrofoam") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.13 (i586)) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 19:37:30 +0100 Message-ID: Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Host: man-054.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Trace: news.zetnet.co.uk 957984401 31673 news@194.247.41.67 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!master.news.zetnet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55765 Jay Maynard wrote: > Gack. > The 6502 was annoyingly limited to someone who was used to working with CPUs > that actually had registers on them. The 6502's pitifully small register set > was extremely limiting, and a royal pain to deal with. Depends whether you think of zero-page as registers or memory :) pete -- pete@fenelon.com "We ask ourselves what will become of Evil Gazebo?" (HMHB) ###### Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:05:12 -0500 From: "Robert J. Stevens" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 Message-ID: <3919b333$0$73584@news.execpc.com> Organization: ExecPC Internet - Milwaukee, WI NNTP-Posting-Host: 6b447a2f.news.execpc.com X-Trace: 0RW8S?BXNabI5[332>a9YkbfNiaEHUgJgRYcgIRLSUEmSA4lga@^nKeLigF?1X?>UdSDdbIEfnXb`6FPGH=J`jAo^bZB]W<3Ecl X-Complaints-To: abuse@execpc.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!nyc-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!cyclone.i1.net!newspump.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net!posts0.nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!posts.news.execpc.com!reader2-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55785 How about a Z8400A and a Z8420A and a Z8440A . Were they versions of the Z80??? I have a set Of IMS boards out of a multiuser system that ran TurboDos back the early 1880's Bob in wisconsin. Roger Blake wrote: > On Wed, 10 May 2000 15:56:31 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote: > >Yes, the 8080 had its faults, many of them. The Z-80 corrected those, > > Anyone here ever work with the Z8000? Never did myself, though I still > have my "Captain Zilog" comic book and poster. (Zap that stack pointer! > Geez, Boss, all these registers are general!!) > > -- > Roger Blake > (remove second "g" and second "m" from address for email) ###### Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:06:58 -0500 From: "Robert J. Stevens" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 75 Message-ID: <3919b39e$0$73584@news.execpc.com> Organization: ExecPC Internet - Milwaukee, WI NNTP-Posting-Host: 6b447a2f.news.execpc.com X-Trace: 0RW8S?BXNaRI5[332>a9Y[bfNiaEHUgJWRYcgIRLSUE]SA4lga@^nKUdmJZU>RFIJTSDdbIEfnXbP6FPGH=J`jA_^bZB]W<3Ec\ X-Complaints-To: abuse@execpc.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!nyc-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!triton.skycache.com!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!newspump.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net!posts0.nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!posts.news.execpc.com!reader2-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55789 Yes; the Intel 4004 that was what the Original DataPoints used. seems to me that it took 7.3 MS for and Add. WOW really fast Bob in Wisconsin Michael Black wrote: > In article <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: > > > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor > > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the > > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? > > > > This was a common battle and ironically, today, its sort of deja vu all > > over again. > > > > What was the best Intel 8080 system? > > > > What was the best Motorola 6800 system? > > > > Eric > > You're going to have to go back further in time in order to make that > statement. > > The 8080 and the 6800 had to be available in 1974, though quite expensive. > And since that is in some ways before the dawn of time, I couldn't > say what other microprocessors might be available (other than the > obvious 4004 and 8008 that obviously predated the 8080). > > In the November (or maybe the October of December) 1975 issue of Byte, > there wsa n article about this newcomer that had the terribly exciting > feature of being introduced at a price of about $20, when all the other > CPUs were still an awful lot more in single quantities. Of course, > that CPU was the 6502. > > It would have been that fall too that Godbout was having a contest to > name their new system based on a mystery 16-bit CPU, which turned out > to be the PACE from National Semiconductor. > > In 1976, Popular Electronics ran that series of articles about building > the COSMAC Elf. And I must assume the CPU had been around for a while > at that point. > > I can't remember when the Z80 arrived, but without looking I'd say > it was in the hobby magazines in 1976. I remember thinking that the > next generation from the 8080 had come pretty fast. People were debating > upgrading the Z80 so soon after the arrival of the first home computer. > > Through 1977, when the consumer type computers like the Radio Shack, > Commodore and Apple II arrived, if there was a CPU there probably was > a system for it. There was a construction article for the Signetics > CPU in Radio Electronics, and it was the usual construction article > that happened to also be available as a kit. And there was a video > game using the Fairchild CPU that someone wanted to turn into a color > display or something in Kilobaud that year. > > If anything, there was a far more diverse situation in the early days > than there are now. > > By twenty years ago, the 8088 and the 68000 were available, and I > think there may have even been computers for the hobbyiest using them, > such as from Godbout. > > And if you are rounding things off, twenty years ago could also > mean 19 years ago, at which point the IBM hit the scene and plenty > changed. > > You really can't round things off when talking about those early days, > because things moved so fast. > > Things have really slowed down in more recent years, with the real > change being how fast a CPU runs and how much memory it takes. > > Michael ###### From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:55:41 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 16 Message-ID: <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!europa.netcrusader.net!209.150.97.11!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55874 Eric Chomko wrote: > > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? Ever heard of TI 9900? How about the Digital PDP-8 in a chip? Fairchild F-8? National Semiconductor (was it 1802?)? These just off the top of my head. The 8086 came out in 1977; Was that ''over 20 years ago''? Are you talking a specific year and month? Bill Tucson, AZ ###### From: mario@klebsch.de (Mario Klebsch) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 22:06:18 +0200 Organization: T-Online Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919A7EB.76F0@compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.t-online.com 957990416 17 32730 340014289748-0001 000510 20:26:56 X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.de X-Sender: 340014289748-0001@t-dialin.net X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #121 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.btx.dtag.de!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55896 Sam Yorko writes: >From a hardware standpoint, the 6800 was better than the 8080 because it >only required +5v, while the 8080 required two or three power supplies. not to mention two non-overlapping clock signals. Argh!!!! 73, Mario -- Mario Klebsch mario@klebsch.de ###### From: mario@klebsch.de (Mario Klebsch) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 22:12:53 +0200 Organization: T-Online Lines: 21 Message-ID: <5sfcf8.6gl.ln@ds9.klebsch.de> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.t-online.com 957990417 17 32730 340014289748-0001 000510 20:26:57 X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.de X-Sender: 340014289748-0001@t-dialin.net X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #121 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.btx.dtag.de!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55895 jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes: >The 6502 was annoyingly limited to someone who was used to working with CPUs >that actually had registers on them. I first learnded Z80 and got in touch with the 6502 later. My first thoughts were as yours, ... >The 6502's pitifully small register set >was extremely limiting, and a royal pain to deal with. ..., but the Situation changes dramatically, when you consider the zeropage as being a register set of 256 registers. Whit this attitude, the CPU suddenly had more than enough registers for almost everything. Too sad, the stack limitation could not be solved that easily. 73, Mario -- Mario Klebsch mario@klebsch.de ###### From: John Ahlstrom Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:15:49 -0700 Organization: Ye 'Ol Disorganized NNTPCache groupie Lines: 16 Message-ID: <3919C375.85692011@cisco.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cache-Post-Path: sj-nntpcache-5!unknown@dhcp-vm21-85-213.cisco.com X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!diablo.theplanet.net!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55927 Wm Davidow was marketing vp or something at Intel in the 8086/68000 wars. He won and wrote a book about why. It was marketing not engineering that won the war. http://www.abebooks.com has many used copies. Amazon etc. have new ones. If you are interested in the relationships between technology and marketing this is a great book. JKA -- You're in marketing, you don't need to understand that. ###### Message-ID: <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:25:48 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader3.news.uu.net 957990349 24072 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!spool1.news.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader3.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55900 bill_h wrote: > > Eric Chomko wrote: > > > > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor > > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the > > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? > > Ever heard of TI 9900? How about the Digital PDP-8 in a chip? The "PDP-8 in a chip" was an Intersil design. > Fairchild F-8? National Semiconductor (was it 1802?)? National Semiconductor had the SCAMP; the 1802 was RCA. Yes, all over 20 years ago. Tim. ###### From: "Adam Atkinson" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 10 May 2000 20:31:51 +0000 Organization: Collegio Pierpaoli, Montaguzzo Lines: 26 Message-ID: <1030.165T2584T12314641ghira@mistral.co.uk> References: <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fc0rn$gb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <568.165T1194T11083451ghira@mistral.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: d224-171.dial.mistral.co.uk X-Trace: localhost.localdomain 957987219 27930 195.184.224.171 (10 May 2000 19:33:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@mistral-uk.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 May 2000 19:33:39 GMT X-No-Ahbou: yes X-Newsreader: THOR 2.6a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!easynet-tele!easynet.net!insnet.net!nntp.mistral.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55833 On 10-May-00 18:36:41, Pete Fenelon said: >> I had a Dragon32, which seemed to all intents and purposes to be a >> Tandy CoCo in a different box, and it definitely had a 6809E. >With, if I remember rightly, just enough changes made to the BASIC and >the ROM entry points to make CoCo software not run without a bit of >munging.... ISTR that getting CoCo stuff to work wasn't too hard. >And that bloody awful keyboard and uppercase only display. The keyboard was absolutely shocking, yes. There was a small machine code program that made the damned thing read the keys a lot faster though. And the 32x16 (?) text display was pretty dire, yes. Still, the 6809 itself was quite a fun chip. I preferred it to the 6502 for no doubt rather silly reasons. Never used the Z80, so have no grounds at all for comparison there. -- Adam Atkinson (ghira@mistral.co.uk) Libri e altro per matematici piu' o meno ricreativi: http://www.mistral.co.uk/ghira/recmathslibri.html ###### Message-ID: <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 116 Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 21:09:24 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.50.131 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 957992964 63.15.50.131 (Wed, 10 May 2000 14:09:24 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:09:24 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!cyclone-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!news-east.rr.com!cyclone-west.rr.com!news.rr.com|news-west.rr.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55892 Eric Chomko wrote: > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? I believe the 8080 came out in 1974 and the 6800 in 75 and the 6502 and Z80 in 76. There were others which were contemporary, the Fairchild F8 the RCA 1802 and the National SCMP (or something like that) come to mind as well as the Intersil 6100 (a PDP-8 clone) and that 16 bit TI chip whose number I forget, not to mention the 8008 and 4004. However, limiting us to the 6800 and 8080... > This was a common battle and ironically, today, its sort of deja vu all > over again. Have we started processor wars again. I thought we were beyond that (I still hate the Intel architecture and all its follow-ons :-) > What was the best Intel 8080 system? MITS Altair was the original I believe, the IMSAI was probably the classic "high end" although the Northstar was popular too! Did not Northstar start by providing an S-100 floppy system which was the first one available for the S-100 bus? Many companies provided S-100 based systems and parts. On the industrial side was Intel's Multibus, supported by a number of other manufacturers. > What was the best Motorola 6800 system? SWTPC was the original here with the SS-50 bus. The "high end" SS-50 system was probably the GIMIX. There were two other "full line" SS-50 suppliers IIRC, Smoke Signal Broadcasting and Midwest Scientific Instruments. MSI and Smoke had their own OS's. SWTPC and GIMIX ran FLEX although Smoke would too. I don't know about MSI, I only saw them once at a trade show (Atlantic City in 77 IIRC). There were a number of other providers of SS-50 parts. My first "system" however, was the Motorola "D2" kit which although a "single board" (sort of, two boards actually) was expandable using the "industrial" Exorciser bus which like the Intel Multibus was supported by a number of other manufacturers. So which was better. I much preferred the 6800 architecture as it was more PDP-11 like (this I believe was the goal of the designers given the limitations of the technology at the time). The code more easily "rolled off the mind" than with the 8080 at least my mind anyway and I did write 8080 code as well as 6800 code. I think Motorola screwed up, however, by announcing a "better" product and then shutting up about it for a year or so. Rumor has it that after the initial announcement, they moved the operation from Arizona to Texas (or the other way) which angered some of the employees (who left, formed MOS Technology, who made the 6502, originally the 6501 but that was pin compatible with the 6800 and Motorola was not amused), but again this is all rumor. Remember the 8080 was a three voltage part (+5, +12, -5) which required 3 "chips" (processor, clock, system controller but the S-100 bus implemented something other than the "system controller" logic). They had no peripheral chips. The closest parallel port was an 8212 8 bit latch. The 6800 was a single voltage part (+5) which required 2 "chips" (processor, clock) and they had two peripheral chips, the 6820 dual parallel port and the 6850 serial port available more or less at initial announcement. The big thing to me, however, was the debug ROM called MIKBUG. I argue MIKBUG was the first microprocessor "software standard". It was originally designed for the Motorola "D1" kit which came out in late 75 (I have several D1 and D2 kits still operating) and was adopted by SWTPC (which is what made it popular with the hobbyists, Moto had a number of debug ROMs for the 6800, many called MINIBUGnn as well as the rather poor JBUG in the D2 kit.). MIKBUG was organized as a group of user callable subroutines for terminal I/O and other useful functions. Both the hardware vendors and the software vendors provided their "stuff" including enhanced versions of MIKBUG (SWTBUG, SMARTBUG,...) compatible with MIKBUG which gave the various platforms interchangability. Also, with MIKBUG, unlike the Altair there was no "switch flipping" required to get the basic system "up and running". A few other notes based on reading some of the other posts in this thread: -The original TRS-80 used the Z80. -The Radio Shack Color Computer (COCO) used the 6809. -The RS MC-10 or POCO used the 6803 which is more an enhanced 6800 than the 6809. The 6803 is actually a 6801 "microcontroller" with its internal ROM disabled. It has no relation to the 6805 which is a truly basic controller. -The 6502 was all 8 bit whereas the 6800 and 8080 had a mix of 8 and 16 bit registers. Even with this limitation, a nice thing about the 6502 was that it had two index registers, X and Y. The big thing about the 6502, however, was that when the 6800 and 8080 were selling for in excess of $100 and maybe even $200, the 6502 was available for about $20. This low cost was a primary goal of its design. The fact that it looked somewhat like the 6800 was because it was designed (more or less) by the same people. Regards, Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### From: william.hamblen@nashville.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 18:31:26 -0500 Organization: Utterly Disorganized Lines: 20 Sender: Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbul3$1a40$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.6 (i586)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55908 glass2@glass2.lexington.ibm.com wrote: : No, TRS-80s were not 6800 based. I'm not sure if they were Z80, 8080, or : some other variant, though (That's going back a LONG time!). TRS-80s had Z80s in them. : Of course, the SWTP-6800 was another box that I lusted after. What were some : of the other 6800 based systems? The SWTPC 6800 was the most popular hobby 6800. Midwest Scientific Instruments, Smoke Signal Broadcasting, Gimix (later GMX) and one or two others also made 6800 systems using the same bus. SWTPC kits were pretty easy to assemble in comparison to MITS kits. SWTPC had produced things like 1000 watt stereo amplifier kits for years before they got into computer kits. The story I heard was that they were making a "TV Typewriter" terminal kit and decided to sell kit computers after noticing a lot of people were buying TV Typewriters to use with Altairs. ###### From: william.hamblen@nashville.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 18:36:41 -0500 Organization: Utterly Disorganized Lines: 12 Sender: Message-ID: <9qrcf8.7h3.ln@news.nashville.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fc0rn$gb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.6 (i586)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55907 Eric J. Korpela wrote: : I thought CoCos didn't get 6809s until the CoCo 3. ISTR that the CoCo : and CoCo 2 used an earlier 6800 descendant. 6802? 6803? The TRS-80 Color Computer I, II & III all used 6809s. The CoCo III had a memory management IC and could address more than 64K. You could get OS-9 for the Color Computer and actually run a multi-tasking, multi- user operating system. The little MC10 used a 6801-ish part, but I forget which one. ###### From: william.hamblen@nashville.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 18:44:36 -0500 Organization: Utterly Disorganized Lines: 14 Sender: Message-ID: <49scf8.7h3.ln@news.nashville.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fbvs9$g84$1@agate.berkeley.edu> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.6 (i586)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55904 Eric J. Korpela wrote: : The 6800 had better indexing, but index registers were : 8 bits, IIRC. The 6800 had one 16 bit index register, X. Two 8-bit accumulators, A & B. One 16-bit stack pointer, S. One 16-bit program counter. One 8-bit condition code register, CC. The 6502 had two index registers, but they were only 8 bits long. The stack pointer was 8 bits and had to lie in the memory range $0100-$01FF. ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:51:16 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 40 Message-ID: <3919F5F4.A09E90AC@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fc0rn$gb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55871 IMHO the Motorola MC6800 was better because it was *big* endian (the addresses were big endian). Also, the Intel 8080 required three supply voltages *and* an external clock chip. (8024) "Eric J. Korpela" wrote: > > In article <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, > Eric Chomko wrote: > >: (TRS-80s were 6800 based, weren't they? They were okay.) > > > >Nope, Z-80, at least the model 1. > > Z-80 in the Model 1,2,3,4,4D,4P,12 and probably some others > Z-80+68000 in the Model 16 series and later Tandy 6000 series > 8085 in the Model 100 series and Model 200 series > > >The TRS-Color Computers used 6809s. > > I thought CoCos didn't get 6809s until the CoCo 3. ISTR that the CoCo > and CoCo 2 used an earlier 6800 descendant. 6802? 6803? > Nope...the Coco 1, 2 and 3 *all* used the 6809. And the 6809 was a *great* 8-bit chip...with *two* hardware stack pointers, register exchange instructions (i.e. swap the values in reg A and reg B in *one* instruction), a couiple of forms of PC relative addressing with diffrent size offsets, the ability to branch to an address specified by a value stored in memory, and an 8-bit x 8-bit unsigned *multiply* instruction. Also, the direct page (or page zero) instrucions became the "direct page" instructions, with the upper half of the address specified by a direct page register. > > Anyone remember what processor the MicroCoCo used? Z-80? > I am *not* sure what you refer to as the "MicroCoco"...could it be the little MC-10??? That used a 6803 processor, which is a variant of the Motorola 6800. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 17:05:51 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 24 Message-ID: <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55872 jchausler wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > The 6502 was all 8 bit whereas the 6800 and 8080 had a > mix of 8 and 16 bit registers. Even with this limitation, a > nice thing about the 6502 was that it had two index > registers, X and Y. The big thing about the 6502, however, > was that when the 6800 and 8080 were selling for in > excess of $100 and maybe even $200, the 6502 was > available for about $20. This low cost was a primary > goal of its design. The fact that it looked somewhat like > the 6800 was because it was designed (more or less) > by the same people. > Do *not* forget that the Z-80 also had *two* index registers X and Y, as did the Motorola 6809. This was very handy for handling memory moves and accessing two "arrays" of values. The 6809 also had some auto increment instructions, similar to the PDP-11. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: Rod Pinna Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 11 May 2000 15:18:42 +0800 Organization: The University of Western Australia Lines: 33 Sender: rpinna@helicaon.civil.uwa.edu.au Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fc0rn$gb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <9qrcf8.7h3.ln@news.nashville.com> X-Trace: enyo.uwa.edu.au 958029595 31309 130.95.140.151 (11 May 2000 07:19:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uwa.edu.au X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.6.45/XEmacs 21.1 - "Bryce Canyon" Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news.uwa.edu.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55926 william.hamblen@nashville.com writes: > Eric J. Korpela wrote: > > : I thought CoCos didn't get 6809s until the CoCo 3. ISTR that the CoCo > : and CoCo 2 used an earlier 6800 descendant. 6802? 6803? > > The TRS-80 Color Computer I, II & III all used 6809s. The CoCo III had > a memory management IC and could address more than 64K. You could get > OS-9 for the Color Computer and actually run a multi-tasking, multi- > user operating system. > > The little MC10 used a 6801-ish part, but I forget which one. As others have said, 6803. As for the dearly departed CoCo, the III version came with 128k from Tandy, expandable up to 512k. Others later produced memory expansion boards up to 2MB, that I have seen. Someone may well have gone past it. The CoCo I & II were able to run OS-9 Level I, which was able to address 64kB. The CoCoIII could run Level II, which didn't, I suspect have an upper memory limit. Tandy also produced a windowing system, called Multi-vue for OS-9 II. Rainbow magazine run a Basic09 toolbox for it, to let you program it through Basic09. BTW, anybody have any opinions about Basic09 as a form of basic? I found it quite nice to do toy programs in. Er, though I was quite young... Rod ###### From: Steve O'Hara-Smith Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919A7EB.76F0@compuserve.com> <486.165T2325T11616058@sky.bus.com> User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.0-STABLE (i386)) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 08:19:28 +0100 Message-ID: <0umdf8.i9.ln@localhost.my.domain> Lines: 5 NNTP-Posting-Host: shell16.ba.best.com X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 958029793 224 sohara@206.184.139.148 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news2.best.com!news3.best.com!nntp1.ba.best.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55909 > And (IIRC) the clocks were not TTL levels. Nope, practically the only option was to use the clock chip. The 8080 was basically a three chip micro (anyone remember what the other one was, some sort of bus controller IIRC). ###### From: raymondwalden@aol.com (RaymondWalden) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Lines: 10 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 11 May 2000 09:19:04 GMT References: <8fc0rn$gb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <20000511051904.16832.00002431@ng-fz1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55901 >Z-80 in the Model 1,2,3,4,4D,4P,12 and probably some others >Z-80+68000 in the Model 16 series and later Tandy 6000 series >8085 in the Model 100 series and Model 200 series > >>The TRS-Color Computers used 6809s. Don't forget the Tandy 2000 used the 80186. -Ray ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> Organization: Daedalus Consulting X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Message-ID: <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Cache-Post-Path: shelley.paradise.net.nz!unknown@203-96-144-16.cable.paradise.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 7 Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:53:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.96.152.26 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 958038799 203.96.152.26 (Thu, 11 May 2000 21:53:19 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:53:19 NZST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55914 In article <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net>, Charles Richmond wrote: >Do *not* forget that the Z-80 also had *two* index registers X and Y, ITYM IX and IY. And HL could be used for carrying around 16 bit addresses. -- don ###### Message-ID: <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 23 Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 10:58:32 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958042712 194.16.221.33 (Thu, 11 May 2000 12:58:32 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 12:58:32 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeeder.mobilixnet.dk!newsfeed101.telia.com!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55887 Don Stokes wrote: > > In article <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net>, > Charles Richmond wrote: > >Do *not* forget that the Z-80 also had *two* index registers X and Y, > > ITYM IX and IY. And HL could be used for carrying around 16 bit addresses. Actually, HL for addresses was in the original 8080, the Z80 extended this to all registers. The original 8080 is really no fun at all. The Z80 was neccesary for this architecture to thrive. There were *lots* of improvements on the instruction set. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### From: Andrew Paul Cadley Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:03:18 +0100 Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, NR47TJ, UK Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: cpca7.uea.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: cpca14.uea.ac.uk 958046599 21231 139.222.130.7 (11 May 2000 12:03:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@uea.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 May 2000 12:03:19 GMT In-Reply-To: <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!server1.netnews.ja.net!news.uea.ac.uk!cpca7.uea.ac.uk!a962115 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55920 On Thu, 11 May 2000, Don Stokes wrote: > In article <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net>, > Charles Richmond wrote: > >Do *not* forget that the Z-80 also had *two* index registers X and Y, > > ITYM IX and IY. And HL could be used for carrying around 16 bit addresses. As could the BC and DE pairs. If your really careful you can even use AF, but it's tricky to avoid instructions which can potentially corrupt the flags register. AndyC ###### Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 08:52:59 -0500 From: "Robert J. Stevens" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <3919b333$0$73584@news.execpc.com> <531.165T2888T11645777@sky.bus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 34 Message-ID: <391abb90$0$26042@news.execpc.com> Organization: ExecPC Internet - Milwaukee, WI NNTP-Posting-Host: 75298aae.news.execpc.com X-Trace: Tl\okXWcmL7I5[332>a9Y;bfNiaEHUgJ7RYcgIRLSUE=2`jTGbno>a;BQCkUeZ^N@2lD=NV0VOVD5FG=l3\ In article <3919b333$0$73584@news.execpc.com> snevets@execpc.com > (Robert J. Stevens) writes: > > >How about a Z8400A and a Z8420A and a Z8440A . Were they versions of > >the Z80??? I have a set Of IMS boards out of a multiuser system that > >ran TurboDos back the early 1880's > > Ah, TurboDOS - what CP/M could have become. I did some work on > an IMS box. Those Z-80Bs (6 MHz) ran too fast to play Ladder on. > > But 1880s? Babbage was so close... > > -- > cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) > Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 11 May 2000 14:39:33 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 105 Message-ID: <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56009 Michael Black wrote: : In article <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: : > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor : > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the : > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? : > : > This was a common battle and ironically, today, its sort of deja vu all : > over again. : > : > What was the best Intel 8080 system? : > : > What was the best Motorola 6800 system? : > : You're going to have to go back further in time in order to make that : statement. I did state "over 20 years ago", thus eliminating the IBM PC. I was specifically speaking of that brief period in time when the 6800 and the 8080 were the ONLY chips (before the 6502 and the Z-80) in use by hobbyist computer systems of which the term "successful" could be applied. : The 8080 and the 6800 had to be available in 1974, though quite expensive. : And since that is in some ways before the dawn of time, I couldn't : say what other microprocessors might be available (other than the : obvious 4004 and 8008 that obviously predated the 8080). Neither of which were in a "successful" computer system. : In the November (or maybe the October of December) 1975 issue of Byte, : there wsa n article about this newcomer that had the terribly exciting : feature of being introduced at a price of about $20, when all the other : CPUs were still an awful lot more in single quantities. Of course, : that CPU was the 6502. When was the first 6502-based system created? I think it may have been Apple. : It would have been that fall too that Godbout was having a contest to : name their new system based on a mystery 16-bit CPU, which turned out : to be the PACE from National Semiconductor. I do not believe Godbout had much luck with that system. I think Godbout made S100 (memory) plug-in cards as their "successful" products. : In 1976, Popular Electronics ran that series of articles about building : the COSMAC Elf. And I must assume the CPU had been around for a while : at that point. Another unsuccessful microprocessor. Certainly nowhere near what SWTPC and Altair were doing at the time, with the 6800 and 8080, respectively; is was my original point. : I can't remember when the Z80 arrived, but without looking I'd say : it was in the hobby magazines in 1976. I remember thinking that the : next generation from the 8080 had come pretty fast. People were debating : upgrading the Z80 so soon after the arrival of the first home computer. The 6809 came out after the Z-80 as a way for the 680x chips to compete with the 8080/Z-80, though Zilog made the latter. The Z-80 as a recall was a superset, instruction-wise, of the 8080, which was an Intel product. Zilog was formed by former Intel employees as well, IIRC. : Through 1977, when the consumer type computers like the Radio Shack, : Commodore and Apple II arrived, if there was a CPU there probably was : a system for it. There was a construction article for the Signetics : CPU in Radio Electronics, and it was the usual construction article : that happened to also be available as a kit. And there was a video : game using the Fairchild CPU that someone wanted to turn into a color : display or something in Kilobaud that year. The Signetics chip (forget the name) and the Fairchild F8 were not successful in the same terms as the 6800 and 8080. : If anything, there was a far more diverse situation in the early days : than there are now. Yes, and only two clear success, the Motorola 6800 and the Intel 8080, prior to the 6502 and Z-80. My point! : By twenty years ago, the 8088 and the 68000 were available, and I : think there may have even been computers for the hobbyiest using them, : such as from Godbout. "Over 20 years"! : And if you are rounding things off, twenty years ago could also : mean 19 years ago, at which point the IBM hit the scene and plenty : changed. I wasn't. : You really can't round things off when talking about those early days, : because things moved so fast. : Things have really slowed down in more recent years, with the real : change being how fast a CPU runs and how much memory it takes. The point is that we started with Intel and Motorola and we have them around to this day. The AMD, Cyrix and other second source Intel CPU-clones is interesting to say the least, but that is the topic of another post. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 11 May 2000 14:50:08 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 62 Message-ID: <8fehb0$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56005 Michael Black wrote: : In article <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: : > Andrew Erickson wrote: : > : In article , : > [...] : > : What about the 8008? Slow, limited, but still availiable. : > : > I'm not sure if it was in any SUCCESSFUL systems. I do recall seeing a : > system with an 8008, name started with an "S" as I recall. : > : It was the Scelbi. It may have been around before the Mark-8, that appeared ^^^^^^ Did the make books too? : on the cover of Radio Electronics for August 1974. Scelbi later : got out of the hardware business, but sold books about computers and : software that I gather was useful at the time. Thanks, yes books as was my earlier question. : What is "successful"? Before there were home computer kits, there was : a limited number of people who had considered owning their own computer. "Successful" means that they made money off their product. Why didn't Fairchild make a improved version of the F8, like Motorola followed the 6800 with the 6809? Answer: The F8 was not successful. : Once the kits starting hitting the market, that small number obviously : were the ones who made up most of the customers. Then the companies : had to deal with selling the idea of a small computer, before they : could sell the computers. : Why did the Altair sell so well, and the Mark-8 didn't? I seriously doubt : it was an issue of the 8008 being too inferior a CPU. No, that is EXACTLY the reason. The 8008 did not have enoug address space nor was it fast enough to run a high-level language such as BASIC. When a microprocessor was powerful enough to run BASIC, then it had a chance to be inside of a successful computer. At that date, : most people didn't even know what they wanted to do with a computer, let : alone know much about them. There had to be some reason, maybe lack : of visibility, that put the Mark-8 in the also ran category. I can't : get to the article easily to check if it was available as a kit, though : I would think it was. And of course it is all relative, since it : was my understanding that the Mark-8 was quite popular for the time; : it only pales in comparison with what came later. I bet the Mark-8 did not have a HLL. I know I sure as heck didn't want a system that was simply toggle-in machine code. Popular as a term for something compared to nothing is hardly a criteria for success. I'm sure that the Mark-8 was popular to those that would rather have something compared to nothing. But if you had enough money in those days you could have owned your own minicomputer and not have to even deal with a quasi-controller/computer. It has to do with getting SW and a decent development environment. The 8080 and 6800 microcomputer systems were the first to provide that. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 11 May 2000 14:51:40 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 17 Message-ID: <8fehds$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919A7EB.76F0@compuserve.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56029 Sam Yorko wrote: : Steve McKenna wrote: : > > : > >What was the best Intel 8080 system? : > > : > >What was the best Motorola 6800 system? : > > : > >Eric : From a hardware standpoint, the 6800 was better than the 8080 because it : only required +5v, while the 8080 required two or three power supplies. Agreed, and the instruction set and architecture were better as well, IMO. Eric : Sam ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 11 May 2000 15:10:27 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 30 Message-ID: <8feih3$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56007 bill_h wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > : > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor : > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the : > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? : Ever heard of TI 9900? How about the Digital PDP-8 in a chip? : Fairchild F-8? National Semiconductor (was it 1802?)? These : just off the top of my head. The 8086 came out in 1977; Was : that ''over 20 years ago''? All those mentioned above were not "successful" as in being in many microcomputers. The exception was the TI 9900 and it came out after the 6502 and Z-80. I was speaking about the time when only the 8080 and the 6800 were out. That would include the 1802 and the F8 and maybe even others. But NONE of those were sucessful as you cannot name a microcomputer manufacturer, such as IMSAI or SWTPC that used those chips. : Are you talking a specific year and month? Probably 1975 and the first half of 1976 maybe a little after that. So, yes. I probably should have replaced the "over 20 years" with "around 25 years ago". Eric : Bill : Tucson, AZ ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 11 May 2000 15:19:12 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 33 Message-ID: <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56006 Tim Shoppa wrote: : bill_h wrote: : > : > Eric Chomko wrote: : > > : > > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor : > > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the : > > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? : > : > Ever heard of TI 9900? How about the Digital PDP-8 in a chip? : The "PDP-8 in a chip" was an Intersil design. Yes, that would be a Intersil 6100. It was basically a minicomputer CPU, as the cost of those systems were five figures. : > Fairchild F-8? National Semiconductor (was it 1802?)? : National Semiconductor had the SCAMP; the 1802 was RCA. Yes, all : over 20 years ago. But you cannot name a microcomputer system using those chips now, can you? I believe that the problem was that those comapines did not produce evaluation kits as did both Intel and Motorola. Are there any versions of BASIC for the 1802, F8 and SCAMP? They were microcontroller chips at best. I was not saying that other microprocessors did not exist at the time. My point was that only two microprocessors were used in anything that could be called a successful microcomputer; and they had in them either an 8080 or 6800. Eric : Tim. ###### Message-ID: <391ACF3F.9F797335@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 64 Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:19:39 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.121.166 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 958058379 63.15.121.166 (Thu, 11 May 2000 08:19:39 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 08:19:39 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!triton.skycache.com!152.163.239.131!portc03.blue.aol.com!cyclone-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!news-east.rr.com!cyclone-west.rr.com!news.rr.com|news-west.rr.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55974 Charles Richmond wrote: > Do *not* forget that the Z-80 also had *two* index registers X and Y, > as did the Motorola 6809. This was very handy for handling memory > moves and accessing two "arrays" of values. The 6809 also had some > auto increment instructions, similar to the PDP-11. Yes, but the Z80 took a poor (IMHO) instruction set and "fixed" it by "gluing warts" on it. Yes it was a much better machine as a result, but it still had the "Intel Curse" on it. The 6809 was a very nice architecture, unfortunately, the only popular machine using it for the "general public" was the RS COCO. There were more "industrial" machines and "high end" hobby machines but they were never very popular, they were burried under the IBM PC. I know of a number of "mission critical" installations that to this day are using COCO III's as their processing elements. The very large company using them was concerned because they had no spares but about a year ago they found someone who had quite a few of them, "new in the box" on the shelf and so they stocked up. OS-9, a multitasking OS, would run on them (as well as good old FLEX). The MC-10 (POCO) again used the 6803 which was a 6801 with its on-board ROM disabled. There were a number of "flavors" of 6801's, the EPROM version was the 68701. The 6801L1 had Moto's debug program LILBUG on the on-board ROM. There was a modified version of LILBUG called PROBUG which would program the EPROM on the 68701. Most of the "on-board" features of the 6801 could be enabled/disabled at start-up giving quite a range of system configuration from one chip to "full system". Whereas the 6809 was upwards compatible at the source level with the 6800, the 6801 was upwards compatible (more or less) at the object code level with the 6800. Most people I know after first experiencing the 6800 would make a short list of instructions which would have greatly improved the 6800. The 6801 incorporated most of those instructions. The biggies were the ABX instruction and the D register which was the two ac's (A,B) taken together as a 16 bit ac and all the associated 16 bit instructions. There was also a hardware multiply instruction which was quite useful for some applications. The 6801 is the only Moto micro for which I was ever paid to write code (While living "on the beach" in Santa Cruz for a couple of months in summer 81 :-) I and others have stated that the 6800 was a 2 chip system (MPU and CLOCK). There was a single chip version of the 6800 which was the 6802 which also had a 128 byte RAM internal to the chip. IIRC you could directly connect a crystal to the 6802 for the clock function. The 6808 was the 6802 without the RAM. IIRC the Heathkit trainer used this chip. Moto marketed it as a 2 chip system in that there was a combined function chip (may have been numbered 6846???) which had IIRC serial/parallel ports and a timer function on it. I'm vague about this as I never used one. Regards, Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 11 May 2000 15:29:39 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 11 Message-ID: <8fejl3$ag6$1@freenet9.carleton.ca> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <391ACF3F.9F797335@earthlink.net> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet10 X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 958058979 10758 134.117.136.30 (11 May 2000 15:29:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 May 2000 15:29:39 GMT X-Given-Sender: ab528@freenet10.carleton.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer1.nac.net!news.new-york.net!news.kjsl.com!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56060 jchausler (jchausler@earthlink.net) writes: > > The 6809 was a very nice architecture, unfortunately, the only popular > machine using it for the "general public" was the RS COCO. Years ago, I got the spec sheet for it. The Rodney Zaks book A Microprogrammed APL Implementation inspired me to try an assembler version for that MPU, but the time flew by. Of course, now that I have APL2 under OS/2 Warp, I realise that several life- times would elapse before I could singlehandedly create such a product. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 11 May 2000 15:42:10 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 133 Message-ID: <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56027 jchausler wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor : > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the : > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? : I believe the 8080 came out in 1974 and the 6800 in 75 and the 6502 and : Z80 in 76. There were others which were contemporary, the Fairchild F8 : the RCA 1802 and the National SCMP (or something like that) come to : mind as well as the Intersil 6100 (a PDP-8 clone) and that 16 bit TI chip : whose number I forget, not to mention the 8008 and 4004. However, : limiting us to the 6800 and 8080... ..as the only two chips that were in any successful microcomputer of the time. Forget chips for a second and thing "microcomputer". You will then realize that the 6800 and 8080 were the only two used in successful microcomputers. Does anyone know of an F8 based microcomputer? SCAMP? 1802? The 6100 system that I did see was real expensive. The T1 9900 came out with the 6502 and the Z-80. : > This was a common battle and ironically, today, its sort of deja vu all : > over again. : Have we started processor wars again. I thought we were beyond that : (I still hate the Intel architecture and all its follow-ons :-) : > What was the best Intel 8080 system? : MITS Altair was the original I believe, the IMSAI was probably the : classic "high end" although the Northstar was popular too! Did not : Northstar start by providing an S-100 floppy system which was the : first one available for the S-100 bus? Many companies provided : S-100 based systems and parts. : On the industrial side was Intel's Multibus, supported by a number : of other manufacturers. : > What was the best Motorola 6800 system? : SWTPC was the original here with the SS-50 bus. The "high end" : SS-50 system was probably the GIMIX. There were two other : "full line" SS-50 suppliers IIRC, Smoke Signal Broadcasting and : Midwest Scientific Instruments. MSI and Smoke had their own : OS's. SWTPC and GIMIX ran FLEX although Smoke would : too. I don't know about MSI, I only saw them once at a trade : show (Atlantic City in 77 IIRC). There were a number of other : providers of SS-50 parts. Helix was another SS-50 turned SS-64 (for 16 bit processing). I actually have a Helix box that runs both 6809 and 68008 chips, one or the other via a switch. It runs OS/9. : My first "system" however, was the Motorola "D2" kit which : although a "single board" (sort of, two boards actually) was : expandable using the "industrial" Exorciser bus which like the : Intel Multibus was supported by a number of other manufacturers. Yes, I remember it. : So which was better. I much preferred the 6800 architecture as : it was more PDP-11 like (this I believe was the goal of the The 6800 was more like PDP-11 (I agree) is another basis for a Mot/Int war as many feel that the 8080 (I don't know why) was more like a PDP-11. : designers given the limitations of the technology at the time). The : code more easily "rolled off the mind" than with the 8080 at least : my mind anyway and I did write 8080 code as well as 6800 code. : I think Motorola screwed up, however, by announcing a "better" : product and then shutting up about it for a year or so. Rumor has : it that after the initial announcement, they moved the operation from : Arizona to Texas (or the other way) which angered some of the : employees (who left, formed MOS Technology, who made the : 6502, originally the 6501 but that was pin compatible with the : 6800 and Motorola was not amused), but again this is all rumor. Interesting how both the 6502 and Z-80 were offshoots of their predecessors created by former disgruntalled employees creating their own new companies! : Remember the 8080 was a three voltage part (+5, +12, -5) which : required 3 "chips" (processor, clock, system controller but the : S-100 bus implemented something other than the "system controller" : logic). They had no peripheral chips. The closest parallel port was : an 8212 8 bit latch. The 6800 was a single voltage part (+5) : which required 2 "chips" (processor, clock) and they had two : peripheral chips, the 6820 dual parallel port and the 6850 serial : port available more or less at initial announcement. When did the 8255(?) parallel chip come out? What was the difference between the 6820 and the 6821, which came out almost immediately? It seemed like a correction to a screwup. : The big thing to me, however, was the debug ROM called MIKBUG. : I argue MIKBUG was the first microprocessor "software standard". : It was originally designed for the Motorola "D1" kit which came : out in late 75 (I have several D1 and D2 kits still operating) and : was adopted by SWTPC (which is what made it popular with the : hobbyists, Moto had a number of debug ROMs for the 6800, : many called MINIBUGnn as well as the rather poor JBUG : in the D2 kit.). MIKBUG was organized as a group of user : callable subroutines for terminal I/O and other useful functions. MIKBUG used bit-banging to make a 6820 to act like a serial port. Are you sure about your comment that the 6850 was an initial release? Seems to me that I recall the MP-C SWTPC board being replaced by the much improved MP-S board late in the game. The MP-C allowed only two baud rates (110 and 300). Whereas, the MP-S allowed those two and all the way up to 9600 with some hacking. : Both the hardware vendors and the software vendors provided : their "stuff" including enhanced versions of MIKBUG : (SWTBUG, SMARTBUG,...) compatible with MIKBUG I have both of the above. But SWTBUG, like MIKBUG were 6830 PROMs. Whereas SMARTBUG was a 2708 EPROM. The latter chip was used by SSB and the MP-A2 CPU boards. : which gave the various platforms interchangability. Also, : with MIKBUG, unlike the Altair there was no "switch flipping" : required to get the basic system "up and running". That no need for a front panel is why I purchased a SWPTC 6800 back in '76 rather than an Altair 8800b. The fact that Gates' BASIC didn't load in a TTY didn't help MITS when I was checking out that system, either. Eric ###### From: Steve O'Hara-Smith Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.0-STABLE (i386)) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:13:02 +0100 Message-ID: Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: shell16.ba.best.com X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 958061299 201 sohara@206.184.139.148 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news2.best.com!news3.best.com!nntp1.ba.best.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56075 Eric Chomko wrote: > The 6809 came out after the Z-80 as a way for the 680x chips to compete > with the 8080/Z-80, though Zilog made the latter. The Z-80 as a recall was According to a Motorola engineer who came to tell us about the 6809 in (IIRC) 1977 and wound up spending most of the time talking about the (soon to be announced) 68000. The 6809 was considered (by Motorola engineers) to be a stepping stone on the way to the 68000 architecture (a sort of halfway house between an 8 bit and a 16 bit processor). Given CP/M and Wordstar I don't think the 6809 stood an earthly of competing with the Z80 (except in terms of technical merit where it won hands down). ###### From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:50:53 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 14 Message-ID: <391AE4ED.2A15@azstarnet.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fehb0$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55939 Eric Chomko wrote: > I bet the Mark-8 did not have a HLL. I know I sure as heck didn't want a > system that was simply toggle-in machine code. Several people wrote a basic for the 8008. How much did you bet? Send it to me! Bill Tucson, AZ ###### From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 10:00:16 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 20 Message-ID: <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <8feih3$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55937 Eric Chomko wrote: > ................ But NONE of those were sucessful as you cannot name a > microcomputer manufacturer, such as IMSAI or SWTPC that used those chips. Since BOTH of those companies went broke, I gotta question your definition of ''successful'' (however you spell it). You have for some strange reason chosen to define success such that you eliminate any COMMERCIAL products, using chips you personally don't seem to like, in favor of what really were little more than toys aimed at a hobbiest market. The hobbiest market, as a WHOLE, was not successful. It died years ago. What little remains must certainly include the 'Stamp', as advertised in the magazine 'Nuts and Volts'. Bill Tucson, AZ ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: <2000May11.185253.20967@lorelei.approve.se> Originator: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Sender: hoh@lorelei.approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Organization: [1] + 5934 done /bin/rm -rf ~/ & X-No-Archive: yes X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test66 (4 June 1998) References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Lines: 17 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.215.21 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 958071483 130.244.215.21 (Thu, 11 May 2000 20:58:03 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 20:58:03 MET DST X-Sender: q-11932@isdn215-1-21.swipnet.se Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:52:53 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56079 In article <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: > Does anyone know of an F8 based microcomputer? SCAMP? 1802? There were several microcomputers based on the 1802. I have one I bought used in 1980 or 1981. It was built in Finland, but I think the design was based on the evaluation systems sold by RCA. The memory in that system was constructed from 1k*1 RAM chips (2101 I think) and consumed most of the power. The 1802 itself could be run from a lemon and two strips of metal. Weird processor, no program counter (or 16 program counters depending on how you view it) and no stack pointer (or 16 stack pointers if you like). -- Göran Larsson hoh AT approve DOT se Senior Systems Analyst ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:07:32 GMT References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Organization: Chaos and Confusion Lines: 78 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!world!dp Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55936 In article <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: >Tim Shoppa wrote: >: bill_h wrote: >: > >: > Eric Chomko wrote: >: > > >: > > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor >: > > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the >: > > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? >: > >: > Ever heard of TI 9900? How about the Digital PDP-8 in a chip? > >: The "PDP-8 in a chip" was an Intersil design. > >Yes, that would be a Intersil 6100. It was basically a minicomputer CPU, >as the cost of those systems were five figures. > Another "almost" was a DG Nova on a chip. Unfortunately the company that was producing them suffered a devastating fire in the interval between when they announced, and when they were to ship. They never recovered. One intentional point in the 8080's favor. While not an electrical replacement (it had 40 pins, the 8008 20 or less, I forget), a requirement was that all 8008 software would run on an 8080. Back then, getting a mask programmed rom made was a VERY big deal. The cost of changing things for the new chip was cheap compared to re-masking a rom. While the 8080 took a clock chip, the 8008 needed a lot of glue logic -- address and data had to be latched (16 bit addresses sent out over only 8 lines), etc. So you wound up needing a lot less real estate to use an 8080, and a much lower package count, that could go a long way towards making up for the higher CPU price. There were some other strange things for hobbiests back then. One company took the same plessy chip set that was used to make the LSI-11, and put it on a s-100 card. They did have to change a few instructions, to skirt Dec owned patents, so you couldn't boot RT-11 on it. Heathkit did sell a "kit" of the LSI-11. You did assemble some parts, but the CPU,etc were just plugins straight from DEC. The real odd duck was a place called Ohio Scientific. They sold boards that could have a 8080/Z-80, 6800, and a 6502 installed, and running silmultaneously. There were some hobbiests running old mini's. Some bought retired old machines -- one person I visited had an IBM 1620 in his basement, picked up at a machinery auction... A couple of classmates had managed to buy enough bits from the place DG sold it scrapped boards, to assemble one Nova, and two Eclipse machines. Dec had its own internal scrap sales operation, and some people got a machine that way. Some were a bit more clandestine... One reason that the DG cpu's were on such large cards was to reduce employee theft (at 15" square, they were too big to fit in a breifcase or under a coat). DG was a spin-off from Digital. Dec built its machines from large numbers of palm sized cards, plugged into a wire-wrapped backplane. Anyone else remember that old country standard "One peice at a time"? Apparently there were a number of basement pdp-8's that came into existence in exactly that fashion. At one point the pdp-8S (for serial or slow) price dropped to less than $10k, (about 4 new cars, or a cheap house at the time), and a few were sold for home/hobby use. (your $10k got you a 4k machine, a teletype, and the editor and assembler on papertape.) -dp- Organizer, The New England Rubbish Deconstruction Society; The NERDS See us in Scrapheap Challenge 2000. (Junkyard Wars in the US). http://www.the-nerds.org/ This country needs a lot of kids that think its more fun to take the lawnmowers' engine apart than play nintendo. ###### From: raymondwalden@aol.com (RaymondWalden) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Lines: 10 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 11 May 2000 19:53:21 GMT References: <8fehb0$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <20000511155321.15507.00002212@ng-fm1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56049 >No, that is EXACTLY the reason. The 8008 did not have enoug address space >nor was it fast enough to run a high-level language such as BASIC. When a >microprocessor was powerful enough to run BASIC, then it had a chance to >be inside of a successful computer. > So you are saying that Basic was the Killer App of the day? :) -Ray ###### Message-ID: <391B12F4.44EED04F@syscon-intl.com> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:07:16 -0500 From: Carl Kreider Reply-To: carlk@syscon-intl.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.231.181.42 X-Trace: 11 May 2000 20:07:18 GMT, 208.231.181.42 Lines: 73 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.datacruz.com!208.231.181.42 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56016 jchausler wrote: > Eric Chomko wrote: > > What was the best Motorola 6800 system? > > SWTPC was the original here with the SS-50 bus. The "high end" > SS-50 system was probably the GIMIX. There were two other > "full line" SS-50 suppliers IIRC, Smoke Signal Broadcasting and > Midwest Scientific Instruments. MSI and Smoke had their own > OS's. SWTPC and GIMIX ran FLEX although Smoke would > too. I don't know about MSI, I only saw them once at a trade > show (Atlantic City in 77 IIRC). There were a number of other > providers of SS-50 parts. Pretty much what I remember except I saw a lot more Hazelwood than MSI, although they may not have come along until the 6809 arrived. Also, OSI had the interchangable CPU thing that supported 8080, 6800, and ... don't remember :) > > My first "system" however, was the Motorola "D2" kit which > although a "single board" (sort of, two boards actually) was > expandable using the "industrial" Exorciser bus which like the > Intel Multibus was supported by a number of other manufacturers. Ah yes. The D2 kit. I have one in the rafters out in the garage :) > > So which was better. I much preferred the 6800 architecture as > it was more PDP-11 like (this I believe was the goal of the > designers given the limitations of the technology at the time). The > code more easily "rolled off the mind" than with the 8080 at least > my mind anyway and I did write 8080 code as well as 6800 code. I've written assembly for most all of the 8 bitters and the Mot ones are my hands down favorite for the same reason. > > I think Motorola screwed up, however, by announcing a "better" > product and then shutting up about it for a year or so. Rumor has > it that after the initial announcement, they moved the operation from > Arizona to Texas (or the other way) which angered some of the > employees (who left, formed MOS Technology, who made the > 6502, originally the 6501 but that was pin compatible with the > 6800 and Motorola was not amused), but again this is all rumor. My memory is that they left for philosophical reasons. The 6800 was _too_ complex; too data processing oriented. The 650[12] was more suited to industrial control, which is where they thought the real market for micros was. And it ended up in Apples ... > > Regards, > Chris > AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE > $$ -- Carl Kreider aka [carlk|root]@syscon-intl.com (219) 232-3900 Ext 207 ckreider@gte.net ckreider@acm.org ckreider@alumni.indiana.edu Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ###### Message-ID: <391AE278.422590AD@trailing-edge.com> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:40:24 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 60 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader3.news.uu.net 958077625 594 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!colt.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!zur.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!spool1.news.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader3.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56037 Eric Chomko wrote: > > Tim Shoppa wrote: > : bill_h wrote: > : > > : > Eric Chomko wrote: > : > > > : > > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor > : > > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the > : > > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? > : > > : > Ever heard of TI 9900? How about the Digital PDP-8 in a chip? > > : The "PDP-8 in a chip" was an Intersil design. > > Yes, that would be a Intersil 6100. It was basically a minicomputer CPU, > as the cost of those systems were five figures. And it found its way into the DECMate II and III boxes, which were largely used as dedicated word processors. (Though they could be used as more general purpose -8's). Cost was in the low four figures. > : > Fairchild F-8? National Semiconductor (was it 1802?)? > > : National Semiconductor had the SCAMP; the 1802 was RCA. Yes, all > : over 20 years ago. > > But you cannot name a microcomputer system using those chips now, can you? Can you name a system of today using the 8080 or 6800? F8's were widely used in a TV-game system of the time, the Channel F. No, not the most succesful system, but it was widely available for at least one Christmas season :-). 1802's are still being made new today (Intersil now owns the rights). They aren't used in desktop micros, but they are commonly used in embedded aerospace applications. See, for example, www.intersil.com, typing "1802" into the search box. I think the 1802 was used in a video game unit sold by Radio Shack in the mid-70's. Lord help me, I can't remember the name. RCA also sold the 1802 in a small plastic box with a membrane keyboard and a video generator, for use as a poor-man's terminal. > best. I was not saying that other microprocessors did not exist at the > time. My point was that only two microprocessors were used in anything > that could be called a successful microcomputer; and they had in them > either an 8080 or 6800. I think your hindsight (which may otherwise be 20/20) is clouded by marketing results in this particular case. Adam Osborne had a book in the mid-1970's that surveyed many of the microprocessors we're talking about here, and it was far from obvious at the time who the winner would be. Or what market there would come to be for desktop or home computers. Tim. ###### From: Sam Yorko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:27:06 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 14 Message-ID: <391B33BA.20A4@compuserve.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!cyclone-transit.snfc21.pbi.net!216.218.192.242!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55951 Jeff DelPapa wrote: > > One intentional point in the 8080's favor. While not an electrical > replacement (it had 40 pins, the 8008 20 or less, I forget), a > requirement was that all 8008 software would run on an 8080. Back > then, getting a mask programmed rom made was a VERY big deal. > The cost of changing things for the new chip was cheap compared to > re-masking a rom. > Um, IIRC, I don't think so. The assembly instruction set may have been upwards compatible, but I don't think the machine language was. Sam ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> Organization: Daedalus Consulting X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Message-ID: <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Cache-Post-Path: shelley.paradise.net.nz!unknown@203-96-144-16.cable.paradise.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 26 Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:38:50 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.96.152.26 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 958084730 203.96.152.26 (Fri, 12 May 2000 10:38:50 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:38:50 NZST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56082 Johnny Billquist wrote: >Don Stokes wrote: >> >> In article <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net>, >> Charles Richmond wrote: >> >Do *not* forget that the Z-80 also had *two* index registers X and Y, >> >> ITYM IX and IY. And HL could be used for carrying around 16 bit addresses. > >Actually, HL for addresses was in the original 8080, the Z80 extended >this to all registers. Er, did it? I seem to recall that while you could load/save 16 bit values into BC and CD, only HL could be used as an indirect address, and this was the case on the 8080 and Z80. >The original 8080 is really no fun at all. The Z80 was neccesary for this >architecture to thrive. There were *lots* of improvements on the >instruction set. Not that many. IX & IY, block operations (LDIR & friends) and the shadow register set were the biggies. What else was there? Oh, the Z80 went quite a bit faster, which had something to do with its success over the 8080 too... -- don ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:44:07 GMT References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391B33BA.20A4@compuserve.com> Organization: Chaos and Confusion Lines: 27 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!world!dp Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55935 In article <391B33BA.20A4@compuserve.com>, Sam Yorko wrote: >Jeff DelPapa wrote: >> >> One intentional point in the 8080's favor. While not an electrical >> replacement (it had 40 pins, the 8008 20 or less, I forget), a >> requirement was that all 8008 software would run on an 8080. Back >> then, getting a mask programmed rom made was a VERY big deal. >> The cost of changing things for the new chip was cheap compared to >> re-masking a rom. >> > >Um, IIRC, I don't think so. The assembly instruction set may have been >upwards compatible, but I don't think the machine language was. It was in large freindly letters on the early data sheets for the 8080, it was a serious sales point. You are thinking about the 8080->8086 move. In that case, you couldn't reuse roms, but could reassemble your source, without having to make significant changes. (I forget if you had to do something about setting up some stuff related to segmented addressing) -dp- Organizer, New England Rubbish Deconstruction Society; The NERDS www.the-nerds.org ###### From: "Geoffrey G. Rochat" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:00:14 -0400 Organization: Kersur Technologies Lines: 54 Message-ID: <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: nas-74-80.boston.navipath.net X-Trace: news.kersur.net 958085930 18902 216.67.74.80 (11 May 2000 22:58:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@kersur.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 May 2000 22:58:50 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.kersur.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56031 > >The 6809 came out after the Z-80 as a way for the 680x chips to compete >with the 8080/Z-80, though Zilog made the latter. The Z-80 as a recall was >a superset, instruction-wise, of the 8080, which was an Intel product. >Zilog was formed by former Intel employees as well, IIRC. The 6809 was a marvelous machine with a simple instruction set married with very powerful addression, in some ways conceptually the opposite of the RISC philosophy. It took a while to "get" the combination, but when you did the machine was easy to program and ran surprizingly fast for a 2MHz chip. It was great for writing position-independent, re-entrant code, and with two stack pointers and two index registers it loved threaded code. Hitachi eventually came out with an improved CMOS flavor of the 6809 called the 6309, but whereas I was involved in a half dozen 6809 designs, I only saw a 6309 once. From an architectural standpoint the 6309 was to the 6809 what the Z80 was to the 8080. An excellent reference to the 6309 may be found at: www.concentric.net/~Alxevans/6309/index.html Of course, like all the really good stuff the 6809 and 6309 were allowed to go out of production... > >: Through 1977, when the consumer type computers like the Radio Shack, >: Commodore and Apple II arrived, if there was a CPU there probably was >: a system for it. There was a construction article for the Signetics >: CPU in Radio Electronics, and it was the usual construction article >: that happened to also be available as a kit. And there was a video >: game using the Fairchild CPU that someone wanted to turn into a color >: display or something in Kilobaud that year. > >The Signetics chip (forget the name) and the Fairchild F8 were not >successful in the same terms as the 6800 and 8080. Ahhhh! I've been reading these threads for awhile now, waiting for mention of this to crop up. The Signetics chip probably referred to was the 2650. Just as the 6800 looked back over its shoulder to DEC's PDP-11 for inspiration, the 2650 so regarded the DG Nova. I don't know why it never caught on, but I did meet a fellow one time who actually claimed to have design a system that used it. And speaking of Novas, nobody has yet mentioned the Fairchild 9440, which was a full-blown Nova on a chip - just as the Intersil IM6100 was a full-blown PDP-8. My understanding was that the 9440 became embroiled in an intellectual-property dispute between DG and Fairchild, and by the time the smoke cleared the market window had closed. Does anybody here know more on this topic? ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:01:51 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-Lj8wgDP8Qd4cmxIAHiw05WYajiT5xzwcPyQctDDCLqp/mFz6qkmNTGoZizs4+Oa0hmx6E+xxeEKN4R7!Q5mkj1bHJ/gM/gFl7g+Dnw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:01:51 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!europa.netcrusader.net!209.113.65.250!korova.insync.net!solomon.io.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55954 On Thu, 11 May 2000 22:38:50 GMT, Don Stokes wrote, about the Z80's improvements over the 8080 instruction set: >Not that many. IX & IY, block operations (LDIR & friends) and the shadow >register set were the biggies. What else was there? I used relative jumps a whole lot to save bytes in embedded applications, and having an overflow flag available was useful at times. (This was the reason the original Altair BASIC wouldn't run on a Z80, BTW...Bill Gates, foreshadowing his later positions on programming and such, used the parity flag after an arithmetic instruction in one place, and the Z-80 overloaded the flag to mean overflow after arithmetic instructions. Oops.) ###### From: timothy.mccaffrey@spam2filter.unisys.com.takethisoff (Tim McCaffrey) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 11 May 2000 23:26:21 GMT Organization: A series networking Lines: 46 Message-ID: <8fffit$kct$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391B33BA.20A4@compuserve.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.63.212.151 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.9 (Released Version) (x86 32bit) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!eanews1.unisys.com!plnews.pl.unisys.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56057 In article <391B33BA.20A4@compuserve.com>, Sam Yorko says... > >Jeff DelPapa wrote: >> >> One intentional point in the 8080's favor. While not an electrical >> replacement (it had 40 pins, the 8008 20 or less, I forget), a >> requirement was that all 8008 software would run on an 8080. Back >> then, getting a mask programmed rom made was a VERY big deal. >> The cost of changing things for the new chip was cheap compared to >> re-masking a rom. >> > >Um, IIRC, I don't think so. The assembly instruction set may have been >upwards compatible, but I don't think the machine language was. > >Sam Yes, the 8080 is almost an exact superset of the 8008 from a source code viewpoint, but the binary is completely different. If you think the 8080 is difficult to program, try the 8008 some time. Processors I remember (~1975): Intel: 4004, 4040, 8008, 8080, 8048(?) Zilog: Z-80 Motorola: 6800 Fairchild: F8 Natsemi: PACE, 8900, SCAMP DataGeneral: MicroNova(?) RCA: 1802 AMD: 2900 bit slice (not really a micro). MOS Technology: 6502 1975-80: Signetics: 2650 (yuck), 8x300 (not really a micro) Intersil: IM 6100 (PDP 8 clone) Motorola: 680x, 6809, 68000 Intel: 8085, 8051, 8032, 8086, 8088, 8089 Zilog: Z-8 TI: 9900, 9980, 9995 RCA: 1805, CMOS 8085 DEC: LSI-11, F-11, T-11 Tim McCaffrey ###### From: Jim Thomas Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:09:39 -1000 Organization: Canada France Hawai`i Telescope Corporation Lines: 11 Message-ID: <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: saturn.cfht.hawaii.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.hawaii.edu 958090180 24861 128.171.80.131 (12 May 2000 00:09:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@hawaii.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 May 2000 00:09:40 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/735) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news.hawaii.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55992 Eric Chomko wrote: > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? 20 years ago == 1980. What about the LSI-11 ? :-) Or the F10 (4-bit imbedded thingy I think it was)? When was the first AT&T 3B? ? Hitachi/NEC/Fujitsu ? ###### Sender: marc@hana.snafu.org Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> From: Marco S Hyman Date: 11 May 2000 17:45:13 -0700 Message-ID: Organization: S.N.A.F.U. -- http://www.snafu.org/ X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.54.48.250 X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 958092313 225 marc@206.54.48.250 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news2.best.com!news3.best.com!nntp1.ba.best.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56051 don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) writes: > Not that many. IX & IY, block operations (LDIR & friends) and the shadow > register set were the biggies. What else was there? Oh, the Z80 went > quite a bit faster, which had something to do with its success over the > 8080 too... Built in dram refresh helped reduce needed glue logic, another big win. The alt registers were not all that helpful. The one register that you'd want to have duplicated SP, wasn't. Bummer. And did anything use the NS K-8073 (I think that was the number). The one with Tiny BASIC included. // marc ###### Message-ID: <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 20:59:54 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader0.news.uu.net 958093197 21267 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!news-out.digex.net.MISMATCH!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!intermedia!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!spool1.news.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader0.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56041 Jim Thomas wrote: > > Eric Chomko wrote: > > > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor > > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the > > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? > > 20 years ago == 1980. What about the LSI-11 ? :-) I had this argument here with Eric a couple of months ago. Basically, he has no experience with the LSI-11, so it doesn't count. Same with all the other interesting architectures you might want to discuss. Tim. ###### From: William Hamblen Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:58:27 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 9 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fehb0$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE4ED.2A15@azstarnet.com> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56118 On Thu, 11 May 2000 09:50:53 -0700, bill_h wrote: >Several people wrote a basic for the 8008. I only knew of one: Scelbal (by the same people who made the Scelbi 8H and 8B). It was sold in the form of an assembler listing bound into a book. ###### From: "The Bakers" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Lines: 11 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 03:05:20 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.177.95 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 958100720 12.79.177.95 (Fri, 12 May 2000 03:05:20 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 03:05:20 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.19!wnmasters2!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56032 Eric Chomko wrote in message news:8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net... > > I'm not sure if it was in any SUCCESSFUL systems. I do recall seeing a > system with an 8008, name started with an "S" as I recall. > I believe you're thinking of "Scelbi". ###### From: William Hamblen Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:51:07 -0500 Organization: Utterly Disorganized Lines: 9 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fc0rn$gb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <9qrcf8.7h3.ln@news.nashville.com> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56111 On 11 May 2000 15:18:42 +0800, Rod Pinna wrote: >BTW, anybody have any opinions about Basic09 as a form of >basic? I found it quite nice to do toy programs in. Anyone whose seen Microsoft QBasic would have a reasonable idea of what BASIC09 is like. BASIC09 appeared about 1979. ###### From: William Hamblen Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:51:11 -0500 Organization: Utterly Disorganized Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56112 On 11 May 2000 15:42:10 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: >MIKBUG used bit-banging to make a 6820 to act like a serial port. Are you >sure about your comment that the 6850 was an initial release? Seems to me >that I recall the MP-C SWTPC board being replaced by the much improved >MP-S board late in the game. The MP-C allowed only two baud rates (110 and >300). Whereas, the MP-S allowed those two and all the way up to 9600 with >some hacking. The 6850 and the 6820 came out at about the same time. I don't know why Motorola put the bit banger in Mikbug unless 6820s were cheaper than 6850s. MINIBUG, which used a 6850 for serial I/O, was on the same ROM mask as MIKBUG. You grounded a pin on the ROM to select one or the other. ###### Message-ID: <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 47 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 05:43:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958110232 194.16.221.33 (Fri, 12 May 2000 07:43:52 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:43:52 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55967 Don Stokes wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > >Don Stokes wrote: > >> > >> In article <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net>, > >> Charles Richmond wrote: > >> >Do *not* forget that the Z-80 also had *two* index registers X and Y, > >> > >> ITYM IX and IY. And HL could be used for carrying around 16 bit addresses. > > > >Actually, HL for addresses was in the original 8080, the Z80 extended > >this to all registers. > > Er, did it? I seem to recall that while you could load/save 16 bit > values into BC and CD, only HL could be used as an indirect address, > and this was the case on the 8080 and Z80. Yep. You can use BC and DE as 16-bit pointers to fetch and store data on the Z80 if you want to. The "original" opcode has a three-bit field for register, which allows for A,B,C,D,E,H,L,(HL) so the Z80 had to add totally new opcodes for instructions such as LD A,(DE) and LD A,(BC) (and vice versa) > >The original 8080 is really no fun at all. The Z80 was neccesary for this > >architecture to thrive. There were *lots* of improvements on the > >instruction set. > > Not that many. IX & IY, block operations (LDIR & friends) and the shadow > register set were the biggies. What else was there? Oh, the Z80 went > quite a bit faster, which had something to do with its success over the > 8080 too... Speed came later. IX and IY are obvious, and so are the block operations. But much 16-bit stuff is Z80-based too. And using anything but HL for pointer. I think that everything with the FD, FE and FF prefixes are Z80 additions, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Message-ID: <391B9AE6.26B5ABD8@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 32 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 05:47:18 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958110438 194.16.221.33 (Fri, 12 May 2000 07:47:18 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:47:18 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55980 Marco S Hyman wrote: > > don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) writes: > > > Not that many. IX & IY, block operations (LDIR & friends) and the shadow > > register set were the biggies. What else was there? Oh, the Z80 went > > quite a bit faster, which had something to do with its success over the > > 8080 too... > > Built in dram refresh helped reduce needed glue logic, another big > win. Definitely. > The alt registers were not all that helpful. The one register > that you'd want to have duplicated SP, wasn't. Bummer. I disagree. alt registers are very useful to me in interrupts. Make for faster handling, and less stack use. Another important addition are the interrupt handling. The 8080 scheme is pretty awful, while the vector approach of the Z80 in IM2 is wonderful. Couldn't live without it. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Message-ID: <391B9B72.31CBC08F@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 25 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 05:49:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958110578 194.16.221.33 (Fri, 12 May 2000 07:49:38 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:49:38 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!uninett.no!news.ost.eltele.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55975 Andrew Paul Cadley wrote: > > On Thu, 11 May 2000, Don Stokes wrote: > > > In article <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net>, > > Charles Richmond wrote: > > >Do *not* forget that the Z-80 also had *two* index registers X and Y, > > > > ITYM IX and IY. And HL could be used for carrying around 16 bit addresses. > > As could the BC and DE pairs. If your really careful you can even use AF, > but it's tricky to avoid instructions which can potentially corrupt the > flags register. No. AF can (possibly) be used to store 16-bit values, but you cannot use it as an address pointer while in AF. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:13:09 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 27 Message-ID: <391BA0F4.93B0B18D@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fehb0$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55932 Eric Chomko wrote: > > [snip..] [snip...] [snip...] > > No, that is EXACTLY the reason. The 8008 did not have enoug address space > nor was it fast enough to run a high-level language such as BASIC. When a > microprocessor was powerful enough to run BASIC, then it had a chance to > be inside of a successful computer. > Well, the Intel 8008, the National Semiconductor SC/MP (8060), and the Fairchild F8 had at least Tiny Basic interpreters available for them. But as you said, they all had limited address space or addressing problems. And they were *not* as successful as the 8080 and 6800...but there *were* systems that used them for embedded applications. And I am sure that some hobbyists built up homebrew systems around all these chips. The RCA COSMAC 1802 microprocessor was another chip that was *not* as successful as the 8080 or 6800. But Harris Semiconductor still makes this chip, and it even goes into space on unmanned missions, because there is a radiation hardened version. I am *not* sure why it did *not* take off as a processor in home computers. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: Cliff Sojourner Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:14:51 -0700 Organization: Cisco Systems Incorporated Lines: 29 Message-ID: <391BA15B.1F3B6D71@cisco.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919A7EB.76F0@compuserve.com> <486.165T2325T11616058@sky.bus.com> <0umdf8.i9.ln@localhost.my.domain> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cache-Post-Path: sj-nntpcache-5!unknown@cls-isdn1.cisco.com X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56120 Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > > > And (IIRC) the clocks were not TTL levels. > > Nope, practically the only option was to use the clock chip. The 8080 > was basically a three chip micro (anyone remember what the other one was, > some sort of bus controller IIRC). don't forget, this was all part of Intel's evil plan to sell memory chips!!! also, they had a few peripheral chips for parallel and serial IO, and a memory controller for DRAMs, and a few others. by the time you were done making a system you could have a dozen or more parts on the board, all stamped big i. Monopoly!! where was the Attorney General when we needed him!!! call out the National Guard!!!! -- Cliff Sojourner, Cisco Systems Inc. cls@cisco.com (408) 527-7637 170 W. Tasman Drive, SJ CA 95134 bldg H2/cube E2-7 if you misbehave in the orchestra, they take away your instrument and give you two sticks. if you misbehave while playing drums, they take away one of your sticks and make you stand in front and wave it around. ###### From: Cliff Sojourner Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:31:50 -0700 Organization: Cisco Systems Incorporated Lines: 63 Message-ID: <391BA556.B14BD608@cisco.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cache-Post-Path: sj-nntpcache-3!unknown@cls-isdn1.cisco.com X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56119 Eric, I disagree with a number of things you said here: Eric Chomko wrote: > > Tim Shoppa wrote: ... > : National Semiconductor had the SCAMP; the 1802 was RCA. Yes, all > : over 20 years ago. > > But you cannot name a microcomputer system using those chips now, can you? fortunately SC/MP died a quick death, like the 2650 which was another abomination. segmented addressing, bleah! 1802, on the other hand... many of us had the COSMAC ELF 1802 hobby computer system, which did include BASIC (contrary to your post below) and could be expanded to 32kb and a 5" floppy disk system. 1802s were used - and are still used - in satellite systems. 1802 was the first "rad-hard" microprocessor. 1802 had relatively low power consumption for the time... a single clock, 256 bytes built in memory? a very simple bus connection anyways. nice chip! I built a few little controller things out of them. these days that kind of thing would be an "embedded system" but it was just a "project" back then. > I believe that the problem was that those comapines did not produce > evaluation kits as did both Intel and Motorola. Are there any versions of > BASIC for the 1802, F8 and SCAMP? They were microcontroller chips at F8 mainly lived in the forgettable "F8" video game system, which had what, a half dozen cartridges? vastly eclipsed by the Atari 2600, which did have its own BASIC cartridge! I remember assembling a SC/MP on S-100 prototype board (wire wrap, those were the days). I don't remember ever getting it to work and I certainly don't remember any software available for it. > best. I was not saying that other microprocessors did not exist at the > time. My point was that only two microprocessors were used in anything > that could be called a successful microcomputer; and they had in them > either an 8080 or 6800. oh really? Apple selling millions of dollars of Apple ][s with 6502s in them doesn't count as "success"? what about all the thousands of OSI systems with 6502s? Cliff > > Eric > > : Tim. -- Cliff Sojourner, Cisco Systems Inc. cls@cisco.com (408) 527-7637 170 W. Tasman Drive, SJ CA 95134 bldg H2/cube E2-7 if you misbehave in the orchestra, they take away your instrument and give you two sticks. if you misbehave while playing drums, they take away one of your sticks and make you stand in front and wave it around. ###### From: Cliff Sojourner Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:42:20 -0700 Organization: Cisco Systems Incorporated Lines: 39 Message-ID: <391BA7CC.4AB3D655@cisco.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cache-Post-Path: sj-nntpcache-3!unknown@cls-isdn1.cisco.com X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55929 "Geoffrey G. Rochat" wrote: ... > >The Signetics chip (forget the name) and the Fairchild F8 were not > >successful in the same terms as the 6800 and 8080. > > Ahhhh! I've been reading these threads for awhile now, waiting for > mention of this to crop up. The Signetics chip probably referred to was > the 2650. Just as the 6800 looked back over its shoulder to DEC's > PDP-11 for inspiration, the 2650 so regarded the DG Nova. I don't know > why it never caught on, but I did meet a fellow one time who actually > claimed to have design a system that used it. I had a 2650 sample and got it to run but the instruction set was miserable. and the memory addressing was worse: there were 4 8kB "segments" for 32kb total. you think x86 style segmentation (64kB windows) is restrictive, try that little thing. this at a time when most CP/M systems had at least 32kB, usually more... game over. oh yeah, there wasn't any software for 2650, I never even found a cross compiler for it. > And speaking of Novas, nobody has yet mentioned the Fairchild 9440, > which was a full-blown Nova on a chip - just as the Intersil IM6100 was > a full-blown PDP-8. My understanding was that the 9440 became embroiled > in an intellectual-property dispute between DG and Fairchild, and by the > time the smoke cleared the market window had closed. Does anybody here > know more on this topic? pretty cool, hope to hear more... -- Cliff Sojourner, Cisco Systems Inc. cls@cisco.com (408) 527-7637 170 W. Tasman Drive, SJ CA 95134 bldg H2/cube E2-7 if you misbehave in the orchestra, they take away your instrument and give you two sticks. if you misbehave while playing drums, they take away one of your sticks and make you stand in front and wave it around. ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:49:48 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 22 Message-ID: <391BA98C.598250A3@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE278.422590AD@trailing-edge.com> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55931 Tim Shoppa wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [sinp...] > > I think the 1802 was used in a video game unit sold by Radio Shack > in the mid-70's. Lord help me, I can't remember the name. > Well, I have a video game unit from Radio Shack which uses an 1802. It is called Studio II. (I do *not* know if there was a Studio I.) No, joysticks, but it was controlled by two numeric keypads built into the unit. The graphics were clunky blocks in something like a 64 x 32 screen. I also have ten or so game cartidges for this machine. Back in the 1970's when RS was dumping this game, I was able to get a "good" deal on it. Stangely enough, I have been in contact with someone who says he is developing an emulator for this game...go figure. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Organization: Best Internet Communications, Inc. X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72+ked.01 (05 September 1999) From: bauer@shell3.ba.best.com (Jerry Bauer) Date: 12 May 2000 06:50:28 GMT Lines: 31 Message-ID: <391ba9b4$0$216@nntp1.ba.best.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell3.ba.best.com X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 958114228 216 bauer@206.184.139.134 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!news.voicenet.com!news2.best.com!news3.best.com!nntp1.ba.best.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55990 In article , William Hamblen wrote: >On 11 May 2000 15:42:10 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: > >>MIKBUG used bit-banging to make a 6820 to act like a serial port. Are you >>sure about your comment that the 6850 was an initial release? Seems to me >>that I recall the MP-C SWTPC board being replaced by the much improved >>MP-S board late in the game. The MP-C allowed only two baud rates (110 and >>300). Whereas, the MP-S allowed those two and all the way up to 9600 with >>some hacking. > >The 6850 and the 6820 came out at about the same time. I don't know >why Motorola put the bit banger in Mikbug unless 6820s were cheaper >than 6850s. MINIBUG, which used a 6850 for serial I/O, was on the >same ROM mask as MIKBUG. You grounded a pin on the ROM to select one >or the other. > MIKBUG was available mask-programmed on a 6846 ROM-IO-Timer chip. This chip has an eight-bit parallel port, but no serial port. Theoretically, a two-chip system could be constructed of the 6802 (CPU + RAM and the 6846 (ROM, IO, Timer). Unfortunately, MIKBUG wanted RAM at $A000, and the 6802 mapped its on-board RAM at $0000, so a MIKBUG system required a separate RAM chip (the 6810 -- 128 bytes). Therefore, a minimal MIKBUG system required three chips. MIKBUG also included FSK routins for a big-banger minimal-hardware cassette-tape interface. Jerry Randal Bauer ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fehb0$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391BA0F4.93B0B18D@dallas.net> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:57:07 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-U9yGVssLfS37AT2JZkeokU/ugkxUN0Xf3EEuLQVQ3KyPu/FQpfYY+oRSwN7P2O8ljr3e/DqnN1YLdT7!xmNF2rOItg0elRWn3S45tA== X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 06:57:07 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!korova.insync.net!solomon.io.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55938 On Thu, 11 May 2000 23:13:09 -0700, Charles Richmond wrote: >The RCA COSMAC 1802 microprocessor was another chip that was *not* as >successful as the 8080 or 6800. But Harris Semiconductor still makes >this chip, and it even goes into space on unmanned missions, because >there is a radiation hardened version. I am *not* sure why it did *not* >take off as a processor in home computers. It's not so much that there's a radiation-hardened version as that the chip just magically turned out to be radiation-hard from the start, which is why it was used for the OSCAR amateur radio satellites for years. I don't know why it didn't take off either, but I can hazard one guess: the thing has a *major* bottleneck in the A register - that's the only register which can be transferred to or from memory. Other registers must be transferred by first copying to or from A. ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 6 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:58:46 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-1w06wtFt6j8wfPOVkIf+++K/g7I2A2w+56RUw39O/35Cx4v/cj/gqFfhjP92kcn+YORtcVq+kE+qLVq!Aitw50wOcq20LPbRcS/W X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 06:58:46 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!korova.insync.net!solomon.io.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55941 On Fri, 12 May 2000 05:43:52 GMT, Johnny Billquist wrote: >I think that everything with the FD, FE and FF >prefixes are Z80 additions, but please correct me if I'm wrong. DD, ED, and FD. ###### From: Jeff Teunissen Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Organization: Dusk To Dawn Computing Lines: 26 Message-ID: <391BAA52.70C8DBFE@dusknet.dhs.org> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:00:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.13.35.106 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.mi.home.com 958114801 24.13.35.106 (Fri, 12 May 2000 00:00:01 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 00:00:01 PDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.mi.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56023 Andrew Erickson wrote: > > In article , > Steve McKenna wrote: [snip] > >>What was the best Motorola 6800 system? > > (TRS-80s were 6800 based, weren't they? They were okay.) Depends on the TRS-80: TRS-80 models I, II, III, and 4 were Z80-based. TRS-80 Color Computers (and the MC-10) were 6809E-based. The E, in case you didn't know, meant External clock source. TRS-80 Model 6000 was 68000-based, and ran Xenix. Okay, walked slowly with the help of Xenix. There were others, but most fell into one of these categories. -- | Jeff Teunissen - Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing - deek at dusknet.dhs.org | Disclaimer: I am my employer, so anything I say goes for me too. :) | Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/ | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://dusknet.dhs.org/~deek/ ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 07:09:33 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 8 Message-ID: <8fgand$3hk$1@freenet9.carleton.ca> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919A7EB.76F0@compuserve.com> <486.165T2325T11616058@sky.bus.com> <0umdf8.i9.ln@localhost.my.domain> <391BA15B.1F3B6D71@cisco.com> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet10 X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 958115373 3636 134.117.136.30 (12 May 2000 07:09:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 May 2000 07:09:33 GMT X-Given-Sender: ab528@freenet10.carleton.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!newspeer1.nac.net!news.new-york.net!news.kjsl.com!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56064 Cliff Sojourner (cls@cisco.com) writes: > > don't forget, this was all part of Intel's evil plan to sell memory > chips!!! And with the help of Bloatware Inc. the plan works to this day. (The Windows 98 box recommends 24 megabytes of RAM.) ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: <2000May12.072332.26102@lorelei.approve.se> Originator: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Sender: hoh@lorelei.approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Organization: [1] + 5934 done /bin/rm -rf ~/ & X-No-Archive: yes X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test66 (4 June 1998) References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Lines: 25 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.216.151 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 958117686 130.244.216.151 (Fri, 12 May 2000 09:48:06 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:48:06 MET DST X-Sender: q-11932@isdn216-1-151.swipnet.se Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:23:32 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56077 In article <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz>, Don Stokes wrote: > Er, did it? I seem to recall that while you could load/save 16 bit > values into BC and CD, only HL could be used as an indirect address, > and this was the case on the 8080 and Z80. Mnemonic Opcode --------- ------ LD (BC),A 02 LD (DE),A 12 LD A,(BC) 0A LD A,(DE) 1A > Not that many. IX & IY, block operations (LDIR & friends) and the shadow > register set were the biggies. What else was there? Relative jumps, DJNZ, V-flag, in/out with port# in C, bit set/reset/test, shift/rotate, new interrupt modes, DRAM refresh, 16 bit ADC/SBC, more 16 bit load/stores on BC and DE, single 5V supply, single phase TTL compatible clock. -- Göran Larsson hoh AT approve DOT se Senior Systems Analyst ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 12 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 02:49:00 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-cZ8tgSfQnroRWZ/i9FQtHEgXeWOnhhEQDj19pstGYqlqs5P00+EWALv9OHJc1NYKh+ItF8MKn4Zwqge!CFAiR01VKqhPp7MZw6wh8A== X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:49:00 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!europa.netcrusader.net!209.113.65.250!korova.insync.net!solomon.io.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55944 On Fri, 12 May 2000 06:58:46 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote: >On Fri, 12 May 2000 05:43:52 GMT, Johnny Billquist > wrote: >>I think that everything with the FD, FE and FF >>prefixes are Z80 additions, but please correct me if I'm wrong. > >DD, ED, and FD. Oops...forgot CB, too. (Well, I'd like to forget CB... *rimshot*) ###### Message-ID: <391BC7B4.14742857@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 23 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:58:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958121908 194.16.221.33 (Fri, 12 May 2000 10:58:28 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:58:28 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!uio.no!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55963 Jay Maynard wrote: > > On Fri, 12 May 2000 05:43:52 GMT, Johnny Billquist > wrote: > >I think that everything with the FD, FE and FF > >prefixes are Z80 additions, but please correct me if I'm wrong. > > DD, ED, and FD. Atleast I got FD right. :-) (Actually, FD was the one I remembered, I just didn't remember the system, and thus made wrong assumptions. :-) Anyway. Another very important improvement in the Z80 was the interrupt handling. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Message-ID: <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:43:10 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 39 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader3.news.uu.net 958131791 7087 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader3.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56046 Johnny Billquist wrote: > > Don Stokes wrote: > > > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > > >Don Stokes wrote: > > >> > > >> In article <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net>, > > >> Charles Richmond wrote: > > >> >Do *not* forget that the Z-80 also had *two* index registers X and Y, > > >> > > >> ITYM IX and IY. And HL could be used for carrying around 16 bit addresses. > > > > > >Actually, HL for addresses was in the original 8080, the Z80 extended > > >this to all registers. > > > > Er, did it? I seem to recall that while you could load/save 16 bit > > values into BC and CD, only HL could be used as an indirect address, > > and this was the case on the 8080 and Z80. > > Yep. You can use BC and DE as 16-bit pointers to fetch and store data > on the Z80 if you want to. The "original" opcode has a three-bit > field for register, which allows for A,B,C,D,E,H,L,(HL) so the > Z80 had to add totally new opcodes for instructions such as > LD A,(DE) and LD A,(BC) (and vice versa) I'm confused by your "Z80 had to add totally new opcodes". The 8080 did (in Z80 speak) LD A,(BC) and LD A,(DE) using the exact same opcodes that the Z80 did - 012 and 032 (octal). Sure, the Z80 used different mnemonics for the same functions, but Intel had copyrighted their original, clear, and simple mnemonics so Zilog had to choose a much more confusing set of mnemonics which had no direct mapping into opcodes. If you learned to program with the screwed up Z80 mnemonics you probably don't have any idea how orthogonal the 8080's instruction set was. Tim. ###### From: Andrew Paul Cadley Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:47:15 +0100 Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, NR47TJ, UK Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: cpca7.uea.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: cpca14.uea.ac.uk 958132036 17546 139.222.130.7 (12 May 2000 11:47:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@uea.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 May 2000 11:47:16 GMT In-Reply-To: <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.germany.net!blackbush.xlink.net!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!server1.netnews.ja.net!news.uea.ac.uk!cpca7.uea.ac.uk!a962115 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56104 On Thu, 11 May 2000, Don Stokes wrote: > Er, did it? I seem to recall that while you could load/save 16 bit > values into BC and CD, only HL could be used as an indirect address, > and this was the case on the 8080 and Z80. Provided A is the destination you can use BC or DE for indirection. HL could be used with any register. AndyC ###### From: Andrew Paul Cadley Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:54:58 +0100 Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, NR47TJ, UK Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9B72.31CBC08F@netinsight.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: cpca7.uea.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: cpca14.uea.ac.uk 958132499 19581 139.222.130.7 (12 May 2000 11:54:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@uea.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 May 2000 11:54:59 GMT In-Reply-To: <391B9B72.31CBC08F@netinsight.se> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!server1.netnews.ja.net!news.uea.ac.uk!cpca7.uea.ac.uk!a962115 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56105 On Fri, 12 May 2000, Johnny Billquist wrote: > Andrew Paul Cadley wrote: > > > > On Thu, 11 May 2000, Don Stokes wrote: > > > ITYM IX and IY. And HL could be used for carrying around 16 bit addresses. > > > > As could the BC and DE pairs. If your really careful you can even use AF, > > but it's tricky to avoid instructions which can potentially corrupt the > > flags register. > > No. AF can (possibly) be used to store 16-bit values, but you cannot > use it as an address pointer while in AF. Yes I know. I didn't realise that's what he was saying. AndyC ###### From: bruce+usenet2@NOSPAMfanboy.net (Bruce Tomlin) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE278.422590AD@trailing-edge.com> <391BA98C.598250A3@dallas.net> Organization: San Antonio, TX Lines: 8 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:18:14 CDT X-Trace: sv2-1I5hOEa9qlqPat4WVGJQl/MqgBJbRHP6BeTRGzfZh/Y1MmjL1So8qTHw6QkbBaiEnUcPRQAtklfrQCG!mawC6hqh4ocV0sEcug== X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:18:50 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!diablo.theplanet.net!europa.netcrusader.net!209.113.65.250!korova.insync.net!solomon.io.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!atuin.bruce!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56092 In article <391BA98C.598250A3@dallas.net>, richmond@dallas.net wrote: > Well, I have a video game unit from Radio Shack which uses an 1802. > It is called Studio II. (I do *not* know if there was a Studio I.) That was by RCA, who not coincidentally was the original source of the 1802. It also used the same graphics chip as the COSMAC ELF video add-on. ###### From: bruce+usenet2@NOSPAMfanboy.net (Bruce Tomlin) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <391BAA52.70C8DBFE@dusknet.dhs.org> Organization: San Antonio, TX Lines: 14 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:21:41 CDT X-Trace: sv2-S2CnFcmttaRHYtDAPWUdHsXAUjmgK8E37xNQ3VWywFuDVYyUq2P7TfaeafbfsV65MexQ5fTO1nXN8AW!VRholIRFWqLsgY6S8ag= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:22:17 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!atuin.bruce!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56091 In article <391BAA52.70C8DBFE@dusknet.dhs.org>, Jeff Teunissen wrote: > TRS-80 Model 6000 was 68000-based, and ran Xenix. Okay, walked slowly with > the help of Xenix. Eight whole megahertz! And the one I got running last month had a whole megabyte of memory! In other words, about the equivalent of a Mac Plus, except it didn't have to waste cycles pushing around 22k of bitmapped video memory. They still have the Z-80 in those things, although they removed it from the card cage where it was in the Model II and Model 16. And the 6000's card cage is much easier to reach than previous models. ###### Message-ID: <391BFBE6.BC4122CD@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 47 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:41:11 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958135271 194.16.221.33 (Fri, 12 May 2000 14:41:11 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:41:11 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.highwayone.net!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!news.algonet.se!algonet!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55982 Tim Shoppa wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > > > > Yep. You can use BC and DE as 16-bit pointers to fetch and store data > > on the Z80 if you want to. The "original" opcode has a three-bit > > field for register, which allows for A,B,C,D,E,H,L,(HL) so the > > Z80 had to add totally new opcodes for instructions such as > > LD A,(DE) and LD A,(BC) (and vice versa) > > I'm confused by your "Z80 had to add totally new opcodes". The > 8080 did (in Z80 speak) LD A,(BC) and LD A,(DE) using the exact > same opcodes that the Z80 did - 012 and 032 (octal). Brain fart on my behalf then. I thought those were added in the Z80, but obviously I'm wrong. > Sure, the Z80 used different mnemonics for the same > functions, but Intel had copyrighted their original, clear, and > simple mnemonics so Zilog had to choose a much more confusing > set of mnemonics which had no direct mapping into opcodes. If > you learned to program with the screwed up Z80 mnemonics you > probably don't have any idea how orthogonal the 8080's instruction > set was. I must admit that I'm used to the Zilog notation. However, some people have complained about Zilog trying to make the CPU look orthogonal when it really isn't. So I'm a bit confused by your comment on this. Moreover, the Z80 (and obviously 8080) isn't even close to orthogonal, so any attempt to hide it as such will, by definition, be ugly and incomplete. Better to show it as it is. This is also, incidentally, one of my *big* complaints about the 68000. It barely beats the 8086 in my book. Two different architectures; both evil. One hides it better than the other, though... Give me a PDP-11 any day. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: <2000May12.132828.29266@lorelei.approve.se> Originator: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Sender: hoh@lorelei.approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Organization: [1] + 5934 done /bin/rm -rf ~/ & X-No-Archive: yes X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test66 (4 June 1998) References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> Lines: 28 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.217.15 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 958138687 130.244.217.15 (Fri, 12 May 2000 15:38:07 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:38:07 MET DST X-Sender: unknown@isdn217-1-15.swipnet.se Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:28:28 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56080 In article <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com>, Tim Shoppa wrote: > functions, but Intel had copyrighted their original, clear, and > simple mnemonics so Zilog had to choose a much more confusing > set of mnemonics which had no direct mapping into opcodes. Clear and simple? Intel couldn't even decide if they moved things to/from registers (MOV,MVI) or loaded things to/from registers (LDX,LXI). > you learned to program with the screwed up Z80 mnemonics you > probably don't have any idea how orthogonal the 8080's instruction > set was. The 8080's instruction is far from orthogonal, e.g. BC can not be used the same way as HL. Intel just made it look orthogonal by many different mnemonics for the same type of opcode, e.g. MVI and LXI, and to indicate addressing modes. Zilog used one mnemonic for all opcodes of the same type, e.g. LD, and used other means to indicate addressing modes, e.g. (). Intel was hiding the unorthogonality while Zilog exposed it. Some people like the Intel way, some liked the Zilog way. Personally I prefer the Zilog way even though I know how much it complicates the inside of an assembler (I should know as I once wrote a Z80 macro assembler with high level constructs like if, while, repeat, et.al.). -- Göran Larsson hoh AT approve DOT se Senior Systems Analyst ###### Message-ID: <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:36:22 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> <391BFBE6.BC4122CD@netinsight.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 96 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader1.news.uu.net 958138583 4925 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!portc03.blue.aol.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader1.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56043 Johnny Billquist wrote: > > Tim Shoppa wrote: > > > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > > > > > > Yep. You can use BC and DE as 16-bit pointers to fetch and store data > > > on the Z80 if you want to. The "original" opcode has a three-bit > > > field for register, which allows for A,B,C,D,E,H,L,(HL) so the > > > Z80 had to add totally new opcodes for instructions such as > > > LD A,(DE) and LD A,(BC) (and vice versa) > > > > I'm confused by your "Z80 had to add totally new opcodes". The > > 8080 did (in Z80 speak) LD A,(BC) and LD A,(DE) using the exact > > same opcodes that the Z80 did - 012 and 032 (octal). > > Brain fart on my behalf then. I thought those were added in the Z80, > but obviously I'm wrong. Again, it's not your fault, it's a classic symptom a widespread disease called "thinking in Z80 mnemonics". > > Sure, the Z80 used different mnemonics for the same > > functions, but Intel had copyrighted their original, clear, and > > simple mnemonics so Zilog had to choose a much more confusing > > set of mnemonics which had no direct mapping into opcodes. If > > you learned to program with the screwed up Z80 mnemonics you > > probably don't have any idea how orthogonal the 8080's instruction > > set was. > > I must admit that I'm used to the Zilog notation. However, some > people have complained about Zilog trying to make the CPU look > orthogonal when it really isn't. > So I'm a bit confused by your comment on this. Moreover, the > Z80 (and obviously 8080) isn't even close to orthogonal, > so any attempt to hide it as such will, by definition, be > ugly and incomplete. Better to show it as it is. Zilog hid the Z80's non-orthogonality behind the "LD" instruction, which *really* isn't a single opcode (in the classic PDP-11 sense, for example.) As a result you need a whole book to tell you that, for example: LD A,(HL) is legal just as LD A,(BC) is legal, while JP (HL) is legal, but JP (BC) isn't. LD A,(HL) is legal just as LD A,(IX+offset) is legal, while JP (HL) is legal, but JP (IX+offset) isn't. ADD HL,BC is legal, just as ADD HL,DE is, but ADD DE,BC isn't. EX DE,HL is legal, but EX BC,DE isn't. The list is confusing, and as I said, usually is stated as a list of "allowed" combinations a few hundred long. There *is* a logic to what Z80 mnemonic/register/addressing modes exist and which ones don't, but the logic isn't expressed at all in the mnemonics chosen, because the mnemonics hide the functionality (or disfunctionality). The mnemonics lead an unitiated programmer to think that they can stick anything on either side of the comma, but in reality they quickly learn that the set is very restrictive. They also learn very quickly that a LD instruction might be a one byte instruction, or it might be a four byte instruction, without a lot of obvious links between the mnemonic form and the actual opcodes issued. i.e. LD A,(HL) is one byte but LD A,(IX) is three bytes. The 8080 doesn't even try to hide everything behind a single "LD" mnemonic. The mnemonics used are much closer to the actual machine elements that execute them. Sure, they aren't as pretty as the Z80's "LD" mnemonic, but as I've argued the pretty Z80's mnemonics attempt (unsuccesfully) to hide the Z80-specific ugliness. With few exceptions, wherever you can put an argument to an 8080 mnemonic, you can put A, B, C, D, E, H, L, or M. (M is (HL) in Z80 speak.) The only exception are the small handful of double- byte instructions that work on the BC, DE, HL, and AF pairs - these have their own logic that is quickly figured out. > Give me a PDP-11 any day. Absolutely, the base instruction set is almost perfectly orthogonal with respect to registers and addressing modes. There's a handful of "add-on" PDP-11 instructions that were added after the original architecture was sold, but these are few and not all that commonly used. ( For example, you can do a XOR (R1),R2 but you can't XOR R2,(R1). ) The problem with the Z80, and the cause of its non-orthogonality, is that it consists of so many new registers, addressing modes, and instructions added in a haphazard way to the orthogonal 8080. I'm not saying that the new registers, addressing modes, and instructions weren't useful, just that they *are* haphazardly added. Tim. ###### Message-ID: <391BD7F2.55552865@trailing-edge.com> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:07:46 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> <2000May12.132828.29266@lorelei.approve.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 25 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader1.news.uu.net 958140467 4925 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.online.be!diablo2.online.be!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader1.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56036 Goran Larsson wrote: > Zilog used one mnemonic for all opcodes of the same type, > e.g. LD, and used other means to indicate addressing modes, e.g. (). Is the opcode 79, represented by LD A,C in the Z80 mnemonics, really the "same type" of opcodes as the three-byte opcode DD7E00, represented by LD A,(IX) in the Z80 mnemonics? I don't think so, they're not even the same length. Any sane system of mnemonics on an orthogonal machine allows a direct mapping of mnemonics into opcodes. If it's not direct, then the machine is either nonorthogonal, the system of mnemonics is not sane, or both. > like the Intel way, some liked the Zilog way. Personally I prefer the > Zilog way even though I know how much it complicates the inside of an > assembler (I should know as I once wrote a Z80 macro assembler with > high level constructs like if, while, repeat, et.al.). Sure, Zilog was scared they'd be sued for copyright violation if they followed the straightforward mnemonic->opcode mapping that Intel copyrighted for the 8080 instruction set. So they purposefully chose something much less straightforward. Tim. ###### Message-ID: <391C1109.6E3CA3FC@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 56 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:12:36 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.120.144 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 958140756 63.15.120.144 (Fri, 12 May 2000 07:12:36 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:12:36 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55973 Eric Chomko wrote: > But you cannot name a microcomputer system using those chips now, can you? > I believe that the problem was that those comapines did not produce > evaluation kits as did both Intel and Motorola. Are there any versions of > BASIC for the 1802, F8 and SCAMP? They were microcontroller chips at > best. I was not saying that other microprocessors did not exist at the > time. My point was that only two microprocessors were used in anything > that could be called a successful microcomputer; and they had in them > either an 8080 or 6800. I believe evaluation kits were available for all of those processors. I'm sure there was one for the F8, cost about $150 but needed a TTY. Hating the 8080 and not yet knowing about the 6800, I looked at the F8 in mid 1976. There was a series of articles, a tutorial of sorts, in one of the trade rags that year. It taught me that I didn't want to use the F8 :-) There was also a more "Altair, SWTPC like" box for the F8 from I believe Veras Systems, or something like that. I believe RCA had something like the ELF available as an engineering trainer, and there was something for the SCAMP too but without digging into the archives (my collection of BYTE and INTERFACE AGE from back then), I can't tell you for sure. Moto of course had the D1 and D2 kits of which I have several of each still running. MOS Technology had the KIM-1 (I want one!) Intersil had the Intercept Jr. for the 6100, battery powered! (ditto!!) What I don't recall, until the 8085, was an evaluation "kit" from Intel for the 8080. Others made them, but did Intel? (I have one from Integrated Computer Systems, Inc. They were a training course company which in addition to giving week long courses on various technical and managerial subjects, I took one once in Toronto, had several "home study" courses including two in microprocessors. I got the home study courses in 79 or so and still have the trainer. Not a bad course) As to BASIC, I believe that TINY BASIC was available for the 1802, at least. I can't say about the SCAMP and F8. Unlike many of these processors, the 1802 remains popular in its nitch. At that time I worked in what could be called an "Intel centric" shop (Ted Hoff had worked there as "summer help" 20 years previous and his dad had been a full time employee) I was the only one the the circle M emblazoned on my forehead :-) Despite this preference, they still used the 1802 for certain projects. As I was doing mini computers at the time (DG NOVA) and could only handle one hobby processor (6800) I never looked much at the machine. Regards, Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 14:15:56 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 18 Message-ID: <8fh3ms$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!newsin.iconnet.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56018 Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > The 6809 came out after the Z-80 as a way for the 680x chips to compete : > with the 8080/Z-80, though Zilog made the latter. The Z-80 as a recall was : According to a Motorola engineer who came to tell us about the 6809 in : (IIRC) 1977 and wound up spending most of the time talking about the (soon : to be announced) 68000. The 6809 was considered (by Motorola engineers) to be : a stepping stone on the way to the 68000 architecture (a sort of halfway : house between an 8 bit and a 16 bit processor). : Given CP/M and Wordstar I don't think the 6809 stood an earthly of : competing with the Z80 (except in terms of technical merit where it won : hands down). Many would argue that OS/9 is far superior to CP/M. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 14:21:54 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 26 Message-ID: <8fh422$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fehb0$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE4ED.2A15@azstarnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55986 bill_h wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > I bet the Mark-8 did not have a HLL. I know I sure as heck didn't want a : > system that was simply toggle-in machine code. : Several people wrote a basic for the 8008. : How much did you bet? Send it to me! Before your get the no-prize prize for this bet, you will have to name at least one manufacturer of said BASIC. We can then determine if it is in fact a "language" or even "BASIC". And before you can expect to actually "win" any type of arguement with me, you had better actually teach me something. Empty right and wrongness don't fly here. I can be humbled in exchange for wisdom and knowledge. So far I have not learned who or what as on the Mark-8 high-level language -wise. Eric : Bill : Tucson, AZ ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 14:25:13 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 32 Message-ID: <8fh489$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <8feih3$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55987 bill_h wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > ................ But NONE of those were sucessful as you cannot name a : > microcomputer manufacturer, such as IMSAI or SWTPC that used those chips. : Since BOTH of those companies went broke, I gotta question your : definition of ''successful'' (however you spell it). They went broke because new technology came along. Heck, the Apple II is no longer being made. Does that mean it became a "failure"? : You have for some strange reason chosen to define success such that : you eliminate any COMMERCIAL products, using chips you personally : don't seem to like, in favor of what really were little more than : toys aimed at a hobbiest market. Well the original post was stated at the hobbyist (individual) And what COMMERCIAL products existed for microcomputers in 1975-76? Electric Pencil was 1977 w/CP/M, no? : The hobbiest market, as a WHOLE, was not successful. It died years ago. : What little remains must certainly include the 'Stamp', as advertised : in the magazine 'Nuts and Volts'. What is "Stamp"? Eric : Bill : Tucson, AZ ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 14:32:13 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 25 Message-ID: <8fh4ld$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56010 Jeff DelPapa wrote: [...] : Heathkit did sell a "kit" of the LSI-11. You did assemble some parts, : but the CPU,etc were just plugins straight from DEC. Yes, the H11. Heathkit also had the H8. : The real odd duck was a place called Ohio Scientific. They sold : boards that could have a 8080/Z-80, 6800, and a 6502 installed, and : running silmultaneously. I believe it was a C-3 or Challenger-3? : There were some hobbiests running old mini's. Some bought retired old : machines -- one person I visited had an IBM 1620 in his basement, : picked up at a machinery auction... A couple of classmates had : managed to buy enough bits from the place DG sold it scrapped boards, : to assemble one Nova, and two Eclipse machines. I worked for a guy that had a Nova. He actually built and IBM 1130 emulator to run on top of the Nova HW. The ironic part was that the thing ran nearly as fast as a native IBM 1130! He tried to market the emulator but it never took off. The microcomputer was on its way! Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 14:34:34 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 16 Message-ID: <8fh4pq$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fehb0$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <20000511155321.15507.00002212@ng-fm1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56020 RaymondWalden wrote: : >No, that is EXACTLY the reason. The 8008 did not have enoug address space : >nor was it fast enough to run a high-level language such as BASIC. When a : >microprocessor was powerful enough to run BASIC, then it had a chance to : >be inside of a successful computer. : > : So you are saying that Basic was the Killer App of the day? :) No, I try not to quote Bill Gates. Given his worth to programming skill ratio, I should be worth several hundred million dollars at least. Eric : -Ray ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: <2000May12.144013.209@lorelei.approve.se> Originator: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Sender: hoh@lorelei.approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Organization: [1] + 5934 done /bin/rm -rf ~/ & X-No-Archive: yes X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test66 (4 June 1998) References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> <2000May12.132828.29266@lorelei.approve.se> <391BD7F2.55552865@trailing-edge.com> Lines: 56 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.216.136 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 958142887 130.244.216.136 (Fri, 12 May 2000 16:48:07 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:48:07 MET DST X-Sender: unknown@isdn216-1-136.swipnet.se Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:40:13 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56069 In article <391BD7F2.55552865@trailing-edge.com>, Tim Shoppa wrote: > Is the opcode 79, represented by LD A,C in the Z80 mnemonics, > really the "same type" of opcodes as the three-byte opcode > DD7E00, represented by LD A,(IX) in the Z80 mnemonics? I don't > think so, I think they are, and if I remember correctly, DEC thought the same when they did the mnemonics for the PDP11 and VAX. It is easy to see that there are two major ways to come up with assembler mnemonics: 1. One name for each "opcode". This gives many mnemonic names with odd names like LXI, MVI, and LDX. One example is Intels 8080. 2. One name for each "action". This gives few mnemonic names with simple names like LD. One example is Zilog Z80. Some manufacturers/people prefer 1, some other prefer 2. > they're not even the same length. What does that have to do with it? > Any sane system of mnemonics on an orthogonal machine allows a > direct mapping of mnemonics into opcodes. If it's not direct, > then the machine is either nonorthogonal, the system of mnemonics > is not sane, or both. The 8080 is not orthogonal as you can't use any register with many opcodes. Sometimes you have to use A, sometimes you have to use HL. The mnemonics, however, is a direct mapping into opcodes, but that doesn't make the 8080 an orthogonal machine! Just a look at the 8080 opcodes expressed using the Zilog mnemonics shows how nonorthogonal the 8080 is. > Sure, Zilog was scared they'd be sued for copyright violation if > they followed the straightforward mnemonic->opcode mapping that > Intel copyrighted for the 8080 instruction set. This might be true, but do you have any prof of that? > So they purposefully > chose something much less straightforward. They used something that was different, but I don't think of it as less straightforward. One Z80 assembler for CP/M used Intel mnemonics with Intel-like mnemonics for the non-8080 opcodes. I don't remember who made that assembler, but it was weird. They added many mnemonics of the MVI/MOV/LDX/LXI-type to handle the new addressing modes of the Z80. -- Göran Larsson hoh AT approve DOT se Senior Systems Analyst ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 14:43:43 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 58 Message-ID: <8fh5av$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE278.422590AD@trailing-edge.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56013 Tim Shoppa wrote: [...] : > : > Fairchild F-8? National Semiconductor (was it 1802?)? : > : > : National Semiconductor had the SCAMP; the 1802 was RCA. Yes, all : > : over 20 years ago. : > : > But you cannot name a microcomputer system using those chips now, can you? : Can you name a system of today using the 8080 or 6800? Both chips are obsolete. The 6800 is alive to some degree with the 68HC11 microcontroller chips. : F8's were widely used in a TV-game system of the time, the Channel F. : No, not the most succesful system, but it was widely available for : at least one Christmas season :-). I think that the two big video game systems, the Atari 2600 and the Mattel Intelivison (why do I think this will launch a new thread about the best early home video systems?) did NOT use the F-8. I'm not sure which ones were used in either but I thin the 2600 used a Mot chip (6807?). : 1802's are still being made new today (Intersil now owns the rights). I did not know that! That's actually impressive given when they first came out. : They aren't used in desktop micros, but they are commonly used in : embedded aerospace applications. See, for example, : www.intersil.com, typing "1802" into the search box. I'll check it. : I think the 1802 was used in a video game unit sold by Radio Shack : in the mid-70's. Lord help me, I can't remember the name. : RCA also sold the 1802 in a small plastic box with a membrane : keyboard and a video generator, for use as a poor-man's terminal. : > best. I was not saying that other microprocessors did not exist at the : > time. My point was that only two microprocessors were used in anything : > that could be called a successful microcomputer; and they had in them : > either an 8080 or 6800. : I think your hindsight (which may otherwise be 20/20) is clouded : by marketing results in this particular case. Adam Osborne had a : book in the mid-1970's that surveyed many of the microprocessors : we're talking about here, and it was far from obvious at the time who : the winner would be. Or what market there would come to be for : desktop or home computers. How about busses? I know of the SS-50 bus and the S-100 bus. Did other busses gain any popularity, microcomputer busses that is? Eric : Tim. ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> <2000May12.132828.29266@lorelei.approve.se> <391BD7F2.55552865@trailing-edge.com> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 21 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:43:55 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-FIFG1WDXTyd2KBd/rctf9mCUdhuM33DczwMPMWnsal+Dpal/mfpdNU8gLu3eCR3/qpmHHk+YyiQimsB!kDoLl4hX7vAI0FBjfzX1Zw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:43:55 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!korova.insync.net!solomon.io.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55943 On Fri, 12 May 2000 10:07:46 -0400, Tim Shoppa wrote: >Sure, Zilog was scared they'd be sued for copyright violation if >they followed the straightforward mnemonic->opcode mapping that >Intel copyrighted for the 8080 instruction set. So they purposefully >chose something much less straightforward. Here, I feel compelled to toss in the set of Z-80 mnemonics published by Technical Design Labs, which was a straightforward extension of the Intel set. I don't think TDL was ever sued over them...but then, they're not Zilog, building a competitor to an Intel chip. TDL had an assembler for CP/M that used these mnemonics, but nobody else adopted them, and so they fell into disuse. Once upon a time, when I had nothing better to do, I took the Cromemco Intel to Zilog assembly source translator, used DISASM on it, then extended it to handle TDL as well as Intel mnemonics...don't know if I still have it. I do still have the TDL ZAPPLE ROM monitor in my S-100 box, though, altered slightly to change the K command (whose original use I forget) to instead run a bootstrap for the Tarbell WD1771 floppy controller... ###### Message-ID: <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 73 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:46:59 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.120.144 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 958142819 63.15.120.144 (Fri, 12 May 2000 07:46:59 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:46:59 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55964 Eric Chomko wrote: > Does anyone know of an F8 based microcomputer? SCAMP? 1802? The 6100 > system that I did see was real expensive. The T1 9900 came out with the > 6502 and the Z-80. In addition to the evaluation kit from Fairchild, there was a "box" system from IIRC Veras Systems for the F8. > Helix was another SS-50 turned SS-64 (for 16 bit processing). I actually > have a Helix box that runs both 6809 and 68008 chips, one or the other via > a switch. It runs OS/9. I recall that but I thought it came along much later than the others. > The 6800 was more like PDP-11 (I agree) is another basis for a Mot/Int war > as many feel that the 8080 (I don't know why) was more like a PDP-11. I don't think the 8080 looks anything like the PDP-11 and I remember reading an article about 76 or 77 by the designers saying that the goal for the 6800 was a PDP-11 like architecture but limited by the available technology at the time. About the only thing which came out the same was the branch instructions. > When did the 8255(?) parallel chip come out? > What was the difference between the 6820 and the 6821, which came out > almost immediately? It seemed like a correction to a screwup. I don't recall when the 8255 came out, probably 76 or 77. I sometimes wonder if it was in response to the 6820 as you started to see a number of 8080 based systems with 6820's and 50's as peripherals :-) > MIKBUG used bit-banging to make a 6820 to act like a serial port. Are you > sure about your comment that the 6850 was an initial release? Seems to me > that I recall the MP-C SWTPC board being replaced by the much improved > MP-S board late in the game. The MP-C allowed only two baud rates (110 and > 300). Whereas, the MP-S allowed those two and all the way up to 9600 with > some hacking. The D1 kit which was released in late 75 had a socket for the 6850 on it but the chip was not provided with the kit. This tends to imply that although the design was complete they either weren't making them or had some problem making them at the time. The D1 kit only came with the printed circuit card and the "big chips", the 6800, two 6820's, the MC6830L7 MIKBUG ROM, and two 6810 128 byte RAM's. All the glue chips, sockets, resistors, caps, etc. were the responsibility of the buyer. The D2 kit came complete (although there was room for expansion just like the D1 with spaces for additional 6810's and some glue chips not needed for the basic configuration). The D2 kit was missing the sockets for the small chips > I have both of the above. But SWTBUG, like MIKBUG were 6830 PROMs. Whereas > SMARTBUG was a 2708 EPROM. The latter chip was used by SSB and the MP-A2 > CPU boards. I built a small wire wrap "blod" which allowed a 2716 EPROM to be plugged into a 6830 socket. Somewhere I have a printed listing of SMARTBUG as well as SWTBUG which I coded into 2716s for such use. > That no need for a front panel is why I purchased a SWPTC 6800 back in '76 > rather than an Altair 8800b. The fact that Gates' BASIC didn't load in a > TTY didn't help MITS when I was checking out that system, either. The one "sad" thing now is that I collect "switch and light" front panels and there aren't any for 68XX systems :-( Regards, Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: <2000May12.145012.367@lorelei.approve.se> Originator: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Sender: hoh@lorelei.approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Organization: [1] + 5934 done /bin/rm -rf ~/ & X-No-Archive: yes X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test66 (4 June 1998) References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> <391BFBE6.BC4122CD@netinsight.se> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.215.51 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 958143490 130.244.215.51 (Fri, 12 May 2000 16:58:10 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:58:10 MET DST X-Sender: q-11932@isdn215-1-51.swipnet.se Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:50:12 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56070 In article <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com>, Tim Shoppa wrote: > and instructions added in a haphazard way to the orthogonal 8080. You are the only one I have seen that thinks the 8080 is orthogonal. How can you say that it is orthogonal when, for example, BC and DE can't be used the same way as HL. Look at the 1802 for an orthogonal processor, it doesn't even have a dedicated program counter and stack pointer (any of the general purpose registers can be used as PC and SP). -- Göran Larsson hoh AT approve DOT se Senior Systems Analyst ###### Message-ID: <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> <391BFBE6.BC4122CD@netinsight.se> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 118 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:50:49 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958143049 194.16.221.33 (Fri, 12 May 2000 16:50:49 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:50:49 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55971 Tim Shoppa wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > > > > Brain fart on my behalf then. I thought those were added in the Z80, > > but obviously I'm wrong. > > Again, it's not your fault, it's a classic symptom a widespread disease > called "thinking in Z80 mnemonics". Well, I don't think that the Z80 mnemonics are the reason I thought that the 8080 didn't have them. it was more in the line of 8080 don't have a lot of things, and Don didn't seem to be too familiar with using BC or DE as address pointers, so I guess they must have come with the Z80. > > I must admit that I'm used to the Zilog notation. However, some > > people have complained about Zilog trying to make the CPU look > > orthogonal when it really isn't. > > So I'm a bit confused by your comment on this. Moreover, the > > Z80 (and obviously 8080) isn't even close to orthogonal, > > so any attempt to hide it as such will, by definition, be > > ugly and incomplete. Better to show it as it is. > > Zilog hid the Z80's non-orthogonality behind the "LD" instruction, > which *really* isn't a single opcode (in the classic PDP-11 sense, > for example.) Okay, then we all agree. But the 8080 can only be said to be orthogonal by having special instructions for just about everything, in which case orthogonality becomes an irrelevant issue anyway. Anyway, I'm pretty happy with the Z80 mnemonics, and I've only been bitten once by an assembler which allowed me to make a real error. At one time I was saving bytes in some code, and changed JP to JR all over the place, and happened to change some JP PE,nnn to JR PE,nnn which don't exist, but the assembler never complained. Argh! > LD A,(HL) is legal just as LD A,(IX+offset) is legal, > while JP (HL) is legal, but JP (IX+offset) isn't. This is a tricky one. Sometimes it's (IX+offset) but at other times it's just (IX). In the JP case, it's JP (IX) which is legal... Slightly sick. > They also learn very quickly that > a LD instruction might be a one byte instruction, or it might > be a four byte instruction, without a lot of obvious links between > the mnemonic form and the actual opcodes issued. i.e. > LD A,(HL) is one byte but LD A,(IX) is three bytes. Well, what size the code happens to become is hardly relevant, is it? (To this discussion, I mean) > The 8080 doesn't even try to hide everything behind a > single "LD" mnemonic. The mnemonics used are much closer to > the actual machine elements that execute them. Sure, they aren't > as pretty as the Z80's "LD" mnemonic, but as I've argued the > pretty Z80's mnemonics attempt (unsuccesfully) to hide the Z80-specific > ugliness. But this means it instead becomes a question of remembering "does such an instruction exist" instead of "are these arguments allowed". And from a programming point of view, it's *perhaps* better to have a full grasp of all instructions and fail on arguments than to miss some instructions. If the assembler tells you about illegal arguments, you can (I hope) come closer to utilizing the full architecture fast. But this is just a quick reflection on my part, without thinking things through. :-) > With few exceptions, wherever you can put an argument to an 8080 > mnemonic, you can put A, B, C, D, E, H, L, or M. (M is (HL) in > Z80 speak.) The only exception are the small handful of double- > byte instructions that work on the BC, DE, HL, and AF pairs - these > have their own logic that is quickly figured out. Hmmm, so perhaps the orthogonality in Intel mnemonics aren't that good either. > > Give me a PDP-11 any day. > > Absolutely, the base instruction set is almost perfectly orthogonal > with respect to registers and addressing modes. Almost? Name one exception? > There's a handful > of "add-on" PDP-11 instructions that were added after the original > architecture was sold, but these are few and not all that commonly > used. ( For example, you can do a XOR (R1),R2 but you can't > XOR R2,(R1). ) Yes. Those EIS instructions are limited on destination to registers only. But like you said. They are add-ons after the original architecture came out. There are, however, one or two omissions from the instruction repertoire which I think are sad, even if they are understandable because of the limited number of bits available. But I would have liked to have ADDB and SUBB, not to mention MOVB with zero extension to register. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 14:54:50 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 34 Message-ID: <8fh5vq$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56022 Geoffrey G. Rochat wrote: : > : >The Signetics chip (forget the name) and the Fairchild F8 were not : >successful in the same terms as the 6800 and 8080. : Ahhhh! I've been reading these threads for awhile now, waiting for : mention of this to crop up. The Signetics chip probably referred to was : the 2650. Just as the 6800 looked back over its shoulder to DEC's : PDP-11 for inspiration, the 2650 so regarded the DG Nova. I don't know : why it never caught on, but I did meet a fellow one time who actually : claimed to have design a system that used it. : And speaking of Novas, nobody has yet mentioned the Fairchild 9440, : which was a full-blown Nova on a chip - just as the Intersil IM6100 was : a full-blown PDP-8. My understanding was that the 9440 became embroiled : in an intellectual-property dispute between DG and Fairchild, and by the : time the smoke cleared the market window had closed. Does anybody here : know more on this topic? Somehow minis-on-a-chip never really took off. I mean there was a system that had used Pascal microengine that looked like the wave of the future. It was a virtual machine using p-code, etc. It seemed to have quite a lot for the early 1980s. But then along came the 286 and 68000 and minis-on-a-chip seemed to go by the wayside. The advent of the workstation sort of revive the idea of the minicomputer, but they were not based upon earlier designs per se. Minis borrowed from mainframes and really could not shrink down any further. Microprocessors were developed from smaller to larger rather than from larger to smaller. Micros and minis evolved in different manners, and I think that contrast made their marriage really not work out well. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 14:59:41 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 24 Message-ID: <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55996 Tim Shoppa wrote: : Jim Thomas wrote: : > : > Eric Chomko wrote: : > : > > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor : > > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the : > > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? : > : > 20 years ago == 1980. What about the LSI-11 ? :-) : I had this argument here with Eric a couple of months ago. Basically, : he has no experience with the LSI-11, so it doesn't count. Same with : all the other interesting architectures you might want to discuss. No, the arguement was, is the LSI-11, being a 4 chip set, considered a microprocessor? I say no, Tim says, yes. I believe that is where we left it. And how "successful" were the LSI-11 based...anything? I remember selling a chipset to exactly one guy, at the store I worked in. I'd average two or three PETs a week. Eric : Tim. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 15:05:03 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 21 Message-ID: <8fh6iv$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newscore.gigabell.net!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56019 William Hamblen wrote: : On 11 May 2000 15:42:10 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: : >MIKBUG used bit-banging to make a 6820 to act like a serial port. Are you : >sure about your comment that the 6850 was an initial release? Seems to me : >that I recall the MP-C SWTPC board being replaced by the much improved : >MP-S board late in the game. The MP-C allowed only two baud rates (110 and : >300). Whereas, the MP-S allowed those two and all the way up to 9600 with : >some hacking. : The 6850 and the 6820 came out at about the same time. I don't know : why Motorola put the bit banger in Mikbug unless 6820s were cheaper : than 6850s. MINIBUG, which used a 6850 for serial I/O, was on the : same ROM mask as MIKBUG. You grounded a pin on the ROM to select one : or the other. I wonder why SWTPC used MIKBUG instead of MINIBUG? I'm not sure about the 6820 vs. 6850. You would have thought that the 40 pin 6820 would be more expensive than the 24 pin 6850, but one never knows. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 15:09:35 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 17 Message-ID: <8fh6rf$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fehb0$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391BA0F4.93B0B18D@dallas.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.germany.net!news.vas-net.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56014 Charles Richmond wrote: [...] : The RCA COSMAC 1802 microprocessor was another chip that was *not* as : successful as the 8080 or 6800. But Harris Semiconductor still makes : this chip, and it even goes into space on unmanned missions, because : there is a radiation hardened version. I am *not* sure why it did *not* : take off as a processor in home computers. Yes, someone else mentioned that the 1802 is still in production. That in and of itself says lots about this chip. Might be worth revisting the instruction set and architecture in general to see why its still around. I bet RCA is kicking (kicked) themselves for having not done more with an evaluation system around this chip 25 years ago. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 15:11:41 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 19 Message-ID: <8fh6vd$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919A7EB.76F0@compuserve.com> <486.165T2325T11616058@sky.bus.com> <0umdf8.i9.ln@localhost.my.domain> <391BA15B.1F3B6D71@cisco.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed.nyu.edu!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56015 Cliff Sojourner wrote: [...] : don't forget, this was all part of Intel's evil plan to sell memory : chips!!! : also, they had a few peripheral chips for parallel and serial IO, and a : memory controller for DRAMs, and a few others. : by the time you were done making a system you could have a dozen or more : parts on the board, all stamped big i. : Monopoly!! where was the Attorney General when we needed him!!! call : out the National Guard!!!! Watch it! They're not called INTEL for no reason. Eric P.S. Actually, IBM is scarier in this manner than anyone else, IMO. ###### Message-ID: <391C1FCD.337558F5@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <391B12F4.44EED04F@syscon-intl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 67 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:16:18 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.120.144 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 958144578 63.15.120.144 (Fri, 12 May 2000 08:16:18 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:16:18 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55970 Carl Kreider wrote: > Pretty much what I remember except I saw a lot more > Hazelwood than MSI, although they may not have come > along until the 6809 arrived. Also, OSI had the > interchangable CPU thing that supported 8080, 6800, > and ... don't remember :) Ah yes, more names to remember. I don't recall when Hazelwood came out either. OSI seemed to be trying to address the "processor wars" issue by providing "one of each", but the third processor on their boards, the 6502, was the one in which they specialized. > Ah yes. The D2 kit. I have one in the rafters out > in the garage :) Do you still want it, I collect them ;-) I have my original and one I just got a few years ago from someone who got it at a microprocessor course around 1979, 1980 when "take the course, keep the processor" was popular. As the D2 was a kit, I got part of an unassembled D2 kit too. I have the complete keyboard kit plus the processor circuit card and the JBUG ROM. In the mid 80's I started collecting "unassembled kits" and bare boards, all for the SS-50 world as I could see that electronic kits were a dying art. > I've written assembly for most all of the 8 bitters > and the Mot ones are my hands down favorite for the > same reason. Agreed! > > I think Motorola screwed up, however, by announcing a "better" > > product and then shutting up about it for a year or so. Rumor has > > it that after the initial announcement, they moved the operation from > > Arizona to Texas (or the other way) which angered some of the > > employees (who left, formed MOS Technology, who made the > > 6502, originally the 6501 but that was pin compatible with the > > 6800 and Motorola was not amused), but again this is all rumor. > > My memory is that they left for philosophical > reasons. The 6800 was _too_ complex; too data > processing oriented. The 650[12] was more suited > to industrial control, which is where they thought > the real market for micros was. And it ended up > in Apples ... That could be too. I don't recall where I read or heard that rumor, but I do distinctly recall it. They basically shut down operations for a year or so which could account for me not knowing or seeing any advertisements for the 6800 in mid 1976 even though I was well aware of several of the other chips, like the F8. I've always wanted to get confirmation, one way or the other, about this rumor but to date, have not. Regards, Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 15:20:29 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 69 Message-ID: <8fh7ft$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391BA556.B14BD608@cisco.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56017 Cliff Sojourner wrote: : Eric, I disagree with a number of things you said here: Yes, you and many others... : Eric Chomko wrote: : > : > Tim Shoppa wrote: : ... : > : National Semiconductor had the SCAMP; the 1802 was RCA. Yes, all : > : over 20 years ago. : > : > But you cannot name a microcomputer system using those chips now, can you? : fortunately SC/MP died a quick death, like the 2650 which was another : abomination. segmented addressing, bleah! : 1802, on the other hand... many of us had the COSMAC ELF 1802 hobby : computer system, which did include BASIC (contrary to your post below) : and could be expanded to 32kb and a 5" floppy disk system. : 1802s were used - and are still used - in satellite systems. 1802 was : the first "rad-hard" microprocessor. 1802 had relatively low power : consumption for the time... a single clock, 256 bytes built in memory? : a very simple bus connection anyways. nice chip! : I built a few little controller things out of them. these days that : kind of thing would be an "embedded system" but it was just a "project" : back then. Let me ask you this, if the KIM-1 was the only place a 6502 ended up, would you call it a successfull microprocessor based upon being in a successful microcomputer? I do believe that the 1802 was a successful (continuing at that!) microcontroller chip. But my original post did say "microcomputer", and that would imply general purpose. Controllers are dedicated. : > I believe that the problem was that those comapines did not produce : > evaluation kits as did both Intel and Motorola. Are there any versions of : > BASIC for the 1802, F8 and SCAMP? They were microcontroller chips at : F8 mainly lived in the forgettable "F8" video game system, which had : what, a half dozen cartridges? vastly eclipsed by the Atari 2600, which : did have its own BASIC cartridge! I have an Atari 2600. My 5 year old daughter loves the (ad)Venture cartridge! : I remember assembling a SC/MP on S-100 prototype board (wire wrap, those : were the days). I don't remember ever getting it to work and I : certainly don't remember any software available for it. I wonder if their a dozen of them worldwide, and if a single one worked?! : > best. I was not saying that other microprocessors did not exist at the : > time. My point was that only two microprocessors were used in anything : > that could be called a successful microcomputer; and they had in them : > either an 8080 or 6800. : oh really? Apple selling millions of dollars of Apple ][s with 6502s in : them doesn't count as "success"? what about all the thousands of OSI : systems with 6502s? You missed the orginal thread that stated "prior to the advent of the 6502 and Z-80". No the 6502 was immensely successful, perhaps more so than both the 6800 and the 8080. Eric ###### From: blackm00@cam.org (Michael Black) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbv83$pvc@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fehb0$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391BA0F4.93B0B18D@dallas.net> X-Forwarded: by - (CAM) Lines: 30 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:22:07 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.168.100.7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@videotron.net X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 958144927 198.168.100.7 (Fri, 12 May 2000 11:22:07 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:22:07 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!wesley.videotron.net!weber.videotron.net.POSTED!dialup-1091.hip.cam.org!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56100 In article , jmaynard@texas.net wrote: > On Thu, 11 May 2000 23:13:09 -0700, Charles Richmond > wrote: > >The RCA COSMAC 1802 microprocessor was another chip that was *not* as > >successful as the 8080 or 6800. But Harris Semiconductor still makes > >this chip, and it even goes into space on unmanned missions, because > >there is a radiation hardened version. I am *not* sure why it did *not* > >take off as a processor in home computers. > > It's not so much that there's a radiation-hardened version as that the chip > just magically turned out to be radiation-hard from the start, which is why > it was used for the OSCAR amateur radio satellites for years. > That's exactly how I heard that the 1802 was radioactive hardened. Years ago, someone came to the local amateur radio club to give a talk about the latest OSCAR, and mentioned this. But one important thing he also said was something about being able to load the memory without a ROM monitor. One reason the COSMAC Elf was popular as a build it from scratch system was that you didn't need a monitor program to get things going, and the 1802 allowed for entering data from the "front panel" without requiring a lot of extra hardware. This same feature of the 1802 meant that if anything went wrong in the satellite, AMSAT could upload new software easily. I'm not sure if that was the reason the 1802 was chosen for that satellite, but it was a useful feature in that case. Michael ###### From: rivie@server.logan.teraglobal (Roger Ivie) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE278.422590AD@trailing-edge.com> <8fh5av$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: rivie@teraglobal.com Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (FreeBSD) NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.186.13.23 Date: 12 May 2000 10:40:00 -0500 X-Trace: 12 May 2000 10:40:00 -0500, 208.186.13.23 Lines: 33 X-Comments: This message was posted through Newsfeeds.com X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeeds.com does not condone, nor support, spam or any illegal or copyrighted postings. X-Comments3: IMPORTANT: Under NO circumstances will postings containing illegal or copyrighted material through this service be tolerated!! X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to You may also use our online abuse reporting from: http://www.newsfeeds.com/abuseform.htm X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers, INCLUDING the body (DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS) Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 73,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!local-out.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!news5.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!rivie Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55940 In article <8fh5av$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: >Tim Shoppa wrote: >[...] >: > : > Fairchild F-8? National Semiconductor (was it 1802?)? >: > >: > : National Semiconductor had the SCAMP; the 1802 was RCA. Yes, all >: > : over 20 years ago. >: > >: > But you cannot name a microcomputer system using those chips now, can you? > >: Can you name a system of today using the 8080 or 6800? > >Both chips are obsolete. The 6800 is alive to some degree with the 68HC11 >microcontroller chips. Don't forget the wildly popular 6805 and the brand spanking new 68hc08 family. BTW, I believe Heathkit still sells their 6800-based microprocessor trainer. -- Roger Ivie TeraGlobal Communications Corporation 1770 North Research Park Way Suite 100 Logan, UT 84341 mailto:rivie@teraglobal.com phoneto:(435)787-0555 faxto:(435)787-0516 -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ###### Message-ID: <391C26E5.6F8B4185@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919A7EB.76F0@compuserve.com> <486.165T2325T11616058@sky.bus.com> <0umdf8.i9.ln@localhost.my.domain> <391BA15B.1F3B6D71@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 24 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:46:18 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.120.144 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 958146378 63.15.120.144 (Fri, 12 May 2000 08:46:18 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:46:18 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!easynews!cyclone-west.rr.com!news.rr.com|news-west.rr.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55966 Cliff Sojourner wrote: > don't forget, this was all part of Intel's evil plan to sell memory > chips!!! I remember this discussion from back then :-) The chip manufacturers suddenly realized that all the mainframe computers and mini computers in the world then and in the foreseeable future would not use enough memory to keep their memory chip production lines working profitably. Therefore, they invented the microprocessor to take up the slack ;-) > Monopoly!! where was the Attorney General when we needed him!!! call > out the National Guard!!!! Intel wasn't the only one! Moto was certainly of this mind too! Regards, Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### Message-ID: <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:15:41 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> <391BFBE6.BC4122CD@netinsight.se> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 22 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader3.news.uu.net 958148142 7083 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!spool1.news.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader3.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56042 Johnny Billquist wrote: > > Tim Shoppa wrote: > > > Give me a PDP-11 any day. > > > > Absolutely, the base instruction set is almost perfectly orthogonal > > with respect to registers and addressing modes. > > Almost? Name one exception? R6 and R7 aren't really general purpose registers - they're SP and PC. Though the way that they integrated the SP and PC into the register set *is* very slick, and the fact that most of the addressing modes work with the SP and PC is really, really nice. I'm not complaining about the resulting instruction set, I'm just saying that it isn't perfectly orthogonal. There are architectures where any register could become the PC. The 1802 is an example. It hurts my brain to read 1802 assembler code, though :-). Tim. ###### Message-ID: <391BF6F3.FB30A16@trailing-edge.com> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:20:03 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> <8fh5vq$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 34 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader3.news.uu.net 958148404 7083 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!upp1.onvoy!onvoy.com!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader3.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56034 Eric Chomko wrote: > > Geoffrey G. Rochat wrote: > : > > : >The Signetics chip (forget the name) and the Fairchild F8 were not > : >successful in the same terms as the 6800 and 8080. > > : Ahhhh! I've been reading these threads for awhile now, waiting for > : mention of this to crop up. The Signetics chip probably referred to was > : the 2650. Just as the 6800 looked back over its shoulder to DEC's > : PDP-11 for inspiration, the 2650 so regarded the DG Nova. I don't know > : why it never caught on, but I did meet a fellow one time who actually > : claimed to have design a system that used it. > > : And speaking of Novas, nobody has yet mentioned the Fairchild 9440, > : which was a full-blown Nova on a chip - just as the Intersil IM6100 was > : a full-blown PDP-8. My understanding was that the 9440 became embroiled > : in an intellectual-property dispute between DG and Fairchild, and by the > : time the smoke cleared the market window had closed. Does anybody here > : know more on this topic? > > Somehow minis-on-a-chip never really took off. Yeah, that's why there's half-a-dozen PDP-11-on-a-chip CPU boards still being manufactured and sold. I'm not goint to claim that the T11, F11, and J11 chips are as numerically succesful as, for example, the 8051 (which has an installed base measured in the *billions*) but it's several million. Again, you've biased yourself to the point that anything that you didn't consider "successful" at some point in your past doesn't count in the present. Tim. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 17:57:21 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 85 Message-ID: <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56011 jchausler wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > Does anyone know of an F8 based microcomputer? SCAMP? 1802? The 6100 : > system that I did see was real expensive. The T1 9900 came out with the : > 6502 and the Z-80. : In addition to the evaluation kit from Fairchild, there was a "box" system : from IIRC Veras Systems for the F8. I do not remember the Veras system at all. I wonder if anyone has a working one? Talk about a rarity! : > Helix was another SS-50 turned SS-64 (for 16 bit processing). I actually : > have a Helix box that runs both 6809 and 68008 chips, one or the other via : > a switch. It runs OS/9. : I recall that but I thought it came along much later than the others. Oh yes, I was replying to the comment about the SS-50 systems. : > The 6800 was more like PDP-11 (I agree) is another basis for a Mot/Int war : > as many feel that the 8080 (I don't know why) was more like a PDP-11. : I don't think the 8080 looks anything like the PDP-11 and I remember : reading an article about 76 or 77 by the designers saying that the goal : for the 6800 was a PDP-11 like architecture but limited by the : available technology at the time. About the only thing which came out : the same was the branch instructions. I agree, but someone awhile back was saying that the 8080 was PDP-ll-like. : > When did the 8255(?) parallel chip come out? : > What was the difference between the 6820 and the 6821, which came out : > almost immediately? It seemed like a correction to a screwup. : I don't recall when the 8255 came out, probably 76 or 77. I sometimes : wonder if it was in response to the 6820 as you started to see a : number of 8080 based systems with 6820's and 50's as peripherals :-) Yes, that sounds right. : > MIKBUG used bit-banging to make a 6820 to act like a serial port. Are you : > sure about your comment that the 6850 was an initial release? Seems to me : > that I recall the MP-C SWTPC board being replaced by the much improved : > MP-S board late in the game. The MP-C allowed only two baud rates (110 and : > 300). Whereas, the MP-S allowed those two and all the way up to 9600 with : > some hacking. : The D1 kit which was released in late 75 had a socket for the 6850 on it but : the chip was not provided with the kit. This tends to imply that although the : design was complete they either weren't making them or had some problem : making them at the time. The D1 kit only came with the printed circuit card : and the "big chips", the 6800, two 6820's, the MC6830L7 MIKBUG ROM, : and two 6810 128 byte RAM's. All the glue chips, sockets, resistors, caps, : etc. were the responsibility of the buyer. The D2 kit came complete (although : there was room for expansion just like the D1 with spaces for additional : 6810's and some glue chips not needed for the basic configuration). The D2 : kit was missing the sockets for the small chips I can see where SWTPC borrowed heavily from the D1 kit as described above. : > I have both of the above. But SWTBUG, like MIKBUG were 6830 PROMs. Whereas : > SMARTBUG was a 2708 EPROM. The latter chip was used by SSB and the MP-A2 : > CPU boards. : I built a small wire wrap "blod" which allowed a 2716 EPROM to be plugged into : a 6830 socket. Somewhere I have a printed listing of SMARTBUG as well as : SWTBUG which I coded into 2716s for such use. Interesting. Did you have both SWTBUG and SMARTBUG code in the system at the same time, switchable? That would be a neat trick. : > That no need for a front panel is why I purchased a SWPTC 6800 back in '76 : > rather than an Altair 8800b. The fact that Gates' BASIC didn't load in a : > TTY didn't help MITS when I was checking out that system, either. : The one "sad" thing now is that I collect "switch and light" front panels and : there aren't any for 68XX systems :-( I would prefer to collect ROM monitors rather than front panels. Heck, you could make one if you really wanted one. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 18:15:28 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 21 Message-ID: <8fhho0$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> <8fh5vq$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391BF6F3.FB30A16@trailing-edge.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56012 Tim Shoppa wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: [...] : > Somehow minis-on-a-chip never really took off. : Yeah, that's why there's half-a-dozen PDP-11-on-a-chip CPU boards : still being manufactured and sold. I'm not goint to claim that : the T11, F11, and J11 chips are as numerically succesful as, for : example, the 8051 (which has an installed base measured in the : *billions*) but it's several million. : Again, you've biased yourself to the point that anything that : you didn't consider "successful" at some point in your past doesn't : count in the present. Right, and your ability to see the fluke and exceptions to the rule come to the forefront once again. Yet, you yourself even agreed with "minis-on-a-chip never really took off", even if a few examples exist today as microcontroller boards. Eric ###### From: mario@klebsch.de (Mario Klebsch) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 20:45:10 +0200 Organization: T-Online Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8fh3ms$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.t-online.com 958161929 12 32227 340014289748-0001 000512 20:05:29 X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.de X-Sender: 340014289748-0001@t-dialin.net X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #121 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.btx.dtag.de!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56164 Eric Chomko writes: >Many would argue that OS/9 is far superior to CP/M. I can confirm this on the 68000 platform, but I never used (and understood) OS-9 on the 6809. :-( 73, Mario -- Mario Klebsch mario@klebsch.de ###### From: Sam Yorko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:50:27 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 31 Message-ID: <391C5273.3DB5@compuserve.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391B33BA.20A4@compuserve.com> <8fffit$kct$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!telocity-west!TELOCITY!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55950 Tim McCaffrey wrote: > > In article <391B33BA.20A4@compuserve.com>, Sam Yorko says... > > > >Jeff DelPapa wrote: > >> > >> One intentional point in the 8080's favor. While not an electrical > >> replacement (it had 40 pins, the 8008 20 or less, I forget), a > >> requirement was that all 8008 software would run on an 8080. Back > >> then, getting a mask programmed rom made was a VERY big deal. > >> The cost of changing things for the new chip was cheap compared to > >> re-masking a rom. > >> > > > >Um, IIRC, I don't think so. The assembly instruction set may have been > >upwards compatible, but I don't think the machine language was. > > > >Sam > > Yes, the 8080 is almost an exact superset of the 8008 from a source code > viewpoint, but the binary is completely different. If you think the 8080 is > difficult to program, try the 8008 some time. > Actually, I was in Junior High at the time; I had just discovered microprocessors, and somebody got me a copy of the 8008 programming manual. I spent an entire summer camping vacation groveling over that manual, writing programs and desk-checking them out. I was in heaven, but I never got the chance to actually run an 8008. Sam ###### From: Jeff Teunissen Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Organization: Dusk To Dawn Computing Lines: 14 Message-ID: <391C5368.3D09F4D4@dusknet.dhs.org> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <391C5701.7440@compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 19:00:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.13.35.106 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.mi.home.com 958158001 24.13.35.106 (Fri, 12 May 2000 12:00:01 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:00:01 PDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.mi.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56002 Sam Yorko wrote: > > > The one "sad" thing now is that I collect "switch and light" front panels > > and there aren't any for 68XX systems :-( > > ALTAIR had one.... yet the Altair was an 8080 machine, not a 68xx system. -- | Jeff Teunissen - Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing - deek at dusknet.dhs.org | Disclaimer: I am my employer, so anything I say goes for me too. :) | Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/ | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://dusknet.dhs.org/~deek/ ###### From: pete@fenelon.com (Pete Fenelon) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> <8fh5vq$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391BF6F3.FB30A16@trailing-edge.com> <8fhho0$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990216 ("Styrofoam") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.13 (i586)) Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 20:03:38 +0100 Message-ID: Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Host: man-061.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Trace: news.zetnet.co.uk 958158340 31675 news@194.247.41.76 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!master.news.zetnet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55962 Eric Chomko wrote: > Right, and your ability to see the fluke and exceptions to the rule come > to the forefront once again. Yet, you yourself even agreed with > "minis-on-a-chip never really took off", even if a few examples exist > today as microcontroller boards. *plonk*. pete -- pete@fenelon.com "We ask ourselves what will become of Evil Gazebo?" (HMHB) ###### From: Sam Yorko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:09:53 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 9 Message-ID: <391C5701.7440@compuserve.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:55945 > The one "sad" thing now is that I collect "switch and light" front panels and > there aren't any for 68XX systems :-( > > Regards, > Chris ALTAIR had one.... Sam ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: <2000May12.192243.3240@lorelei.approve.se> Originator: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Sender: hoh@lorelei.approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Organization: [1] + 5934 done /bin/rm -rf ~/ & X-No-Archive: yes X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test66 (4 June 1998) References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se> <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com> Lines: 14 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.217.210 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 958159687 130.244.217.210 (Fri, 12 May 2000 21:28:07 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 21:28:07 MET DST X-Sender: q-11932@isdn217-1-210.swipnet.se Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 19:22:43 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56192 In article <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com>, Tim Shoppa wrote: > There are architectures where any register could become the > PC. The 1802 is an example. It hurts my brain to read 1802 assembler > code, though :-). Like code that used PLO and PHI on the register that "happened" to be used as the PC? I've seen that trick used in an attempt to do copy protection on a commercial BASIC (approx. 1981). -- Göran Larsson hoh AT approve DOT se Senior Systems Analyst ###### From: timothy.mccaffrey@spam2filter.unisys.com.takethisoff (Tim McCaffrey) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 19:51:13 GMT Organization: A series networking Lines: 29 Message-ID: <8fhnbh$84b$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391B33BA.20A4@compuserve.com> <8fffit$kct$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.63.212.151 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.9 (Released Version) (x86 32bit) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!triton.skycache.com!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!eanews1.unisys.com!plnews.pl.unisys.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56173 >Processors I remember (~1975): I forgot the CP1600 from General Instrument (used in the Mattel Intellivision), and as somebody else mentioned, the Fairchild 9440. For information about the Mark-8: http://www.comcen.com.au/~adavie/weird/mark8b.html Although I haven't seen a copy (at least, recently), there is supposed to be a tiny basic for the 8008 floating around. The Mark-8 wasn't really a kit, but rather a prototype with a construction article in Radio Electronics (read the Web page). The Scelbi-8 is the only other 8008 system introduced as far as I remember. I would also note that the Mark-8 R.E. article came out about two months after Intel introduced the 8080. If you look at the 8080 instruction set, it is basically an 8008, but with most of the major problems removed. The 8008 didn't have a chance after the 8080 came out. If there is one chip that really should have made it, but didn't, I would vote for the TI-9900. It was a really nice chip to program (not having programmed one, just looking at the instruction set). It always amazed me that TI could bungle marketting the chip so badly (actually, I don't think they marketted it at all). - Tim McCaffrey ###### Sender: marc@hana.snafu.org Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9AE6.26B5ABD8@netinsight.se> From: Marco S Hyman Date: 12 May 2000 12:54:45 -0700 Message-ID: Organization: S.N.A.F.U. -- http://www.snafu.org/ X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 Lines: 20 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.54.48.250 X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 958161285 205 marc@206.54.48.250 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news2.best.com!news3.best.com!nntp1.ba.best.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56165 Johnny Billquist writes: > > The alt registers were not all that helpful. The one register > > that you'd want to have duplicated SP, wasn't. Bummer. > > I disagree. alt registers are very useful to me in interrupts. Make > for faster handling, and less stack use. If you were playing in the OS (CP/M BIOS in my case) you couldn't use them without saving them because you didn't know what the running application did. If you had to save them there was no point in using them. > Another important addition are the interrupt handling. > The 8080 scheme is pretty awful, while the vector approach of the > Z80 in IM2 is wonderful. Couldn't live without it. Agreed. // marc ###### Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:11:42 -0500 From: "Robert J. Stevens" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8fh3ms$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 27 Message-ID: <391c65d3$0$73586@news.execpc.com> Organization: ExecPC Internet - Milwaukee, WI NNTP-Posting-Host: 9a89bbeb.news.execpc.com X-Trace: 0RW8S?BXNabI5[332>a9YkbfNiaEHUgJgRYcgIRLSUEmBU3^U?9j2Wj[jdEi=5Sl1bY?mT25@5nnfi9^H^HEZOFc X-Complaints-To: abuse@execpc.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeeds.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net!posts0.nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!posts.news.execpc.com!reader2-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56156 Speaking of 68000's I have a pair of Marquette Electronic Cards + Card Cage [has a 96 pin arrangement] and both of them Have 68000's [MC68000L8 & MC68000G8] soldered on board. Also there's two Extender Boards and what looks like an I/O board. Can anyone use them???? Bob in Wisconsin Eric Chomko wrote: > Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > : Eric Chomko wrote: > : > The 6809 came out after the Z-80 as a way for the 680x chips to compete > : > with the 8080/Z-80, though Zilog made the latter. The Z-80 as a recall was > > : According to a Motorola engineer who came to tell us about the 6809 in > : (IIRC) 1977 and wound up spending most of the time talking about the (soon > : to be announced) 68000. The 6809 was considered (by Motorola engineers) to be > : a stepping stone on the way to the 68000 architecture (a sort of halfway > : house between an 8 bit and a 16 bit processor). > > : Given CP/M and Wordstar I don't think the 6809 stood an earthly of > : competing with the Z80 (except in terms of technical merit where it won > : hands down). > > Many would argue that OS/9 is far superior to CP/M. > > Eric ###### From: "Geoffrey G. Rochat" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:12:49 -0400 Organization: Kersur Technologies Lines: 49 Message-ID: <8fhohb$l87$1@news.kersur.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> <391BA7CC.4AB3D655@cisco.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: nas-3-104.boston.navipath.net X-Trace: news.kersur.net 958162283 21767 216.67.3.104 (12 May 2000 20:11:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@kersur.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 May 2000 20:11:23 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.kersur.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56161 Cliff Sojourner wrote in message <391BA7CC.4AB3D655@cisco.com>... > > >I had a 2650 sample and got it to run but the instruction set was >miserable. and the memory addressing was worse: there were 4 8kB >"segments" for 32kb total. you think x86 style segmentation (64kB >windows) is restrictive, try that little thing. Hey, I cut my teeth on a PDP-7 with 8K-word addressing, and later moved "up" to a PDP-8 with 128-word pages and 4K-word fields. Even later I got to program in IBM 370 BAL, where you got to muck with 4K-byte offsets from base and index registers - as well as such glories as punched cards and JCL. So, what was your problem? > >this at a time when most CP/M systems had at least 32kB, usually >more... game over. oh yeah, there wasn't any software for 2650, I >never even found a cross compiler for it. > And even LATER I got to code for a bank that used IBM Series/1s, which was IBM's attempt to make a minicomputer in the same vein as the PDP-11 or the Nova. It was a 16-bit, 8 register machine, that allowed 5 bits in its opcodes (of which there were something like 22 different formats) to specify simultaneously both the source and destination registers. (You do the math...) The only software it came with was a wretched collection of device drivers, and the Base Program Preparation Facility (BPPF): A stand-alone line-oriented editor, a stand-alone macro assembler and a stand-alone linker. And when I say stand-alone, I mean that you had to re-IPL (that's "boot" in non-IBMese) the machine, specify the physical device and cylinder/head/sector address of the tool you wanted to use, from the tool specify the physical device and cylinder/head/sector address of your source, workspace and output files, run the tool, re-IPL to go to the next tool, etc. The sole debugging tool was a "break on address" feature available from the programmer's console - which consisted of a hex keypad and a series of binary LEDs! Fortunately, I got paid by the hour... Eventually, IBM came 'round to providing the Event Driven Executive (EDX), a very-primitive OS, but by that time I'd decided that my future lay in hardware. ###### From: glass2@glass2.lexington.ibm.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 12 May 2000 20:14:08 GMT Organization: IBM Austin Lines: 36 Message-ID: <8fhomg$1fiu$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391B33BA.20A4@compuserve.com> <8fffit$kct$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> <8fhnbh$84b$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> Reply-To: wa4qal@vnet.ibm.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glass2.cv.lexington.ibm.com X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!portc03.blue.aol.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!newsfeed2.us.ibm.net!ibm.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!news.chips.ibm.com!newsfeed.btv.ibm.com!news2atm.raleigh.ibm.com!ausnews.austin.ibm.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56205 In <8fhnbh$84b$1@mail.pl.unisys.com>, timothy.mccaffrey@spam2filter.unisys.com.takethisoff (Tim McCaffrey) writes: > > >>Processors I remember (~1975): > >I forgot the CP1600 from General Instrument (used in the Mattel >Intellivision), and as somebody else mentioned, the Fairchild 9440. > >For information about the Mark-8: >http://www.comcen.com.au/~adavie/weird/mark8b.html > >Although I haven't seen a copy (at least, recently), there is supposed to be a >tiny basic for the 8008 floating around. The Mark-8 wasn't really a kit, but >rather a prototype with a construction article in Radio Electronics (read the >Web page). The Scelbi-8 is the only other 8008 system introduced as far as I >remember. > >I would also note that the Mark-8 R.E. article came out about two months after >Intel introduced the 8080. If you look at the 8080 instruction set, it is >basically an 8008, but with most of the major problems removed. The 8008 >didn't have a chance after the 8080 came out. > >If there is one chip that really should have made it, but didn't, I would vote >for the TI-9900. It was a really nice chip to program (not having programmed >one, just looking at the instruction set). It always amazed me that TI could >bungle marketting the chip so badly (actually, I don't think they marketted it >at all). > > - Tim McCaffrey > Speaking of old chips, wasn't there a 3850 chip made by someone? MOS? Mostek? Dave P.S. Standard Disclaimer: I work for them, but I don't speak for them. ###### From: blackm00@cam.org (Michael Black) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <391C5701.7440@compuserve.com> <391C5368.3D09F4D4@dusknet.dhs.org> X-Forwarded: by - (CAM) Lines: 22 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 20:18:24 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.168.100.7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@videotron.net X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 958162704 198.168.100.7 (Fri, 12 May 2000 16:18:24 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:18:24 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!howland.erols.net!news3.bellglobal.com.MISMATCH!nf1.mgmt.sympatico.ca!news1.bellglobal.com!wesley.videotron.net!weber.videotron.net.POSTED!dialup-15.hip.cam.org!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56210 In article <391C5368.3D09F4D4@dusknet.dhs.org>, Jeff Teunissen wrote: > Sam Yorko wrote: > > > > > The one "sad" thing now is that I collect "switch and light" front panels > > > and there aren't any for 68XX systems :-( > > > > ALTAIR had one.... > > yet the Altair was an 8080 machine, not a 68xx system. > Tha Altair 8800 was MITS' first computer, featured on the cover of Popular Electronics for January 1975. But then, they came out with a computer based on the 6800, I think it was the Altair 680, and it had a front panel. If I recall, it was not an 8800 with a different CPU, but a whole different computer and bus. It was featured in Popular Electronics in the fall of 1975; November comes to mind. Michael ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <391C5701.7440@compuserve.com> <391C5368.3D09F4D4@dusknet.dhs.org> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 5 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:19:26 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-TIMPaxCRdPnFcMXf8buZaVzLE1qz5TR5SkfLTr578PxnfRhp53W2j1wm6+jE6A27T8K/o5+3G7vxo3H!ifWDbgM78UuCRTnGVcpx X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 20:19:26 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!nntp2.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56133 On Fri, 12 May 2000 19:00:01 GMT, Jeff Teunissen wrote: >yet the Altair was an 8080 machine, not a 68xx system. MITS made an Altair 680b with a front panel. I have no idea what bus it sued, however, and I suspect they were *very* rare. ###### Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:21:45 -0500 From: "Robert J. Stevens" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE278.422590AD@trailing-edge.com> <8fh5av$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 70 Message-ID: <391c682e$0$73586@news.execpc.com> Organization: ExecPC Internet - Milwaukee, WI NNTP-Posting-Host: 9a89bbeb.news.execpc.com X-Trace: 0RW8S?BXNaRI5[332>a9Y[bfNiaEHUgJWRYcgIRLSUE]BU3^U?9j2WZh?693o;iA5\Y?mT25@5nnVi9^H^HEZOFS X-Complaints-To: abuse@execpc.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!newspump.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net!posts0.nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!posts.news.execpc.com!reader2-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56157 Eric Chomko wrote: > Tim Shoppa wrote: > [...] > : > : > Fairchild F-8? National Semiconductor (was it 1802?)? > : > > : > : National Semiconductor had the SCAMP; the 1802 was RCA. Yes, all > : > : over 20 years ago. > : > > : > But you cannot name a microcomputer system using those chips now, can you? > > : Can you name a system of today using the 8080 or 6800? > > Both chips are obsolete. The 6800 is alive to some degree with the 68HC11 > microcontroller chips. > > : F8's were widely used in a TV-game system of the time, the Channel F. > : No, not the most succesful system, but it was widely available for > : at least one Christmas season :-). > > I think that the two big video game systems, the Atari 2600 and the > Mattel Intelivison (why do I think this will launch a new thread about the > best early home video systems?) did NOT use the F-8. I'm not sure which > ones were used in either but I thin the 2600 used a Mot chip (6807?). > > : 1802's are still being made new today (Intersil now owns the rights). > > I did not know that! That's actually impressive given when they first came > out. > > : They aren't used in desktop micros, but they are commonly used in > : embedded aerospace applications. See, for example, > : www.intersil.com, typing "1802" into the search box. > > I'll check it. > > : I think the 1802 was used in a video game unit sold by Radio Shack > : in the mid-70's. Lord help me, I can't remember the name. > > : RCA also sold the 1802 in a small plastic box with a membrane > : keyboard and a video generator, for use as a poor-man's terminal. > > : > best. I was not saying that other microprocessors did not exist at the > : > time. My point was that only two microprocessors were used in anything > : > that could be called a successful microcomputer; and they had in them > : > either an 8080 or 6800. > > : I think your hindsight (which may otherwise be 20/20) is clouded > : by marketing results in this particular case. Adam Osborne had a > : book in the mid-1970's that surveyed many of the microprocessors > : we're talking about here, and it was far from obvious at the time who > : the winner would be. Or what market there would come to be for > : desktop or home computers. > > How about busses? I know of the SS-50 bus and the S-100 bus. Did other > busses gain any popularity, microcomputer busses that is? Speaking of the SS-50 and S-100 Busses. Does anyone recall seeing a unit called the Expandor. It had a Hex Keypad and several S-100 slots along with a SS-50 slot. I used one once that belonged to a friend. It was great as you could punch in the Hex code for a Boot routine and get a floppy drive to step; load etc. I sure wish I could find one now. Bob in Wisconsin > > > Eric > > : Tim. ###### From: blackm00@cam.org (Michael Black) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> X-Forwarded: by - (CAM) Lines: 51 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 20:34:56 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.168.100.7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@videotron.net X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 958163696 198.168.100.7 (Fri, 12 May 2000 16:34:56 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:34:56 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.nyu.edu!wesley.videotron.net!weber.videotron.net.POSTED!dialup-15.hip.cam.org!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56208 In article <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: > jchausler wrote: > > : The D1 kit which was released in late 75 had a socket for the 6850 on it but > : the chip was not provided with the kit. This tends to imply that although the > : design was complete they either weren't making them or had some problem > : making them at the time. The D1 kit only came with the printed circuit card > : and the "big chips", the 6800, two 6820's, the MC6830L7 MIKBUG ROM, > : and two 6810 128 byte RAM's. All the glue chips, sockets, resistors, caps, > : etc. were the responsibility of the buyer. The D2 kit came complete (although > : there was room for expansion just like the D1 with spaces for additional > : 6810's and some glue chips not needed for the basic configuration). The D2 > : kit was missing the sockets for the small chips > > I can see where SWTPC borrowed heavily from the D1 kit as described above. > I don't think they borrowed heavily, it was deliberate. Motorola wanted to sell the 6800 and the peripherals. They (and other companies) had the evaluation kits to get the CPU into the hands of people who might cause the buying of large quantities of the ICs (and the evaluation kits only incidentally were useful to hobbyists). So it was to Motorola's benefit to give the software away. Once a company started using the monitor, then they had to copy the hardware if they didn't want to modify that software. So while the SWTP had extras like the SS-50 bus and more memory, it had to follow the basic circuitry that the software called for. It worked, because it eliminated some work that would have otherwise been needed to get the CPU into commercial products. And once SWTP had a successful computer, they were able to expend the effort to improve on the Motorola software. Another example is the Radio Shack Color Computer. I don't think I'll find the message, but someone mentioned the Dragon and how similar it was to the CoCo. It's not a surprise, and it's not copying. Both must have derived from the Motorola application note which I once saw, and which was basically the CoCo circuitry. Again, Motorola wanted to sell ICs. They had not only the 6809 but the SAM IC for refreshing the dynamic RAM, and the 6847 video display generator. So they showed how to put it together. They weren't in the computer building business, so it didn't matter if it was copied. Radio Shack, and the company that made the Dragon, got a near free design in exchange for using those ICs and setting things up that same way. Michael ###### From: Sam Yorko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:41:24 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 18 Message-ID: <391C6C74.2556@compuserve.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> <8fh5vq$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391BF6F3.FB30A16@trailing-edge.com> <8fhho0$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56132 Pete Fenelon wrote: > > Eric Chomko wrote: > > Right, and your ability to see the fluke and exceptions to the rule come > > to the forefront once again. Yet, you yourself even agreed with > > "minis-on-a-chip never really took off", even if a few examples exist > > today as microcontroller boards. > > *plonk*. > > pete > -- > pete@fenelon.com "We ask ourselves what will become of Evil Gazebo?" (HMHB) No, no, no. Towards the end ALTAIR also came out with a 6800 based product. Front panel and everything (Or was it IMSAI? One of the two). Sam ###### Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 18:28:15 -0500 From: "Robert J. Stevens" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> <391BA7CC.4AB3D655@cisco.com> <8fhohb$l87$1@news.kersur.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 57 Message-ID: <391c93e1$0$73582@news.execpc.com> Organization: ExecPC Internet - Milwaukee, WI NNTP-Posting-Host: 870d65c7.news.execpc.com X-Trace: 0RW8S?BXNaBI5[332>a9YKbfNiaEHUgJGRYcgIRLSUEMV6V_3ePd7AJ0YB9fXFU0TLlD=NV0VOVDEBPIXAnWPWFJF]oQm9]^\AB X-Complaints-To: abuse@execpc.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newspump.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net!posts0.nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!posts.news.execpc.com!reader2-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56155 Now Your Talking My Language. Just a few Yearsd ago I got intp consulting and two Places were looking for an EDL/EDX Programmer and my Name kept coming up. Made enough to be able to retire. Loved it but some people just couldn't get it. The S/1 could run rings around any computer made if you knew how to program it. In fact the Series/1 is still being used overseas and ther is an emulator that runs on the RISC 6000. I still have two machines in the Basement which I have to get fired up this summer. Both of them are wired for 110v so that should not be to difficult. Bob in Wisconsin Geoffrey G. Rochat wrote: > Cliff Sojourner wrote in message <391BA7CC.4AB3D655@cisco.com>... > > > > > > > >I had a 2650 sample and got it to run but the instruction set was > >miserable. and the memory addressing was worse: there were 4 8kB > >"segments" for 32kb total. you think x86 style segmentation (64kB > >windows) is restrictive, try that little thing. > > Hey, I cut my teeth on a PDP-7 with 8K-word addressing, and later moved > "up" to a PDP-8 with 128-word pages and 4K-word fields. Even later I > got to program in IBM 370 BAL, where you got to muck with 4K-byte > offsets from base and index registers - as well as such glories as > punched cards and JCL. So, what was your problem? > > > > >this at a time when most CP/M systems had at least 32kB, usually > >more... game over. oh yeah, there wasn't any software for 2650, I > >never even found a cross compiler for it. > > > > And even LATER I got to code for a bank that used IBM Series/1s, which > was IBM's attempt to make a minicomputer in the same vein as the PDP-11 > or the Nova. It was a 16-bit, 8 register machine, that allowed 5 bits > in its opcodes (of which there were something like 22 different formats) > to specify simultaneously both the source and destination registers. > (You do the math...) The only software it came with was a wretched > collection of device drivers, and the Base Program Preparation Facility > (BPPF): A stand-alone line-oriented editor, a stand-alone macro > assembler and a stand-alone linker. And when I say stand-alone, I mean > that you had to re-IPL (that's "boot" in non-IBMese) the machine, > specify the physical device and cylinder/head/sector address of the tool > you wanted to use, from the tool specify the physical device and > cylinder/head/sector address of your source, workspace and output files, > run the tool, re-IPL to go to the next tool, etc. The sole debugging > tool was a "break on address" feature available from the programmer's > console - which consisted of a hex keypad and a series of binary LEDs! > > Fortunately, I got paid by the hour... > > Eventually, IBM came 'round to providing the Event Driven Executive > (EDX), a very-primitive OS, but by that time I'd decided that my future > lay in hardware. ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39197781@news.isc.rit.edu> <8fbul3$1a40$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> X-Disclaimer: Everything I write is false. Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 12 May 2000 16:34:07 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 10 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: 12 May 2000 16:38:02 -0700, ruckus.brouhaha.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!news.spies.com!ruckus.brouhaha.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56203 william.hamblen@nashville.com writes: > TRS-80s had Z80s in them. Not all of them. Some had the 6809, 6801, Sharp LH-5801, or other processors. Specifically, the TRS-80 Color Computer family, TRS-80 Micro Color Computer, and TRS-80 Pocket Computer 2. Some even used four-bit microprocessors, such as the TRS-80 Pocket Computer. And of course there were the TRS-80 Models 16, 16B, and 6000, which contained a 68000 iin addition to the Z-80. ###### Sender: lynn@LYNNPC Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> <391BA7CC.4AB3D655@cisco.com> <8fhohb$l87$1@news.kersur.net> <391c93e1$0$73582@news.execpc.com> Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Message-ID: Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler Lines: 34 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0805 (Gnus v5.8.5) Emacs/20.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 00:36:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.63.28.138 X-Complaints-To: support@adcomsys.net X-Trace: news-west.eli.net 958178214 209.63.28.138 (Fri, 12 May 2000 18:36:54 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 18:36:54 MDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!triton.skycache.com!63.211.125.72!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!easynews!news-west.eli.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56184 "Robert J. Stevens" writes: > Now Your Talking My Language. Just a few Yearsd ago I got intp consulting > and two Places were looking for an EDL/EDX Programmer and my Name kept > coming up. Made enough to be able to retire. Loved it but some people just > couldn't get it. The S/1 could run rings around any computer made if you > knew how to program it. In fact the Series/1 is still being used overseas > and ther is an emulator that runs on the RISC 6000. I still have two > machines in the Basement which I have to get fired up this summer. Both of > them are wired for 110v so that should not be to difficult. > Bob in Wisconsin There was the joke about "official" RPS system S/1 was done by 360/MFT refugees that moved from Kingston to Boca ... who were trying to recreate MFT on a 16bit machine. The EDX folklore, it was done by a summer intern for a couple physicists doing lab stuff at san jose research. random other refs: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#66 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#79 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#64 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#71 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#63 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#66 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#67 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#69 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#70 -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@adcomsys.net, lynn@garlic.com http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ http://www.adcomsys.net/lynn/ ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391BFBE6.BC4122CD@netinsight.se> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se> Organization: Daedalus Consulting X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Message-ID: <958181097.736006@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Cache-Post-Path: shelley.paradise.net.nz!unknown@203-96-144-16.cable.paradise.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 15 Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 01:25:14 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.96.152.26 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 958181114 203.96.152.26 (Sat, 13 May 2000 13:25:14 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 13:25:14 NZST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56198 In article <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se>, Johnny Billquist wrote: >Well, I don't think that the Z80 mnemonics are the reason I thought >that the 8080 didn't have them. it was more in the line of >8080 don't have a lot of things, and Don didn't seem to be too >familiar with using BC or DE as address pointers, so I guess they >must have come with the Z80. Bit rot meant that I'd forgotten the LD A,(BC) and LD A,(DE) (and vice-versa) opcodes, but these are *not* the same as using (HL) as an index register. That is, BC & DE can only be used for loading and storing A; HL can be used as a general index register for other operations. -- don ###### From: blackm00@cam.org (Michael Black) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391B33BA.20A4@compuserve.com> <8fffit$kct$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> <8fhnbh$84b$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> <8fhomg$1fiu$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> X-Forwarded: by - (CAM) Lines: 24 Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 03:09:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.168.100.7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@videotron.net X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 958187366 198.168.100.7 (Fri, 12 May 2000 23:09:26 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 23:09:26 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!howland.erols.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!wesley.videotron.net!weber.videotron.net.POSTED!dialup-364.hip.cam.org!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56213 In article <8fhomg$1fiu$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>, wa4qal@vnet.ibm.com wrote: > Speaking of old chips, wasn't there a 3850 chip made by someone? MOS? Mostek? > > Dave > When you mentioned this, I thought, yes, and it was from Mostek. However, I just checked my Intro to Microcomputers (which I think has all the CPUs mentioned in this thread except the descendents of the 6800, which came after this 1976 edition was published,and the 16-bitters,) and we were wrong. There was a 3850, but it was the Fairchild F8 CPU. I remember now I went through this some time ago, when someone was asking an F8-related question. It's an odd set up, since you needed one of the other ICs in the series to get a program counter and stack pointer, etc (and I'm not going to read through it all to figure it out). There was the 3859 that combined this into one IC, but the bit in Osborne seems like a preview so I dont' know what happened later. And Mostek was a second source for the IC. Michael ###### From: dowe@localhost.localdomain (Dowe Keller) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <8feih3$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> Message-ID: X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.4.3 UNIX) NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.234.196.112 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.234.196.112 Date: 12 May 2000 22:34:06 -0700 X-Trace: 12 May 2000 22:34:06 -0700, 209.234.196.112 Organization: news.sierratel.com Lines: 20 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!triton.skycache.com!209.155.26.10!news.sierratel.com!dowe Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56128 On Thu, 11 May 2000 10:00:16 -0700, bill_h wrote: >You have for some strange reason chosen to define success such that >you eliminate any COMMERCIAL products, using chips you personally >don't seem to like, in favor of what really were little more than >toys aimed at a hobbiest market. > >The hobbiest market, as a WHOLE, was not successful. It died years ago. And now for something completely different... I wonder if anybody knows when the last of those old hobbiest companies died off, or started building IBM PC clones. I became enamored with computers aprox. 1981ish, and IIRC it was pretty mutch dominated by slick boxes like the Apple II and Vic 20. -- dowe dowe@sierratel.com --- grep me no patterns and I'll tell you no lines. ###### From: Dave Daniels Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 09:05:47 +0100 Organization: None Lines: 25 Message-ID: <49bdf26fb0a__fake__address@127.0.0.1> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> <391BFBE6.BC4122CD@netinsight.se> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se> <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: usercc85.uk.uudial.com X-Trace: lure.pipex.net 958299612 15291 62.188.151.97 (14 May 2000 10:20:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 May 2000 10:20:12 GMT User-Agent: Pluto/1.14i (RISC-OS/4.00) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!argonet.co.uk!argbq79 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56244 In article <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com>, Tim Shoppa wrote: > R6 and R7 aren't really general purpose registers - they're SP and > PC. Though the way that they integrated the SP and PC into the > register set *is* very slick, and the fact that most of the > addressing modes work with the SP and PC is really, really nice. IMHO the ARM is good in that respect too. R15 is the program counter. ARM have disallowed its use as the destination in some instructions but you can otherwise treat it as any other register (EOR PC,R1,R2 LSR R3 anyone?). IMHO the ARM is one processor where working in assembler is a pleasure. Dave Daniels -- ANTISPAM: Please note that the email address above is false. My correct address is: dave_danielsargonetcouk Please replace the and s with @ and . respectively when replying - Thanks! ###### Message-ID: <391D102D.C5BB1379@utu.fi> Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 11:19:57 +0300 From: Sam Laur Organization: Ei oo, hei hoo! X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: sekunda.yok.utu.fi X-Trace: 13 May 2000 11:19:53 +0200, sekunda.yok.utu.fi Lines: 10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed4.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.utu.fi!sekunda.yok.utu.fi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56215 "Geoffrey G. Rochat" wrote: > Of course, like all the really good stuff the 6809 and 6309 were allowed > to go out of production... Not so. ST still seems to make EF6809 (and variants), although I can't find any datasheets on their site. I _can_ however get them from local distributors. Also the same distributor (Farnell, if you need to know) seems to have Hitachi HD63B09RP but the Hitachi website doesn't know of them so they're probably not in production anymore. ###### From: "Adam Atkinson" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 13 May 2000 9:8:31 +0000 Organization: Collegio Pierpaoli, Montaguzzo Lines: 14 Message-ID: <538.168T1587T5483724ghira@mistral.co.uk> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <8feih3$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d224-85.dial.mistral.co.uk X-Trace: localhost.localdomain 958205431 11087 195.184.224.85 (13 May 2000 08:10:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@mistral-uk.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 May 2000 08:10:31 GMT X-No-Ahbou: yes X-Newsreader: THOR 2.6a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!insnet.net!nntp.mistral.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56190 On 13-May-00 05:34:06, Dowe Keller said: >I wonder if anybody knows when the last of those old hobbiest companies >died off, or started building IBM PC clones. I became enamored with >computers aprox. 1981ish, and IIRC it was pretty mutch dominated by >slick boxes like the Apple II and Vic 20. Well, weren't things like the UK101, Nascom 2 and Acorn System 1 still around then? They were "hobby" rather than "slick", I'd say. -- Adam Atkinson (ghira@mistral.co.uk) ZOOGE ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 03:36:57 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 39 Message-ID: <391D3049.5F6E540D@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391BA556.B14BD608@cisco.com> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!howland.erols.net!news.pbi.net.MISMATCH!cyclone-transit.snfc21.pbi.net!216.218.192.242!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56125 Eric Chomko wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > Cliff Sojourner wrote: > > : [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > : > : I remember assembling a SC/MP on S-100 prototype board (wire wrap, those > : were the days). I don't remember ever getting it to work and I > : certainly don't remember any software available for it. > > I wonder if their a dozen of them worldwide, and if a single one worked?! > There indeed *is* a Tiny Basic for the National SC/MP chip. It is called NIBL, and you can find the source listing published in Dr. Dobb's Volume 1, Number 10, 1976. It was also published in Interface Age, in the December 1976 and January 1977 issues. In addition, in the back of _Best of Interface Age, Volume 1: Software in BASIC_, there is a software index for interface age which lists another five programs for the SC/MP. As for working SC/MP systems, Clive Sinclair had a company called Science of Cambridge that produced a single board computer based on the SC/MP (I believe it was sold as a kit). The board looked similar to a KIM-1...and it may have only been sold in Britain. But I have read posts on a.f.c where people were fondly remembering their MK-14's... so at least a few must have been operational. For more info on the MK-14, check out the following WEB page: http://users.aol.com/mk14emu/ This page has links to more than you ever want to know about the MK-14. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 03:54:25 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 21 Message-ID: <391D3460.3C340932@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56121 jchausler wrote: > > [snip...] [snip..] [snip...]. > > The one "sad" thing now is that I collect "switch and light" front panels and > there aren't any for 68XX systems :-( > Well, there is at least *one*. Mits made a 6800 box called the Mits Altair 680b. It is advertised on the back of Kilobaud magazine, Issue #1, January 1977. I do *not* know of anyone who actually bought one of these...but there is some info on the Virtual Altair User Group WEB page: http://exo.com/~wts/mits0004.HTM -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 06:59:16 -0500 From: "Robert J. Stevens" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <2000May12.072332.26102@lorelei.approve.se> <1236.167T1657T6645318@sky.bus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 47 Message-ID: <391d43f9$0$50552@news.execpc.com> Organization: ExecPC Internet - Milwaukee, WI NNTP-Posting-Host: 822e0596.news.execpc.com X-Trace: Tl\okXWcmLGI5[332>a9YKbfNiaEHUgJGRYcgIRLSUEM4XAhaU3i5VGm_E=IjT?I]IlD=NV0VOVDEC?5lAbY8OHE X-Complaints-To: abuse@execpc.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newspump.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net!posts0.nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!posts.news.execpc.com!reader3-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56153 Charlie Gibbs wrote: > In article <2000May12.072332.26102@lorelei.approve.se> > hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) writes: > > >In article <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz>, > >Don Stokes wrote: > > > >> Er, did it? I seem to recall that while you could load/save 16 bit > >> values into BC and CD, only HL could be used as an indirect address, > >> and this was the case on the 8080 and Z80. > > > > Mnemonic Opcode > > --------- ------ > > LD (BC),A 02 > > LD (DE),A 12 > > LD A,(BC) 0A > > LD A,(DE) 1A > > Or STAX B, STAX D, LDAX B, and LDAX D for us 8080 stalwarts. > > >> Not that many. IX & IY, block operations (LDIR & friends) and the > >> shadow register set were the biggies. What else was there? > > > >Relative jumps, DJNZ, V-flag, in/out with port# in C, bit > >set/reset/test, shift/rotate, new interrupt modes, DRAM refresh, > >16 bit ADC/SBC, more 16 bit load/stores on BC and DE, single 5V > >supply, single phase TTL compatible clock. > > Plus operation at 4 MHz (later 6 - did it get to 8?). Yes, the > Z-80 had a lot to offer over the 8080. I just could never stand > those damned Zilog mnemonics. YUP. I've got a Tarbell Duplex 8-16 that Don Tarbell built back in the early 80's and it has a 8MHZ Z80H married to a 186. He relocates the CP/M to the second 64K then runs the 16 bit in the first 64K to handle all the I/O. Got to get that thing running again. Told the wife to Dump all the stuff into my coffin runnin or not Bob > > > -- > cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) > Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### From: "river" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:26:09 +1000 Organization: Pacific Internet (Australia) Lines: 86 Message-ID: <8fjh19$ph7$1@nina.pacific.net.au> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919A7EB.76F0@compuserve.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: brian-boitano173.zip.com.au X-Trace: nina.pacific.net.au 958220137 26151 210.23.147.173 (13 May 2000 12:15:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacific.net.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 May 2000 12:15:37 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newsmaster-01.atnet.at!atnet.at!newsrouter.chello.at!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.germany.net!newscore.gigabell.net!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed.zip.com.au!news.syd.pacific.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56176 > From a hardware standpoint, the 6800 was better than the 8080 because it > only required +5v, while the 8080 required two or three power supplies. > > Sam The single voltage rail on the 6800 was good. But usually in these older systems you had a power supply that drove a few voltage rails - namely +/- 12v -namely for RS232 comms. So all you needed was a -5v, which you could always drag off the -12v rail. So it wasn't a real big problem. The 8080's rich register operations were great, but its absolute addressing was its biggest linitation. The 8085 run on only +5v and provided excellenct interrupts, but still had no relative addressing. The 6800 is a nice chip, but I think the 6809 was better. The 6800 was poor with its registers and didn't offer a way to get data from the A register to the X register easily. The 8080 support chips were very easy to use, whereas the 6800 support chips required mutli phase clocks. You can use these support chips on other systems, but you need to generate some of the clock signals with external logic. The 6502 can run 6800 support chips (and vice versa) without any trouble or external logic. I agree that the 8-bit indexing on the 6502 was limiting. The Z80 is a great chip, and when coupled with its proper support chips, it had a great interrupt logic. It used +5 only and offered upward compatability to the 8080 instruction set. Its relative addressing and string/count operations was a nice enhancement on the old 8080 instruction set, but I found the long multi-byte instructions became a little tedious, and, IMHO, I don't know of anyone who ever used all instructions of this great CPU. The SC/MP was very limited with its registers - particularly the way you had to use its P-registers (pointer) for memory access. Also you had to dedicate one of the P registers for subroutine and stack. The intial SC/MP (the ISP500) required +5v and -7v. The next generation SC/MP (the ISP600) required just +5v, and a few of the pins were made active-low. Also the SC/MP could address memory in 4k chunks. The upper address lines did not wrap - which, if memory serves me correctly, was also a limitation on the Signetics 2650 - but it carved up memory in 8K chunks. The 2650 had an 8-level stack built in the chip, which I found to be quite limiting, but it has very powerful instruction set. I got a couple of old 2650 systems, one of which I finally got operational after 2 years of frigging around. And gee, it's fun to program something different!!! Like the Z80, the 2650 had two sets of registers, with the A register being common to both sets. You could select which register back to use by selecting bits in the PSW (Program Status Word). The other chip that was around at this time was the TI 9900/9980 chips. I think these used a few different voltages also, and they had some wierd way of getting data to its peripheral chips. I think it sent data serially, as opposed to parallel.. but I'll have to get out one of my old 9980 systems and check it out before I commit 100% to that statement. Imagine what would of happened if TI pushed its 9900 family as hard as Intel pushed the 8080. We may of had a very different world of computing today. seeyuzz river ###### From: "river" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:38:40 +1000 Organization: Pacific Internet (Australia) Lines: 36 Message-ID: <8fjhon$pq8$1@nina.pacific.net.au> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: brian-boitano173.zip.com.au X-Trace: nina.pacific.net.au 958220887 26440 210.23.147.173 (13 May 2000 12:28:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacific.net.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 May 2000 12:28:07 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!feed.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!newsfeed.zip.com.au!news.syd.pacific.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56183 > : > Eric Chomko wrote: > But you cannot name a microcomputer system using those chips now, can you? > I believe that the problem was that those comapines did not produce > evaluation kits as did both Intel and Motorola. Are there any versions of > BASIC for the 1802, F8 and SCAMP? They were microcontroller chips at > best. I was not saying that other microprocessors did not exist at the > time. My point was that only two microprocessors were used in anything > that could be called a successful microcomputer; and they had in them > either an 8080 or 6800. > > Eric > > : Tim. National Semi introduced the SC/MP as a Simple Cost-effective/MicroProcessor. It'd be a stretch to regard it as a microcontroller - although it is limited (as compared to other main stream 8-bit processors of its day). It needed external RAM and ROM and it had a crude interrupt system. Further more, its interface to the real world consisted of a couple of sense (input) and flag (output) pins, which were about as useful as the SID and SOD pins on the 8085. Sure, you could use them in a pinch, but if you are indeed doing some serious controlling of devices, you'll want something like an 8255 or 6821 to run things, plus a timer or two. I think the SC/MP was morel a general purpose microprocessor than microcontroller. seeyuzz river ###### From: "river" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:45:39 +1000 Organization: Pacific Internet (Australia) Lines: 87 Message-ID: <8fji5q$q00$1@nina.pacific.net.au> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391BA556.B14BD608@cisco.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: brian-boitano173.zip.com.au X-Trace: nina.pacific.net.au 958221306 26624 210.23.147.173 (13 May 2000 12:35:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacific.net.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 May 2000 12:35:06 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.zip.com.au!news.syd.pacific.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56175 > Eric Chomko wrote: > > > > Tim Shoppa wrote: > ... > > : National Semiconductor had the SCAMP; the 1802 was RCA. Yes, all > > : over 20 years ago. > > > > But you cannot name a microcomputer system using those chips now, can you? > > fortunately SC/MP died a quick death, like the 2650 which was another > abomination. segmented addressing, bleah! > Agreed. But as I have a couple of these systems I do find it intersting to fire them up and do a little programming. Fortunatley.. or unfortunately (depending upon you point of view) I grabbed a stack of old SC/MP chips years ago when a hobby shop wanted to get rid of them. Now, being the old luddite that I am, I am wire-wrapping up a SC/MP system - just for the hell of it. > 1802, on the other hand... many of us had the COSMAC ELF 1802 hobby > computer system, which did include BASIC (contrary to your post below) > and could be expanded to 32kb and a 5" floppy disk system. > > 1802s were used - and are still used - in satellite systems. 1802 was > the first "rad-hard" microprocessor. 1802 had relatively low power > consumption for the time... a single clock, 256 bytes built in memory? > a very simple bus connection anyways. nice chip! > > I built a few little controller things out of them. these days that > kind of thing would be an "embedded system" but it was just a "project" > back then. > > > > I believe that the problem was that those comapines did not produce > > evaluation kits as did both Intel and Motorola. Are there any versions of > > BASIC for the 1802, F8 and SCAMP? They were microcontroller chips at > Yes. There were two versions of SC/MP basic. THere was TinyBASIC and I forget the bigger version. > F8 mainly lived in the forgettable "F8" video game system, which had > what, a half dozen cartridges? vastly eclipsed by the Atari 2600, which > did have its own BASIC cartridge! > > I remember assembling a SC/MP on S-100 prototype board (wire wrap, those > were the days). I don't remember ever getting it to work and I > certainly don't remember any software available for it. > > > > best. I was not saying that other microprocessors did not exist at the > > time. My point was that only two microprocessors were used in anything > > that could be called a successful microcomputer; and they had in them > > either an 8080 or 6800. > > oh really? Apple selling millions of dollars of Apple ][s with 6502s in > them doesn't count as "success"? what about all the thousands of OSI > systems with 6502s? What about the KIM and SYM development kits. They sold well and, judging by eBay prices the KIM in particular is well sought after and commands a good price. > > Cliff > > > > > Eric > > > > : Tim. > > -- > Cliff Sojourner, Cisco Systems Inc. cls@cisco.com > (408) 527-7637 170 W. Tasman Drive, SJ CA 95134 bldg H2/cube E2-7 > if you misbehave in the orchestra, they take away your instrument and > give you two sticks. if you misbehave while playing drums, they take > away one of your sticks and make you stand in front and wave it around. ###### From: "river" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 23:09:31 +1000 Organization: Pacific Internet (Australia) Lines: 162 Message-ID: <8fjjij$qi1$1@nina.pacific.net.au> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: brian-boitano173.zip.com.au X-Trace: nina.pacific.net.au 958222739 27201 210.23.147.173 (13 May 2000 12:58:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacific.net.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 May 2000 12:58:59 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.zip.com.au!news.syd.pacific.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56180 Eric Chomko wrote in message news:8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net... > jchausler wrote: > > : Eric Chomko wrote: > > : > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor > : > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the > : > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? > > : I believe the 8080 came out in 1974 and the 6800 in 75 and the 6502 and > : Z80 in 76. There were others which were contemporary, the Fairchild F8 > : the RCA 1802 and the National SCMP (or something like that) come to > : mind as well as the Intersil 6100 (a PDP-8 clone) and that 16 bit TI chip > : whose number I forget, not to mention the 8008 and 4004. However, > : limiting us to the 6800 and 8080... > > ..as the only two chips that were in any successful microcomputer of the > time. Forget chips for a second and thing "microcomputer". You will then > realize that the 6800 and 8080 were the only two used in successful > microcomputers. > > Does anyone know of an F8 based microcomputer? SCAMP? 1802? The 6100 > system that I did see was real expensive. The T1 9900 came out with the > 6502 and the Z-80. > > : > This was a common battle and ironically, today, its sort of deja vu all > : > over again. > > : Have we started processor wars again. I thought we were beyond that > : (I still hate the Intel architecture and all its follow-ons :-) > > : > What was the best Intel 8080 system? > > : MITS Altair was the original I believe, the IMSAI was probably the > : classic "high end" although the Northstar was popular too! Did not > : Northstar start by providing an S-100 floppy system which was the > : first one available for the S-100 bus? Many companies provided > : S-100 based systems and parts. > > : On the industrial side was Intel's Multibus, supported by a number > : of other manufacturers. > > : > What was the best Motorola 6800 system? > > : SWTPC was the original here with the SS-50 bus. The "high end" > : SS-50 system was probably the GIMIX. There were two other > : "full line" SS-50 suppliers IIRC, Smoke Signal Broadcasting and > : Midwest Scientific Instruments. MSI and Smoke had their own > : OS's. SWTPC and GIMIX ran FLEX although Smoke would > : too. I don't know about MSI, I only saw them once at a trade > : show (Atlantic City in 77 IIRC). There were a number of other > : providers of SS-50 parts. > > Helix was another SS-50 turned SS-64 (for 16 bit processing). I actually > have a Helix box that runs both 6809 and 68008 chips, one or the other via > a switch. It runs OS/9. > > : My first "system" however, was the Motorola "D2" kit which > : although a "single board" (sort of, two boards actually) was > : expandable using the "industrial" Exorciser bus which like the > : Intel Multibus was supported by a number of other manufacturers. > > Yes, I remember it. > > : So which was better. I much preferred the 6800 architecture as > : it was more PDP-11 like (this I believe was the goal of the > > The 6800 was more like PDP-11 (I agree) is another basis for a Mot/Int war > as many feel that the 8080 (I don't know why) was more like a PDP-11. > > : designers given the limitations of the technology at the time). The > : code more easily "rolled off the mind" than with the 8080 at least > : my mind anyway and I did write 8080 code as well as 6800 code. > > : I think Motorola screwed up, however, by announcing a "better" > : product and then shutting up about it for a year or so. Rumor has > : it that after the initial announcement, they moved the operation from > : Arizona to Texas (or the other way) which angered some of the > : employees (who left, formed MOS Technology, who made the > : 6502, originally the 6501 but that was pin compatible with the > : 6800 and Motorola was not amused), but again this is all rumor. > > Interesting how both the 6502 and Z-80 were offshoots of their > predecessors created by former disgruntalled employees creating their own > new companies! > > : Remember the 8080 was a three voltage part (+5, +12, -5) which > : required 3 "chips" (processor, clock, system controller but the > : S-100 bus implemented something other than the "system controller" > : logic). They had no peripheral chips. The closest parallel port was > : an 8212 8 bit latch. The 6800 was a single voltage part (+5) > : which required 2 "chips" (processor, clock) and they had two > : peripheral chips, the 6820 dual parallel port and the 6850 serial > : port available more or less at initial announcement. > > When did the 8255(?) parallel chip come out? > What was the difference between the 6820 and the 6821, which came out > almost immediately? It seemed like a correction to a screwup. > ahhh... now your stretching my memory. I think, but I may be wrong and I am too lazy to leave the PC and go to my workshop to check, but I think the 6821 was the same, but it had a timer on it. This timer, when used, consumed a couple of the io pins for gating and counting. The 6502 family brought out their own 6520 and 6521 chips which (again I will have to check to be 100%) could be used on the 6800 system and viceversa. > : The big thing to me, however, was the debug ROM called MIKBUG. > : I argue MIKBUG was the first microprocessor "software standard". > : It was originally designed for the Motorola "D1" kit which came > : out in late 75 (I have several D1 and D2 kits still operating) and > : was adopted by SWTPC (which is what made it popular with the > : hobbyists, Moto had a number of debug ROMs for the 6800, > : many called MINIBUGnn as well as the rather poor JBUG > : in the D2 kit.). MIKBUG was organized as a group of user > : callable subroutines for terminal I/O and other useful functions. > > MIKBUG used bit-banging to make a 6820 to act like a serial port. Are you > sure about your comment that the 6850 was an initial release? Seems to me > that I recall the MP-C SWTPC board being replaced by the much improved > MP-S board late in the game. The MP-C allowed only two baud rates (110 and > 300). Whereas, the MP-S allowed those two and all the way up to 9600 with > some hacking. > You could use the MIKBUG in the D2 kit, 'cos it relied upon the same 6820 and RAM address that were on the D2 kit. The Minibug needed different memory and io adresses and it used the 6850. Intel rleased their 8251 chips earlier than the 8255, but both were available on the MCS80 (8080 eval kit). The 8253 timer came a little later. > : Both the hardware vendors and the software vendors provided > : their "stuff" including enhanced versions of MIKBUG > : (SWTBUG, SMARTBUG,...) compatible with MIKBUG > > I have both of the above. But SWTBUG, like MIKBUG were 6830 PROMs. Whereas > SMARTBUG was a 2708 EPROM. The latter chip was used by SSB and the MP-A2 > CPU boards. > > : which gave the various platforms interchangability. Also, > : with MIKBUG, unlike the Altair there was no "switch flipping" > : required to get the basic system "up and running". > > That no need for a front panel is why I purchased a SWPTC 6800 back in '76 > rather than an Altair 8800b. The fact that Gates' BASIC didn't load in a > TTY didn't help MITS when I was checking out that system, either. > > Eric > ###### From: "river" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 23:11:10 +1000 Organization: Pacific Internet (Australia) Lines: 44 Message-ID: <8fjjlk$qj0$1@nina.pacific.net.au> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391ba9b4$0$216@nntp1.ba.best.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: brian-boitano173.zip.com.au X-Trace: nina.pacific.net.au 958222836 27232 210.23.147.173 (13 May 2000 13:00:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacific.net.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 May 2000 13:00:36 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!newsfeed.zip.com.au!news.syd.pacific.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56181 Jerry Bauer wrote in message news:391ba9b4$0$216@nntp1.ba.best.com... > In article , > William Hamblen wrote: > >On 11 May 2000 15:42:10 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: > > > >>MIKBUG used bit-banging to make a 6820 to act like a serial port. Are you > >>sure about your comment that the 6850 was an initial release? Seems to me > >>that I recall the MP-C SWTPC board being replaced by the much improved > >>MP-S board late in the game. The MP-C allowed only two baud rates (110 and > >>300). Whereas, the MP-S allowed those two and all the way up to 9600 with > >>some hacking. > > > >The 6850 and the 6820 came out at about the same time. I don't know > >why Motorola put the bit banger in Mikbug unless 6820s were cheaper > >than 6850s. MINIBUG, which used a 6850 for serial I/O, was on the > >same ROM mask as MIKBUG. You grounded a pin on the ROM to select one > >or the other. > > > > > MIKBUG was available mask-programmed on a 6846 ROM-IO-Timer chip. > This chip has an eight-bit parallel port, but no serial port. > Theoretically, a two-chip system could be constructed of the 6802 (CPU > + RAM and the 6846 (ROM, IO, Timer). Unfortunately, MIKBUG wanted RAM > at $A000, and the 6802 mapped its on-board RAM at $0000, so a MIKBUG > system required a separate RAM chip (the 6810 -- 128 bytes). > Therefore, a minimal MIKBUG system required three chips. MIKBUG also > included FSK routins for a big-banger minimal-hardware cassette-tape > interface. > i got the source code listing and memory/io requirements for both minbug and mikbug if anyone is interested. i'll have to scan it first but! > Jerry Randal Bauer > ###### From: "river" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 23:15:58 +1000 Organization: Pacific Internet (Australia) Lines: 28 Message-ID: <8fjjuj$qou$1@nina.pacific.net.au> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: brian-boitano173.zip.com.au X-Trace: nina.pacific.net.au 958223123 27422 210.23.147.173 (13 May 2000 13:05:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacific.net.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 May 2000 13:05:23 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!enews.sgi.com!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!newshub1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au!news1.optus.net.au!optus!newsfeed.zip.com.au!news.syd.pacific.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56186 Jim Thomas wrote in message news:391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu... > Eric Chomko wrote: > > > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor > > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the > > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? > > 20 years ago == 1980. What about the LSI-11 ? :-) > Or the F10 (4-bit imbedded thingy I think it was)? > When was the first AT&T 3B? ? > Hitachi/NEC/Fujitsu ? > didn;t hitachi come out with a 6809 based machine, called the Peach? And OKI had some machine with a built in printer and a colour monitor - but I am not sure if this one used the 6809. i know, at the time, they were both impressive machines. But, talking of early colour screens, wasn't there a Compucolor machine (or something like that), based on the 8080? seeyuzz river ###### From: bruce+usenet2@NOSPAMfanboy.net (Bruce Tomlin) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> <391D102D.C5BB1379@utu.fi> Organization: San Antonio, TX Lines: 23 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 08:22:46 CDT X-Trace: sv2-a1yeUgDqI/8IvmR2VyLJUJCUPFQq3brXE0hrTiauiW09DcGLIxpO1NRGW2Jr7KviZlCi4HE2Zma/eW+!HGuAuOTrPdMwuYk7VuU= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 08:23:35 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!europa.netcrusader.net!207.172.3.37!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news5.giganews.com.POSTED!atuin.bruce!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56201 In article <391D102D.C5BB1379@utu.fi>, Sam Laur wrote: > "Geoffrey G. Rochat" wrote: > > > Of course, like all the really good stuff the 6809 and 6309 were allowed > > to go out of production... > > Not so. ST still seems to make EF6809 (and variants), although I can't > find any datasheets on their site. I _can_ however get them from local > distributors. Also the same distributor (Farnell, if you need to know) > seems to have Hitachi HD63B09RP but the Hitachi website doesn't know > of them so they're probably not in production anymore. Where I work we still do some 6809 stuff, and all our CPU chips have the ST logo on them these days. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a Moto-logo 6809 in the four years I've been working there. The best 8-bit processor there ever was, IMHO, even if you count the 8088 as an 8-bitter (as early Intel documentation did). But apparently when Moto decided to switch from random-logic to microcoded cores, it just couldn't make the jump. I can certainly see how the 6809 instruction set would be a bit troublesome to convert to microcode, with all its pre-byte and post-byte combinations. ###### Message-ID: <391D7723.E32759F6@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919A7EB.76F0@compuserve.com> <8fjh19$ph7$1@nina.pacific.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 86 Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 15:40:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.101.80 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 958232437 63.15.101.80 (Sat, 13 May 2000 08:40:37 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 08:40:37 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsf1.elp.rr.com!cyclone-west.rr.com!news.rr.com|news-west.rr.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56141 river wrote: > The single voltage rail on the 6800 was good. But usually in these older > systems you had > a power supply that drove a few voltage rails - namely +/- 12v -namely for > RS232 comms. > So all you needed was a -5v, which you could always drag off the -12v rail. > So it wasn't a > real big problem. If you were trying to breadboard a simple system, the 3 voltage situation made it a lot easier to make magic smoke if you got your wires crossed :-) For simple self contained systems like the Moto D2 kit, the single voltage was a blessing, but if you were going to drive a terminal of any kind, you usually needed at least a minus voltage to make RS232. I powered my D1 kits 232 (and current loop) interfaces from a +/- supply in my semi home brew video terminal. > The 6800 is a nice chip, but I think the 6809 was better. The 6800 was poor > with its registers > and didn't offer a way to get data from the A register to the X register > easily. No question here, as I said in an earlier post, many of us who selected the 6800 made a "wish list" of instructions. The 6801 "micro controller" provided most of these instructions. The 6809 was so much more!! But, it came too late to have a big impact. Recently one of the 09's designers, Terry Ritter, has been visiting comp.sys.m6809 and according to him it was probably a miracle it ever got built at all. Moto was apparently not a friendly place for those proposing new micros in those days. > The 8080 support chips were very easy to use, whereas the 6800 support chips > required mutli > phase clocks. You can use these support chips on other systems, but you need > to generate some > of the clock signals with external logic. The 6800 itself required the two phase non overlapping clock. The support chips just required the single phase 'E' clock. This was usually generated by the same support circuitry which provided the two phase clock to the processor. Moto had two approaches to the clock chip. The first was a family of "chips" the 6871. These were actually crystals and drive circuitry all contained in a metal can. This can could plug into a 24 pin dip. Only later did they provide the 6875 which was a true "chip" and ran off of an external crystal. The D1 kit clock was a collection of several chips with a dual one shot (8602) and two pot adjustable RC timing networks for the two phases. The actual clock lines into the processor were apparently hard to drive. It was rumored that this was one of the reasons for the late delivery of the 6875. The D1 kit uses an MC3459 which IIRC was listed in the catalogs as a "core memory driver" :-) > > > The 6502 can run 6800 support chips (and vice versa) without any trouble or > external logic. I > agree that the 8-bit indexing on the 6502 was limiting. > > The Z80 is a great chip, and when coupled with its proper support chips, it > had a great interrupt > logic. It used +5 only and offered upward compatability to the 8080 > instruction set. Its relative > addressing and string/count operations was a nice enhancement on the old > 8080 instruction set, > but I found the long multi-byte instructions became a little tedious, and, > IMHO, I don't know of > anyone who ever used all instructions of this great CPU. That was the problem with the Z80, it was saddled with the 8080 architecture. Otherwise it was a great chip. I only wish the 6809 had come out contemporary with it instead of several years later. I believe it would have blown it away not to mention the rest of the 8080 world. After the original rush, most of the CP/M world was Z80 vs 8080. (What was the AMD 9080?? It seems to plug into an 8080 socket). Regards, Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### Message-ID: <391D7FCE.69B78A38@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8fh6iv$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 44 Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 16:17:41 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.101.80 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 958234661 63.15.101.80 (Sat, 13 May 2000 09:17:41 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 09:17:41 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!triton.skycache.com!152.163.239.131!portc03.blue.aol.com!cyclone-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!news-east.rr.com!cyclone-west.rr.com!news.rr.com|news-west.rr.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56146 Eric Chomko wrote: > : The 6850 and the 6820 came out at about the same time. I don't know > : why Motorola put the bit banger in Mikbug unless 6820s were cheaper > : than 6850s. MINIBUG, which used a 6850 for serial I/O, was on the > : same ROM mask as MIKBUG. You grounded a pin on the ROM to select one > : or the other. > > I wonder why SWTPC used MIKBUG instead of MINIBUG? I'm not sure about the > 6820 vs. 6850. You would have thought that the 40 pin 6820 would be more > expensive than the 24 pin 6850, but one never knows. Assuming you're talking about the MINIBUG on the same ROM as MIKBUG (MCM6830L7), its a good bit dumber than MIKBUG even though it used the 6850 instead of the bit-banger. I suspect we're dealing with development cycle time. The date codes on the D1 circuit card are 23rd week 1975 (a rev from week 21) yet I have a couple 6820's with XC part numbers (experimental) and date codes of week 52 in 1975. I suspect even though the design was "frozen" by early summer 75, there were still problems getting yield up to acceptable levels and they may have focused on the 6820 first. Based again on the D1 circuit card, even though they have a socket for the 6850 on the board absolutely none of the necessary support circuitry like for the serial clock is on the board, they just run all the lines to an off board connector. There may have been some development problems with the 6850 as well. Interestingly, if you refer to the 6830L7 ROM "bible", Engineering Note 100, the copywrite date on the MINIBUG is 1973 and it says its Rev 4 (for use with MIKBUG) MIKBUG's copywrite is 1974. I don't know if or how Moto prototyped the support chips. I vaguely recall seeing a photo of the prototype of the 6800 itself which was on about 5 wire-wrap boards all plugged into a back plane. This could also indicate that they may have been thinking of the 6850 (the comments in the code just say ACIA, they don't give the part number, "asynchronous communications interface adapter",) but were unable to reliably build it or the powers that be thought the parallel interface was more important, or.... Regards, Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### Message-ID: <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 69 Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 17:00:42 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.101.42 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 958237242 63.15.101.42 (Sat, 13 May 2000 10:00:42 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 10:00:42 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsf1.elp.rr.com!cyclone-west.rr.com!news.rr.com|news-west.rr.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56147 Eric Chomko wrote: > I do not remember the Veras system at all. I wonder if anyone has a > working one? Talk about a rarity! A college friend of mine upon hearing of my interest in the F8 sent me a copy of an ad. I just went hunting and saw another ad for it in the October 1976 issue of Interface Age, page 25, $459 kit, $709 assembled. The ad includes a comparison chart with MIKBUG based 6800's and "8080 & 8080A Systems". This chart would seem to be favorable towards the F8 :-) Their monitor ROM was called "FAIRBUG" and they claim that a Tiny Basic will be available for $25 on October 15, 1976 and a full Basic will be available on December 15, 1976 for $50. Veras Systems was located in Somerville MA. I wonder if FAIRBUG was theirs, or like MIKBUG for the 6800 was "borrowed" from Fairchild. As I stated in an earlier post, I do recall a single board evaluation system being available from Fairchild for the F8 which supported a TTY monitor, so maybe this was it. > Oh yes, I was replying to the comment about the SS-50 systems. Looking at the ads above, I was also reminded of two non SS-50 6800 systems, Wave Mate's Jupiter II and Sphere Corporation's systems. Of course there was the Altair 680b. One of the members of our small 6800 group back in 1977 had the 680b. > I can see where SWTPC borrowed heavily from the D1 kit as described above. All they had to do was design the hardware. Why they used MIKBUG instead of one of the various MINIBUGs then available, I don't know. Moto and all of the chip vendors were into selling parts. Their whole marketing efforts seemed to be towards people who designed things out of "random logic" who might use the micros to reduce chip count rather than towards "software folks". Re my "joke" about micros being created to provide a market for all that RAM, the total number of "computers" (i.e. mini's and mainframes), being manufactured was not seen by the chip manufacturer's as providing enough quantity for a successful venture. I doesn't seem that they saw them as "computers". > Interesting. Did you have both SWTBUG and SMARTBUG code in the system at > the same time, switchable? That would be a neat trick. This could have been done, but that was not my focus. I just had them on separate EPROM's. > I would prefer to collect ROM monitors rather than front panels. Heck, you > could make one if you really wanted one. I once considered making an SS-50 switch and light front panel and even marketing it. I don't think there would have been much of a market for it even though it would have been simple. As the 6800 was a dynamic part, the processor would have to have been halted while the front panel was being used to access memory. As to collecting ROM monitors, I have the source listings for some of them. Moto certainly made a lot of different ones, not to mention the SS-50 manufacturers and some individual's (JOEBUG :-) efforts were published. Regards, Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 11:28:15 -0600 Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.dot.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: <3pvqhsk8ec68rqtfe9881hqf4lsco6uvce@4ax.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> <391BFBE6.BC4122CD@netinsight.se> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> <2000May12.145012.367@lorelei.approve.se> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.148.146.97 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.148.146.97 X-Trace: 13 May 2000 11:28:16 -0700, 207.148.146.97 Lines: 22 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.50.1.43 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!hekyl.ab.tac.net!nntp.cadvision.com!news.cadvision.com!207.148.146.97 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56217 On Fri, 12 May 2000 14:50:12 GMT, hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) wrote: >In article <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com>, >Tim Shoppa wrote: > >> and instructions added in a haphazard way to the orthogonal 8080. > >You are the only one I have seen that thinks the 8080 is orthogonal. >How can you say that it is orthogonal when, for example, BC and DE >can't be used the same way as HL. Look at the 1802 for an orthogonal >processor, it doesn't even have a dedicated program counter and stack >pointer (any of the general purpose registers can be used as PC and >SP). So how does the CPU know which one to increment before the next fetch or pop? Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- Brian_Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) use address above to reply ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: <2000May13.180149.12374@lorelei.approve.se> Originator: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Sender: hoh@lorelei.approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Organization: [1] + 5934 done /bin/rm -rf ~/ & X-No-Archive: yes X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test66 (4 June 1998) References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> <2000May12.145012.367@lorelei.approve.se> <3pvqhsk8ec68rqtfe9881hqf4lsco6uvce@4ax.com> Lines: 29 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.216.175 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 958241286 130.244.216.175 (Sat, 13 May 2000 20:08:06 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 20:08:06 MET DST X-Sender: q-11932@isdn216-1-175.swipnet.se Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 18:01:49 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56195 In article <3pvqhsk8ec68rqtfe9881hqf4lsco6uvce@4ax.com>, Brian Inglis wrote: > So how does the CPU know which one to increment before the next > fetch or pop? The processor has two four-bit registers (P and X IIRC) that indicates the current PC and SP. The SEP and SEX instructions is used to modify these registers. The 1802 does not have a normal way to call subroutines. To call a subroutine you would load a register with the address using the PLO (put low) and PHI (put hi) instructions and then SEP to that register. The subroutine would the SEP back when it was time for a "return". Often used subroutines would be assigned its own PC and end with a branch back to the SEP wich would be sitting just before the entry point. The next time it was time to call the subroutine the register was already pointing at the entry point. One way to view this mess is to say that the 1802 doesn't have subroutines at all but that it instead supports coroutines (using SEP to switch between coroutines). For pushing and popping the stack there was something wrong with the order of pre vs. post increment/decrement that forced the programmer to insert an increment or decrement to make the stack work. A simple push followed by a pop would not work. -- Göran Larsson hoh AT approve DOT se Senior Systems Analyst ###### From: nailed_barnacleSPAMFREE@hotmail.com (barnacle) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 19:09:31 GMT Organization: [posted via Easynet Ltd] Lines: 45 Message-ID: <8fk9ce$1t4d$1@quince.news.easynet.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391BA556.B14BD608@cisco.com> <391D3049.5F6E540D@dallas.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: nbarnes.easynet.co.uk X-Trace: quince.news.easynet.net 958245070 62605 194.154.98.206 (13 May 2000 19:11:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynet.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 May 2000 19:11:10 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news1.ebone.net!news.ebone.net!newspeer.ebone.net!easynet-tele!easynet.net!quince.news.easynet.net!egbert Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56253 In article <391D3049.5F6E540D@dallas.net>, richmond@dallas.net wrote: >Eric Chomko wrote: >> >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >> >> Cliff Sojourner wrote: >> >> : [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >> : >> : I remember assembling a SC/MP on S-100 prototype board (wire wrap, those >> : were the days). I don't remember ever getting it to work and I >> : certainly don't remember any software available for it. >> >> I wonder if their a dozen of them worldwide, and if a single one worked?! >> >There indeed *is* a Tiny Basic for the National SC/MP chip. It is called >NIBL, and you can find the source listing published in Dr. Dobb's Volume 1, >Number 10, 1976. It was also published in Interface Age, in the December >1976 and January 1977 issues. In addition, in the back of _Best of >Interface Age, Volume 1: Software in BASIC_, there is a software index >for interface age which lists another five programs for the SC/MP. > >As for working SC/MP systems, Clive Sinclair had a company called >Science of Cambridge that produced a single board computer based on the >SC/MP (I believe it was sold as a kit). The board looked similar to >a KIM-1...and it may have only been sold in Britain. But I have read >posts on a.f.c where people were fondly remembering their MK-14's... >so at least a few must have been operational. Could I ever forget my *first* computer, the MK-14? $DEITY knows, I've tried... > >For more info on the MK-14, check out the following WEB page: > > http://users.aol.com/mk14emu/ > >This page has links to more than you ever want to know about the MK-14. > > -- barnacle http://www.nailed-barnacle.co.uk ###### From: William Hamblen Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 16:03:54 -0500 Organization: Utterly Disorganized Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <8feih3$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56264 On 12 May 2000 22:34:06 -0700, dowe@localhost.localdomain (Dowe Keller) wrote: >I wonder if anybody knows when the last of those old hobbiest companies >died off, or started building IBM PC clones. I became enamored with >computers aprox. 1981ish, and IIRC it was pretty mutch dominated by >slick boxes like the Apple II and Vic 20. One of the original S-100 computer companies, Polymorphic Systems, was making Poly88s until the mid eighties. Apparently they had a pretty slick business oriented software package that managed to sell well right into the IBM PC era. ###### From: "Geoffrey G. Rochat" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:07:42 -0400 Organization: Kersur Technologies Lines: 53 Message-ID: <8fl1n4$9pc$1@news.kersur.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> <391D102D.C5BB1379@utu.fi> NNTP-Posting-Host: nas-3-174.boston.navipath.net X-Trace: news.kersur.net 958269988 10028 216.67.3.174 (14 May 2000 02:06:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@kersur.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 May 2000 02:06:28 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news-feeder.wcg.net!WCG!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.kersur.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56232 Bruce Tomlin wrote in message ... >In article <391D102D.C5BB1379@utu.fi>, Sam Laur wrote: > >> "Geoffrey G. Rochat" wrote: >> >> > Of course, like all the really good stuff the 6809 and 6309 were allowed >> > to go out of production... >> >> Not so. ST still seems to make EF6809 (and variants), although I can't >> find any datasheets on their site. I _can_ however get them from local >> distributors. Also the same distributor (Farnell, if you need to know) >> seems to have Hitachi HD63B09RP but the Hitachi website doesn't know >> of them so they're probably not in production anymore. > >Where I work we still do some 6809 stuff, and all our CPU chips have the >ST logo on them these days. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a >Moto-logo 6809 in the four years I've been working there. > I stand corrected. Are these current date code parts? 6809s are still fairly common in US surplus houses, but I haven't seen a new one in..., well, quite a few more years than I'd care to admit! I'm glad to know they're still around. Does anyone know if these ST parts are available for import into the US, or are they limited to European distribution? BTW, the early plastic MC68B09Es had a nasty thermal problem. In Motorola's old, red Microprocessor Databook, the 6809 datasheet had an iterative relaxation-method algorithm for figuring out power dissipation, and if you cranked the numbers you found that for an ambient temperature in excess of about 55C or so the junction temperature of the chip got hot enough to melt the epoxy package. Apparently Motorola hadn't run the algorithm for themselves on the B part, because Motorola rated the chip good for 70C. I got to see many field returns with pit and cracks in the package right over the chip, the consequences of which caused a few people some rather nasty headaches. After a good deal of unseemly yelling between Motorola and my employer at the time, I got to talk with one of the Motorola managers responsible for the 6809, and with the assistance of the local Motorola sales rep (working on commission) managed to convince him to provide us with ceramic parts at plastic prices. Motorola soon wearied of the economics of the situation and eventually got around to putting a heat spreader in the lead-frame of their 6809. Does anyone know if any of the other 6809 makers had similar problems? And other than Motorola, Hitachi and ST (nee' SGS), did anyone else make 6809s? ###### From: "Geoffrey G. Rochat" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:38:59 -0400 Organization: Kersur Technologies Lines: 51 Message-ID: <8fl3hb$ahp$1@news.kersur.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391B33BA.20A4@compuserve.com> <8fffit$kct$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> <8fhnbh$84b$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> <8fhomg$1fiu$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: nas-3-174.boston.navipath.net X-Trace: news.kersur.net 958271851 10809 216.67.3.174 (14 May 2000 02:37:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@kersur.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 May 2000 02:37:31 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.cybercity.dk!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news.kersur.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56236 >>>Processors I remember (~1975): >> >>I forgot the CP1600 from General Instrument (used in the Mattel >>Intellivision), and as somebody else mentioned, the Fairchild 9440. The old PMOS CP1600 has been transmogrified, and its decendants are now Microchip Technology's PIC line of embedded chips so beloved by bit bangers such as myself. >> >>If there is one chip that really should have made it, but didn't, I would vote >>for the TI-9900. It was a really nice chip to program (not having programmed >>one, just looking at the instruction set). It always amazed me that TI could >>bungle marketting the chip so badly (actually, I don't think they marketted it >>at all). The 9900 had two very interesting features that I've never seen on any other micro. First, all the registers save for the PC, the SP and a frame pointer were stored in memory (pointed to by that frame pointer) rather than on-chip. Although this would seem to be an awfully slow way to do things, it was not given the technology of the day. And what it did do was make context switching extremely fast. A single instruction, BLSW as I recall, would allow you to save the entire CPU state and load up a new one - great for fast interrupts and multi-tasking. Second, the I/O space of the 9900 was accessed, not as byte or words, but as a single field of 4096 bits - which the instruction set allowed you to address in a very flexible manner. This made the 9900 very useful as an industrial control processor. If you want one, Excess Solutions in San Jose (www.excess-solutions.com) claims to have zillions of left-over AMI 9900s in stock. AMI was TI's licensed second-source. I have not checked the veracity of the claim. A decade or so ago, when Token Ring was a popular LAN, one of the more popular Token Ring chipsets was made by TI. And although TI took great pains to hide the fact, the guts of the chipset was a microprocessor based on a variant of the 9900, as some diligent logic analyzer work was able to prove. >Speaking of old chips, wasn't there a 3850 chip made by someone? MOS? Mostek? Mostek, I believe. And if memory serves, it was a single-chip version of the F8. Does anybody have a clearer recollection? ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391B33BA.20A4@compuserve.com> <8fffit$kct$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> <8fhnbh$84b$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> <8fhomg$1fiu$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> <8fl3hb$ahp$1@news.kersur.net> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 34 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:02:26 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-oLQHMdElk6F3cdkYq9IQFiDc0wH5k9mhMufiaXy7i5Mw1eSggVfQpfjFGAynbjbDOiGe+Zxe8o0X1cu!egi0JySVweyYSud/lzEgwQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 03:02:26 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!nntp2.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news5.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56224 On Sat, 13 May 2000 22:38:59 -0400, Geoffrey G. Rochat wrote: >>>I forgot the CP1600 from General Instrument (used in the Mattel >>>Intellivision), and as somebody else mentioned, the Fairchild 9440. >The old PMOS CP1600 has been transmogrified, and its decendants are now >Microchip Technology's PIC line of embedded chips so beloved by bit >bangers such as myself. Oh, is THAT why the PIC is so ^&^&*%^&*^&(*%$% WEIRD?! I checked out the PICs, then the Atmel AvR series of programmable microcontrollers, and greatly prefer the AvRs...not only are they much saner, but you can get a programmer for them that works with Windows NT for much less than the PIC's $400. >A decade or so ago, when Token Ring was a popular LAN, one of the more >popular Token Ring chipsets was made by TI. And although TI took great >pains to hide the fact, the guts of the chipset was a microprocessor >based on a variant of the 9900, as some diligent logic analyzer work was >able to prove. Wonder if the TI ThunderLAN Ethernet chipset is the same way... >>Speaking of old chips, wasn't there a 3850 chip made by someone? MOS? >>Mostek? >Mostek, I believe. And if memory serves, it was a single-chip version >of the F8. Does anybody have a clearer recollection? The Mostek 3870 was their F8 clone. I don't know much about it, but a friend built a repeater controller around one...they finally had to replace the design when they couldn't get any more parts, but there are several still in service. I can't speak at all to the 3850. ###### From: "Roger Johnstone" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 21:53:32 +1200 Organization: Ihug Limited (Invercargill) Lines: 41 Message-ID: <958298014.629247@inv.ihug.co.nz> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <8feih3$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> <8fh489$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: inv.ihug.co.nz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.01 (295) Cache-Post-Path: inv.ihug.co.nz!unknown@p52-max3.inv.ihug.co.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56222 ---------- In article <8fh489$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: >bill_h wrote: >: The hobbiest market, as a WHOLE, was not successful. It died years ago. > >: What little remains must certainly include the 'Stamp', as advertised >: in the magazine 'Nuts and Volts'. > >What is "Stamp"? > >Eric > >: Bill >: Tucson, AZ > The Stamp is a miniature BASIC computer on a tiny PCB (plugs into a DIP40 socket) from Parallax http://www.parallaxinc.com It uses a Microchip PIC microcontroller with a BASIC interpreter burned into the ROM, connected to an EEPROM which holds the tokenised BASIC program. The ROM also contains the programming software so all that's required to program it is a serial cable from the host computer. They're very popular for hobby projects because they're completely contained in an off-the-shelf module and are programmed in BASIC, mind you're they're also bloody expensice for all they are. They cost about four times the cost of the parts on the PCB, you are paying a lot for a single copy of a BASIC interpreter. At my work we use the same PIC chips but with a compiled BASIC (which only cost about the same as two Stamps). Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rojaws ------------------------------------------ Customer: I'm running Windows '98 Tech: Yes. Customer: My computer isn't working now. Tech: Yes, you said that. ###### From: Ariel Scolnicov Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 14 May 2000 11:12:32 +0300 Organization: Compugen, Ltd. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <8feih3$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> <538.168T1587T5483724ghira@mistral.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: bioserv.compugen.co.il Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.netvision.net.il 958291952 7364 194.90.227.153 (14 May 2000 08:12:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@netvision.net.il NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 May 2000 08:12:32 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!ams.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news-feed.netvision.net.il!194.90.1.15.MISMATCH!news!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56402 "Adam Atkinson" writes: > On 13-May-00 05:34:06, Dowe Keller said: > > >I wonder if anybody knows when the last of those old hobbiest companies > >died off, or started building IBM PC clones. I became enamored with > >computers aprox. 1981ish, and IIRC it was pretty mutch dominated by > >slick boxes like the Apple II and Vic 20. > > Well, weren't things like the UK101, Nascom 2 and Acorn System 1 still > around then? They were "hobby" rather than "slick", I'd say. Acorn BBC Model A had a (c) notice of 1981 for BBC Basic; the Model B (what 'most everyone used) had a (c) notice of 1982. Not sure about the Atom, but that was before the Model A. -- Ariel Scolnicov ###### From: Ariel Scolnicov Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 14 May 2000 11:14:43 +0300 Organization: Compugen, Ltd. Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <8feih3$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: bioserv.compugen.co.il Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.netvision.net.il 958292083 7364 194.90.227.153 (14 May 2000 08:14:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@netvision.net.il NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 May 2000 08:14:43 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!diablo.theplanet.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!ams.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news-feed.netvision.net.il!194.90.1.15.MISMATCH!news!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56404 William Hamblen writes: [...] > Polymorphic Systems [...] Are they the same as the PolyForth people? -- Ariel Scolnicov ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 02:21:14 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 19 Message-ID: <8fnmuq$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <391C5701.7440@compuserve.com> <391C5368.3D09F4D4@dusknet.dhs.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!triton.skycache.com!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-feed.fnsi.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56381 Jeff Teunissen wrote: : Sam Yorko wrote: : > : > > The one "sad" thing now is that I collect "switch and light" front panels : > > and there aren't any for 68XX systems :-( : > : > ALTAIR had one.... : yet the Altair was an 8080 machine, not a 68xx system. Did the 680b Altair system have a front panel? Eric : -- : | Jeff Teunissen - Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing - deek at dusknet.dhs.org : | Disclaimer: I am my employer, so anything I say goes for me too. :) : | Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/ : | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://dusknet.dhs.org/~deek/ ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 02:22:36 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 18 Message-ID: <8fnn1c$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> <8fh5vq$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391BF6F3.FB30A16@trailing-edge.com> <8fhho0$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56365 Pete Fenelon wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > Right, and your ability to see the fluke and exceptions to the rule come : > to the forefront once again. Yet, you yourself even agreed with : > "minis-on-a-chip never really took off", even if a few examples exist : > today as microcontroller boards. : *plonk*. Having trouble with ? Plonk, yourself. Eric : pete : -- : pete@fenelon.com "We ask ourselves what will become of Evil Gazebo?" (HMHB) ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 02:31:34 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 57 Message-ID: <8fnni6$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56366 Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391BA556.B14BD608@cisco.com> <391D3049.5F6E540D@dallas.net> Organization: IDT Internet Services Distribution: Lines: 45 X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Charles Richmond wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > : > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] : > : > Cliff Sojourner wrote: : > : > : [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] : > : : > : I remember assembling a SC/MP on S-100 prototype board (wire wrap, those : > : were the days). I don't remember ever getting it to work and I : > : certainly don't remember any software available for it. : > : > I wonder if their a dozen of them worldwide, and if a single one worked?! : > : There indeed *is* a Tiny Basic for the National SC/MP chip. It is called : NIBL, and you can find the source listing published in Dr. Dobb's Volume 1, : Number 10, 1976. It was also published in Interface Age, in the December : 1976 and January 1977 issues. In addition, in the back of _Best of : Interface Age, Volume 1: Software in BASIC_, there is a software index : for interface age which lists another five programs for the SC/MP. Now THIS IS "computer folklore". I am amazed that a SCAMP chip made it into a "system" : As for working SC/MP systems, Clive Sinclair had a company called : Science of Cambridge that produced a single board computer based on the : SC/MP (I believe it was sold as a kit). The board looked similar to : a KIM-1...and it may have only been sold in Britain. But I have read : posts on a.f.c where people were fondly remembering their MK-14's... : so at least a few must have been operational. It's good to hear about stuff like this... : For more info on the MK-14, check out the following WEB page: : http://users.aol.com/mk14emu/ : This page has links to more than you ever want to know about the MK-14. MK? And not MK-ULTRA? It's amazing again... Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 02:33:40 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 38 Message-ID: <8fnnm4$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8fjhon$pq8$1@nina.pacific.net.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56367 river wrote: : > : > Eric Chomko wrote: : > But you cannot name a microcomputer system using those chips now, can you? : > I believe that the problem was that those comapines did not produce : > evaluation kits as did both Intel and Motorola. Are there any versions of : > BASIC for the 1802, F8 and SCAMP? They were microcontroller chips at : > best. I was not saying that other microprocessors did not exist at the : > time. My point was that only two microprocessors were used in anything : > that could be called a successful microcomputer; and they had in them : > either an 8080 or 6800. : > : National Semi introduced the SC/MP as a Simple : Cost-effective/MicroProcessor. It'd be a : stretch to regard it as a microcontroller - although it is limited (as : compared to other main : stream 8-bit processors of its day). It needed external RAM and ROM and it : had a crude : interrupt system. Further more, its interface to the real world consisted of : a couple of sense : (input) and flag (output) pins, which were about as useful as the SID and : SOD pins on the : 8085. Sure, you could use them in a pinch, but if you are indeed doing some : serious : controlling of devices, you'll want something like an 8255 or 6821 to run : things, plus a timer : or two. I think the SC/MP was morel a general purpose microprocessor than : microcontroller. Or, perhaps neither... Eric : seeyuzz : river ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 02:40:32 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 13 Message-ID: <8fno30$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8fh6iv$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D7FCE.69B78A38@earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56358 jchausler wrote: [...] : into a back plane. This could also indicate that they may have been : thinking of the 6850 (the comments in the code just say ACIA, they : don't give the part number, "asynchronous communications interface : adapter",) but were unable to reliably build it or the powers that be : thought the parallel interface was more important, or.... The "bit-banger" code existed in '75 when the SWTPC came out. That's why they built it [w/o 6850 chip]. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 02:51:28 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 82 Message-ID: <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news-feed.fnsi.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56378 jchausler wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > I do not remember the Veras system at all. I wonder if anyone has a : > working one? Talk about a rarity! : A college friend of mine upon hearing of my interest in the F8 sent me : a copy of an ad. I just went hunting and saw another ad for it in the : October 1976 issue of Interface Age, page 25, $459 kit, $709 : assembled. The ad includes a comparison chart with MIKBUG : based 6800's and "8080 & 8080A Systems". This chart would : seem to be favorable towards the F8 :-) Their monitor ROM : was called "FAIRBUG" and they claim that a Tiny Basic will be : available for $25 on October 15, 1976 and a full Basic will be : available on December 15, 1976 for $50. Veras Systems was : located in Somerville MA. I wonder if FAIRBUG was theirs, : or like MIKBUG for the 6800 was "borrowed" from Fairchild. : As I stated in an earlier post, I do recall a single board evaluation : system being available from Fairchild for the F8 which supported : a TTY monitor, so maybe this was it. I will dig out my old Byte magazines and look for this. : > Oh yes, I was replying to the comment about the SS-50 systems. : Looking at the ads above, I was also reminded of two non SS-50 : 6800 systems, Wave Mate's Jupiter II and Sphere Corporation's : systems. Of course there was the Altair 680b. One of the members : of our small 6800 group back in 1977 had the 680b. All of which were real "small". The ONLY HW aspect was SS-50. And I will argue against "FLEX". But it WAS the largest and most widespread OS. And I hated that! : > I can see where SWTPC borrowed heavily from the D1 kit as described above. : All they had to do was design the hardware. Why they used MIKBUG : instead of one of the various MINIBUGs then available, I don't know. MIKBUG WAS the latestI believe. : Moto and all of the chip vendors were into selling parts. Their whole : marketing efforts seemed to be towards people who designed things : out of "random logic" who might use the micros to reduce chip count : rather than towards "software folks". Re my "joke" about micros being : created to provide a market for all that RAM, the total number of : "computers" (i.e. mini's and mainframes), being manufactured was : not seen by the chip manufacturer's as providing enough quantity for a : successful venture. I doesn't seem that they saw them as "computers". But they were.And that IS the main point! : > Interesting. Did you have both SWTBUG and SMARTBUG code in the system at : > the same time, switchable? That would be a neat trick. : This could have been done, but that was not my focus. I just had them : on separate EPROM's. Probably more work than the benefit. : > I would prefer to collect ROM monitors rather than front panels. Heck, you : > could make one if you really wanted one. : I once considered making an SS-50 switch and light front panel and even : marketing it. I don't think there would have been much of a market for it : even though it would have been simple. As the 6800 was a dynamic part, : the processor would have to have been halted while the front panel was : being used to access memory. Now that you have piqued my curiosity, what would it have looked like? (Let's still build two). : As to collecting ROM monitors, I have the source listings for some of : them. Moto certainly made a lot of different ones, not to mention the : SS-50 manufacturers and some individual's (JOEBUG :-) efforts were : published. JOEBUG? Surely you jest? As they say in the political newsgroups, "reference, please", WRT "JOEBUG". Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 02:53:26 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 17 Message-ID: <8fnor6$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391E03D1.74DCD698@REMOVETHIShome.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56370 Scott McPhillips wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > [...] : > Yes, that would be a Intersil 6100. It was basically a minicomputer CPU, : > as the cost of those systems were five figures. : > : Intersil brought in a 6100 development box and did the usual dog and pony show : in the conference room, selling this wonderful new chip and box. I happened to : be sitting right behind the box and noticed the model number on the rear : nameplate was "TAWGFN." I had to ask what that meant. The salesman admitted it : stood for "That's all we got for now"! Yes. I was At that show! Eric ###### From: William Hamblen Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 22:57:52 -0500 Organization: Utterly Disorganized Lines: 6 Message-ID: <7ctuhsssq7j6ul7v90a23f151o79uohtsp@4ax.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <391C5701.7440@compuserve.com> <391C5368.3D09F4D4@dusknet.dhs.org> <8fnmuq$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!europa.netcrusader.net!209.150.97.11!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56441 On 15 May 2000 02:21:14 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: >Did the 680b Altair system have a front panel? Yep. ###### Message-ID: <391F96D0.853DD49C@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919A7EB.76F0@compuserve.com> <8fjh19$ph7$1@nina.pacific.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 26 Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:18:56 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958371536 194.16.221.33 (Mon, 15 May 2000 08:18:56 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 08:18:56 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!ams-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!zonnet-feed!news-feed1.eu.concert.net!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56335 river wrote: > > The Z80 is a great chip, and when coupled with its proper support chips, it > had a great interrupt > logic. It used +5 only and offered upward compatability to the 8080 > instruction set. Its relative > addressing and string/count operations was a nice enhancement on the old > 8080 instruction set, > but I found the long multi-byte instructions became a little tedious, and, > IMHO, I don't know of > anyone who ever used all instructions of this great CPU. Actually, I don't think there is a single instruction in the Z80 that I haven't used. It took a while before EX (SP),HL and CPD came in, but now I wouldn't want to be without them. Hmmm, thinking of it, I might not have used OTDR yet... Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Message-ID: <391F9A28.45697010@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9AE6.26B5ABD8@netinsight.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 26 Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:33:12 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958372392 194.16.221.33 (Mon, 15 May 2000 08:33:12 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 08:33:12 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news-feed1.eu.concert.net!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56317 Marco S Hyman wrote: > > Johnny Billquist writes: > > > > The alt registers were not all that helpful. The one register > > > that you'd want to have duplicated SP, wasn't. Bummer. > > > > I disagree. alt registers are very useful to me in interrupts. Make > > for faster handling, and less stack use. > > If you were playing in the OS (CP/M BIOS in my case) you couldn't use > them without saving them because you didn't know what the running > application did. If you had to save them there was no point in > using them. Well, not everyone has an OS at the bottom... Or rather, some people have to write their own "OS". :-) Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Message-ID: <391F9BD9.4178CEE5@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> <391BFBE6.BC4122CD@netinsight.se> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se> <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 58 Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:40:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958372828 194.16.221.33 (Mon, 15 May 2000 08:40:28 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 08:40:28 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!uninett.no!news.ost.eltele.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56339 Tim Shoppa wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > > > > Tim Shoppa wrote: > > > > Give me a PDP-11 any day. > > > > > > Absolutely, the base instruction set is almost perfectly orthogonal > > > with respect to registers and addressing modes. > > > > Almost? Name one exception? > > R6 and R7 aren't really general purpose registers - they're SP and > PC. Well, they no different from any other register from the instructions point of view. They have one or two odd "extra" behaviours, though. SP used with autoincrement or autodecrement always add or substract two, even if your are accessing bytes. PC used in mode 7 automatically increment it, even though that isn't obvious. But you can add to them, move to/from them, and whatever else, the same as any other register. So I stand by the claim that the basic instruction set is perfectly orthogonal. > Though the way that they integrated the SP and PC into the > register set *is* very slick, and the fact that most of the > addressing modes work with the SP and PC is really, really nice. All addressing modes work with the SP and PC, it's just that some aren't very meaningful. :-) >> I'm not complaining about the resulting > instruction set, I'm just saying that it isn't perfectly orthogonal. Fun. We disagree. Hmmm, maybe we should check if we mean the same thing by "orthogonal"? > There are architectures where any register could become the > PC. The 1802 is an example. It hurts my brain to read 1802 assembler > code, though :-). The fact that any register could be used as PC don't neccesarily means that the instruction set is orthogonal. It's an interesting feature though... Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Message-ID: <391F9C37.723A6B83@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> <391BFBE6.BC4122CD@netinsight.se> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se> <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com> <49bdf26fb0a__fake__address@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 28 Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:41:59 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958372919 194.16.221.33 (Mon, 15 May 2000 08:41:59 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 08:41:59 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!uninett.no!news.ost.eltele.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56330 Dave Daniels wrote: > > In article <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com>, > Tim Shoppa wrote: > > R6 and R7 aren't really general purpose registers - they're SP and > > PC. Though the way that they integrated the SP and PC into the > > register set *is* very slick, and the fact that most of the > > addressing modes work with the SP and PC is really, really nice. > > IMHO the ARM is good in that respect too. R15 is the program > counter. ARM have disallowed its use as the destination in some > instructions but you can otherwise treat it as any other register > (EOR PC,R1,R2 LSR R3 anyone?). IMHO the ARM is one processor where > working in assembler is a pleasure. Kindof nice, but this means that the instruction set isn't orthogonal. In the PDP-11 (and the VAX) you can put the PC anywhere, just like any other register. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Message-ID: <391F9E74.DC7ABF50@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> <2000May12.132828.29266@lorelei.approve.se> <391BD7F2.55552865@trailing-edge.com> <2000May12.144013.209@lorelei.approve.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 37 Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:51:33 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958373493 194.16.221.33 (Mon, 15 May 2000 08:51:33 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 08:51:33 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!news.nikoma.de!news0.de.colt.net!blackbush.xlink.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!CensurBot.NetScum.Dk!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56341 Goran Larsson wrote: > > In article <391BD7F2.55552865@trailing-edge.com>, > Tim Shoppa wrote: > > > Is the opcode 79, represented by LD A,C in the Z80 mnemonics, > > really the "same type" of opcodes as the three-byte opcode > > DD7E00, represented by LD A,(IX) in the Z80 mnemonics? I don't > > think so, > > I think they are, and if I remember correctly, DEC thought the same > when they did the mnemonics for the PDP11 and VAX. Actually, on the PDP-11 and VAX, MOV is always the same opcode. :-) Though why Tim is hunting the the byte length beats me. A MOV on the VAX can be anything from three to something like 15 bytes. Fo me, LD A,C is the same as LD A,(IX) since they perform the same action, merely on different arguments. What opcode gets generated matter less to me. I'm interested in the more abstract idea of what the instruction does than what bits exist in memory. But I do prefer an instruction set that is orthogonal and symmetric. The 8080 and Z80 (along with all other Intel products) is unsymmetric, which I dislike. Unfortunately, the 68000 is also unsymmetric, and furthermore isn't really ortogonal either. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### From: "Roger Johnstone" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 18:56:42 +1200 Organization: Ihug Limited (Invercargill) Lines: 36 Message-ID: <958373801.482907@inv.ihug.co.nz> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> <391BA7CC.4AB3D655@cisco.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: inv.ihug.co.nz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.01 (295) Cache-Post-Path: inv.ihug.co.nz!unknown@p21-max2.inv.ihug.co.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!blackbush.xlink.net!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.icl.net!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56301 ---------- In article <391BA7CC.4AB3D655@cisco.com>, Cliff Sojourner wrote: >"Geoffrey G. Rochat" wrote: >> Ahhhh! I've been reading these threads for awhile now, waiting for >> mention of this to crop up. The Signetics chip probably referred to was >> the 2650. Just as the 6800 looked back over its shoulder to DEC's >> PDP-11 for inspiration, the 2650 so regarded the DG Nova. I don't know >> why it never caught on, but I did meet a fellow one time who actually >> claimed to have design a system that used it. > >I had a 2650 sample and got it to run but the instruction set was >miserable. and the memory addressing was worse: there were 4 8kB >"segments" for 32kb total. you think x86 style segmentation (64kB >windows) is restrictive, try that little thing. > >this at a time when most CP/M systems had at least 32kB, usually >more... game over. oh yeah, there wasn't any software for 2650, I >never even found a cross compiler for it. A friend at work still has his home built 2650 system. Dates back to about 1979-80, uses an S100 bus. I believe it was based on a project from one of the Australian electronics magazines. Several of these Australian kit computers had a very strong following here in New Zealand and in Australia since most of the commercial micros from the USA were very expensive, especially with a 30 or 40% sales tax! The magazines that published these projects became a source of software and expansion projects. However they were forgotten about fairly quickly once the first really cheap computers became available in the early 1980s. Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rojaws ------------------------------------------ The programmer's national anthem is 'AAAAAAAARRRRGHHHHH!!'. ###### From: "Roger Johnstone" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 18:56:48 +1200 Organization: Ihug Limited (Invercargill) Lines: 24 Message-ID: <958373807.326238@inv.ihug.co.nz> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <900.166T2298T10595639@sky.bus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: inv.ihug.co.nz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.01 (295) Cache-Post-Path: inv.ihug.co.nz!unknown@p21-max2.inv.ihug.co.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56300 ---------- In article <900.166T2298T10595639@sky.bus.com>, "Charlie Gibbs" wrote: >In article dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa) >writes: >>This country needs a lot of kids that think its more fun to take >>the lawnmowers' engine apart than play nintendo. > >Amen. That one's a keeper. > >-- >cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) >Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. When I was young I thought it was more fun to take apart the Nintendo (or equivalent) :-) Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rojaws ------------------------------------------ The programmer's national anthem is 'AAAAAAAARRRRGHHHHH!!'. ###### Message-ID: <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 37 Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 07:03:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958374225 194.16.221.33 (Mon, 15 May 2000 09:03:45 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 09:03:45 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newsfeed.mad.ttd.net!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!uninett.no!news.ost.eltele.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56334 Eric Chomko wrote: > > Tim Shoppa wrote: > : Jim Thomas wrote: > : > > : > Eric Chomko wrote: > : > > : > > Over 20 years ago you could buy exactly two types of microprocessor > : > > systems; Motorola 6800-based and Intel 8080-based. That was it until the > : > > Z-80 and the 6502 came along. Which one was better and why? > : > > : > 20 years ago == 1980. What about the LSI-11 ? :-) > > : I had this argument here with Eric a couple of months ago. Basically, > : he has no experience with the LSI-11, so it doesn't count. Same with > : all the other interesting architectures you might want to discuss. > > No, the arguement was, is the LSI-11, being a 4 chip set, considered a > microprocessor? I say no, Tim says, yes. I believe that is where we left > it. And how "successful" were the LSI-11 based...anything? I remember > selling a chipset to exactly one guy, at the store I worked in. I'd > average two or three PETs a week. I'd definitely say that the LSI-11 was a microprocessor. By what standards is it not? And, while not the LSI-11, and not microcomputers, the F-11 was used in some video arcade games. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Message-ID: <391FA2F5.5AA415D8@trailing-edge.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 07:10:45 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fnni6$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 60 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader0.news.uu.net 958389046 16876 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!newsfeed1.online.no!newsfeed.online.no!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!spool1.news.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader0.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56377 Eric Chomko wrote: > > Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars > Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers > References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391BA556.B14BD608@cisco.com> <391D3049.5F6E540D@dallas.net> > Organization: IDT Internet Services > Distribution: > Lines: 45 > X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > Charles Richmond wrote: > : Eric Chomko wrote: > : > Cliff Sojourner wrote: > : > : > : > : I remember assembling a SC/MP on S-100 prototype board (wire wrap, those > : > : were the days). I don't remember ever getting it to work and I > : > : certainly don't remember any software available for it. > : > > : > I wonder if their a dozen of them worldwide, and if a single one worked?! > : > > : There indeed *is* a Tiny Basic for the National SC/MP chip. It is called > : NIBL, and you can find the source listing published in Dr. Dobb's Volume 1, > : Number 10, 1976. It was also published in Interface Age, in the December > : 1976 and January 1977 issues. In addition, in the back of _Best of > : Interface Age, Volume 1: Software in BASIC_, there is a software index > : for interface age which lists another five programs for the SC/MP. > > Now THIS IS "computer folklore". I am amazed that a SCAMP chip made it > into a "system" Um, why? Remember, this was 25 years ago, not today. Today you need to be a huge multi-billion dollar manufacturing conglomerate just to sign the NDA's you need to get the information on a PC-clone chipset. There are maybe a half-dozen different "mainboard" manufacturers today. 25 years ago all the technical information you needed to design a system was in a (rather thick for the time, but skinny for today) data sheet. The chip makers collected data sheets and sold them in little paperback books for $2.95 or $3.95. Anyone and everyone was starting up companies in their garage, selling everything from bare circuit boards which the buyer stuffed at home to complete systems. It's not as if evidence of this wide garage industry is hard to find: look at the back of any _BYTE_ from its inception until the late 1970's. You'll find many hundreds of advertisers, most of them small shops selling a couple different boards or kits, but lots of them offering everything from backplanes+chassis to CPU's to memory to peripherals and even having their own operating systems. I suspect that a good fraction of today's populace is too used to the mass-media or "webified" computer history, where only one or two companies per decade get mentioned. But all you need is to open a trade journal from two, or three, or four decades back to see an amazing variety of offerings from an amazing variety of companies. Tim. ###### Message-ID: <391FA4B6.53954D31@trailing-edge.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 07:18:14 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> <391BFBE6.BC4122CD@netinsight.se> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se> <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com> <391F9BD9.4178CEE5@netinsight.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 42 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader0.news.uu.net 958389496 16876 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!newsfeed1.online.no!newsfeed.online.no!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.fast.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!spool1.news.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader0.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56373 Johnny Billquist wrote: > > Tim Shoppa wrote: > > > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > > > > > > Tim Shoppa wrote: > > > > > Give me a PDP-11 any day. > > > > > > > > Absolutely, the base instruction set is almost perfectly orthogonal > > > > with respect to registers and addressing modes. > > > > > > Almost? Name one exception? > > > > R6 and R7 aren't really general purpose registers - they're SP and > > PC. > > Well, they no different from any other register from the instructions > point of view. > > SP used with autoincrement or autodecrement always add or substract > two, even if your are accessing bytes. > PC used in mode 7 automatically increment it, even though that > isn't obvious. I'll agree, SP and PC work into the scheme in a pretty slick way, but we both agree that they don't behave *exactly* like R0 through R5. > >> I'm not complaining about the resulting > > instruction set, I'm just saying that it isn't perfectly orthogonal. > > Fun. We disagree. Hmmm, maybe we should check if we mean the same > thing by "orthogonal"? I think we mean the same thing by orthogonal, we just don't agree what "perfectly orthogonal" is. There probably isn't a CPU that's "perfectly" orthogonal, and I don't think that one which was would have any advantages over one that's "orthogonal enough". Lots of architectures are "orthogonal enough". Tim. ###### Message-ID: <391FEE45.CED408A2@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919F95F.35BBB64F@dallas.net> <958038783.53624@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391A9257.52DCB66D@netinsight.se> <958084713.291883@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <391B9A17.932A239E@netinsight.se> <391BB60E.487F9FCF@trailing-edge.com> <391BFBE6.BC4122CD@netinsight.se> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se> <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com> <391F9BD9.4178CEE5@netinsight.se> <391FA4B6.53954D31@trailing-edge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 50 Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:32:05 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958393925 194.16.221.33 (Mon, 15 May 2000 14:32:05 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 14:32:05 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!newscore.univie.ac.at!uninett.no!news.ost.eltele.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56338 Tim Shoppa wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > > > > Tim Shoppa wrote: > > > > > > R6 and R7 aren't really general purpose registers - they're SP and > > > PC. > > > > Well, they no different from any other register from the instructions > > point of view. > > > > SP used with autoincrement or autodecrement always add or substract > > two, even if your are accessing bytes. > > PC used in mode 7 automatically increment it, even though that > > isn't obvious. > > I'll agree, SP and PC work into the scheme in a pretty slick way, > but we both agree that they don't behave *exactly* like R0 through > R5. Yes. But then we are talking about side effects on the register, which isn't exactly relevant to the instruction. I'm looking at the instructions, and they are orthogonal. :-) > > >> I'm not complaining about the resulting > > > instruction set, I'm just saying that it isn't perfectly orthogonal. > > > > Fun. We disagree. Hmmm, maybe we should check if we mean the same > > thing by "orthogonal"? > > I think we mean the same thing by orthogonal, we just don't agree > what "perfectly orthogonal" is. There probably isn't a CPU that's > "perfectly" orthogonal, and I don't think that one which was > would have any advantages over one that's "orthogonal enough". > Lots of architectures are "orthogonal enough". Hm, almost no architecture is even "orthogonal enough". Atleast not "enough" by my standards. I don't know of any except some DEC machines, anyway... And I know most micros some minis, and one or two mainframe architectures. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Message-ID: <39200AB6.1D12F66E@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 134 Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 14:34:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.102.247 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 958401292 63.15.102.247 (Mon, 15 May 2000 07:34:52 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 07:34:52 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsf1.elp.rr.com!cyclone-west.rr.com!news.rr.com|news-west.rr.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56324 Eric Chomko wrote: > : > I do not remember the Veras system at all. I wonder if anyone has a > : > working one? Talk about a rarity! > > : A college friend of mine upon hearing of my interest in the F8 sent me > : a copy of an ad. I just went hunting and saw another ad for it in the > : October 1976 issue of Interface Age, page 25, $459 kit, $709 > : assembled. The ad includes a comparison chart with MIKBUG > : based 6800's and "8080 & 8080A Systems". This chart would > : seem to be favorable towards the F8 :-) Their monitor ROM > : was called "FAIRBUG" and they claim that a Tiny Basic will be > : available for $25 on October 15, 1976 and a full Basic will be > : available on December 15, 1976 for $50. Veras Systems was > : located in Somerville MA. I wonder if FAIRBUG was theirs, > : or like MIKBUG for the 6800 was "borrowed" from Fairchild. > : As I stated in an earlier post, I do recall a single board evaluation > : system being available from Fairchild for the F8 which supported > : a TTY monitor, so maybe this was it. > > I will dig out my old Byte magazines and look for this. I looked through my early Bytes as well (from 12-75 through the end of 76) and did not find an ad for Veras in them. Maybe they only advertised in IA. After finding the above ad, I did not look further so I don't know whether it was just a one time shot. I don't recall seeing anything about Veras beyond this time frame. Note also, in looking through these old magazines, there were a number of articles on the SWTPC system which showed pictures of some of their cards, one of which was the MPS serial card with the 6850 in it and a date code early in 75 yet with an MC part number. Their MPC card picture showed the 6820 with the same XC (experimental) part number is the early ones I have and a later in 75 date. Therefore I question my earlier assertion that Moto might have had a problem with making 6850's. Also MIKBUG was obviously around before the date codes on the D1 kit PC card etch. So its all open again, I don't know why Moto chose to do the bit banger serial interface when it appears they already had the 6850. Further, why did SWTPC chose it instead of a 6850 as well. Moto had other debug ROM's available at the time from what I can tell? Also note related to an earlier post, the 12-75 Byte has an ad on the inside front cover for the JOLT 6502 kit, so the 6502 was available in 75 as well. > All of which were real "small". The ONLY HW aspect was SS-50. And I will > argue against "FLEX". But it WAS the largest and most widespread OS. And I > hated that! What was wrong with FLEX? Yes it was a dumb single user system like CP/M but OS/9 wasn't around and some of us couldn't afford floppies anyway (I stayed with audio cassettes until 81 or so). I found it rather FLEXible ;-) > : All they had to do was design the hardware. Why they used MIKBUG > : instead of one of the various MINIBUGs then available, I don't know. > > MIKBUG WAS the latestI believe. I don't think so based on the copywrite dates in the listings in Engineering Note 100. There were many follow-on MINIBUG's. like II III and IV. There was also EXBUG for the Exorciser systems. > : Moto and all of the chip vendors were into selling parts. Their whole > : marketing efforts seemed to be towards people who designed things > : out of "random logic" who might use the micros to reduce chip count > : rather than towards "software folks". Re my "joke" about micros being > : created to provide a market for all that RAM, the total number of > : "computers" (i.e. mini's and mainframes), being manufactured was > : not seen by the chip manufacturer's as providing enough quantity for a > : successful venture. I doesn't seem that they saw them as "computers". > > But they were.And that IS the main point! No kidding. I always remember when much of the above was the thought of the day, shortly after I got my first D2 kit I showed the instruction card to the man who I always considered one of my mentors and he said something like, "Its just a computer like any other, what's the big deal". > : I once considered making an SS-50 switch and light front panel and even > : marketing it. I don't think there would have been much of a market for it > : even though it would have been simple. As the 6800 was a dynamic part, > : the processor would have to have been halted while the front panel was > : being used to access memory. > > Now that you have piqued my curiosity, what would it have looked like? > (Let's still build two). It was going to be an SS-50 card with led's and switches on it and a few IC's. It would have had a "RUN/HALT" switch on it and when halted it would have allowed one to access and change memory locations (or obviously the I/O bus as well. It would have used the existing SS-50 E clock for its timing. Unfortunately this does not allow for any access to the processor or its registers and that weakness is one of the reasons I never went ahead. The D2 kit has some special hardware to time the RTI instruction and with the processors cooperation, can simulate breakpoints and single stepping. This wouldn't have been possible with the front panel without a new monitor ROM to support it. I decided therefore to not do it. > : As to collecting ROM monitors, I have the source listings for some of > : them. Moto certainly made a lot of different ones, not to mention the > : SS-50 manufacturers and some individual's (JOEBUG :-) efforts were > : published. > > JOEBUG? Surely you jest? As they say in the political newsgroups, > "reference, please", WRT "JOEBUG". From mid 78 to almost mid 80 I spent about 80% of my time living in motels in Atlanta GA working on a project down there. There was a very active and large 6800 group in Atlanta at the time. One of its active members was Joe P. (I always mis-spell his last name and I only have the correct spelling on another computer not with me). IIRC he was head of the Ceramics Engineering Department at Georgia State at that time. JOEBUG was his monitor design. During this time frame I was able to attend probably about 2/3rd's of their monthly meetings, one of which was at his house (it was at that meeting where I bought that partial D2 kit I still have in pieces). There were several other members of that group like Bud Pass who made significant contributions to the 6800 world. A very nice group of people. The ACS (Atlanta Computer Society) was also very large and active at that time. I also attended many of their meetings and at one of the early ones learned about the 6800 group. I first saw a 68000 in the flesh when a Moto rep was the featured speaker at an ACS meeting and he brought an early 68000 evaluation module with him. Regards, Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### From: korpela@islay.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 16:31:11 GMT Organization: Cal Berkeley-- Space Sciences Lab Lines: 18 Message-ID: <8fp8of$e5r$1@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8fh3ms$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: islay.ssl.berkeley.edu X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 958408271 14523 128.32.98.192 (15 May 2000 16:31:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 May 2000 16:31:11 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!news-hog.berkeley.edu!agate.berkeley.edu!agate!islay.ssl.berkeley.edu!korpela Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56387 In article <8fh3ms$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: > >Many would argue that OS/9 is far superior to CP/M. Would anyone argue the converse? Of course, CP/M was available many years before OS/9. Very similar to the way the Z-80 (which postdates CP/M by years) was available before the 6809. I have little doubt that if there had been a popular 6800 operating system at the time, the 6809 would have been saddled with it. The 6809 benefited from the failure of the 6800 to develop a strong buisness market. Eric -- Eric Korpela | An object at rest can never be korpela@ssl.berkeley.edu | stopped. Click for home page. ###### From: pete@fenelon.com (Pete Fenelon) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8fnni6$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391FA2F5.5AA415D8@trailing-edge.com> User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990216 ("Styrofoam") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.13 (i586)) Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 18:57:02 +0100 Message-ID: Lines: 17 NNTP-Posting-Host: man-173.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Trace: news.zetnet.co.uk 958414433 31677 news@194.247.40.220 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!esel!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news-hog.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!diablo.theplanet.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!master.news.zetnet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56306 Tim Shoppa wrote: > I suspect that a good fraction of today's populace is too used to the > mass-media or "webified" computer history, where only one or two > companies per decade get mentioned. But all you need is to open > a trade journal from two, or three, or four decades back to see an > amazing variety of offerings from an amazing variety of companies. Fortunately, for anyone working in the embedded sector, there's still that lovely degree of variation -- I've worked on at least a dozen radically different CPUs in the last few years and all of them had their good points (and some of them their bloody awful ones!) :) It's only on the desktop that things have got boring. pete -- pete@fenelon.com "We ask ourselves what will become of Evil Gazebo?" (HMHB) ###### From: "Adam Atkinson" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 18:9:31 +0000 Organization: Collegio Pierpaoli, Montaguzzo Lines: 21 Message-ID: <917.170T1584T10894213ghira@mistral.co.uk> References: <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <8feih3$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> <538.168T1587T5483724ghira@mistral.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: d224-80.dial.mistral.co.uk X-Trace: localhost.localdomain 958410974 24957 195.184.224.80 (15 May 2000 17:16:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@mistral-uk.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 May 2000 17:16:14 GMT X-No-Ahbou: yes X-Newsreader: THOR 2.6a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!insnet.net!nntp.mistral.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56411 On 14-May-00 08:12:32, Ariel Scolnicov said: >> Well, weren't things like the UK101, Nascom 2 and Acorn System 1 still >> around then? They were "hobby" rather than "slick", I'd say. >Acorn BBC Model A had a (c) notice of 1981 for BBC Basic; the Model B >(what 'most everyone used) had a (c) notice of 1982. Not sure about >the Atom, but that was before the Model A. The Acorn System 1 is rather older than the BBC or Atom. It had 256 bytes of memory, and there was a 1k memory expansion kit available. It was also possible to rack-mount it and add many other things. A friend of mine had one in 1979 or 1980, but I don't know how old it was. It had a hex keypad and a 7-digit calculator display. -- Adam Atkinson (ghira@mistral.co.uk) It is a sobering thought, for example, that when Mozart was my age, he had been dead for two years. (T. Lehrer) ###### Sender: Joachim Thiemann From: joachim@Xtsp.Xece.Xmcgill.Xca.invalid (remove 'X's and .invalid to reply) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391B33BA.20A4@compuserve.com> <8fffit$kct$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> <8fhnbh$84b$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> <8fhomg$1fiu$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> <8fl3hb$ahp$1@news.kersur.net> User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990216 ("Styrofoam") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.14-15mdk (i686)) Lines: 33 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 18:36:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 132.206.69.228 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mcgill.ca X-Trace: carnaval.risq.qc.ca 958415785 132.206.69.228 (Mon, 15 May 2000 14:36:25 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 14:36:25 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!HSNX.atgi.net!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!carnaval.risq.qc.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56415 Maybe Jay Maynard wrote on Sun, 14 May 2000 03:02:26 GMT: > On Sat, 13 May 2000 22:38:59 -0400, Geoffrey G. Rochat > wrote: >>>>I forgot the CP1600 from General Instrument (used in the Mattel >>>>Intellivision), and as somebody else mentioned, the Fairchild 9440. >>The old PMOS CP1600 has been transmogrified, and its decendants are now >>Microchip Technology's PIC line of embedded chips so beloved by bit >>bangers such as myself. > Oh, is THAT why the PIC is so ^&^&*%^&*^&(*%$% WEIRD?! I always think of programming the PIC as programming straight microcode. The "files" are registers, and W (IIRC) is the temp register, etc... Then it makes (at least to me) a lot more sense... > I checked out the PICs, then the Atmel AvR series of programmable > microcontrollers, and greatly prefer the AvRs...not only are they much > saner, but you can get a programmer for them that works with Windows NT for > much less than the PIC's $400. I can't remember the exact price, but the starter kit from Microchip wasn't prohibitively expensive, and for production, the company I worked for then bought a third-party programmer (they use the 16C74, 44-pin plcc exclusively, so a universal programmer is not needed). This was maybe 4 or 5 years ago, and the setup is still up and running. Joe -- Dynamic Signature with fortune(6) integration! Date: 15 May 2000 -- fortune(6) output -- (refreshed by .bashrc) Hey, waiter! I want a NEW SHIRT and a PONY TAIL with lemon sauce! ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 18:44:56 GMT References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <900.166T2298T10595639@sky.bus.com> <958373807.326238@inv.ihug.co.nz> Organization: Chaos and Confusion Lines: 27 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!zur.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!world!dp Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56281 In article <958373807.326238@inv.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Johnstone wrote: >---------- >In article <900.166T2298T10595639@sky.bus.com>, "Charlie Gibbs" > wrote: > >>>This country needs a lot of kids that think its more fun to take >>>the lawnmowers' engine apart than play nintendo. >> >>Amen. That one's a keeper. >> >>-- >>cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) >>Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. > >When I was young I thought it was more fun to take apart the Nintendo (or >equivalent) :-) What fun is that: Nothing inside moves (like the engine), and very few parts are sufficiently identifiable to be worth salvaging for reuse. If I am going to take apart an electronic device, give me a (tube if possible) TV set. Lots of interesting bits, some nice high voltages, etc. I built all sorts of interesting things with salvaged tv bits... -dp- www.the-nerds.org ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 13:45:48 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 24 Message-ID: <8fpgks$nti$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news.uiowa.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56405 In article , William Hamblen wrote: >One of the original S-100 computer companies, Polymorphic Systems, was >making Poly88s until the mid eighties. Apparently they had a pretty >slick business oriented software package that managed to sell well >right into the IBM PC era. There was a shakedown at the end of the 80's when the clock speeds got too fast for quick'n'dirty engineering. Up to 12mhz or so, it was fairly easy to design a motherboard and put it into production. At 16 and up, it took serious engineering, and most of the folks making their own dropped off the map. (or was it 16 and 20? It's been a while). hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 13:50:23 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 22 Message-ID: <8fpgtf$nv7$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391AE278.422590AD@trailing-edge.com> <8fh5av$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.uiowa.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56403 In article , Roger Ivie wrote: >BTW, I believe Heathkit still sells their 6800-based microprocessor >trainer. Hmm. And I thought that heathkit had been completely shut down. But here it is: http://www.heathkit.com/hardware.html a couple of screens down. But $350 for the kit and $500 assembled is a bit much :) hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 14:00:29 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 50 Message-ID: <8fphgd$o0g$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391BA556.B14BD608@cisco.com> <8fji5q$q00$1@nina.pacific.net.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.uiowa.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56397 Eric Chomko wrote: > 1802, on the other hand... many of us had the COSMAC ELF 1802 hobby > computer system, which did include BASIC (contrary to your post below) > and could be expanded to 32kb and a 5" floppy disk system. It depends upon which version you had. Quest sold an Elf and a Super Elf kit, and Netronics (?) sold an Elf II. They both came from the design in Popular Electronics. The base-level machine for either had 256 bytes. Not in the processor, but of RAM. Tiny Basic was available for both, and I think that one could even use a full Basic (but given the speed, why bother?). "Stringy floppies" were avaialbe, and so were 5" disks, as mentioned. It was a great design to build yourself, but rather a silly thing to buy to use. > 1802s were used - and are still used - in satellite systems. 1802 was > the first "rad-hard" microprocessor. 1802 had relatively low power > consumption for the time... a single clock, 256 bytes built in memory? > a very simple bus connection anyways. nice chip! A single clock, but requiring 8 clocks per cycle. At 5v, it would go up to 3.2mhz--400k cycles/second. The 1802CD could go up to 6.4mhz at 10V, or you could power the guts at 10v, and the IO at 5v, and have a maximum in between. No built in memory, but sixteen sixteen bit registers (256 bits), plus the accumulator, and a pair of 4 bit pointer registers. 4 one-bit input lines (EF1-EF4?) and a 1 bit output (Q). I think that microsoft used it in televisions with the 1861 video chip; the blocks on the screen to display channels were about the right size. Not a powerful chip computationally, but wonderful for learning how and why the things worked. Oh, and all instructions executed in either 2 or 3 cycles. hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 15:00:05 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 34 Message-ID: <8fpl05$o6b$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <8fjjuj$qou$1@nina.pacific.net.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.uiowa.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56386 In article <8fjjuj$qou$1@nina.pacific.net.au>, river wrote: >But, talking of early colour screens, wasn't there a Compucolor >machine (or something like that), based on the 8080? Yes, but it wasn't an "Early" machine. It was also kind of odd :) It had a max of 32k of memory, but it had basic and the dos in rom. There was an 8 or 16 color pallette, and each character had a foreground and background color, as well as blink. Its disk was only half-density--it could store 51.2k instead of the 102.4k of the other 40 track drives. Nonetheless, it claimed greater storage in its promotional literature, rounding down the storage for everyone except apple to an even 50k--because the dos took space. It had no sound, but someone came up with what looked like a transistor radio to attach and give it sound, and included a cool space game with it. (I want to say their name was "Cap", but it's been a long time). It was also too damned expensive for what it was. Hmm, and access to virtually anything was through the PLOT command in basic. If you spent enough time in the manuals, you could even find the variation of PLOT that had something to do with plotting . . . hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 20:01:23 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 30 Message-ID: <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!feeder.via.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56369 Johnny Billquist wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > : > Tim Shoppa wrote: [...] : > : I had this argument here with Eric a couple of months ago. Basically, : > : he has no experience with the LSI-11, so it doesn't count. Same with : > : all the other interesting architectures you might want to discuss. : > : > No, the arguement was, is the LSI-11, being a 4 chip set, considered a : > microprocessor? I say no, Tim says, yes. I believe that is where we left : > it. And how "successful" were the LSI-11 based...anything? I remember : > selling a chipset to exactly one guy, at the store I worked in. I'd : > average two or three PETs a week. : I'd definitely say that the LSI-11 was a microprocessor. : By what standards is it not? By being a 4 chip set of LSI circuits, each of which was not able to work as a system without the other three chips. I mean even a 286 does not NEED the 287 to function. The latter is optional. : And, while not the LSI-11, and not microcomputers, the F-11 was : used in some video arcade games. I don't doubt it. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 20:13:00 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 31 Message-ID: <8fploc$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fnni6$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391FA2F5.5AA415D8@trailing-edge.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!blackbush.xlink.net!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!newsin.iconnet.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56379 Tim Shoppa wrote: [...] : 25 years ago all the technical information you needed to design a system : was in a (rather thick for the time, but skinny for today) data sheet. : The chip makers collected data sheets and sold them in little : paperback books for $2.95 or $3.95. Anyone and everyone was starting : up companies in their garage, selling everything from bare circuit : boards which the buyer stuffed at home to complete systems. : It's not as if evidence of this wide garage industry is hard to find: : look at the back of any _BYTE_ from its inception until the late 1970's. : You'll find many hundreds of advertisers, most of them small shops : selling a couple different boards or kits, but lots of them offering : everything from backplanes+chassis to CPU's to memory to peripherals : and even having their own operating systems. Yes, those literally were the "good old days". Hacking has become a lost art to some degree with these superfast/small chips that make soldering nearly impossible. : I suspect that a good fraction of today's populace is too used to the : mass-media or "webified" computer history, where only one or two : companies per decade get mentioned. But all you need is to open : a trade journal from two, or three, or four decades back to see an : amazing variety of offerings from an amazing variety of companies. I stopped getting BYTE in the mid-80s as it was obvious that we were headed to where we are today. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 20:33:17 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 136 Message-ID: <8fpmud$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39200AB6.1D1 NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56380 jchausler wrote: [...] : Note also, in looking through these old magazines, there were a : number of articles on the SWTPC system which showed pictures : of some of their cards, one of which was the MPS serial card with : the 6850 in it and a date code early in 75 yet with an MC part : number. Their MPC card picture showed the 6820 with the same : XC (experimental) part number is the early ones I have and a : later in 75 date. Therefore I question my earlier assertion that Moto : might have had a problem with making 6850's. Also MIKBUG : was obviously around before the date codes on the D1 kit PC : card etch. So its all open again, I don't know why Moto chose to : do the bit banger serial interface when it appears they already had : the 6850. Further, why did SWTPC chose it instead of a 6850 : as well. Moto had other debug ROM's available at the time from : what I can tell? It had to be MIKBUG, as MIKBUG did NOT have 6850 serial I/O routines. It simply used a 6820. Think about this: Didn't the 6820 get replaced with the 6821 at one point? If the 6820 had a design flaw and they made a lot, what better way to dump them on the market than by way of the "bit-banger"? Pure speculation, but it would explain the "why" of it all. : Also note related to an earlier post, the 12-75 Byte has an ad on : the inside front cover for the JOLT 6502 kit, so the 6502 was : available in 75 as well. 75? Are you sure?? I would have thought that MOS Technonlogy did not exist in 75. : > All of which were real "small". The ONLY HW aspect was SS-50. And I will : > argue against "FLEX". But it WAS the largest and most widespread OS. And I : > hated that! : What was wrong with FLEX? Yes it was a dumb single user system like CP/M I got a SSB disk system, that is all! I learned THAT system real well, while the whole world was learning FLEX. : but OS/9 wasn't around and some of us couldn't afford floppies anyway (I stayed : with audio cassettes until 81 or so). I found it rather FLEXible ;-) : > : All they had to do was design the hardware. Why they used MIKBUG : > : instead of one of the various MINIBUGs then available, I don't know. : > : > MIKBUG WAS the latestI believe. : I don't think so based on the copywrite dates in the listings in Engineering : Note 100. There were many follow-on MINIBUG's. like II III and IV. : There was also EXBUG for the Exorciser systems. Didn't the 6830 that was MIKBUG also have MINIBUG code in it? [...] : > : not seen by the chip manufacturer's as providing enough quantity for a : > : successful venture. I doesn't seem that they saw them as "computers". : > : > But they were.And that IS the main point! : No kidding. I always remember when much of the above was the thought : of the day, shortly after I got my first D2 kit I showed the instruction card : to the man who I always considered one of my mentors and he said : something like, "Its just a computer like any other, what's the big deal". The big deal was that it was yours. You didn't have to share it. It wasn't locked inside of a room. If it broke you fixed it. It was a big deal to write BASIC and assembler code away from a minicomputer or mainframe environment. : > : I once considered making an SS-50 switch and light front panel and even : > : marketing it. I don't think there would have been much of a market for it : > : even though it would have been simple. As the 6800 was a dynamic part, : > : the processor would have to have been halted while the front panel was : > : being used to access memory. : > : > Now that you have piqued my curiosity, what would it have looked like? : > (Let's still build two). : It was going to be an SS-50 card with led's and switches on it and a few IC's. : It would have had a "RUN/HALT" switch on it and when halted it would : have allowed one to access and change memory locations (or obviously the : I/O bus as well. It would have used the existing SS-50 E clock for its timing. : Unfortunately this does not allow for any access to the processor or its : registers and that weakness is one of the reasons I never went ahead. Wait could you not make it one of the interrupts that would then do a handler routine that would essentially dump the CPU registers to a stack for making changes, etc.? The : D2 kit has some special hardware to time the RTI instruction and with : the processors cooperation, can simulate breakpoints and single stepping. : This wouldn't have been possible with the front panel without a new : monitor ROM to support it. I decided therefore to not do it. Yes a new ROM would be necessary to implement the interrupt handler and add a new entry to the vector (if that is correct term in an 8 bit micro?). : > : As to collecting ROM monitors, I have the source listings for some of : > : them. Moto certainly made a lot of different ones, not to mention the : > : SS-50 manufacturers and some individual's (JOEBUG :-) efforts were : > : published. : > : > JOEBUG? Surely you jest? As they say in the political newsgroups, : > "reference, please", WRT "JOEBUG". : From mid 78 to almost mid 80 I spent about 80% of my time living in : motels in Atlanta GA working on a project down there. There was a : very active and large 6800 group in Atlanta at the time. One of its active : members was Joe P. (I always mis-spell his last name and I only have : the correct spelling on another computer not with me). IIRC he was : head of the Ceramics Engineering Department at Georgia State at that : time. JOEBUG was his monitor design. During this time frame I was : able to attend probably about 2/3rd's of their monthly meetings, one : of which was at his house (it was at that meeting where I bought that : partial D2 kit I still have in pieces). There were several other members : of that group like Bud Pass who made significant contributions to the : 6800 world. A very nice group of people. The ACS (Atlanta Computer : Society) was also very large and active at that time. I also attended : many of their meetings and at one of the early ones learned about the : 6800 group. I first saw a 68000 in the flesh when a Moto rep was : the featured speaker at an ACS meeting and he brought an early : 68000 evaluation module with him. Wow, I never knew that Atlanta had such a following. Here in DC there wasn't much. Only a guy named Tom Harmon and many people (as did I) bought all there stuff through him. Tom went on to Helix and Gimix boxes running OS/9 (not me), and then he started selling Amigas when they came out. I think he still does in fact (not sure how, though).. Was JOEBUG a 6830 or 2708? If it was the latter, then it still may be able to be had. I have a burner around some damn place! Eric ###### From: Sam Yorko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:35:10 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 24 Message-ID: <39205F7E.A54@compuserve.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> <8fpgks$nti$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56283 hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote: > > In article , > William Hamblen wrote: > > >One of the original S-100 computer companies, Polymorphic Systems, was > >making Poly88s until the mid eighties. Apparently they had a pretty > >slick business oriented software package that managed to sell well > >right into the IBM PC era. > > There was a shakedown at the end of the 80's when the clock speeds > got too fast for quick'n'dirty engineering. > > Up to 12mhz or so, it was fairly easy to design a motherboard and > put it into production. At 16 and up, it took serious engineering, and > most of the folks making their own dropped off the map. > > (or was it 16 and 20? It's been a while). > I suspect that tightening up the FCC certification rules dropped a few by the wayside.... Sam ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 20:36:17 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 17 Message-ID: <8fpn41$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8fh3ms$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8fp8of$e5r$1@agate.berkeley.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56359 Eric J. Korpela wrote: : In article <8fh3ms$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, : Eric Chomko wrote: : > : >Many would argue that OS/9 is far superior to CP/M. : Would anyone argue the converse? Of course, CP/M was available many : years before OS/9. Very similar to the way the Z-80 (which postdates : CP/M by years) was available before the 6809. I have little doubt that : if there had been a popular 6800 operating system at the time, the 6809 : would have been saddled with it. The 6809 benefited from the failure of : the 6800 to develop a strong buisness market. Some would argue that FLEX was NOT a failure. I didn't learn it as I use SSB DOS, but it did seem that FLEX was everywhere at one point. Eric ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 15:40:25 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 31 Message-ID: <8fpnbp$od9$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fpgks$nti$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <39205F7E.A54@compuserve.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news.uiowa.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56399 In article <39205F7E.A54@compuserve.com>, Sam Yorko wrote: >hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote: >> Up to 12mhz or so, it was fairly easy to design a motherboard and >> put it into production. At 16 and up, it took serious engineering, and >> most of the folks making their own dropped off the map. >I suspect that tightening up the FCC certification rules dropped a few >by the wayside.... That was 6 or 7 years earlier, but it had (some of) the same effects. Pop open an atari 800. The things way more than they look like they should. It's encased in thick pot metal as RF shielding. It had a parallel bus built in (S-50? I forget. I recall that it was used in existing industrial equipment of the time). To get past the FCC, they had to use the casing and switch to a very yucky serial interface--accessing a hard drive through an 80's serial interface is bad enough, but they didn't interleave the sectors at first, so it took an entire spin for each sector you needed to read . . . hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: andyl@azaal.dircon.co.uk (Andy Leighton) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 15 May 2000 20:40:58 GMT Organization: Andy Leighton Message-ID: References: <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <8feih3$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> <538.168T1587T5483724ghira@mistral.co.uk> <917.170T1584T10894213ghira@mistral.co.uk> Reply-To: andyl@azaal.dircon.co.uk X-Server-Date: 15 May 2000 20:40:58 GMT X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.6.2 Linux) X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.47.7 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.32.19 Lines: 24 NNTP-Posting-Host: newsread3.dircon.co.uk X-Trace: reader.news.dircon.net 958502647 172 194.112.32.19 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!colt.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!peer1.news.dircon.net!peer2.news.dircon.net!reader.news.dircon.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56435 On 15 May 2000 18:9:31 +0000, Adam Atkinson wrote: >On 14-May-00 08:12:32, Ariel Scolnicov said: > >>> Well, weren't things like the UK101, Nascom 2 and Acorn System 1 still >>> around then? They were "hobby" rather than "slick", I'd say. > >>Acorn BBC Model A had a (c) notice of 1981 for BBC Basic; the Model B >>(what 'most everyone used) had a (c) notice of 1982. Not sure about >>the Atom, but that was before the Model A. > >The Acorn System 1 is rather older than the BBC or Atom. It had 256 >bytes of memory, and there was a 1k memory expansion kit available. It >was also possible to rack-mount it and add many other things. A friend >of mine had one in 1979 or 1980, but I don't know how old it was. Sounds about right, I believe it was 1979. Acorn quickly followed it up with the System-2, and then the Atom, which was for a year the computer I had my eye on, yet never had enough money to buy one. -- Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.dircon.co.uk "... January is your third most common month for madness" - _Sarah Canary_ ###### From: Sam Yorko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 14:04:39 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 24 Message-ID: <39207477.4ABF@compuserve.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39200AB6.1D1 <8fpmud$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56302 > : Also note related to an earlier post, the 12-75 Byte has an ad on > : the inside front cover for the JOLT 6502 kit, so the 6502 was > : available in 75 as well. > > 75? Are you sure?? I would have thought that MOS Technonlogy did not exist > in 75. > This, I can verify. I was a member of The Homebrew Computer Club (if anybody could have been a member) until Fall of 1976, when I went to college. Woz demoed a wirewrap prototype of the Apple II at some point before that (indeed, before The First West Coast Computer Faire, where the Apple II was introduced). Before the Apple II was the Apple I, whiche they hawked at the club meetings for a while. Both were based on the 6502. The reason that the 6502 was selected by Woz was that they had seen MOS Technology claiming to have barrels of 6502s for $10 each, and in fact MOS Technology actually had a barrel of 6502s on display at at trade show. What MOS Technology neglected to mention was that you were looking at the entire working output of 6502s to that time. Sam ###### From: William Hamblen Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 22:25:26 -0500 Organization: Utterly Disorganized Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <8feih3$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56439 On 14 May 2000 11:14:43 +0300, Ariel Scolnicov wrote: >William Hamblen writes: > >[...] > >> Polymorphic Systems >[...] > >Are they the same as the PolyForth people? Nope. Polymorphic Systems made a little S-100 box roughly the size of a toaster with room for about 4 slots on the motherboard. The cute thing was they came with a female S100 card slot on one end and a male S100 card edge on the other. For expansion you could plug two or more boxes together. ###### From: William Hamblen Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 23:17:59 -0500 Organization: Utterly Disorganized Lines: 9 Message-ID: <9rh1iso562s8c4stf8ag7uvj2gvschqakc@4ax.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39200AB6.1D12F66E@earthlink.net> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56446 On Mon, 15 May 2000 14:34:52 GMT, jchausler wrote: >What was wrong with FLEX? The only thing really wrong with TSC Flex was that disk i/o was a little inefficient - ok a lot inefficient. Flex was easy to program for in assembler, though. ###### Message-ID: <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 36 Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 05:47:49 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958456069 194.16.221.33 (Tue, 16 May 2000 07:47:49 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 07:47:49 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!howland.erols.net!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56322 Eric Chomko wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > : Eric Chomko wrote: > : > > : > Tim Shoppa wrote: > [...] > : > : I had this argument here with Eric a couple of months ago. Basically, > : > : he has no experience with the LSI-11, so it doesn't count. Same with > : > : all the other interesting architectures you might want to discuss. > : > > : > No, the arguement was, is the LSI-11, being a 4 chip set, considered a > : > microprocessor? I say no, Tim says, yes. I believe that is where we left > : > it. And how "successful" were the LSI-11 based...anything? I remember > : > selling a chipset to exactly one guy, at the store I worked in. I'd > : > average two or three PETs a week. > > : I'd definitely say that the LSI-11 was a microprocessor. > : By what standards is it not? > > By being a 4 chip set of LSI circuits, each of which was not able to work > as a system without the other three chips. Aha. So it's just so by the count of chips. Yet people have now complained quite a lot about the 8080, which needed some support chips to get its clock and other neccesary functions. Does this disqualify the 8080 too, then? Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### From: glass2@glass2.lexington.ibm.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 16 May 2000 13:13:41 GMT Organization: IBM Austin Lines: 53 Message-ID: <8frhi5$1fc0$2@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> <8fpgks$nti$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> Reply-To: wa4qal@vnet.ibm.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glass2.cv.lexington.ibm.com X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!an02.austin.ibm.com!ausnews.austin.ibm.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56422 In <8fpgks$nti$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu>, hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu writes: >In article , >William Hamblen wrote: > >>One of the original S-100 computer companies, Polymorphic Systems, was >>making Poly88s until the mid eighties. Apparently they had a pretty >>slick business oriented software package that managed to sell well >>right into the IBM PC era. > >There was a shakedown at the end of the 80's when the clock speeds >got too fast for quick'n'dirty engineering. > >Up to 12mhz or so, it was fairly easy to design a motherboard and >put it into production. At 16 and up, it took serious engineering, and >most of the folks making their own dropped off the map. > >(or was it 16 and 20? It's been a while). > >hawk > >-- >Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. > hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu >(319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk >These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. Once system speeds got to the point where the length of the bus approaches a tenth of a wavelength, then the bus lines have to be designed as transmission lines, rather than using the simplistic approach (The wavelength of a 300MHz signal, in free space, is 1 meter. At 1 GHz, the wavelength, in free space, is about 12 inches. On a circuit board, the wavelengths can be considerable shorter due to the increased permittivity of the board material.). If you don't take the characteristic impedance into account when terminating a transmission line, then signal reflections occur, and these reflections can travel up and down the line, resulting in multiple/false triggering of circuits. Since busses are much wider than just a single line, the equations involved in treating them as multiconductor transmission lines are not trivial. Basically, you end up working with some pretty huge matrixes to determine the characteristic impedances and the crosstalk between lines. While not impossible to do, it requires quite a bit of engineering skill, especially when you realize that not all of the connections occur at the ends of the lines. Therefore, system design is vastly different for higher speed systems. Dave P.S. Standard Disclaimer: I work for them, but I don't speak for them. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 16 May 2000 13:42:27 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 34 Message-ID: <8frj83$pvu@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fpmud$qip@ NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56361 Sam Yorko wrote: : > : Also note related to an earlier post, the 12-75 Byte has an ad on : > : the inside front cover for the JOLT 6502 kit, so the 6502 was : > : available in 75 as well. : > : > 75? Are you sure?? I would have thought that MOS Technonlogy did not exist : > in 75. : > : This, I can verify. : I was a member of The Homebrew Computer Club (if anybody could have been : a member) until Fall of 1976, when I went to college. Woz demoed a : wirewrap prototype of the Apple II at some point before that (indeed, : before The First West Coast Computer Faire, where the Apple II was : introduced). Before the Apple II was the Apple I, whiche they hawked at : the club meetings for a while. Both were based on the 6502. : The reason that the 6502 was selected by Woz was that they had seen MOS : Technology claiming to have barrels of 6502s for $10 each, and in fact : MOS Technology actually had a barrel of 6502s on display at at trade : show. What MOS Technology neglected to mention was that you were : looking at the entire working output of 6502s to that time. That was 1976. The original poster said 1975. Hate to split hairs but 6 months IS 6 months. The shop I worked in, in No. VA, didn't get an Apple II until early 1977. I am aware of the Woz-Apple-6502 story, I read Levy's book, "Hackers", and pretty much lived the time myself. Eric : Sam ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 16 May 2000 13:50:54 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 31 Message-ID: <8frjnu$pvu@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56384 Johnny Billquist wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: [...] : > : > No, the arguement was, is the LSI-11, being a 4 chip set, considered a : > : > microprocessor? I say no, Tim says, yes. I believe that is where we left : > : > it. And how "successful" were the LSI-11 based...anything? I remember : > : > selling a chipset to exactly one guy, at the store I worked in. I'd : > : > average two or three PETs a week. : > : > : I'd definitely say that the LSI-11 was a microprocessor. : > : By what standards is it not? : > : > By being a 4 chip set of LSI circuits, each of which was not able to work : > as a system without the other three chips. : Aha. So it's just so by the count of chips. Yes by chip count. : Yet people have now complained quite a lot about the 8080, which needed : some support chips to get its clock and other neccesary functions. : Does this disqualify the 8080 too, then? No, because the manner in which you got those support chips varied. You could hook up an 8080 in different ways. The 4 chip LSI set was atomic in nature. You can't say 4 chips that make up basically the CPU of a minicomputer as a "microprocessor", even though both used the same type of technology. Computer-on-a-chip, not, computer-on-4-chips is a microprocessor. Eric ###### Message-ID: <39215685.5D20C8C2@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8frjnu$pvu@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 56 Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:09:11 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958486151 194.16.221.33 (Tue, 16 May 2000 16:09:11 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:09:11 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56319 Eric Chomko wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > : Eric Chomko wrote: > [...] > : > : I'd definitely say that the LSI-11 was a microprocessor. > : > : By what standards is it not? > : > > : > By being a 4 chip set of LSI circuits, each of which was not able to work > : > as a system without the other three chips. > > : Aha. So it's just so by the count of chips. > > Yes by chip count. > > : Yet people have now complained quite a lot about the 8080, which needed > : some support chips to get its clock and other neccesary functions. > : Does this disqualify the 8080 too, then? > > No, because the manner in which you got those support chips varied. You > could hook up an 8080 in different ways. The 4 chip LSI set was atomic in > nature. You can't say 4 chips that make up basically the CPU of a > minicomputer as a "microprocessor", even though both used the same type of > technology. Computer-on-a-chip, not, computer-on-4-chips is a > microprocessor. But to get to the same functionality, you'd need the same number of chips. It's just a question that one can run in a more crippled manner than the other. And are you arguing that the 8080 is a microprocessor though it required more than one chip just because there might be several choices for the support chips? If so, the we have a definition of microprocessor based on how many manufacturers made support chips for that processor. The J11 was much later, but that is everything on one chip, so I guess that one qualifies as a microprocessor then. Just to point out my opposing view: A microprocessor to me is a CPU implemented highly integrated on a few chips, where you regard the CPU as a black box that you cannot fiddle with. "Normal" processors of that era were possible to repair with a soldering iron and a scope. Of course, nowadays, all CPUs are just black boxes, but nowadays all CPUs are a single chip as well. So the really big mainframes just have microprocessors nowadays. :-) Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8frjnu$pvu@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39215685.5D20C8C2@netinsight.se> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 09:28:07 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-8a4IyOaEypWZH8DGP0yHZ7LknTg9zvxEjpdhx1EUQUtbz/xoQYxaUZj+frIwN5kwDdnHenPbusrH71s!oiDS3MvgGtHOnucDWMtBoQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:28:07 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!nntp2.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56312 On Tue, 16 May 2000 14:09:11 GMT, Johnny Billquist wrote: >And are you arguing that the 8080 is a microprocessor though it >required more than one chip just because there might be several >choices for the support chips? If so, the we have a definition >of microprocessor based on how many manufacturers made support >chips for that processor. I think Eric's argument isn't so much who you could get support chips from, but rather that you didn't have to use the designated support chips at all if you didn't want to. For example, you could build up your own clock generator rather than using the 8232. Since the functions were well-documented, and met well-documented requirements of the processor, they didn't count against the processor's chip count. Can the same be said for any of the LSI-11's 4 chips? Can you replace any of them with random logic? ###### From: nailed_barnacleSPAMFREE@hotmail.com (barnacle) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:45:57 GMT Organization: [posted via Easynet Ltd] Lines: 25 Message-ID: <8fs1kd$1e9k$1@quince.news.easynet.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39200AB6.1D1 <8fpmud$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: nbarnes.easynet.co.uk X-Trace: quince.news.easynet.net 958499277 47412 194.154.98.206 (16 May 2000 17:47:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynet.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 May 2000 17:47:57 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.icl.net!colt.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!easynet-uk!easynet.net!quince.news.easynet.net!egbert Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56428 In article <8fpmud$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: >: No kidding. I always remember when much of the above was the thought >: of the day, shortly after I got my first D2 kit I showed the instruction card >: to the man who I always considered one of my mentors and he said >: something like, "Its just a computer like any other, what's the big deal". > >The big deal was that it was yours. You didn't have to share it. It wasn't >locked inside of a room. If it broke you fixed it. It was a big deal to >write BASIC and assembler code away from a minicomputer or mainframe >environment. > The point was that it was *mine*...Here, if you weren't doing a computer course you just didn't have a chance to see a computer (except as an 'it's the computer's fault you got a £100,000 gas bill'). With a single board kit, I could put it together myself, break it, fix it, rewrite the monitor, design/build/debug new hardware for it...and it was *mine*! -- barnacle http://www.nailed-barnacle.co.uk ###### Message-ID: <39218A2D.D848EBD4@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39200AB6.1D1 <8fpmud$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 109 Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:52:22 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.120.55 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 958499542 63.15.120.55 (Tue, 16 May 2000 10:52:22 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:52:22 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!feed-out.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!feed.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!cyclone-west.rr.com!news.rr.com|news-west.rr.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56332 Eric Chomko wrote: > It had to be MIKBUG, as MIKBUG did NOT have 6850 serial I/O routines. It > simply used a 6820. Think about this: Didn't the 6820 get replaced with > the 6821 at one point? If the 6820 had a design flaw and they made a lot, > what better way to dump them on the market than by way of the > "bit-banger"? Pure speculation, but it would explain the "why" of it all. I don't believe there was a design bug in the 6820. The 6821 I believe could drive more external circuitry or something like that. Also it came a couple of years or so after this time frame. > : Also note related to an earlier post, the 12-75 Byte has an ad on > : the inside front cover for the JOLT 6502 kit, so the 6502 was > : available in 75 as well. > > 75? Are you sure?? I would have thought that MOS Technonlogy did not exist > in 75. That was my memory too but the magazine ad doesn't lie. Whether you could actually get the product when you ordered it however is a question. With all the various "kits" I remember seeing back then, I never saw a JOLT in the "flesh". > I got a SSB disk system, that is all! I learned THAT system real well, > while the whole world was learning FLEX. You got the double whammy! Not only was the "whole" 6800 world using FLEX, but the "whole" rest of the world was using the 8080/Z-80 and CP/M :-( > Didn't the 6830 that was MIKBUG also have MINIBUG code in it? Yes, in the MCM6830L7 ROM the lower half K had MIKBUG (rev 9), the next 256 bytes had the original MINIBUG (rev 4) and the last 256 bytes had a "test pattern". Normal MIKBUG systems would ground the high address pin on the ROM. My real question is why since the 6850 existed did they even bother developing MIKBUG with its bit banger interface. This chewed up more of the processors time, timing out the bits. Again the MINIBUG in the L7 ROM had an earlier copywrite date than the MIKBUG code. Certainly MINIBUG is dumber than MIKBUG as a "monitor ROM" but by that time there were a number of new MINIBUG's, II III and even IV. > : > : successful venture. I doesn't seem that they saw them as "computers". > : > > : > But they were.And that IS the main point! > > : No kidding. I always remember when much of the above was the thought > : of the day, shortly after I got my first D2 kit I showed the instruction card > : to the man who I always considered one of my mentors and he said > : something like, "Its just a computer like any other, what's the big deal". > > The big deal was that it was yours. You didn't have to share it. It wasn't > locked inside of a room. If it broke you fixed it. It was a big deal to > write BASIC and assembler code away from a minicomputer or mainframe > environment. Yes that was the big deal to individuals. My context of the question was that people back then seemed to thinK of microprocessors as something different than computers. They were marketed to different folks and many times the micro folks didn't think that the mini and mainframe folks had any knowledge useful to them. Thus many earlier mistakes were repeated. (The same happened when mini's first came along). > Wait could you not make it one of the interrupts that would then do a > handler routine that would essentially dump the CPU registers to a stack > for making changes, etc.? Yes, as was done with the D2 kit but that was more than I wanted to do as I seemed everyone had their own favorite flavor of MIKBUG compatible ROM by that time. It was basically a question that although I like switch and light front panels, making one for the 6800 be useful enough was a big enough project that I decided not to start it. Recall from the last post that I was on the road seriously at that time and when I was home had other things that needed doing. > Wow, I never knew that Atlanta had such a following. Here in DC there > wasn't much. Only a guy named Tom Harmon and many people (as did I) bought > all there stuff through him. Tom went on to Helix and Gimix boxes running > OS/9 (not me), and then he started selling Amigas when they came out. I > think he still does in fact (not sure how, though).. Similar problem here in Rochester NY. The 6800 group was never more than half a dozen people. The main group, RAMS, was several hundred and active for several years and there were several stores in Rochester, one in particular which handled SWTPC (as well as other non 6800 vendors). When that market softened he started specializing in becoming a systems supplier for UNIFLEX based systems. Eventually the PC world came crashing in and he went out of business. > Was JOEBUG a 6830 or 2708? If it was the latter, then it still may be able > to be had. I have a burner around some damn place! To my knowledge it was just code, you had to provide your own EPROM, I don't recall how big it was. I have SWTPC's 2716 burner as well as Micro Works 2708 burner both for the SS-30 bus. Of course most even simple PC EPROM burners today will do back to the 2716 although not the 3 voltage 2708. I have a couple different ones from Needhams which will do 2716's but not the 3 voltage 2708. Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 16 May 2000 18:00:12 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 67 Message-ID: <8fs2bc$s85@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8frj NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56352 Johnny Billquist wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: [...] : > : > By being a 4 chip set of LSI circuits, each of which was not able to work : > : > as a system without the other three chips. : > : > : Aha. So it's just so by the count of chips. : > : > Yes by chip count. : > : > : Yet people have now complained quite a lot about the 8080, which needed : > : some support chips to get its clock and other neccesary functions. : > : Does this disqualify the 8080 too, then? : > : > No, because the manner in which you got those support chips varied. You : > could hook up an 8080 in different ways. The 4 chip LSI set was atomic in : > nature. You can't say 4 chips that make up basically the CPU of a : > minicomputer as a "microprocessor", even though both used the same type of : > technology. Computer-on-a-chip, not, computer-on-4-chips is a : > microprocessor. : But to get to the same functionality, you'd need the same number : of chips. It's just a question that one can run in a more : crippled manner than the other. : And are you arguing that the 8080 is a microprocessor though it : required more than one chip just because there might be several : choices for the support chips? If so, the we have a definition : of microprocessor based on how many manufacturers made support : chips for that processor. A microprocessor could use different support chips (i.e. a 8250 or 8255 could be used with a 6800 or 8080, same with the 6850 and 6820 coupled with a 6800 or an 8080). And speaking about many manufacturers, one could argue that "popularity" of a microprocessor (another issue related to this thread) was based upon the number of different sources that a chip had. AMD second-sourced both the 8080 and the 6800, I believe. Did the LSI-11 have a second source? : The J11 was much later, but that is everything on one chip, : so I guess that one qualifies as a microprocessor then. Yes, that one would, IMO. : Just to point out my opposing view: A microprocessor to me is : a CPU implemented highly integrated on a few chips, where you : regard the CPU as a black box that you cannot fiddle with. I suppose that the inside of a Cray then was driven by a "microprocessor" by your definition? : "Normal" processors of that era were possible to repair : with a soldering iron and a scope. Yes they were on boards using various scales of integartion. : Of course, nowadays, all CPUs are just black boxes, but nowadays : all CPUs are a single chip as well. So the really big : mainframes just have microprocessors nowadays. :-) Yep. Why would you go back when you can go forward, technology-wise? And most mainframes are multiprocessor anyway. Surely a workstation using a RISC chip is still using a microprocessor, even though we don't call workstations "microcomputers". Eric ###### From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 23:00:56 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 15 Message-ID: <3920E418.3A9C@azstarnet.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <8feih3$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE720.4DB8@azstarnet.com> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56460 William Hamblen wrote: [chomp] > Nope. Polymorphic Systems made a little S-100 box roughly the size of > a toaster with room for about 4 slots on the motherboard. The cute > thing was they came with a female S100 card slot on one end and a male > S100 card edge on the other. For expansion you could plug two or more > boxes together. And, didn't they start out calling themselves MicroAltair? Much to Ed Roberts' displeasure..... Bill Tucson ###### From: genew@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 04:17:27 GMT Organization: Okanagan Internet Junction Lines: 24 Message-ID: <39220d06.25598857@news.shuswap.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39200AB6.1D1 <8fpmud$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39218A2D.D848EBD4@earthlink.net> Reply-To: genew@shuswap.net NNTP-Posting-Host: salmonarm3-18.shuswap.net X-Trace: news.junction.net 958536881 7795 139.142.177.148 (17 May 2000 04:14:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@junction.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 May 2000 04:14:41 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cyclone.bc.net!news.junction.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56492 jchausler wrote: >Eric Chomko wrote: [snip] >> 75? Are you sure?? I would have thought that MOS Technonlogy did not exist >> in 75. > >That was my memory too but the magazine ad doesn't lie. Whether you Well, generally not, but do you remember the World Power Systems scan? Alot of magazine ads there! [snip] Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. ###### Message-ID: <39223897.D8F1A59B@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8frjnu$pvu@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39215685.5D20C8C2@netinsight.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 22 Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 06:13:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958544023 194.16.221.33 (Wed, 17 May 2000 08:13:43 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 08:13:43 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uninett.no!news.ost.eltele.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56480 Jay Maynard wrote: > > I think Eric's argument isn't so much who you could get support chips from, > but rather that you didn't have to use the designated support chips at all > if you didn't want to. For example, you could build up your own clock > generator rather than using the 8232. Since the functions were > well-documented, and met well-documented requirements of the processor, they > didn't count against the processor's chip count. Can the same be said for > any of the LSI-11's 4 chips? Can you replace any of them with random logic? Probably. It's just a question of "how much logic"? I've never played with the LSI-11 so I don't know what the different chips does. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Message-ID: <392239D9.3DA89AF4@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8frj <8fs2bc$s85@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 44 Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 06:19:06 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958544346 194.16.221.33 (Wed, 17 May 2000 08:19:06 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 08:19:06 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!uninett.no!news.ost.eltele.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56481 Eric Chomko wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > : Eric Chomko wrote: > [...] > And speaking about many manufacturers, one could argue that "popularity" > of a microprocessor (another issue related to this thread) was based upon > the number of different sources that a chip had. AMD second-sourced both > the 8080 and the 6800, I believe. Did the LSI-11 have a second source? Well, popularity is not the same thing as the definition. I don't think the LSI-11 had a second source. > : Just to point out my opposing view: A microprocessor to me is > : a CPU implemented highly integrated on a few chips, where you > : regard the CPU as a black box that you cannot fiddle with. > > I suppose that the inside of a Cray then was driven by a "microprocessor" > by your definition? You'd have to be more specific. What Cray are we talking about? A Cray-I is probably not a microprocessor by my definition. I've seen one, and while they are very complex, they are also very large. There got to be a reason for that size, and I doubt that it's because of highly integrated circuits. > : "Normal" processors of that era were possible to repair > : with a soldering iron and a scope. > > Yes they were on boards using various scales of integartion. And they were made of discrete components and standard ICs. The only really special parts were the microcode ROMs (if it even were microcoded), since replacing the ROM meant you'd also have to copy the contents, which weren't COTS. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8frj <8fs2bc$s85@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <392239D9.3DA89AF4@netinsight.se> Organization: Daedalus Consulting X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Message-ID: <958559527.505832@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Cache-Post-Path: shelley.paradise.net.nz!unknown@203-96-144-16.cable.paradise.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 15 Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:32:24 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.96.152.26 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 958559544 203.96.152.26 (Wed, 17 May 2000 22:32:24 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 22:32:24 NZST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56509 Johnny Billquist wrote: >I don't think the LSI-11 had a second source. Doesn't Western Digital count? >You'd have to be more specific. What Cray are we talking about? >A Cray-I is probably not a microprocessor by my definition. I've seen >one, and while they are very complex, they are also very large. >There got to be a reason for that size, and I doubt that it's >because of highly integrated circuits. A current Cray uses SGI MIPS microprocessors. I don't think there are any modern computers that aren't microprocessor based. -- don ###### Message-ID: <3922825B.9F2A45F3@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8frj <8fs2bc$s85@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <392239D9.3DA89AF4@netinsight.se> <958559527.505832@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 31 Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:28:27 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958562907 194.16.221.33 (Wed, 17 May 2000 13:28:27 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:28:27 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeeder.mobilixnet.dk!newsfeed101.telia.com!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56477 Don Stokes wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > >I don't think the LSI-11 had a second source. > > Doesn't Western Digital count? Sorry. :-) But actually, wasn't WD the only supplier? DEC didn't do any LSI-11 themself, did they? > >You'd have to be more specific. What Cray are we talking about? > >A Cray-I is probably not a microprocessor by my definition. I've seen > >one, and while they are very complex, they are also very large. > >There got to be a reason for that size, and I doubt that it's > >because of highly integrated circuits. > > A current Cray uses SGI MIPS microprocessors. I don't think there are > any modern computers that aren't microprocessor based. I don't know of any, but I have no idea how the current IBM mainframes are built. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Message-ID: <39224AB8.435E3423@trailing-edge.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 07:31:05 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8frjnu$pvu@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39215685.5D20C8C2@netinsight.se> <39223897.D8F1A59B@netinsight.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 41 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader2.news.uu.net 958563066 9675 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!news.voicenet.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader2.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56493 Johnny Billquist wrote: > > Jay Maynard wrote: > > > > I think Eric's argument isn't so much who you could get support chips from, > > but rather that you didn't have to use the designated support chips at all > > if you didn't want to. For example, you could build up your own clock > > generator rather than using the 8232. Since the functions were > > well-documented, and met well-documented requirements of the processor, they > > didn't count against the processor's chip count. Can the same be said for > > any of the LSI-11's 4 chips? Can you replace any of them with random logic? > > Probably. It's just a question of "how much logic"? > I've never played with the LSI-11 so I don't know what the > different chips does. In very rough terms, the functionality of a LSI-11 is the same as a PDP-11/04, and a complete PDP-11/04 resides on one hex-height Unibus board. The PDP-11/04 consists of 127 14- and 16-pin SSI and MSI TTL parts (OK, some of these are low-density bipolar PROM's) and 4 74181 ALU chips, each of which is a 24-pin package. Now, if I simply plunge ahead with the technically incorrect (but qualitatively not so bad) assumption that if I take the total number of 11/04 DIP packages, and divide by four to reach the average "SSI DIP equivalent" of the WD chips making up the LSI-11, then there's an average of 132 SSI chips ------------- = 33 SSI chips per LSI chip 4 LSI chips I'm not pretending this is the "right" answer, but it's a rough guide as to the functionality of the WD chipset used in the LSI-11 aka PDP-11/03. Certainly by modern standards this is *not* a lot of functionality per LSI chip. And with modern multi-layer PCB's and flat-pack SSI TTL packages (whoops, they're called SMD these days, right?) you could almost even put 33 SSI chips in the place of a single WD 40-pin DIP package :-). Tim. ###### Message-ID: <39224DBC.19110D20@trailing-edge.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 07:43:56 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8frj <8fs2bc$s85@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <392239D9.3DA89AF4@netinsight.se> <958559527.505832@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 28 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader2.news.uu.net 958563837 9675 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.tufts.edu!uunet!ffx.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader2.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56494 Don Stokes wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > >I don't think the LSI-11 had a second source. > > Doesn't Western Digital count? I thought Western Digital *was* the source. The chips in the LSI-11 have DEC part numbers on them, and don't have WD logos, but I always believed that WD was the actual manufacturer. I don't think DEC had a fab for any chips in those days. Even the J11 in the 11/53-11/73-11/83-11/84-11/93-11/94 was actually manufactured outside DEC, by Harris. Who made the F11? > >You'd have to be more specific. What Cray are we talking about? > >A Cray-I is probably not a microprocessor by my definition. I've seen > >one, and while they are very complex, they are also very large. > >There got to be a reason for that size, and I doubt that it's > >because of highly integrated circuits. > > A current Cray uses SGI MIPS microprocessors. I don't think there are > any modern computers that aren't microprocessor based. Well, a fair number of products these days don't really have a "CPU on a chip" in them anymore, they have an "equivalent CPU on the corner of a gate array". Tim. ###### Message-ID: <39229658.4399786C@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8frj <8fs2bc$s85@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <392239D9.3DA89AF4@netinsight.se> <958559527.505832@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <39224DBC.19110D20@trailing-edge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 29 Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 12:53:44 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958568024 194.16.221.33 (Wed, 17 May 2000 14:53:44 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 14:53:44 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!amsnews01.chello.com!news01.chello.no!Norway.EU.net!uio.no!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56476 Tim Shoppa wrote: > > Don Stokes wrote: > > > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > > >I don't think the LSI-11 had a second source. > > > > Doesn't Western Digital count? > > I thought Western Digital *was* the source. The chips in the > LSI-11 have DEC part numbers on them, and don't have WD logos, but > I always believed that WD was the actual manufacturer. I don't > think DEC had a fab for any chips in those days. Even the J11 in > the 11/53-11/73-11/83-11/84-11/93-11/94 was actually manufactured > outside DEC, by Harris. Who made the F11? I also think WD was the actual source for LSI-11. I think it was the F11 that DEC actually did make themself. Who made the T11? I seem to believe that the T11 wasn't the same as the LSI-11, but I might be confused here. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 17 May 2000 15:16:29 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 150 Message-ID: <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fpmud$qip@ NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!triton.skycache.com!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56487 jchausler wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > It had to be MIKBUG, as MIKBUG did NOT have 6850 serial I/O routines. It : > simply used a 6820. Think about this: Didn't the 6820 get replaced with : > the 6821 at one point? If the 6820 had a design flaw and they made a lot, : > what better way to dump them on the market than by way of the : > "bit-banger"? Pure speculation, but it would explain the "why" of it all. : I don't believe there was a design bug in the 6820. The 6821 I believe could : drive more external circuitry or something like that. Also it came a couple of : years or so after this time frame. That makes sense, so I guess we are back to wondering why MIKBUG used bit banging of a 6820 if the 6850 was available. : > : Also note related to an earlier post, the 12-75 Byte has an ad on : > : the inside front cover for the JOLT 6502 kit, so the 6502 was : > : available in 75 as well. : > : > 75? Are you sure?? I would have thought that MOS Technonlogy did not exist : > in 75. : That was my memory too but the magazine ad doesn't lie. Whether you : could actually get the product when you ordered it however is a question. : With all the various "kits" I remember seeing back then, I never saw a : JOLT in the "flesh". Yes, JOLT does ring a bell but I don't remember ever seeing a system either. I think the Challenger I from OSI was the first 6502 system to actually exist, as I recall. : > I got a SSB disk system, that is all! I learned THAT system real well, : > while the whole world was learning FLEX. : You got the double whammy! Not only was the "whole" 6800 world : using FLEX, but the "whole" rest of the world was using the 8080/Z-80 : and CP/M :-( Yep, ended up hating the whole world (computer) for awhile, while I toiled alone it seemed. : > Didn't the 6830 that was MIKBUG also have MINIBUG code in it? : Yes, in the MCM6830L7 ROM the lower half K had MIKBUG : (rev 9), the next 256 bytes had the original MINIBUG (rev 4) and : the last 256 bytes had a "test pattern". Normal MIKBUG systems : would ground the high address pin on the ROM. : My real question is why since the 6850 existed did they even bother : developing MIKBUG with its bit banger interface. This chewed up : more of the processors time, timing out the bits. Again the MINIBUG : in the L7 ROM had an earlier copywrite date than the MIKBUG : code. Certainly MINIBUG is dumber than MIKBUG as a : "monitor ROM" but by that time there were a number of new : MINIBUG's, II III and even IV. Yes, it IS bizarre. I think SWTPC simply picked MIKBUG because it was in the D-2 eval kit, and they wanted to be safe. I do remember waiting in line to get SWTBUG and an MP-S serial card, though. I ended up making a clone copy of the MP-S card using a Precom breadboard and buying the components from scratch! Getting the large transistor (2N something) and the 4N33 opto-isolators was a bit of a trick, too. The board works fine and is a jumper mess, rather than wirewrap. But it DOES work. Still have the thing. : > : No kidding. I always remember when much of the above was the thought : > : of the day, shortly after I got my first D2 kit I showed the instruction card : > : to the man who I always considered one of my mentors and he said : > : something like, "Its just a computer like any other, what's the big deal". : > : > The big deal was that it was yours. You didn't have to share it. It wasn't : > locked inside of a room. If it broke you fixed it. It was a big deal to : > write BASIC and assembler code away from a minicomputer or mainframe : > environment. : Yes that was the big deal to individuals. My context of the question was : that people back then seemed to thinK of microprocessors as something : different than computers. They were marketed to different folks and You mean folks like Kenneth Olsen from DEC who treated microprocessors as he would a child's toy?! Poor Ken, when he saw the writing on the wall it was too late. : many times the micro folks didn't think that the mini and mainframe : folks had any knowledge useful to them. Thus many earlier mistakes : were repeated. (The same happened when mini's first came along). Yes, but they inevitably merge once a few companies bleed to death, as they fall on the onto the wrong "edge". Look at how Sun bascially replaced DEC, as the transition from minicomputer to workstation came about with the merging of the two forementioned technologies. : > Wait could you not make it one of the interrupts that would then do a : > handler routine that would essentially dump the CPU registers to a stack : > for making changes, etc.? : Yes, as was done with the D2 kit but that was more than I wanted to do : as I seemed everyone had their own favorite flavor of MIKBUG : compatible ROM by that time. It was basically a question that although : I like switch and light front panels, making one for the 6800 be useful : enough was a big enough project that I decided not to start it. Recall : from the last post that I was on the road seriously at that time and : when I was home had other things that needed doing. I know the feeling, one project leads to another and then before you know it you do nothing as it all seems pointless as there exists nop way to market it and so you are stuck with a prototype as a "fun" project that took up lots of your time. That's why I mostly play lunar lander on my old box and just keep it running. I did bring my SWTPC 6809 system up to speed a few years back making all the 6800 stuff I had on it work with the newly acquired 09 system. That took about a year of on again, off again tinkering. : > Wow, I never knew that Atlanta had such a following. Here in DC there : > wasn't much. Only a guy named Tom Harmon and many people (as did I) bought : > all there stuff through him. Tom went on to Helix and Gimix boxes running : > OS/9 (not me), and then he started selling Amigas when they came out. I : > think he still does in fact (not sure how, though).. : Similar problem here in Rochester NY. The 6800 group was never more : than half a dozen people. The main group, RAMS, was several hundred : and active for several years and there were several stores in Rochester, : one in particular which handled SWTPC (as well as other non 6800 : vendors). When that market softened he started specializing in : becoming a systems supplier for UNIFLEX based systems. Eventually : the PC world came crashing in and he went out of business. Sounds like all too familiar of a story. : > Was JOEBUG a 6830 or 2708? If it was the latter, then it still may be able : > to be had. I have a burner around some damn place! : To my knowledge it was just code, you had to provide your own EPROM, : I don't recall how big it was. I have SWTPC's 2716 burner as well as : Micro Works 2708 burner both for the SS-30 bus. Of course most : even simple PC EPROM burners today will do back to the 2716 although : not the 3 voltage 2708. I have a couple different ones from Needhams : which will do 2716's but not the 3 voltage 2708. I have a PC one as well. It won't do 2708. For that I have the SWTPC burner. I haven't done much with either. I did manage to copy my SWTPC 6809 ROM (SBUG -2716) into my PC. I was able to burn a couple of backup EPOM monitors. Funny thing though. I can't seem to erase any of the old 2716s that I have lying around with a UV light I picked up at an auction (IOW, my PC burner from Sunshine works fine with brand new 2716 EPROMs but won't recognize an erased EPROM after its been under the light for a bit). Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 17 May 2000 15:27:25 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 44 Message-ID: <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fs NNTP-Posting-Host: u2.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!newsin.iconnet.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u2.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56490 Johnny Billquist wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > [...] : > And speaking about many manufacturers, one could argue that "popularity" : > of a microprocessor (another issue related to this thread) was based upon : > the number of different sources that a chip had. AMD second-sourced both : > the 8080 and the 6800, I believe. Did the LSI-11 have a second source? : Well, popularity is not the same thing as the definition. : I don't think the LSI-11 had a second source. : > : Just to point out my opposing view: A microprocessor to me is : > : a CPU implemented highly integrated on a few chips, where you : > : regard the CPU as a black box that you cannot fiddle with. : > : > I suppose that the inside of a Cray then was driven by a "microprocessor" : > by your definition? : You'd have to be more specific. What Cray are we talking about? : A Cray-I is probably not a microprocessor by my definition. I've seen : one, and while they are very complex, they are also very large. : There got to be a reason for that size, and I doubt that it's : because of highly integrated circuits. My point is that if you have to swap an entire board as a CPU rather than replace it, is that a microprocessor? If one of the 4 LSI-11 chips went bad then only that chip needed to be replaced. : > : "Normal" processors of that era were possible to repair : > : with a soldering iron and a scope. : > : > Yes they were on boards using various scales of integartion. : And they were made of discrete components and standard ICs. : The only really special parts were the microcode ROMs (if it : even were microcoded), since replacing the ROM meant you'd also : have to copy the contents, which weren't COTS. COTS. Now that is a good way to describe microprocessors. But how can a 4 chip set be called "a" microprocessor? Today BIOS's ARE COTS, in fact anything socketed is. Eric ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fpmud$qip@ <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY From: aje9383@osfmail.isc.rit.edu (Andrew Erickson) NNTP-Posting-Host: grace.isc.rit.edu X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: grace.isc.rit.edu Message-ID: <3922cea4@news.isc.rit.edu> Date: 17 May 2000 12:53:56 -0500 X-Trace: 17 May 2000 12:53:56 -0500, grace.isc.rit.edu Lines: 77 XPident: news X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.21.4.100 XPident: Unknown Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.icl.net!triton.skycache.com!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.nyu.edu!news-nysernet-16.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.isc.rit.edu!aje9383 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56463 In article <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: >jchausler wrote: > >: Eric Chomko wrote: > >: > It had to be MIKBUG, as MIKBUG did NOT have 6850 serial I/O routines. It >: > simply used a 6820. Think about this: Didn't the 6820 get replaced with >: > the 6821 at one point? If the 6820 had a design flaw and they made a lot, >: > what better way to dump them on the market than by way of the >: > "bit-banger"? Pure speculation, but it would explain the "why" of it all. > >: I don't believe there was a design bug in the 6820. The 6821 I believe could >: drive more external circuitry or something like that. Also it came a couple of >: years or so after this time frame. > >That makes sense, so I guess we are back to wondering why MIKBUG used bit >banging of a 6820 if the 6850 was available. Perhaps to avoid having to add a baud rate generator to the board? The 6850 didn't have one built in, IIRC. Also, perhaps they figured that people would more likely use a 6800 for applications involving parallel I/O rather than serial I/O (things like industrial control, I suppose, or replacing a bunch of random logic.) >: > : No kidding. I always remember when much of the above was the thought >: > : of the day, shortly after I got my first D2 kit I showed the instruction card >: > : to the man who I always considered one of my mentors and he said >: > : something like, "Its just a computer like any other, what's the big deal". >: > >: > The big deal was that it was yours. You didn't have to share it. It wasn't >: > locked inside of a room. If it broke you fixed it. It was a big deal to >: > write BASIC and assembler code away from a minicomputer or mainframe >: > environment. > >: Yes that was the big deal to individuals. My context of the question was >: that people back then seemed to thinK of microprocessors as something >: different than computers. They were marketed to different folks and > >You mean folks like Kenneth Olsen from DEC who treated microprocessors as >he would a child's toy?! Poor Ken, when he saw the writing on the wall it >was too late. > >: many times the micro folks didn't think that the mini and mainframe >: folks had any knowledge useful to them. Thus many earlier mistakes >: were repeated. (The same happened when mini's first came along). > >Yes, but they inevitably merge once a few companies bleed to death, as >they fall on the onto the wrong "edge". Look at how Sun bascially replaced >DEC, as the transition from minicomputer to workstation came about with >the merging of the two forementioned technologies. There does seem to be some sort of a circle of reincarnation that spins around once with each new generation of computer technology. Those who were involved with mainframes figured that minicomputers were toys (and the first few designs, when compared with mainframes, were), and missed the impact they would eventually have. They didn't think of any way of using computers other than as mainframes. The same thing happened when the microprocessor (and microcomputer) was introduced; the minicomputer people saw that the new units were no good as a minicomputer, and didn't consider that there may be a new paradigm of computer usage coming. If history is any guide, the same thing will happen to the PC world. I suspect perhaps PDAs (or PDA-like things) will form the next big change in the computer world. A similar perception exists, at least: the PDA is not a "real" computer; by and large, the PC crowd doesn't consider a PDA as competition to the PC status quo; the size and cost (relative to a PC) is low; and so on. Then again, predicting the future is much more difficult than analyzing the past. I may be entirely all wrong. -- Andrew Erickson ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:28:22 GMT References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se> <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com> Organization: Chaos and Confusion Lines: 37 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.cwix.com!prairie.attcanada.net!newsfeed.attcanada.net!142.77.1.188!news.uunet.ca!uunet!nyc.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!world!dp Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56538 In article <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com>, Tim Shoppa wrote: >Johnny Billquist wrote: >> >> Tim Shoppa wrote: >> > > Give me a PDP-11 any day. >> > >> > Absolutely, the base instruction set is almost perfectly orthogonal >> > with respect to registers and addressing modes. >> >> Almost? Name one exception? > >R6 and R7 aren't really general purpose registers - they're SP and >PC. Though the way that they integrated the SP and PC into the >register set *is* very slick, and the fact that most of the >addressing modes work with the SP and PC is really, really nice. >I'm not complaining about the resulting >instruction set, I'm just saying that it isn't perfectly orthogonal. Sorry to chime in so late: I have given up on finding my pdp-11 processor handbook to double check my aging memories. One place the instruction set wasn't orthogonal had to do with addition and byte instructions. If you looked at the opcodes, xxxW became xxxB if the high bit was set. The exception was Add -- if you set the high bit, you didn't get add byte (which would have been real handy at times) you got subtract word. Again, this is subject to memory that hasn't had a refresh cycle in a long time, so the exact instruction may be wrong, but the idea is there -- not all operations that worked on words, existed for byte operations, even when such things made sense (and were useful). -dp- Organizer, The New England Rubbish Deconstruction Society; The NERDS. We are the first US team to compete in the British Scrapheap Challenge series. http://www.the-nerds.org ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392239D9.3DA89AF4@netinsight.se> <958559527.505832@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <3922825B.9F2A45F3@netinsight.se> Organization: Daedalus Consulting X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Message-ID: <958597200.650821@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Cache-Post-Path: shelley.paradise.net.nz!unknown@203-96-144-16.cable.paradise.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 21 Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 21:00:17 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.96.152.26 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 958597217 203.96.152.26 (Thu, 18 May 2000 09:00:17 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:00:17 NZST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!feed.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!cyclone-west.rr.com!news.rr.com|news-west.rr.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!lsanca1-snf1!news.gtei.net!news.netgate.net.nz!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56594 In article <3922825B.9F2A45F3@netinsight.se>, Johnny Billquist wrote: >Don Stokes wrote: >> Johnny Billquist wrote: >> >I don't think the LSI-11 had a second source. >> >> Doesn't Western Digital count? > >But actually, wasn't WD the only supplier? DEC didn't do any LSI-11 >themself, did they? I have a 1977 vintage LSI-11 card on which the chipset has decidedly DEC-ish looking ceramic packages. I thought WD put the chips in resin packages. The LSI-11 is a WD design, but I'm pretty sure DEC made the chips. IIRC, US Government purchasing rules require second sources, so a manufacturer that doesn't license its chipsets to someone else misses out on a *lot* of business... -- don ###### From: brucehoult@pobox.com (Bruce Hoult) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 12:48:54 +1200 Organization: The Internet Group Ltd Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se> <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: macinnat.static.star.net.nz X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newspeer1.nac.net!newsfeed.yosemite.net!ihug.co.nz!brucehoult Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56587 In article , dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa) wrote: > One place the instruction set wasn't orthogonal had to do with > addition and byte instructions. If you looked at the opcodes, xxxW > became xxxB if the high bit was set. The exception was Add -- if you > set the high bit, you didn't get add byte (which would have been > real handy at times) you got subtract word. Yes, I even recall using a compiler (NBS Pascal) that had a bug because of this. -- Bruce ###### From: Jim Thomas Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 17 May 2000 14:59:36 -1000 Organization: Canada France Hawai`i Telescope Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se> <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: atlas.cfht.hawaii.edu X-Trace: news.hawaii.edu 958611577 25901 128.171.80.135 (18 May 2000 00:59:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@hawaii.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 May 2000 00:59:37 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.6 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news.hawaii.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56601 >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff DelPapa writes: Jeff> One place the instruction set wasn't orthogonal had to do with Jeff> addition and byte instructions. If you looked at the opcodes, Jeff> xxxW became xxxB if the high bit was set. The exception was Add Jeff> -- if you set the high bit, you didn't get add byte (which would Jeff> have been real handy at times) you got subtract word. Jeff> Again, this is subject to memory that hasn't had a refresh cycle Jeff> in a long time, so the exact instruction may be wrong, but the Jeff> idea is there -- not all operations that worked on words, existed Jeff> for byte operations, even when such things made sense (and were Jeff> useful). The memory is right. But would you have eliminated MOV, CMP, BIT, BIC, or BIS to make room for SUB(B) ? :-( ###### From: j1234@sfsu.savemydomain.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 18 May 2000 04:16:24 GMT Organization: CSUnet Lines: 18 Message-ID: <8fvqqo$ev1o$2@hades.csu.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fs2bc$s85@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <392239D9.3DA89AF4@netinsight.se> <958559527.505832@shelley.paradise.net.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: hou157-229.sfsu.edu User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.7 (sun4m)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!usc.edu!newshub.csu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56565 >>You'd have to be more specific. What Cray are we talking about? >>A Cray-I is probably not a microprocessor by my definition. I've seen >>one, and while they are very complex, they are also very large. >>There got to be a reason for that size, and I doubt that it's >>because of highly integrated circuits. Heh, the CRAY I. Could the size be so that you could fit more people on it? For those who have not seen one, it looks like a couch from a mid 60's Bond flic. It's even padded. The insides of the one I saw didn't look to contain anything I would call a microprocessor. Lots of PCBs, lots of wires. > A current Cray uses SGI MIPS microprocessors. I don't think there are > any modern computers that aren't microprocessor based. If you mean one of the current CRAYs, then yes. In addition, they have in the last few years designed systems using UltraSPARC and AXP. ###### Message-ID: <3923B778.4887004A@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391BD096.6A224D5C@trailing-edge.com> <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se> <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 53 Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:27:22 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958642042 194.16.221.33 (Thu, 18 May 2000 11:27:22 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:27:22 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56559 Jeff DelPapa wrote: > > In article <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com>, > Tim Shoppa wrote: > >Johnny Billquist wrote: > >> > >> Tim Shoppa wrote: > >> > > Give me a PDP-11 any day. > >> > > >> > Absolutely, the base instruction set is almost perfectly orthogonal > >> > with respect to registers and addressing modes. > >> > >> Almost? Name one exception? > > > >R6 and R7 aren't really general purpose registers - they're SP and > >PC. Though the way that they integrated the SP and PC into the > >register set *is* very slick, and the fact that most of the > >addressing modes work with the SP and PC is really, really nice. > >I'm not complaining about the resulting > >instruction set, I'm just saying that it isn't perfectly orthogonal. > > Sorry to chime in so late: I have given up on finding my pdp-11 > processor handbook to double check my aging memories. > > One place the instruction set wasn't orthogonal had to do with > addition and byte instructions. If you looked at the opcodes, xxxW > became xxxB if the high bit was set. The exception was Add -- if you > set the high bit, you didn't get add byte (which would have been > real handy at times) you got subtract word. Your recollection is correct. But right now I'm having an argument with myself about the correct definition of "orthogonal". I seem to think that it means that where you accept an argument to an instruction, you can accept all kind of arguments who have the same kind of value. Then we have symmetrical, which means that the same kind of arguments are acceptable both as source and destination. Boy, I really should try to locate my books on this subject again. It's been a long time... The PDP-11 case of the missing ADDB would be more of an incomplete instruction set, I think...? Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Message-ID: <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fs <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 41 Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:38:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 958646305 194.16.221.33 (Thu, 18 May 2000 12:38:25 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 12:38:25 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!blackbush.xlink.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!EU.net!Norway.EU.net!news-feed.ifi.uio.no!uio.no!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56561 Eric Chomko wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > : You'd have to be more specific. What Cray are we talking about? > : A Cray-I is probably not a microprocessor by my definition. I've seen > : one, and while they are very complex, they are also very large. > : There got to be a reason for that size, and I doubt that it's > : because of highly integrated circuits. > > My point is that if you have to swap an entire board as a CPU rather than > replace it, is that a microprocessor? If one of the 4 LSI-11 chips went > bad then only that chip needed to be replaced. You never had the CPU on one board in a CRAY-I... :-) > : And they were made of discrete components and standard ICs. > : The only really special parts were the microcode ROMs (if it > : even were microcoded), since replacing the ROM meant you'd also > : have to copy the contents, which weren't COTS. > > COTS. Now that is a good way to describe microprocessors. But how can a 4 > chip set be called "a" microprocessor? "A" microprocessor for me is a term, not a quantification. And 7400s are definitely more COTS than any microprocessor, and those are the chips you'll find inside any mini-computer of the '70s... (Well, almost any. :-) > Today BIOS's ARE COTS, in fact anything socketed is. In a way, yes. But they aren't neccesarily interchangable. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 18 May 2000 14:00:25 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 58 Message-ID: <8g0t1p$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3922cea4@news.isc.rit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56568 Andrew Erickson wrote: : In article <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, : Eric Chomko wrote: [...] : >That makes sense, so I guess we are back to wondering why MIKBUG used bit : >banging of a 6820 if the 6850 was available. : Perhaps to avoid having to add a baud rate generator to the board? The : 6850 didn't have one built in, IIRC. That may be true for the D-2 Eval Kit as I am really unfamilar with them. But the SWTPC 6800 CPU card did have a baud rate generator chip (14111? or something similar). : Also, perhaps they figured that people would more likely use a 6800 for : applications involving parallel I/O rather than serial I/O (things like : industrial control, I suppose, or replacing a bunch of random logic.) Maybe, but why make the 6850 if you don't plan on using it?! : >Yes, but they inevitably merge once a few companies bleed to death, as : >they fall on the onto the wrong "edge". Look at how Sun bascially replaced : >DEC, as the transition from minicomputer to workstation came about with : >the merging of the two forementioned technologies. : There does seem to be some sort of a circle of reincarnation that spins : around once with each new generation of computer technology. Those who : were involved with mainframes figured that minicomputers were toys (and : the first few designs, when compared with mainframes, were), and missed : the impact they would eventually have. They didn't think of any way of : using computers other than as mainframes. IBM comes to mind, but then they made the 1130 and I don't think they regret having made that system. : The same thing happened when the microprocessor (and microcomputer) was : introduced; the minicomputer people saw that the new units were no good : as a minicomputer, and didn't consider that there may be a new paradigm : of computer usage coming. Yes, DEC comes to mind. : If history is any guide, the same thing will happen to the PC world. I : suspect perhaps PDAs (or PDA-like things) will form the next big change : in the computer world. A similar perception exists, at least: the PDA : is not a "real" computer; by and large, the PC crowd doesn't consider a : PDA as competition to the PC status quo; the size and cost (relative to : a PC) is low; and so on. They seem to be two quite different markets, similar to the video gaming market and the microcomputer market of the late 70s and early 80s. : Then again, predicting the future is much more difficult than analyzing : the past. I may be entirely all wrong. Yes, either it will be or it will not be. :) Eric ###### Message-ID: <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fpmud$qip@ <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 102 Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 14:07:36 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.121.242 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 958658856 63.15.121.242 (Thu, 18 May 2000 07:07:36 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 07:07:36 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56563 Eric Chomko wrote: > Yes, it IS bizarre. I think SWTPC simply picked MIKBUG because it was in > the D-2 eval kit, and they wanted to be safe. I do remember waiting in > line to get SWTBUG and an MP-S serial card, though. I ended up making a > clone copy of the MP-S card using a Precom breadboard and buying the > components from scratch! Getting the large transistor (2N something) and > the 4N33 opto-isolators was a bit of a trick, too. The board works fine > and is a jumper mess, rather than wirewrap. But it DOES work. Still have > the thing. MIKBUG was on the earlier D1 kit, one and a half of which I got second hand (unassembled) in early 77. The D2 kit used something called JBUG, also a 6830. Although not a direct copy, the MP-C card uses more or less similar circuitry as was on the D1, the clock circuitry and the 1488 vs the big transistor (S1122) being the two primary differences. Both used the three 4N33's. I did not have much trouble finding these. The February 76 Byte shows close of pictures of both the MP-L and MP-S circuit cards assembled on pages 50 and 51 respectively. The date code on the 6850 is 7512. In a previous post I stated that the date code on the printed circuit card for the D1 kit was 21, rev'd 23 (week) in 75, so 6850's were available before the D1 kit. The 3 4N33's make is suspicious that SWTPC more or less copied the D1 kit but I suppose it is possible that there was some AP note published for the 6850 which suggested this circuit and both SWTPC and the D1's designers used the same AP note. The circuits, again, are not identical and further, remember, they both had to work with the same ROM. > You mean folks like Kenneth Olsen from DEC who treated microprocessors as > he would a child's toy?! Poor Ken, when he saw the writing on the wall it > was too late. I wasn't so much talking about people like Ken although if he had been "awake" he had a killer product in the PDP-11 if it had been marketed successfully. More I was speaking about the individual engineer. Mot and Intel seemed to be trying to sell their processors to the folks who previously had been building random logic out of SSI and MSI parts, not to programmers, like me, doing real-time control or other similar functions where a micro might have been applied. In the company I worked for at that time there was a political division between the mini and micro folks. Cause I needed a TTY to work with the D1 kit and could not afford one, for a while I did my "playing" with the D1 kit after work in a lab "owned" by the micro folks (the same lab Ted Hoff had worked in part time 20 years earlier). This raised hackles on both sides of the fence. The micro folks were unhappy cause a "mini folk" (me :-) had been allowed on "their property" and was working (acutally just playing) with a microprocessor (and further it wasn't Intel, although again they were also using the 1802 :-) The mini folks were afraid that since I was the one who had stepped across the line (and the mini folks were the ones who originally drew it) that the micro folks would now see fit to step across it as well :-( Note that this was the management people having the problem (being the ones who drew the lines). Fortunately, the particular lab manager was senior enough and above the politics to happily let me come in and play and even supported my efforts. > Yes, but they inevitably merge once a few companies bleed to death, as > they fall on the onto the wrong "edge". Look at how Sun bascially replaced > DEC, as the transition from minicomputer to workstation came about with > the merging of the two forementioned technologies. As an early selector of SUN, over DEC and APOLLO and... SUN was the only one with a good story about openness in the early to mid 80's. I was in a DEC shop at the time too. > I have a PC one as well. It won't do 2708. For that I have the SWTPC > burner. I haven't done much with either. I did manage to copy my SWTPC > 6809 ROM (SBUG -2716) into my PC. I was able to burn a couple of backup > EPOM monitors. Funny thing though. I can't seem to erase any of the old > 2716s that I have lying around with a UV light I picked up at an auction > (IOW, my PC burner from Sunshine works fine with brand new 2716 EPROMs but > won't recognize an erased EPROM after its been under the light for a bit). The SWTPC EPROM programmer will only do single voltage parts and by itself is limited to the 2716 (someone made an add-on kit so it could do 2732's as well). That's why when I had to back up some 2708's a few years ago, I went looking for the Micro Works 2708 programmer. I think you were one of the responders to my posts about it on comp.sys.m6809. My search was successful :-) The only problem I've had erasing EPROMs (I still use them) has been that sometimes the "glue" used to hold the label over the window on the EPROM has been found to not allow the passage of UV light even though I could "see" through it. I used some PC card solder flux solvent to remove the residue from the EPROMs after physically removing the paper part of the label and the problem went away. Another thing, the erase time of EPROMs is quite dependent on the strength and frequency of the UV sources. Make sure too you are exposing it long enough. I use a little Datarase II eraser and have to run it for twice its maximum time to get effective erasure of 27C256's and sometimes three times for 2716s. Usually 20 minutes will do it though. Years ago I had a large EPROM eraser (borrowed) which would do 2716's in a minute or so. The Datarase II is nice though, it is cheap and will fit in your shirt pocket :-) Regards, Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 18 May 2000 14:13:17 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 37 Message-ID: <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56571 Johnny Billquist wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > [...] : > My point is that if you have to swap an entire board as a CPU rather than : > replace it, is that a microprocessor? If one of the 4 LSI-11 chips went : > bad then only that chip needed to be replaced. : You never had the CPU on one board in a CRAY-I... :-) I suppose not. : > COTS. Now that is a good way to describe microprocessors. But how can a 4 : > chip set be called "a" microprocessor? : "A" microprocessor for me is a term, not a quantification. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, as I can't envision a microprocessor as a cluster of chips. : And 7400s are definitely more COTS than any microprocessor, and those : are the chips you'll find inside any mini-computer of the '70s... : (Well, almost any. :-) I don't know about "more" COTS. I mean something is either COTS or it is not. Being more available, as in whether Radio Shack carries it or I have to go to my local electronics distributor get it, still implies COTS; even though the former is right down the street and the latter is across town. : > Today BIOS's ARE COTS, in fact anything socketed is. : In a way, yes. But they aren't neccesarily interchangable. True. Eric ###### Message-ID: <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:23:47 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 20 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader3.news.uu.net 958659828 14290 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader3.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56573 Eric Chomko wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > : > Today BIOS's ARE COTS, in fact anything socketed is. > > : In a way, yes. But they aren't neccesarily interchangable. > > True. Huh? I'm afraid I just got lost with this part of the discussion. BIOS's are pieces of software, not pieces of hardware. They might be burnt into EPROM's or onto mask-programmed ROM's for some particularly brain-damaged systems, but on any reasonably flexible system the user can write/modify the BIOS themselves. And manufacturers who ship a computer without providing the source to the BIOS should be shot. That's how they tie you down to a brain-damaged system! Tim. ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 18 May 2000 10:13:50 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 22 Message-ID: <8g11be$fim$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8frjnu$pvu@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39215685.5D20C8C2@netinsight.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.uiowa.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56582 In article , Jay Maynard wrote: >I think Eric's argument isn't so much who you could get support chips from, >but rather that you didn't have to use the designated support chips at all >if you didn't want to. For example, you could build up your own clock >generator rather than using the 8232. Since the functions were >well-documented, and met well-documented requirements of the processor, they >didn't count against the processor's chip count. Can the same be said for >any of the LSI-11's 4 chips? Can you replace any of them with random logic? so the LSI-11 is windowsish, and the 8080 is unixish? :) hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 18 May 2000 10:30:25 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 16 Message-ID: <8g12ah$fl2$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392239D9.3DA89AF4@netinsight.se> <958559527.505832@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <3922825B.9F2A45F3@netinsight.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-out.nibble.net!news-in.nibble.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.uiowa.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56578 In article <3922825B.9F2A45F3@netinsight.se>, Johnny Billquist wrote: >I don't know of any, but I have no idea how the current IBM mainframes >are built. Out of PowerPC chips, isn't it? Or at least out of Power family chips, I think. hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 18 May 2000 15:55:59 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 24 Message-ID: <8g13qf$1qp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet10 X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 958665359 1881 134.117.136.30 (18 May 2000 15:55:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 May 2000 15:55:59 GMT X-Given-Sender: ab528@freenet10.carleton.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!nntp.gctr.net!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56586 Tim Shoppa (shoppa@trailing-edge.com) writes: > > Huh? I'm afraid I just got lost with this part of the discussion. > BIOS's are pieces of software, not pieces of hardware. They > might be burnt into EPROM's or onto mask-programmed ROM's for > some particularly brain-damaged systems, but on any reasonably > flexible system the user can write/modify the BIOS themselves. And, as I have read recently, so can the brain-damaged morons who create and circulate virri. I'm an Old Testament Fart: give me a machine with 10 Commandments etched in stone for Power On/Reset so that I have a chance to recover from 666.exe and brethern. > > And manufacturers who ship a computer without providing the source > to the BIOS should be shot. That's how they tie you down to a > brain-damaged system! You want documentation? As in "rack of manuals"? What have you got against the forests? Seriously, with the intense pressure to push product out the door, who has time for the Donald Knuth's 'Towards more literacy in programming' approach? ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 18 May 00 18:32:49 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 16 Message-ID: <445.173T2480T11126049@sky.bus.com> References: <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g13qf$1qp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca> <392489E4.B241E195@dallas.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-119.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news2 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56701 In article <392489E4.B241E195@dallas.net> richmond@dallas.net (Charles Richmond) writes: >To me, if you do *not* have the documentation, you do *not* have >a product. This sounds a lot like Charlie's First Law of Documentation: If you can't find it in the manual, it isn't documented. (Yes, I've read lots of crummy manuals. How'd you guess?) -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### Message-ID: <3924406B.471ABBDE@trailing-edge.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 19:11:39 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g13qf$1qp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader1.news.uu.net 958691500 24813 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!howland.erols.net!europa.netcrusader.net!152.163.239.131!portc03.blue.aol.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader1.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56623 Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote: > > Tim Shoppa (shoppa@trailing-edge.com) writes: > > And manufacturers who ship a computer without providing the source > > to the BIOS should be shot. That's how they tie you down to a > > brain-damaged system! > > You want documentation? As in "rack of manuals"? What have you > got against the forests? Not even a set of manuals - I'd be happy with the source code on a web site, CD-ROM, or even a floppy disk. (Paper tape probably has a lower density than printed manuals...) Tim. ###### From: David Wragg Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392239D9.3DA89AF4@netinsight.se> <958559527.505832@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <3922825B.9F2A45F3@netinsight.se> <8g12ah$fl2$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Gnus/5.0806 (Gnus v5.8.6) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald) Date: 18 May 2000 23:28:48 +0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.119.176.228 X-Complaints-To: news@u-net.net X-Trace: newsr2.u-net.net 958692836 194.119.176.228 (Fri, 19 May 2000 00:33:56 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 00:33:56 BST Organization: (Posted via) U-NET Internet Ltd. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!diablo.theplanet.net!peer.news.th.u-net.net!u-net!newsr2.u-net.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56633 hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu writes: > In article <3922825B.9F2A45F3@netinsight.se>, > Johnny Billquist wrote: > >I don't know of any, but I have no idea how the current IBM mainframes > >are built. > > Out of PowerPC chips, isn't it? Or at least out of Power family chips, > I think. No, that's just the current AS/400 line. The S/390s still use custom microprocessors built on multichip modules. You can read about the latest designs at David Wragg ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 17:16:59 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 18 Message-ID: <392487FC.CD9F05AC@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392239D9.3DA89AF4@netinsight.se> <958559527.505832@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <3922825B.9F2A45F3@netinsight.se> <8g12ah$fl2$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newsxfer.visi.net!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56692 hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote: > > In article <3922825B.9F2A45F3@netinsight.se>, > Johnny Billquist wrote: > > >I don't know of any, but I have no idea how the current IBM mainframes > >are built. > > Out of PowerPC chips, isn't it? Or at least out of Power family chips, > I think. > I believe that the current models of the AS/400 are built out of PowerPC chips...but the heavier iron must use something else. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 17:25:07 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 30 Message-ID: <392489E4.B241E195@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g13qf$1qp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56679 "Heinz W. Wiggeshoff" wrote: > > [sip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > You want documentation? As in "rack of manuals"? What have you > got against the forests? > > Seriously, with the intense pressure to push product out the door, > who has time for the Donald Knuth's 'Towards more literacy in programming' > approach? > This reminds me of a guy I worked with a dozen or so years ago. He bought a new hard drive for his personal computer. But he *never* could get the jumpers set up so the thing would work, and there was *no* manual that came with the drive. So he called their support line and asked if they would send him a manual. The support guy said: "Oh, this is a very *new* product. We do *not* have a manual yet." He took the drive back to the store and got a different drive. To me, if you do *not* have the documentation, you do *not* have a product. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: TJ Edmister Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 18:13:11 -0700 Organization: repository of old computer junk Lines: 15 Message-ID: <39249527.185E@hotmail.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g13qf$1qp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!howland.erols.net!news-out.transit.remarq.com.MISMATCH!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56663 Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote: > > > And, as I have read recently, so can the brain-damaged morons who > create and circulate virri. I'm an Old Testament Fart: give me a > machine with 10 Commandments etched in stone for Power On/Reset > so that I have a chance to recover from 666.exe and brethern. >> ... > You want documentation? As in "rack of manuals"? What have you > got against the forests? > an old testament fart who doesn't like manuals? I like how there used to be manuals, my favorites are for OSS DOS-XL (Atari) and MS-DOS 5. IDK, do they even make manuals anymore? ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8fh4ld$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Organization: None X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) Lines: 31 Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:37:54 EDT Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 03:37:54 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!portc03.blue.aol.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!news-east.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56681 In article <8fh4ld$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: >Jeff DelPapa wrote: >[...] >: Heathkit did sell a "kit" of the LSI-11. You did assemble some parts, >: but the CPU,etc were just plugins straight from DEC. > >Yes, the H11. Heathkit also had the H8. The H8 was not a PDP-8 clone, though; it was an incompatible 8080-based machine, considerably smaller than the S-100 crates I remember. I had one when I was a kid. The H89 was Heathkit's more successful computer --- an H19 terminal with an H8 crammed inside it, plus an H17 disk drive. I used that before and after the H8. Despite having everything in the same box --- you couldn't even move the keyboard --- the H19 was connected to the H8 over a 9600-baud serial link inside the case. I always wondered why it lost the platform war, but in retrospect, it was vastly inferior to the Apple ][ that was roughly its contemporary. It had CP/M and a CP/M clone called HDOS; the Apple had color graphics and sound, hooked up to a TV set, and I think was actually cheaper. And both the Apple and the IBM PC had memory-mapped screens, which IMHO is a vast improvement over serial communication. -- Kragen Sitaker The Internet stock bubble didn't burst on 1999-11-08. Hurrah! The power didn't go out on 2000-01-01 either. :) ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 22:06:40 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 27 Message-ID: <3924CBE1.A001852C@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g13qf$1qp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca> <39249527.185E@hotmail.com> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56680 TJ Edmister wrote: > > Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote: > > > > > > And, as I have read recently, so can the brain-damaged morons who > > create and circulate virri. I'm an Old Testament Fart: give me a > > machine with 10 Commandments etched in stone for Power On/Reset > > so that I have a chance to recover from 666.exe and brethern. > >> ... > > You want documentation? As in "rack of manuals"? What have you > > got against the forests? > > > > an old testament fart who doesn't like manuals? I like how there used to > be manuals, my favorites are for OSS DOS-XL (Atari) and MS-DOS 5. IDK, > do they even make manuals anymore? > I have seen some PC Oracle manuals distributed on CDROM as a PDF document. I would think that CDROM would be a cheaper and easier way to distribute manuals. Then the user could decide what part they need to print...usually just printed pages as needed. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 19 May 2000 02:10:56 -0700 Organization: CTS Network Services Lines: 13 Sender: kst@king.cts.com Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fs2bc$s85@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <392239D9.3DA89AF4@netinsight.se> <958559527.505832@shelley.paradise.net.nz> X-Trace: thoth.cts.com 958727456 67920 205.163.0.22 (19 May 2000 09:10:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@cts.com X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.flash.net!mercury.cts.com!thoth.cts.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56621 don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) writes: [...] > A current Cray uses SGI MIPS microprocessors. I don't think there are > any modern computers that aren't microprocessor based. Really? Which model? As far as I know, the T3E uses DEC^H^H^H Compaq Alpha processors, and the vector systems (T90, SV1) use Cray custom vector processors. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> Welcome to the last year of the 20th century. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 19 May 2000 14:04:11 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 127 Message-ID: <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56715 jchausler wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: [...] : > the 4N33 opto-isolators was a bit of a trick, too. The board works fine : > and is a jumper mess, rather than wirewrap. But it DOES work. Still have : > the thing. : MIKBUG was on the earlier D1 kit, one and a half of which I got second : hand (unassembled) in early 77. The D2 kit used something called JBUG, Yes, I remember JBUG. Never used it but I think I have manual someplace. : also a 6830. Although not a direct copy, the MP-C card uses more or : less similar circuitry as was on the D1, the clock circuitry and the 1488 vs : the big transistor (S1122) being the two primary differences. Both used : the three 4N33's. I did not have much trouble finding these. The February : 76 Byte shows close of pictures of both the MP-L and MP-S circuit cards : assembled on pages 50 and 51 respectively. The date code on the 6850 : is 7512. In a previous post I stated that the date code on the printed : circuit card for the D1 kit was 21, rev'd 23 (week) in 75, so 6850's were : available before the D1 kit. The 3 4N33's make is suspicious that SWTPC : more or less copied the D1 kit but I suppose it is possible that there was : some AP note published for the 6850 which suggested this circuit and : both SWTPC and the D1's designers used the same AP note. The : circuits, again, are not identical and further, remember, they both had to : work with the same ROM. Yes, the only explanation is that MIKBUG used the "bit-banger" as the terminal I/O routine, therefore, the MP-C was used over the MP-S, until other ROM monitors came into being. : > You mean folks like Kenneth Olsen from DEC who treated microprocessors as : > he would a child's toy?! Poor Ken, when he saw the writing on the wall it : > was too late. : I wasn't so much talking about people like Ken although if he had been : "awake" he had a killer product in the PDP-11 if it had been marketed : successfully. I think that the PDP-11 was very successful. It had a huge line of products and was DEC's mainstay product for about a decade. Olsen didn't see that the micro would eventually replace the mini once the VLSI technology was fast enough. That was a costly error for DEC. Had the ALPHA chip had the pedigree as did the 80x86 chips from Intel, then maybe DEC wouldn't have have to be bought by Compaq. More I was speaking about the individual engineer. Mot : and Intel seemed to be trying to sell their processors to the folks who : previously had been building random logic out of SSI and MSI parts, : not to programmers, like me, doing real-time control or other similar : functions where a micro might have been applied. In the company I : worked for at that time there was a political division between the mini : and micro folks. Cause I needed a TTY to work with the D1 kit and : could not afford one, for a while I did my "playing" with the D1 kit : after work in a lab "owned" by the micro folks (the same lab Ted Hoff : had worked in part time 20 years earlier). This raised hackles on both : sides of the fence. The micro folks were unhappy cause a "mini folk" : (me :-) had been allowed on "their property" and was working : (acutally just playing) with a microprocessor (and further it wasn't : Intel, although again they were also using the 1802 :-) The mini folks : were afraid that since I was the one who had stepped across the : line (and the mini folks were the ones who originally drew it) that the : micro folks would now see fit to step across it as well :-( Note that this : was the management people having the problem (being the ones who : drew the lines). Fortunately, the particular lab manager was senior : enough and above the politics to happily let me come in and play and : even supported my efforts. I was going to say why not have both? The senior guy should have mandated it! And the ones that were teed off should have been told to take a flying leap. This "us vs. them" is totally out of sync with the "Hacker Philosophy", where learning is above all else, especially petty politics. : > Yes, but they inevitably merge once a few companies bleed to death, as : > they fall on the onto the wrong "edge". Look at how Sun bascially replaced : > DEC, as the transition from minicomputer to workstation came about with : > the merging of the two forementioned technologies. : As an early selector of SUN, over DEC and APOLLO and... SUN was : the only one with a good story about openness in the early to mid 80's. : I was in a DEC shop at the time too. DEC seemed to forget where they came from and become too much like a "big company". It cost them. I always liked DEC, and then I got into microprocessors. : The SWTPC EPROM programmer will only do single voltage parts and : by itself is limited to the 2716 (someone made an add-on kit so it could do : 2732's as well). That's why when I had to back up some 2708's a few : years ago, I went looking for the Micro Works 2708 programmer. I think : you were one of the responders to my posts about it on comp.sys.m6809. : My search was successful :-) Yes, I still look at that group (6809), but it seems that the SPAM to post ratio is pretty high these days as the chip gets older and older... : The only problem I've had erasing EPROMs (I still use them) has been : that sometimes the "glue" used to hold the label over the window on the : EPROM has been found to not allow the passage of UV light even How long do you leave then exposed to the UV light? : though I could "see" through it. I used some PC card solder flux solvent : to remove the residue from the EPROMs after physically removing the : paper part of the label and the problem went away. Another thing, the Acetone works and glue as well. : erase time of EPROMs is quite dependent on the strength and frequency : of the UV sources. Make sure too you are exposing it long enough. Yes, My earlier question, how long? I : use a little Datarase II eraser and have to run it for twice its maximum time : to get effective erasure of 27C256's and sometimes three times for 2716s. : Usually 20 minutes will do it though. Years ago I had a large EPROM : eraser (borrowed) which would do 2716's in a minute or so. The Datarase : II is nice though, it is cheap and will fit in your shirt pocket :-) 20 Minutes? I will try again and see. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 19 May 2000 14:18:30 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 41 Message-ID: <8g3ifm$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56712 Tim Shoppa wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > : > Johnny Billquist wrote: : > : > Today BIOS's ARE COTS, in fact anything socketed is. : > : > : In a way, yes. But they aren't neccesarily interchangable. : > : > True. : Huh? I'm afraid I just got lost with this part of the discussion. : BIOS's are pieces of software, not pieces of hardware. They : might be burnt into EPROM's or onto mask-programmed ROM's for : some particularly brain-damaged systems, but on any reasonably : flexible system the user can write/modify the BIOS themselves. I think we were speaking about "brain-damaged systems", to use YOUR term. (Be careful how you refer to DECs, as Johnny is particularly fond of them.) : And manufacturers who ship a computer without providing the source : to the BIOS should be shot. That's how they tie you down to a : brain-damaged system! I don't remember how much Southwest Tech paid to make SWTBUG, but it sure as heck was more than the cost of SMARTBUG, being on an EPROM. SW DID provide the source though, but I'm not sure how many minicomputer companies did with their ROMS, however. And before calling systems "brain-damaged" WRT to their being proprietary (I'm no fan of it), you have to understand that piracy does happen to firmware. In fact the clone market lived and died by firmware piracy to some degree. I have a theory for why many companies went to RISC; it's harder to steal their firmware as who the hell wants to disassemble a shitty RISC-based assembly language or much less program in it?! The damn RISC firmware is integral to the microprocessor mostly due to "brain-damaged" assembly code! Eric ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g3ifm$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 8 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 09:36:41 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-xXiWJsYvo6guBSjP0l6Wo3KWTY+YOaDSrp1qbK3WvXnY/V7rpZUKZ8V0CFMfvcFQEf6mRmbAFKKvPpq!UXWjytxN7tSH+ZF0yU/I X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:36:41 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news.netcologne.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news6.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56704 On 19 May 2000 14:18:30 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: >In fact the clone market lived and died by firmware piracy to >some degree. Please, trim that broad brush...Compaq, at least, never copied firmware; they developed it from scratch in the classic clean-room technique. IBM tried and failed to prove Compaq was copying way back when Compaq first hit the market. Even to this day, Compaq develops its own firmware. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 19 May 2000 14:39:12 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 36 Message-ID: <8g3jmg$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8fh4ld$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-feed.fnsi.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56713 Kragen Sitaker wrote: : In article <8fh4ld$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, : Eric Chomko wrote: : >Jeff DelPapa wrote: : >[...] : >: Heathkit did sell a "kit" of the LSI-11. You did assemble some parts, : >: but the CPU,etc were just plugins straight from DEC. : > : >Yes, the H11. Heathkit also had the H8. : The H8 was not a PDP-8 clone, though; it was an incompatible 8080-based : machine, considerably smaller than the S-100 crates I remember. I had : one when I was a kid. Yes, I know that the H8 was based upon the 8080. I mentioned it for completeness WRT Heathkits home computer line. : The H89 was Heathkit's more successful computer --- an H19 terminal : with an H8 crammed inside it, plus an H17 disk drive. I used that : before and after the H8. Despite having everything in the same box --- : you couldn't even move the keyboard --- the H19 was connected to the H8 : over a 9600-baud serial link inside the case. : I always wondered why it lost the platform war, but in retrospect, it : was vastly inferior to the Apple ][ that was roughly its contemporary. : It had CP/M and a CP/M clone called HDOS; the Apple had color graphics : and sound, hooked up to a TV set, and I think was actually cheaper. Yes, the Apple II shamed many of microcomputer in its day. : And both the Apple and the IBM PC had memory-mapped screens, which IMHO : is a vast improvement over serial communication. No question about that! Eric ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fh4ld$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8g3jmg$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Organization: Plethora . Net - More Net, Less Spam! X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Date: 19 May 2000 14:46:31 GMT Lines: 19 Message-ID: <392553c7$0$12263$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 2ed998c8.news.plethora.net X-Trace: 958747591 gemini.plethora.net 12263 seebs@205.166.146.8 X-Complaints-To: abuse@plethora.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newsreader.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!209.98.98.75.MISMATCH!gemini.plethora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56646 In article <8g3jmg$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: >: And both the Apple and the IBM PC had memory-mapped screens, which IMHO >: is a vast improvement over serial communication. >No question about that! While it's certainly true in some ways, I rather liked the independance of the terminal on the H89. Made a lot of cool things possible; you could go into a local mode, edit the display, then go back and send it, as I recall. I miss my H89. That was my one "real" copy of ADVENT. -s -- Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/ Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636 ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 19 May 2000 10:31:18 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 20 Message-ID: <8g3mo6$48q$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fh4ld$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.uiowa.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56625 In article , Kragen Sitaker wrote: >The H89 was Heathkit's more successful computer --- an H19 terminal >with an H8 crammed inside it, No it wasn't. It was the H19 terminal, all right, but the computer wasn't an H8. The H8 was an 8080 machine, while the H89 used a second z80--though at barely above 2mhz, iirc. It was run at the same speed as the z80 that ran the terminal. hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 19 May 2000 16:36:01 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 16 Message-ID: <8g3qhh$mja@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g3ifm$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-feed.fnsi.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56710 Jay Maynard wrote: : On 19 May 2000 14:18:30 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: : >In fact the clone market lived and died by firmware piracy to : >some degree. : Please, trim that broad brush...Compaq, at least, never copied firmware; I guess I was referring to the no-name clones. : they developed it from scratch in the classic clean-room technique. IBM : tried and failed to prove Compaq was copying way back when Compaq first hit : the market. Even to this day, Compaq develops its own firmware. I don't doubt it. But is it as good as Phoenix, Award and AMI? Eric ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8g3jmg$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392553c7$0$12263$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> Organization: None X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) Lines: 23 Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:13:44 EDT Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 19:13:44 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!news-east.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56688 In article <392553c7$0$12263$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>, Peter Seebach wrote: >In article <8g3jmg$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, >Eric Chomko wrote: >>: And both the Apple and the IBM PC had memory-mapped screens, which IMHO >>: is a vast improvement over serial communication. > >>No question about that! > >While it's certainly true in some ways, I rather liked the independance of the >terminal on the H89. Made a lot of cool things possible; you could go into a >local mode, edit the display, then go back and send it, as I recall. I don't recall being able to send it --- but I think there were escape sequences a program could use to read it after you edited it. I never used any programs that did, though; I made lots of ASCII and character-graphics art that disappeared forever as soon as the screen cleared. -- Kragen Sitaker The Internet stock bubble didn't burst on 1999-11-08. Hurrah! The power didn't go out on 2000-01-01 either. :) ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fh4ld$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8g3mo6$48q$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> Organization: None X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) Lines: 33 Message-ID: <4sgV4.20974$nm6.333378@news-east.usenetserver.com> X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:18:24 EDT Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 19:18:24 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!news-east.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56687 In article <8g3mo6$48q$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu>, wrote: >In article , >Kragen Sitaker wrote: >>The H89 was Heathkit's more successful computer --- an H19 terminal >>with an H8 crammed inside it, > >No it wasn't. It was the H19 terminal, all right, but the computer >wasn't an H8. The H8 was an 8080 machine, while the H89 used a second >z80--though at barely above 2mhz, iirc. It was run at the same speed >as the z80 that ran the terminal. Well, I knew it had a Z80, and had a few other non-H8-isms (like they omitted the H8 sound card that was used for sound effects in the Star Trek game --- your photon torpedoes would emit one click for each SRS space they moved over), but they ran the same versions of HDOS, which no other micros would run. I didn't realize the H19 had a Z80 in it, although it makes sense. It would be sort of perverse to implement ANSI escape sequences in circuitry instead of software. (I seem to recall that the VT100, the first terminal to support them, used an 8085.) Why on earth did the H19 use its own weird escape sequences by default instead of the ANSI ones? Was there a previous non-ANSI-capable Heathkit terminal it was trying to be compatible with? I think the only software I ever saw use its ANSI mode was software I wrote myself. -- Kragen Sitaker The Internet stock bubble didn't burst on 1999-11-08. Hurrah! The power didn't go out on 2000-01-01 either. :) ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 19 May 00 14:36:36 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 22 Message-ID: <804.174T1841T8764798@sky.bus.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fh4ld$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8g3mo6$48q$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-204.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!newsfeed.esat.net!do.de.uu.net!pln-e!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news1 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56736 In article <8g3mo6$48q$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (hawk) writes: >In article , >Kragen Sitaker wrote: > >>The H89 was Heathkit's more successful computer --- an H19 terminal >>with an H8 crammed inside it, > >No it wasn't. It was the H19 terminal, all right, but the computer >wasn't an H8. The H8 was an 8080 machine, while the H89 used a second >z80--though at barely above 2mhz, iirc. It was run at the same speed >as the z80 that ran the terminal. It always gave me a funny feeling knowing that the processor in my terminal was more powerful than the one in my CPU (H-19's Z-80 vs. the 2-MHz 8080 in my IMSAI). -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### From: timothy.mccaffrey@spam2filter.unisys.com.takethisoff (Tim McCaffrey) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 19 May 2000 19:56:05 GMT Organization: A series networking Lines: 18 Message-ID: <8g468l$d9m$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fh4ld$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8g3mo6$48q$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <4sgV4.20974$nm6.333378@news-east.usenetserver.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.63.212.151 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.9 (Released Version) (x86 32bit) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!europa.netcrusader.net!195.238.2.15!skynet.be!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!eanews1.unisys.com!plnews.pl.unisys.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56755 In article <4sgV4.20974$nm6.333378@news-east.usenetserver.com>, Kragen Sitaker says... > >Why on earth did the H19 use its own weird escape sequences by default >instead of the ANSI ones? Was there a previous non-ANSI-capable >Heathkit terminal it was trying to be compatible with? I think the >only software I ever saw use its ANSI mode was software I wrote >myself. I'm a little fuzzy on the H19, but I think the default was VT-52 emulation, which was a great deal more popular when the H19 was introduced. The H/Z-100 only emulated the VT-52, although there was buried hooks in the BIOS to add VT-100/ANSI support. (They also used an 8085 instead of a Z80 in the Z-100). - Tim ###### From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:03:57 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 24 Message-ID: <39259E2D.1251@azstarnet.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g3ifm$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <8g3qhh$mja@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!telocity-west!TELOCITY!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56729 Eric Chomko wrote: > > Jay Maynard wrote: > : On 19 May 2000 14:18:30 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: > : >In fact the clone market lived and died by firmware piracy to > : >some degree. > > : Please, trim that broad brush...Compaq, at least, never copied firmware; > > I guess I was referring to the no-name clones. > > : they developed it from scratch in the classic clean-room technique. IBM > : tried and failed to prove Compaq was copying way back when Compaq first hit > : the market. Even to this day, Compaq develops its own firmware. > > I don't doubt it. But is it as good as Phoenix, Award and AMI? Actually, I believe it WAS Phoenix, or at least the people who later became Phoenix, who developed that first Compaq BIOS. And, there's an interesting book about the PC BIOS put out years ago by Phoenix. Bill Tucson, AZ ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8g3mo6$48q$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <4sgV4.20974$nm6.333378@news-east.usenetserver.com> <8g468l$d9m$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> Organization: Plethora . Net - More Net, Less Spam! X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Date: 19 May 2000 20:35:24 GMT Lines: 17 Message-ID: <3925a58b$0$12250$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: c5834721.news.plethora.net X-Trace: 958768524 gemini.plethora.net 12250 seebs@205.166.146.8 X-Complaints-To: abuse@plethora.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newsreader.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!209.98.98.75.MISMATCH!gemini.plethora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56766 In article <8g468l$d9m$1@mail.pl.unisys.com>, Tim McCaffrey wrote: >I'm a little fuzzy on the H19, but I think the default was VT-52 >emulation, which was a great deal more popular when the H19 was >introduced. The H/Z-100 only emulated the VT-52, although there >was buried hooks in the BIOS to add VT-100/ANSI support. (They also >used an 8085 instead of a Z80 in the Z-100). I'm not totally sure, but I hink you mean "in addition to" - we got an 8086 upgrade for our H100, but we could still run Z80 CP/M software. -s -- Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/ Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636 ###### Message-ID: <3925AA1D.CE1A8033@syscon-intl.com> From: Carl Kreider Reply-To: carlk@syscon-intl.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8fh3ms$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8fp8of$e5r$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <8fpn41$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 21 X-Trace: /KiKeTBpC7rVoEYmpgHUtdlxrdLXVzZh3kL+fUsWGeNBi7rx3dTxAhremS01/0Ejpxn5Nr5CQNSG!73af8fTOXTkF3vx1i+mHYC20hfWI30JWCS4yPc+y+GRMwy38js4J3AVXXCRpcDRFDY/dy10s X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 20:54:53 GMT Distribution: world Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 20:54:54 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56745 Eric Chomko wrote: > Some would argue that FLEX was NOT a failure. I didn't learn it as I use > SSB DOS, but it did seem that FLEX was everywhere at one point. ^^^^^^^^^ That's why your name looked familiar. SSB DOS was _much_ better than FLEX, but not many used it. -- Carl Kreider aka [carlk|root]@syscon-intl.com (219) 232-3900 Ext 207 ckreider@gte.net ckreider@acm.org ckreider@alumni.indiana.edu Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ###### Message-ID: <3925AE4A.EC37CE32@syscon-intl.com> From: Carl Kreider Reply-To: carlk@syscon-intl.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8ffdva$iem$1@news.kersur.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 19 X-Trace: /wObnc/5+OlwEYDOY6BSx50FeucPZSWQUrDOv+Ewx2CU6atagcJXkcPlqfMB4jlyMsAstk505Q+L!77vJ1rp6GvmOcJnIRGpW1Ikiv7ztmuGlJO5e6AjGtoEczn+cugeTmTWYEq/cK9QAiqqWlQ4a X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 21:12:44 GMT Distribution: world Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 21:12:44 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56747 "Geoffrey G. Rochat" wrote: > Of course, like all the really good stuff the 6809 and 6309 were allowed > to go out of production... Really. I hope purchasing doesn't find out. The are still buying them for my 15 year old product. -- Carl Kreider aka [carlk|root]@syscon-intl.com (219) 232-3900 Ext 207 ckreider@gte.net ckreider@acm.org ckreider@alumni.indiana.edu Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ###### Message-ID: <3925B046.D8390583@syscon-intl.com> From: Carl Kreider Reply-To: carlk@syscon-intl.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE278.422590AD@trailing-edge.com> <8fh5av$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 21 X-Trace: /KiKeTBpC7rW3Y5WMuOt+vWuca3F6GYBldnzyNAcpMpbS1qES6BdyW0P7NMOpghr0ljdAk7dNmKw!uoCMvr3K2W4BMG14IPSG13n8ER2Q2GKdqsq/i8MudhmhlBnfeVbtgGiNUcNKQC84nHdksJhK X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 21:21:10 GMT Distribution: world Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 21:21:10 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56743 Eric Chomko wrote: > I think that the two big video game systems, the Atari 2600 and the > Mattel Intelivison (why do I think this will launch a new thread about the > best early home video systems?) did NOT use the F-8. I'm not sure which > ones were used in either but I thin the 2600 used a Mot chip (6807?). 2600 used a 6502 IIRC. The cartridge was the only ROM it had. In a sense, a PnP OS :) -- Carl Kreider aka [carlk|root]@syscon-intl.com (219) 232-3900 Ext 207 ckreider@gte.net ckreider@acm.org ckreider@alumni.indiana.edu Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ###### Message-ID: <3925B6C1.F10AFFAF@syscon-intl.com> From: Carl Kreider Reply-To: carlk@syscon-intl.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <391B12F4.44EED04F@syscon-intl.com> <391C1FCD.337558F5@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 62 X-Trace: +Li/tVJSkGKNqaBw0Yb2xjVvwTIEviVFAuDOMEFZUQC+7/oNPlVke26ixFSK8h5OXdgjfZ6La1LT!nxdSY6/EdH0esgMwe3AVM3n9pjA+f/C7qJ1roAh/05yetIvnArgIkTj5YaYil3lq28e/RdAP X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 21:48:56 GMT Distribution: world Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 21:48:56 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56749 jchausler wrote: > Carl Kreider wrote: > > > Ah yes. The D2 kit. I have one in the rafters out > > in the garage :) > > Do you still want it, I collect them ;-) I have my original > and one I just got a few years ago from someone who got > it at a microprocessor course around 1979, 1980 when > "take the course, keep the processor" was popular. As > the D2 was a kit, I got part of an unassembled D2 kit too. > I have the complete keyboard kit plus the processor > circuit card and the JBUG ROM. In the mid 80's I > started collecting "unassembled kits" and bare boards, > all for the SS-50 world as I could see that electronic > kits were a dying art. The D2 is very sad shape. I don't think it runs anymore but I keep it for old time's sake :) > > > > I think Motorola screwed up, however, by announcing a "better" > > > product and then shutting up about it for a year or so. Rumor has > > > it that after the initial announcement, they moved the operation from > > > Arizona to Texas (or the other way) which angered some of the > > > employees (who left, formed MOS Technology, who made the > > > 6502, originally the 6501 but that was pin compatible with the > > > 6800 and Motorola was not amused), but again this is all rumor. > > > > My memory is that they left for philosophical > > reasons. The 6800 was _too_ complex; too data > > processing oriented. The 650[12] was more suited > > to industrial control, which is where they thought > > the real market for micros was. And it ended up > > in Apples ... > > That could be too. I don't recall where I read or heard > that rumor, but I do distinctly recall it. They basically > shut down operations for a year or so which could account > for me not knowing or seeing any advertisements for the > 6800 in mid 1976 even though I was well aware of > several of the other chips, like the F8. I've always > wanted to get confirmation, one way or the other, > about this rumor but to date, have not. Yeah, too long ago to remember. I read my version somewhere, perhaps in Byte or Kilobaud, or perhaps in a trade rag. Maybe an interview with Peddle. -- Carl Kreider aka [carlk|root]@syscon-intl.com (219) 232-3900 Ext 207 ckreider@gte.net ckreider@acm.org ckreider@alumni.indiana.edu Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ###### Message-ID: <3925B7CE.94E68BDA@syscon-intl.com> From: Carl Kreider Reply-To: carlk@syscon-intl.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8frjnu$pvu@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39215685.5D20C8C2@netinsight.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 24 X-Trace: /K0ZEEoFP4Jj35YZY0FXfmZqQv5wplwFs9CoimiiK1X4CJEyIB9Rd9bugnwv8cBfpQVwjXRWbKTU!5ZBdKo2UgkZIXZR+pWvHf5u/ot29/il1gvT9pY5p9tww9nOs1SKAGmUTSXvp3/+HCDGxdx4F X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 21:53:18 GMT Distribution: world Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 21:53:18 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56750 Jay Maynard wrote: > I think Eric's argument isn't so much who you could get support chips from, > but rather that you didn't have to use the designated support chips at all > if you didn't want to. For example, you could build up your own clock > generator rather than using the 8232. Since the functions were > well-documented, and met well-documented requirements of the processor, they > didn't count against the processor's chip count. Can the same be said for > any of the LSI-11's 4 chips? Can you replace any of them with random logic? My memory is pretty weak, but didn't the 8008 require a bus interface unit and was effectively a multi-chip micro? Or was it not a micro then? -- Carl Kreider aka [carlk|root]@syscon-intl.com (219) 232-3900 Ext 207 ckreider@gte.net ckreider@acm.org ckreider@alumni.indiana.edu Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ###### From: j1234@sfsu.savemydomain.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 19 May 2000 22:27:12 GMT Organization: CSUnet Lines: 17 Message-ID: <8g4f40$1does$1@hades.csu.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fs2bc$s85@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <392239D9.3DA89AF4@netinsight.se> <958559527.505832@shelley.paradise.net.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: hou157-229.sfsu.edu User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.7 (sun4m)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!usc.edu!newshub.csu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56740 Keith Thompson wrote: > don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) writes: > [...] >> A current Cray uses SGI MIPS microprocessors. I don't think there are >> any modern computers that aren't microprocessor based. > Really? Which model? As far as I know, the T3E uses DEC^H^H^H Compaq > Alpha processors, and the vector systems (T90, SV1) use Cray custom > vector processors. I thought the Origin 2000 was a Cray design. Possibly the mini model, the O 200, as well. Both are MIPS based, R14K I believe. Both sport a system interconnect called "Cray link", which contributes to my belief. Also, the Sun UE10000 (USparc) was a Cray design. Might have mentioned that before. jeremy ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g3ifm$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <8g3qhh$mja@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 6 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 02:08:33 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-EKNOTvWWNwiTeyHYuN+QoOy6MB5Lcs4zteIYbdBEj9sRyNEZqcAaL8ptQoD/c0x+B96zP51MgqF9pX2!l/XWkttG6FCVOclDgL7S X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 07:08:33 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56735 On 19 May 2000 16:36:01 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: >: Even to this day, Compaq develops its own firmware. >I don't doubt it. But is it as good as Phoenix, Award and AMI? In what sense? Overall, I'd have to say yes. Do you have some specific problem in mind? ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 02:40:59 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 31 Message-ID: <39265DAB.B1627177@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fh4ld$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8g3jmg$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392553c7$0$12263$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56719 Peter Seebach wrote: > > In article <8g3jmg$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, > Eric Chomko wrote: > >: And both the Apple and the IBM PC had memory-mapped screens, which IMHO > >: is a vast improvement over serial communication. > > >No question about that! > > While it's certainly true in some ways, I rather liked the independance of the > terminal on the H89. Made a lot of cool things possible; you could go into a > local mode, edit the display, then go back and send it, as I recall. > > I miss my H89. That was my one "real" copy of ADVENT. > What is a "real" copy of ADVENT??? Are you implying that the ADVENT on the H89 was faithful to the original??? Check out the Collosal Cave Adventure Page: http://people.delphi.com/rickadams/adventure/index.html There are several versions of advent in their download area...one may just be "real" enough for you. (You better say out of the "cheats" section if you want to solve the adventure yourself!!!) -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8g3jmg$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392553c7$0$12263$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <39265DAB.B1627177@dallas.net> Organization: Plethora . Net - More Net, Less Spam! X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Date: 20 May 2000 14:54:36 GMT Lines: 29 Message-ID: <3926a72c$0$12257$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: b3a79f03.news.plethora.net X-Trace: 958834476 gemini.plethora.net 12257 seebs@205.166.146.8 X-Complaints-To: abuse@plethora.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newsreader.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!209.98.98.75.MISMATCH!gemini.plethora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56767 In article <39265DAB.B1627177@dallas.net>, Charles Richmond wrote: >What is a "real" copy of ADVENT??? It was a fairly-close-to-the-original model. >Are you implying that the ADVENT on >the H89 was faithful to the original??? Sort of. There were apparently two of them! I had the HDOS one, and a friend of mine had the CP/M one. They were different. Mine went to 375, including an "endgame" puzzle involving dynamite. >There are several versions of advent in their download area...one may >just be >"real" enough for you. (You better say out of the "cheats" section if >you want >to solve the adventure yourself!!!) I don't know if I'd have the patience. I actually really disliked ADVENT in one way: The dwarves were random. I didn't like randomness in an adventure. You could die with perfect play; I consider that a bug. -s -- Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/ Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636 ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fnni6$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391FA2F5.5AA415D8@trailing-edge.com> <8fploc$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Organization: None X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) Lines: 23 Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 13:20:51 EDT Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 17:20:51 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!news-east.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56725 In article <8fploc$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: >Yes, those literally were the "good old days". Hacking has become a lost >art to some degree with these superfast/small chips that make soldering >nearly impossible. > >I stopped getting BYTE in the mid-80s as it was obvious that we were >headed to where we are today. This is a temporary situation; if we can keep them from making hacking illegal (with things like the DMCA) new tech will come down the pike that will be hackable again. Optical computing is in that state now, although it's currently too damn expensive; gate arrays are in that state now but not expensive; nanotech is promising in the medium to long term. And there's still software hacking --- free software has made this the best time in decades to hack software. -- Kragen Sitaker The Internet stock bubble didn't burst on 1999-11-08. Hurrah! The power didn't go out on 2000-01-01 either. :) ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3922825B.9F2A45F3@netinsight.se> <8g12ah$fl2$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <392487FC.CD9F05AC@dallas.net> Organization: None X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) Lines: 28 Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 13:31:52 EDT Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 17:31:52 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!news-east.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56726 In article <392487FC.CD9F05AC@dallas.net>, Charles Richmond wrote: >hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote: >> In article <3922825B.9F2A45F3@netinsight.se>, >> Johnny Billquist wrote: >> >> >I don't know of any, but I have no idea how the current IBM mainframes >> >are built. >> >> Out of PowerPC chips, isn't it? Or at least out of Power family chips, >> I think. >> >I believe that the current models of the AS/400 are built out of PowerPC >chips...but the heavier iron must use something else. I seem to recall reading in IBM Technical Journal a few years ago (pre-PowerPC) that the POWER CPUs were actually multichip modules (does that disqualify them from microhood?) and that the new mainframe CPUs were actually POWER CPUs with different microcode. I don't know if I'm remembering correctly, and even if I am, those assertions may not be true of today's counterparts. But perhaps someone who really knows will be goaded into following up. :) -- Kragen Sitaker The Internet stock bubble didn't burst on 1999-11-08. Hurrah! The power didn't go out on 2000-01-01 either. :) ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 20 May 2000 21:38:21 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 51 Message-ID: <6uya55t3kh.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fs2bc$s85@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <392239D9.3DA89AF4@netinsight.se> <958559527.505832@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <8g4f40$1does$1@hades.csu.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 958851502 602 10.0.3.2 (20 May 2000 19:38:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 May 2000 19:38:22 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56773 j1234@sfsu.savemydomain.edu writes: > Keith Thompson wrote: > > don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) writes: > > [...] > >> A current Cray uses SGI MIPS microprocessors. I don't think there are > >> any modern computers that aren't microprocessor based. > > > Really? Which model? As far as I know, the T3E uses DEC^H^H^H Compaq > > Alpha processors, and the vector systems (T90, SV1) use Cray custom > > vector processors. At least the T3D was Alphas (up to 96 of them). > I thought the Origin 2000 was a Cray design. Possibly the mini model, the > O 200, as well. The ccNUMA link technology used to connect the processor nodes and so to make large scale (512 processor) and linear cost scalability (from 4-512 processors) SMP possible is from Cray. Non-NUMA SMP stalls at 64 processors and requires either an massively expensive base machine, or multiple different bus systems, making large models over-linear more expensive. > Both are MIPS based, R14K I believe. Presently R10k ("my" old one) and R12k ("my" 2 new ones). R14k is not yet on sale. > Both sport a system > interconnect called "Cray link", which contributes to my belief. But it is only the link that is from Cray. SGI uses its MIPS processors, while Cray used Alphas. > Also, the Sun UE10000 (USparc) was a Cray design. Might have mentioned that > before. Now that surprises me. What Cray models does its architecture derive from? -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Guru, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, LARPer, Mystic Use a WIMP (Windows Icons Mouse Pulldowns) interface - or get one with a CLUE (Command Line User Environment)? ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 20 May 2000 21:45:42 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 42 Message-ID: <6uvh09t389.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3922825B.9F2A45F3@netinsight.se> <8g12ah$fl2$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <392487FC.CD9F05AC@dallas.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 958851942 602 10.0.3.2 (20 May 2000 19:45:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 May 2000 19:45:42 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56774 kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) writes: > I seem to recall reading in IBM Technical Journal a few years ago > (pre-PowerPC) that the POWER CPUs were actually multichip modules Yes. The original RS/6000 models were 5 or 7 chip sets (1 instruction cache/fetch/decoder, 1 integer registers/ALU, 1 floating point registers/AU, 2 or 4 data cache). ALU chip 32 bits, FPU chip 64 bits, Instruction decoder and caches and memory 128 bits. Instructions are 32 bit, allowing decoding of 4 at a time (and feeding the 3 processing chips). > (does > that disqualify them from microhood?) IMHO yes. > and that the new mainframe CPUs > were actually POWER CPUs with different microcode. That is the AS/400, which are _hardware_modified_ (a few more instructions) PPCs with an external program that interprets CISC-AS/400 code. The AS/400 guys call this program the microcode, because it fullfils the same purpose as on the CISC AS/400s. > I don't know if I'm remembering correctly, and even if I am, those > assertions may not be true of today's counterparts. But perhaps > someone who really knows will be goaded into following up. :) Above RS/600 remarks are from a tech article around when it was introduced (1988/9). The AS/400 stuff is from an colleague who admins/programs them. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Guru, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, LARPer, Mystic Use a WIMP (Windows Icons Mouse Pulldowns) interface - or get one with a CLUE (Command Line User Environment)? ###### From: David Wragg Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3922825B.9F2A45F3@netinsight.se> <8g12ah$fl2$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <392487FC.CD9F05AC@dallas.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Gnus/5.0806 (Gnus v5.8.6) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald) Date: 20 May 2000 20:40:11 +0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.119.176.228 X-Complaints-To: news@u-net.net X-Trace: newsr2.u-net.net 958856069 194.119.176.228 (Sat, 20 May 2000 21:54:29 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 21:54:29 BST Organization: (Posted via) U-NET Internet Ltd. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!peer.news.bb.u-net.net!u-net!newsr2.u-net.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56801 kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) writes: > I seem to recall reading in IBM Technical Journal a few years ago > (pre-PowerPC) that the POWER CPUs were actually multichip modules (does > that disqualify them from microhood?) and that the new mainframe CPUs > were actually POWER CPUs with different microcode. The original POWER processor took up more than one chip (I vaguely recollect four). However, I'm pretty sure those were normal individually packaged chips. So it wasn't a multichip module in the sense that the S/390 line uses MCMs, with many chips integrated into a single large package (those are quite something -- see my previous mail in this thread for a link). IBM uses a variant of POWER (now onto POWER3, the third generation of the architecture) for it's AS/400s. But these are very different from the {360,370,390} ranges, which is what "IBM's mainframes" is more likely to refer to. David Wragg ###### From: j1234@sfsu.savemydomain.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 21 May 2000 02:25:32 GMT Organization: CSUnet Lines: 31 Message-ID: <8g7hes$1eoa3$1@hades.csu.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fs2bc$s85@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <392239D9.3DA89AF4@netinsight.se> <958559527.505832@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <8g4f40$1does$1@hades.csu.net> <6uya55t3kh.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: hou157-229.sfsu.edu User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.7 (sun4m)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.yosemite.net!nntp.csufresno.edu!newshub.csu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56784 Neil Franklin wrote: >> I thought the Origin 2000 was a Cray design. Possibly the mini model, the >> O 200, as well. > But it is only the link that is from Cray. SGI uses its MIPS > processors, while Cray used Alphas. While looking for the Sun info below, I found numerous references to the 2000 as the Cray Systems Origin 2000. >> Also, the Sun UE10000 (USparc) was a Cray design. Might have mentioned that >> before. > Now that surprises me. What Cray models does its architecture derive from? Sorry, can't seem to find a direct reference at the moment. I did find mention of a USparc based system designed by Cray and sold by Sun, called the CS6400. As far as references to Sun and Cray, I came across: http://www.mcc.ac.uk/newsletters/National/9312/9312.htm#931202 http://www.sun.com.pl/fd/sun_times/st7/st7_6.htm http://www.sun.com.mx/seccsun/historia.html I dont speak a word of Polish, so the second is pretty well beyond me. Assuming Im not completely off base, I was under the impression that the UE10000 purchased by Sun after Cray had designed it. I would guess this was an effort to bring in some cash, as Cray has been suffering for a while. jeremy ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392487FC.CD9F05AC@dallas.net> Organization: None X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) Lines: 21 Message-ID: <77KV4.37813$nm6.740156@news-east.usenetserver.com> X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 01:04:03 EDT Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 05:04:03 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!63.211.125.72!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!news-east.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56776 In article , David Wragg wrote: >kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) writes: >> I seem to recall reading in IBM Technical Journal a few years ago >> (pre-PowerPC) that the POWER CPUs were actually multichip modules (does >> that disqualify them from microhood?) and that the new mainframe CPUs >> were actually POWER CPUs with different microcode. > >IBM uses a variant of POWER (now onto POWER3, the third generation of >the architecture) for it's AS/400s. But these are very different from >the {360,370,390} ranges, which is what "IBM's mainframes" is more >likely to refer to. Yes, that's what I was referring to --- the 3[679]0 machines. From your recollections of S/390 hardware, it sounds like I was mistaken. -- Kragen Sitaker The Internet stock bubble didn't burst on 1999-11-08. Hurrah! The power didn't go out on 2000-01-01 either. :) ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8g4f40$1does$1@hades.csu.net> <6uya55t3kh.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8g7hes$1eoa3$1@hades.csu.net> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: tl@funcom.com (Torbjorn Lindgren) Lines: 44 Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 14:27:49 EDT Organization: WebUseNet Corp http://www.usenetserver.com - Home of the fastest NNTP servers on the Net. Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 18:27:49 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!news-west.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56780 wrote: >Neil Franklin wrote: >>> I thought the Origin 2000 was a Cray design. Possibly the mini model, the >>> O 200, as well. > >> But it is only the link that is from Cray. SGI uses its MIPS >> processors, while Cray used Alphas. > >While looking for the Sun info below, I found numerous references to >the 2000 as the Cray Systems Origin 2000. When the Origin 2000 was announced the biggest O2k machine you could buy from SGI was a 64 CPU version. There were a 128-cpu version available, but that one could only be bought from Cray... At least that's how it was over here in Norway. IIRC SGI Norway actually DID sell ONE machine with more than 64-cpu's during that period, the story I've heard was that this was in fact a mistake by someone :-) >>> Also, the Sun UE10000 (USparc) was a Cray design. Might have mentioned that >>> before. > >> Now that surprises me. What Cray models does its architecture derive from? > >Sorry, can't seem to find a direct reference at the moment. >I did find mention of a USparc based system designed by Cray and >sold by Sun, called the CS6400. As far as references to Sun and Cray, >I came across: >http://www.mcc.ac.uk/newsletters/National/9312/9312.htm#931202 >http://www.sun.com.pl/fd/sun_times/st7/st7_6.htm >http://www.sun.com.mx/seccsun/historia.html > >I dont speak a word of Polish, so the second is pretty well beyond me. >Assuming Im not completely off base, I was under the impression that the >UE10000 purchased by Sun after Cray had designed it. I would guess this >was an effort to bring in some cash, as Cray has been suffering for a >while. See this posting from John R. Mashey in the comp.arch group for more details: http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=610417264 ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 22 May 2000 14:13:50 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 21 Message-ID: <8gbfau$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B4BC3.7A4566D3@cfht.hawaii.edu> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g3ifm$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <8g3qhh$mja@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56843 Eric Chomko wrote: : Jay Maynard wrote: : : On 19 May 2000 14:18:30 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: : : >In fact the clone market lived and died by firmware piracy to : : >some degree. : : Please, trim that broad brush...Compaq, at least, never copied firmware; : I guess I was referring to the no-name clones. : : they developed it from scratch in the classic clean-room technique. IBM : : tried and failed to prove Compaq was copying way back when Compaq first hit : : the market. Even to this day, Compaq develops its own firmware. : I don't doubt it. But is it as good as Phoenix, Award and AMI? Let me amend my above statement, as Award, AMI and Phoenix, as a distant third. I fought all weekend long with a Phoenix BIOS, it is clearly not as good as the other two. Eric ###### Message-ID: <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 75 Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:14:30 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.121.55 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 959004870 63.15.121.55 (Mon, 22 May 2000 07:14:30 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 07:14:30 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56830 Eric Chomko wrote: > jchausler wrote: > > I think that the PDP-11 was very successful. It had a huge line of > products and was DEC's mainstay product for about a decade. True, I spent about 10 years managing a software group using an 11 as our development system (decdatasystem 570, an 11/70, the switch and light front panel from which is hanging on the wall next to me as I write this :-) primarily using the J-11 (we were an early adopter of it, had to sign a non-disclosure agreement). DEC's failing to my mind was not packaging it and marketing it as a micro to the hobby/home/ business work at a price comparable to IBM PC/Apple products. > Olsen > didn't see that the micro would eventually replace the mini once the VLSI > technology was fast enough. That was a costly error for DEC. Had the ALPHA > chip had the pedigree as did the 80x86 chips from Intel, then maybe DEC > wouldn't have have to be bought by Compaq. Possibly. The ALPHA came along a little too late to impact the early x86 world, just as did the 68000 and even the 6809 vs the 8 bit world. > I was going to say why not have both? The senior guy should have mandated > it! And the ones that were teed off should have been told to take a flying > leap. This "us vs. them" is totally out of sync with the "Hacker > Philosophy", where learning is above all else, especially petty politics. The "senior" guy was head of a development group but not a VP. The original line in the sand had been drawn by the mini folk basically saying that if a product was to be developed embedding a mini that the mini group, having the expertise, should be the one to do it. This cut any other group out of using a mini in a product. When the micro came out, the engineering group which had previously developed stuff with random logic drew their own line saying they should be the ones to develop any product embedding a micro for the same reasons. In one sense, this is not a bad argument. Why add the cost of developing the expertise twice. The department heads didn't respect each other (nobody else respected them either ;-) or even like each other. In reality, the line eventually dissolved as each group had enough to do to not need to cross the line and the department heads were eventually gone. It was just that I started using that lab's facilities just after the "second" line was drawn...... > DEC seemed to forget where they came from and become too much like a "big > company". It cost them. I always liked DEC, and then I got into > microprocessors. True. I was sort of raised with DEC, the first two small computers I used in college, the PDP-8 and Bendix G-15 lived in Gordon Bell's anti-office. When I went out into the real world, I spent my first 10 years using DG Nova's and Eclipse's until customer demand (and DG's own abandonment of the real-time world) caused us to switch to DEC about 1980 or so. The customer demand was as much due to DEC acting like a "big company" as any product quality issues. They were the "IBM" of the mini world. > Yes, I still look at that group (6809), but it seems that the SPAM to post > ratio is pretty high these days as the chip gets older and older... True but I still check it regularly, for "old time sake" if any other... > How long do you leave then exposed to the UV light? > Yes, My earlier question, how long? > 20 Minutes? I will try again and see. Again, it all depends on what you're using to erase them. Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 22 May 2000 14:16:32 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 25 Distribution: world Message-ID: <8gbfg0$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fegn5$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8fh3ms$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <8fp8of$e5r$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <8fpn41$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3925AA1D.CE1A8033@syscon-intl.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!newsin.iconnet.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56839 Carl Kreider wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > Some would argue that FLEX was NOT a failure. I didn't learn it as I use : > SSB DOS, but it did seem that FLEX was everywhere at one point. : ^^^^^^^^^ : That's why your name looked familiar. SSB DOS was _much_ better : than FLEX, but not many used it. It's encouraging to hear that as I never learned FLEX. Eric : -- : Carl Kreider : aka : [carlk|root]@syscon-intl.com (219) 232-3900 Ext 207 : ckreider@gte.net ckreider@acm.org ckreider@alumni.indiana.edu : Do, or do not. There is no try. : - Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ###### Message-ID: <392941A9.3D71D5A9@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <391B12F4.44EED04F@syscon-intl.com> <391C1FCD.337558F5@earthlink.net> <3925B6C1.F10AFFAF@syscon-intl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 25 Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:19:53 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.121.55 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 959005193 63.15.121.55 (Mon, 22 May 2000 07:19:53 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 07:19:53 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56832 Carl Kreider wrote: > The D2 is very sad shape. I don't think it runs anymore > but I keep it for old time's sake :) That I can understand. You should try and get it running, it can't be hard unless its been "smoked". The JBUG 6830 ROM is probably the only hard part to get and possibly the 6871 clock/crystal as well. If those are OK, you should be able to make it work. > Yeah, too long ago to remember. I read my version somewhere, > perhaps in Byte or Kilobaud, or perhaps in a trade rag. Maybe > an interview with Peddle. He certainly would be the one. I wonder where he is and what he's doing these days??? Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 22 May 2000 14:36:55 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 32 Distribution: world Message-ID: <8gbgm7$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE278.422590AD@trailing-edge.com> <8fh5av$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3925B046.D8390583@syscon-intl.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56840 Carl Kreider wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > I think that the two big video game systems, the Atari 2600 and the : > Mattel Intelivison (why do I think this will launch a new thread about the : > best early home video systems?) did NOT use the F-8. I'm not sure which : > ones were used in either but I thin the 2600 used a Mot chip (6807?). : 2600 used a 6502 IIRC. The cartridge was the only ROM it : had. In a sense, a PnP OS :) We are both wrong! I just checked the web looking for "Atari 2600 FAQ" and this site: http://www.tripoint.org/kevtris/2600.html stated that the 2600 uses a 6507! So it appears that we were both off by a single digit. :) Eric P.S. A 6507 is a 6502 wo/interrupts or the higher address lines bonded out. : -- : Carl Kreider : aka : [carlk|root]@syscon-intl.com (219) 232-3900 Ext 207 : ckreider@gte.net ckreider@acm.org ckreider@alumni.indiana.edu : Do, or do not. There is no try. : - Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 22 May 2000 14:43:24 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 15 Message-ID: <8gbh2c$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g3ifm$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <8g3qhh$mja@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!ams-newsfeed.speedport.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56838 Jay Maynard wrote: : On 19 May 2000 16:36:01 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: : >: Even to this day, Compaq develops its own firmware. : >I don't doubt it. But is it as good as Phoenix, Award and AMI? : In what sense? Overall, I'd have to say yes. Do you have some specific : problem in mind? No, but I guess the firmware is proprietary and their motherboards will only work with Compaq just like Dell makes all its own stuff too. I stay away from systems that used proprietary HW. I stopped using Intel and prefer clone "Pentiums" as well. Give me a AMD K6 over these slotted Intel cards anyday. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 22 May 2000 14:51:24 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 33 Message-ID: <8gbhhc$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> References: <8fnni6$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391FA2F5.5AA415D8@trailing-edge.com> <8fploc$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56842 Kragen Sitaker wrote: : In article <8fploc$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, : Eric Chomko wrote: : >Yes, those literally were the "good old days". Hacking has become a lost : >art to some degree with these superfast/small chips that make soldering : >nearly impossible. : > : >I stopped getting BYTE in the mid-80s as it was obvious that we were : >headed to where we are today. : This is a temporary situation; if we can keep them from making hacking : illegal (with things like the DMCA) new tech will come down the pike : that will be hackable again. Optical computing is in that state now, : although it's currently too damn expensive; gate arrays are in that : state now but not expensive; nanotech is promising in the medium to : long term. : And there's still software hacking --- free software has made this the : best time in decades to hack software. I suppose. But everything is GUI-based. I took a Java course (won't call it a "class" as the term is ambiguous :), and it was all command line stuff for the first 2/3 of the course. And them "BAMM!" graphics stuff. Man, I was lost. All this "black-box" graphics packages to "paint" windows, etc. I realized how green I was to event-driven GUI programming. Forget Java for now, I must learn generic GUI-based programming in an event driven system. Makes mean long for the days of a time-share system where 512K words was all that was needed to run every program. Eric ###### From: TJ Edmister Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 20:33:07 -0700 Organization: repository of old computer junk Lines: 25 Message-ID: <39260773.3786@hotmail.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919BEBD.2630@azstarnet.com> <39198D8C.3DB4ABAF@trailing-edge.com> <8fej1g$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391AE278.422590AD@trailing-edge.com> <8fh5av$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3925B046.D8390583@syscon-intl.com> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!news0.de.colt.net!blackbush.xlink.net!news-kar1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!uni-muenster.de!muenster.westfalen.de!news.khms.westfalen.de!127.0.0.1!NNTP-from-news.supernews.com!rQdQ!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56941 2600 had a 6507 which is a 6502 minus the interrupt lines and with a 13-bit address bus. Intellivision, I think, had something that was partially 16-bit and ran 10-bit code (maybe it was called the R100). Most video game systems have that sort of PnP OS Carl Kreider wrote: > > Eric Chomko wrote: > > > I think that the two big video game systems, the Atari 2600 and the > > Mattel Intelivison (why do I think this will launch a new thread about the > > best early home video systems?) did NOT use the F-8. I'm not sure which > > ones were used in either but I thin the 2600 used a Mot chip (6807?). > > 2600 used a 6502 IIRC. The cartridge was the only ROM it > had. In a sense, a PnP OS :) > > -- > Carl Kreider > aka > [carlk|root]@syscon-intl.com (219) 232-3900 Ext 207 > ckreider@gte.net ckreider@acm.org ckreider@alumni.indiana.edu > > Do, or do not. There is no try. > - Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fnni6$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fploc$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8gbhhc$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Organization: None X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) Lines: 19 Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:26:17 EDT Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:26:17 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!news-east.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56945 In article <8gbhhc$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: >I suppose. But everything is GUI-based. I took a Java course (won't call >it a "class" as the term is ambiguous :), and it was all command line >stuff for the first 2/3 of the course. And them "BAMM!" graphics stuff. >Man, I was lost. All this "black-box" graphics packages to "paint" >windows, etc. I realized how green I was to event-driven GUI programming. >Forget Java for now, I must learn generic GUI-based programming in an >event driven system. Makes mean long for the days of a time-share system >where 512K words was all that was needed to run every program. Event-based programming is definitely different, but I'm not sure it is inherently harder or less hackable. You can do some pretty nice GUIs in 512K words (I'm assuming you're talking about 36-bit words here :) -- Kragen Sitaker The Internet stock bubble didn't burst on 1999-11-08. Hurrah! The power didn't go out on 2000-01-01 either. :) ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g3ifm$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <8g3qhh$mja@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <8gbh2c$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 10:42:21 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-e1APhe9b7DPl++1jbxJlfK0KWrvhAC8nICsN7SKVk+844/nHekmyQtlnNPaZBtHQMjowC4FDgVDCwZF!dyyPkiYZTWlU8M6HoJd7Lw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:42:21 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!korova.insync.net!solomon.io.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56889 On 22 May 2000 14:43:24 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: >No, but I guess the firmware is proprietary and their motherboards will >only work with Compaq just like Dell makes all its own stuff too. I stay >away from systems that used proprietary HW. I stopped using Intel and >prefer clone "Pentiums" as well. Give me a AMD K6 over these slotted Intel >cards anyday. I'll agree that Compaq has, in the past, been pretty bad about requiring nonstandard hardware, but the current generation of Compaq systems are much better about that. (My experience here is with the ProLiant line of servers; I can't speak to the consumer products.) In general, a lot - but by no means all - of customers want to be able to add hardware from other vendors, and those desires have been heard. (Disclaimer: I work for Compaq, but I'm five layers of management below anyone who can speak for Compaq.) ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 23 May 2000 15:57:23 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 90 Message-ID: <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!naxos.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.eurocyber.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56907 jchausler wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: [...] : > : > I think that the PDP-11 was very successful. It had a huge line of : > products and was DEC's mainstay product for about a decade. : True, I spent about 10 years managing a software group using an 11 : as our development system (decdatasystem 570, an 11/70, the switch : and light front panel from which is hanging on the wall next to me as : I write this :-) primarily using the J-11 (we were an early adopter of : it, had to sign a non-disclosure agreement). DEC's failing to my mind : was not packaging it and marketing it as a micro to the hobby/home/ : business work at a price comparable to IBM PC/Apple products. That would have been a trick, getting the PDP-11 shrunk down to a micro and make it price comparable to an IBM PC. The Rainbow was disaster for DEC, as I recall. : > Olsen : > didn't see that the micro would eventually replace the mini once the VLSI : > technology was fast enough. That was a costly error for DEC. Had the ALPHA : > chip had the pedigree as did the 80x86 chips from Intel, then maybe DEC : > wouldn't have have to be bought by Compaq. : Possibly. The ALPHA came along a little too late to impact the early : x86 world, just as did the 68000 and even the 6809 vs the 8 bit world. I don't know, I think IBM was pretty close to using the 68000 in the PC, but since Intel offered to make the 8088, as a 8 bit external data bus of the 8086 at a lower cost, IBM chose Intel. : > I was going to say why not have both? The senior guy should have mandated : > it! And the ones that were teed off should have been told to take a flying : > leap. This "us vs. them" is totally out of sync with the "Hacker : > Philosophy", where learning is above all else, especially petty politics. : The "senior" guy was head of a development group but not a VP. The : original line in the sand had been drawn by the mini folk basically saying : that if a product was to be developed embedding a mini that the mini group, : having the expertise, should be the one to do it. This cut any other group : out of using a mini in a product. When the micro came out, the engineering : group which had previously developed stuff with random logic drew their : own line saying they should be the ones to develop any product embedding : a micro for the same reasons. In one sense, this is not a bad argument. : Why add the cost of developing the expertise twice. The department : heads didn't respect each other (nobody else respected them either ;-) : or even like each other. In reality, the line eventually dissolved as each : group had enough to do to not need to cross the line and the department : heads were eventually gone. It was just that I started using that lab's : facilities just after the "second" line was drawn...... Gotta love office politics... : > DEC seemed to forget where they came from and become too much like a "big : > company". It cost them. I always liked DEC, and then I got into : > microprocessors. : True. I was sort of raised with DEC, the first two small computers I used : in college, the PDP-8 and Bendix G-15 lived in Gordon Bell's anti-office. : When I went out into the real world, I spent my first 10 years using DG : Nova's and Eclipse's until customer demand (and DG's own abandonment : of the real-time world) caused us to switch to DEC about 1980 or so. : The customer demand was as much due to DEC acting like a "big : company" as any product quality issues. They were the "IBM" of the : mini world. My first mini was an Interdata 7/16. All the US schools overseas (military) had them in the mid to late 70s. When I went back to see Frankfurt American High School (now closed) back in 1991, they had switched over to PCs, which was understandable. : > Yes, I still look at that group (6809), but it seems that the SPAM to post : > ratio is pretty high these days as the chip gets older and older... : True but I still check it regularly, for "old time sake" if any other... Me too. : > How long do you leave then exposed to the UV light? : > Yes, My earlier question, how long? : > 20 Minutes? I will try again and see. : Again, it all depends on what you're using to erase them. I'll get the ligt specs. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 23 May 2000 16:08:47 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 26 Message-ID: <8geaef$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> References: <8fnni6$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391FA2F5.5AA415D8@trailing-edge.com> <8fploc$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8gbhhc$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!esel!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news-hog.berkeley.edu!nntp.inc.net!newsin.iconnet.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56909 Kragen Sitaker wrote: : In article <8gbhhc$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, : Eric Chomko wrote: : >I suppose. But everything is GUI-based. I took a Java course (won't call : >it a "class" as the term is ambiguous :), and it was all command line : >stuff for the first 2/3 of the course. And them "BAMM!" graphics stuff. : >Man, I was lost. All this "black-box" graphics packages to "paint" : >windows, etc. I realized how green I was to event-driven GUI programming. : >Forget Java for now, I must learn generic GUI-based programming in an : >event driven system. Makes mean long for the days of a time-share system : >where 512K words was all that was needed to run every program. : Event-based programming is definitely different, but I'm not sure it is : inherently harder or less hackable. You can do some pretty nice GUIs : in 512K words (I'm assuming you're talking about 36-bit words here :) Yes, an old UNIVAC 1106. Pretty good guess considering that many words of that era were 32 bit. Eric : -- : Kragen Sitaker : The Internet stock bubble didn't burst on 1999-11-08. Hurrah! : : The power didn't go out on 2000-01-01 either. :) ###### Message-ID: <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 42 Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:03:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.120.66 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 959101423 63.15.120.66 (Tue, 23 May 2000 10:03:43 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 10:03:43 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsf1.elp.rr.com!cyclone-west.rr.com!news.rr.com|news-west.rr.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56901 Eric Chomko wrote: > That would have been a trick, getting the PDP-11 shrunk down to a micro > and make it price comparable to an IBM PC. The Rainbow was disaster for > DEC, as I recall. The Rainbow was a disaster, they couldn't even make a cost effective PC. I can't speak directly to cost issues but DEC did have some desk-top 11's (I forget the name) running a version of RSX11M+ IIRC. The real problem I believe was that their marketing department didn't see this as a market and/or were unwilling to drop the SW prices for 11 stuff down to the level which would have been required to sell to that market. Like IBM, DEC was respected in the business world and could have sold into that world if it had tried (and had an appropriately priced product :-) > I don't know, I think IBM was pretty close to using the 68000 in the PC, > but since Intel offered to make the 8088, as a 8 bit external data bus of > the 8086 at a lower cost, IBM chose Intel. What a different world it would have been... Maybe even no M$. > My first mini was an Interdata 7/16. All the US schools overseas > (military) had them in the mid to late 70s. When I went back to see > Frankfurt American High School (now closed) back in 1991, they had > switched over to PCs, which was understandable. I recall seeing these machines but I never had the pleasure of programming them. I never did much with the PDP-8 either, most of my recreational mini programming was with the PDP-9 (if you consider that a mini). Once out into the real world, as I said in the previous post I left the DEC world and joined the DG world for about eight to ten years. Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 23 May 2000 21:54:43 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 44 Message-ID: <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 959111683 720 10.0.3.2 (23 May 2000 19:54:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 May 2000 19:54:43 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56946 Eric Chomko writes: > jchausler wrote: > > : it, had to sign a non-disclosure agreement). DEC's failing to my mind > : was not packaging it and marketing it as a micro to the hobby/home/ > : business work at a price comparable to IBM PC/Apple products. > > That would have been a trick, getting the PDP-11 shrunk down to a micro > and make it price comparable to an IBM PC. The Rainbow was disaster for > DEC, as I recall. Yes. A PC-11 would have sold a lot better, assuming DECs software division did not screw it up with its licensing policies. > : > Had the ALPHA > : > chip had the pedigree as did the 80x86 chips from Intel, then maybe DEC > : > wouldn't have have to be bought by Compaq. > > : Possibly. The ALPHA came along a little too late to impact the early > : x86 world, just as did the 68000 and even the 6809 vs the 8 bit world. > > I don't know, I think IBM was pretty close to using the 68000 in the PC, Nope. The 68000 was used in an laboratory computer 1 year after the PC. The PC never in its design history had anything non-Intel. > but since Intel offered to make the 8088, as a 8 bit external data bus of > the 8086 at a lower cost, IBM chose Intel. The 8088 predates the PC by 2 years. IBM used it because the group designing the PC had 8085 experience and were under time pressure. Also they took 8088 over the 8086 because the 8085 peripherals chips were easier to interface to it. Above is from an interview of the PC designers. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Guru, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, LARPer, Mystic Use a WIMP (Windows Icons Mouse Pulldowns) interface - or get one with a CLUE (Command Line User Environment)? ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 23 May 00 17:33:29 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 28 Message-ID: <1260.178T1462T10535219@sky.bus.com> References: <8fnni6$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fploc$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8gbhhc$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-185.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news-xfer.mccc.edu!pln-e!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news2 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56964 In article kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) writes: >In article <8gbhhc$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>, >Eric Chomko wrote: > >>I suppose. But everything is GUI-based. I took a Java course (won't >>call it a "class" as the term is ambiguous :), and it was all command >>line stuff for the first 2/3 of the course. And them "BAMM!" graphics >>stuff. Man, I was lost. All this "black-box" graphics packages to >>"paint" windows, etc. I realized how green I was to event-driven GUI >>programming. Forget Java for now, I must learn generic GUI-based >>programming in an event driven system. Makes mean long for the days >>of a time-share system where 512K words was all that was needed to >>run every program. > >Event-based programming is definitely different, but I'm not sure it is >inherently harder or less hackable. You can do some pretty nice GUIs >in 512K words (I'm assuming you're talking about 36-bit words here :) Heck, the Amiga got a lot of people into multitasking, GUIs, and event-driven programming in 512K 8-bit bytes (256K if you pulled the RAM expansion off the front of your A1000). -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### Message-ID: <392AEFCD.DB4F5782@mail.ptd.net> From: "Thomas M. Sommers" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.2-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 7 Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 20:58:20 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.186.211.26 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ptd.net X-Trace: nnrp1.ptd.net 959115500 204.186.211.26 (Tue, 23 May 2000 16:58:20 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 16:58:20 EDT Organization: PenTeleData http://www.ptd.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!naxos.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.eurocyber.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ptdnetP!ptdnetS!newsgate.ptd.net!nnrp1.ptd.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56958 Eric Chomko wrote: > > That would have been a trick, getting the PDP-11 shrunk down to a micro > and make it price comparable to an IBM PC. The Rainbow was disaster for > DEC, as I recall. They did make one that fit into a CAMAC crate. ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 00:28:18 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 23 Message-ID: <392B8492.A0489A1B@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56948 Eric Chomko wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > I don't know, I think IBM was pretty close to using the 68000 in the PC, > but since Intel offered to make the 8088, as a 8 bit external data bus of > the 8086 at a lower cost, IBM chose Intel. > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > I am fairly certain that Intel was *already* manufacturing the 8088 as an 8-bit chip *before* IBM decided to build the PC. I know because I remember seeing a blurb in BYTE magazine about how Intel's segmented architecture was so *bad* compared to the 68000 and Z-8000...and how BYTE thought it was doomed. Of course, they did *not* reckon on IBM building the 8088 into the PC. What I heard was that IBM considered the Motorola 68000 but chose the 8088 with the 8-bit data buss so that all the 8-bit support chips could be used. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392B8492.A0489A1B@dallas.net> Lines: 11 X-Newsreader: VSoup v1.2.9.37Beta [95/NT] Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 06:20:22 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.206.39.32 X-Trace: nnrp1.uunet.ca 959169394 205.206.39.32 (Wed, 24 May 2000 07:56:34 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 07:56:34 EDT Organization: UUNET Canada News Reader Service Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!howland.erols.net!torn!news.uunet.ca!nnrp1.uunet.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56978 In article <392B8492.A0489A1B@dallas.net>, Charles Richmond wrote: >I am fairly certain that Intel was *already* manufacturing the 8088 as an >8-bit chip *before* IBM decided to build the PC. I know because I remember >seeing a blurb in BYTE magazine about how Intel's segmented architecture > [ ... ] FWIW, Osborne added the 8086 chapter to _An Introduction to Microcomputers_ in January, 1979. (But no mention of the 8088.) Regards. Mel. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 24 May 2000 14:18:48 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 38 Message-ID: <8ggoc8$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-feed.fnsi.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56970 jchausler wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: [...] : > I don't know, I think IBM was pretty close to using the 68000 in the PC, : > but since Intel offered to make the 8088, as a 8 bit external data bus of : > the 8086 at a lower cost, IBM chose Intel. : What a different world it would have been... Maybe even no M$. Yes a different world indeed. I think M$ was destined to be regardless of which chip IBM had picked. Motorola might have been a microprocessor monopoly had Intel not gotten the IBM contract. : > My first mini was an Interdata 7/16. All the US schools overseas : > (military) had them in the mid to late 70s. When I went back to see : > Frankfurt American High School (now closed) back in 1991, they had : > switched over to PCs, which was understandable. : I recall seeing these machines but I never had the pleasure of : programming them. I never did much with the PDP-8 either, : most of my recreational mini programming was with the : PDP-9 (if you consider that a mini). Once out into the real : world, as I said in the previous post I left the DEC world : and joined the DG world for about eight to ten years. The Interdata systems were dubbed "IBM 360-like architecture" mini. I programmed a 370 years later and found that though some of the addressing modes were similar and the Store File instruction, which allowed you to copy part or all of the registers to memory, the 360/370 was 32 bit and the 7/16 was 16 bit, end of story. Now, Interdata did make a 8/32 system that probably was a heck of a minicomputer. But tyhey seemed to disappear after that system, probably another victum of the coming microprocessor! Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 24 May 2000 14:23:30 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 25 Message-ID: <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!netnews.com!newsin.iconnet.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56971 Neil Franklin wrote: : Eric Chomko writes: [...] : > I don't know, I think IBM was pretty close to using the 68000 in the PC, : Nope. The 68000 was used in an laboratory computer 1 year after the : PC. The PC never in its design history had anything non-Intel. I'm pretty sure IBM considered using the 68000 at one point in its priginal plans for the IBM PC, but went with Intel instead. Maybe it was ploy to get Intel to drop their price, I don't know. : > but since Intel offered to make the 8088, as a 8 bit external data bus of : > the 8086 at a lower cost, IBM chose Intel. : The 8088 predates the PC by 2 years. IBM used it because the group : designing the PC had 8085 experience and were under time pressure. : Also they took 8088 over the 8086 because the 8085 peripherals chips : were easier to interface to it. Above is from an interview of the PC : designers. The took the 8088 over the 8086 because the cost of memory was cheaper using an 8 bit data bus rather than a 16 bit data bus. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 24 May 2000 14:28:00 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 31 Message-ID: <8ggotg$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392B8492.A0489A1B@dallas.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!skynet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56977 Charles Richmond wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > : > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] : > : > I don't know, I think IBM was pretty close to using the 68000 in the PC, : > but since Intel offered to make the 8088, as a 8 bit external data bus of : > the 8086 at a lower cost, IBM chose Intel. : > : > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] : > : I am fairly certain that Intel was *already* manufacturing the 8088 as an : 8-bit chip *before* IBM decided to build the PC. I know because I remember : seeing a blurb in BYTE magazine about how Intel's segmented architecture : was so *bad* compared to the 68000 and Z-8000...and how BYTE thought it was : doomed. Of course, they did *not* reckon on IBM building the 8088 into the : PC. What I heard was that IBM considered the Motorola 68000 but chose the : 8088 with the 8-bit data buss so that all the 8-bit support chips could be : used. The 68008 is a 68000 with an 8 bit bus. I guess it came out later. Anyway, the 68000 has a way of allowing the user to do byte addressing and used all the 6800 support chips in the beginning. I was pretty sure memory and the cost of using 16 bits was why IBM chose the 8088 over the 68000. Eric : -- : +-------------------------------------------------------------+ : | Charles and Francis Richmond | : +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: "Liberal Republican" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 17:32:58 +0100 Message-ID: <959186339.23241.5.nnrp-06.9e98250c@news.demon.co.uk> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8ggoc8$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cemetery.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: cemetery.demon.co.uk:158.152.37.12 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 959186339 nnrp-06:23241 NO-IDENT cemetery.demon.co.uk:158.152.37.12 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Lines: 10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!cemetery.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56998 Eric Chomko wrote in message news:8ggoc8$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net... >Now, Interdata did make a 8/32 system > that probably was a heck of a minicomputer. But tyhey seemed to disappear > after that system, probably another victum of the coming microprocessor! They became part of Perkin-Elmer. I used and programmed them in 84 - 87 ###### From: roggblake@inamme.com (Roger Blake) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8ggoc8$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <959186339.23241.5.nnrp-06.9e98250c@news.demon.co.uk> X-No-Archive: Yes Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.7 (UNIX) Lines: 11 Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 16:57:49 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.226.157.67 X-Complaints-To: noc@capu.net X-Trace: news.abs.net 959187469 207.226.157.67 (Wed, 24 May 2000 12:57:49 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:57:49 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!nntp.abs.net!news.abs.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:56968 On Wed, 24 May 2000 17:32:58 +0100, Liberal Republican wrote: >They became part of Perkin-Elmer. I used and programmed them in 84 - 87 They're still around and are operating with a skeleton crew to maintain their installed base. (A friend of a friend who has been with them since Interdata days will probably be the one to switch the lights out and lock the front door when they finally shut down entirely...) -- Roger Blake (remove second "g" and second "m" from address for email) ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 24 May 2000 21:01:55 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 60 Message-ID: <6un1lf22n0.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 959194915 541 10.0.3.2 (24 May 2000 19:01:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 May 2000 19:01:55 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57001 Eric Chomko writes: > Neil Franklin wrote: > : Eric Chomko writes: > [...] > : > I don't know, I think IBM was pretty close to using the 68000 in the PC, > > : Nope. The 68000 was used in an laboratory computer 1 year after the > : PC. The PC never in its design history had anything non-Intel. > > I'm pretty sure IBM considered using the 68000 at one point in its > priginal plans for the IBM PC, but went with Intel instead. Maybe it was > ploy to get Intel to drop their price, I don't know. From Byte Sept 1990, Page 414ff: The Creation of the IBM PC, by David J Bradley (one of its designers) In August 1980, I had finished my work on what eas to become the IBM System/23 Datamaster ... ... was an 8085 based system ... ... we ran up against the limits of the 64k address space ... ... There were a number of reasons we chose the Intel 8088 ... : 1. The 64k limit had to be overcome 2. The processor and its peripherals had to be available immediately 3. We couldn't afford a long learning period 4. There had to be both OS and Apps available We narrowed our decision down to the Intel 8086 or 8088. The Boca Raton engineers fer familiar with these ... ... We chose the 8088 for its 8 bit data bus. The smaller bus saved money in the areas of RAM, ROM and logic fo ran simple system. Fazit: no trace of 68k mentioned, no trace of price pushing. > : > but since Intel offered to make the 8088, as a 8 bit external data bus of > : > the 8086 at a lower cost, IBM chose Intel. > > : The 8088 predates the PC by 2 years. IBM used it because the group > : designing the PC had 8085 experience and were under time pressure. > : Also they took 8088 over the 8086 because the 8085 peripherals chips > : were easier to interface to it. Above is from an interview of the PC > : designers. > > The took the 8088 over the 8086 because the cost of memory was cheaper > using an 8 bit data bus rather than a 16 bit data bus. And that is mainly the peripherals. The photo of the wire wrapped prototype vlearly has 2*9 RAM chip sockets, so that would serve just as well on an 8086. Equally the 6 8-bit ROM sockets. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Guru, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, LARPer, Mystic Use a WIMP (Windows Icons Mouse Pulldowns) interface - or get one with a CLUE (Command Line User Environment)? ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 24 May 00 15:38:24 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 15 Message-ID: <524.179T1246T9384107@sky.bus.com> References: <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-887.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.man.poznan.pl!news.task.gda.pl!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!skynet.be!208.171.248.21.MISMATCH!pln-e!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news1 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57019 In article <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> chomko@IDT.NET (Eric Chomko) writes: >I'm pretty sure IBM considered using the 68000 at one point in its >priginal plans for the IBM PC, but went with Intel instead. Maybe >it was ploy to get Intel to drop their price, I don't know. When did IBM start buying up Intel stock? I recall reading sometime in late '82 or early '83 that IBM had increased its share of Intel from 12% to 30%. -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### Message-ID: <392BA00B.A5669B15@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 52 Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 09:25:33 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 959160333 194.16.221.33 (Wed, 24 May 2000 11:25:33 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:25:33 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!news-sto.telia.net!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57026 Eric Chomko wrote: > > jchausler wrote: > > : Eric Chomko wrote: > [...] > : > > : > I think that the PDP-11 was very successful. It had a huge line of > : > products and was DEC's mainstay product for about a decade. > > : True, I spent about 10 years managing a software group using an 11 > : as our development system (decdatasystem 570, an 11/70, the switch > : and light front panel from which is hanging on the wall next to me as > : I write this :-) primarily using the J-11 (we were an early adopter of > : it, had to sign a non-disclosure agreement). DEC's failing to my mind > : was not packaging it and marketing it as a micro to the hobby/home/ > : business work at a price comparable to IBM PC/Apple products. > > That would have been a trick, getting the PDP-11 shrunk down to a micro > and make it price comparable to an IBM PC. The Rainbow was disaster for > DEC, as I recall. They called it the Professional... It was a disaster too, perhaps even more than the Rainbow. For some obscure reason they did a brain damaged version of RSX for the system, had a proprietary bus, incompatible (with PDP-11s) interrupt scheme, and never had enough applications. The PRO-350 and PRO-325 was also based on the F-11 which meant max 256 Kbyte of memory. The PRO-380 was a much needed improvement, but by then it was too late. I guess the price wasn't on the cheap side either, but that could have been excused if it had been good enough. Hmmm, thinking of it, perhaps the biggest drawback of the PRO was that it wasn't IBM compatible. That factor can't be stressed enough. All applications got written for the IBM PC, and clones fought hard to get their machines IBM compatible. DEC didn't, and DEC lost. Perhaps this is one reason why DEC then tried to become a new IBM. Companies bought the IBM PC not because it was a good product (it wasn't) but because it had the IBM label on it. ("Noone ever got fired for buying IBM".) DEC crashed and burned after trying to become a copy of IBM, IMHO. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 17:45:47 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 40 Message-ID: <392C77BA.2F1B029B@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392B8492.A0489A1B@dallas.net> <8ggotg$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!howland.erols.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57008 Eric Chomko wrote: > > Charles Richmond wrote: > : Eric Chomko wrote: > : > > : > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > : > > : > I don't know, I think IBM was pretty close to using the 68000 in the PC, > : > but since Intel offered to make the 8088, as a 8 bit external data bus of > : > the 8086 at a lower cost, IBM chose Intel. > : > > : > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > : > > : I am fairly certain that Intel was *already* manufacturing the 8088 as an > : 8-bit chip *before* IBM decided to build the PC. I know because I remember > : seeing a blurb in BYTE magazine about how Intel's segmented architecture > : was so *bad* compared to the 68000 and Z-8000...and how BYTE thought it was > : doomed. Of course, they did *not* reckon on IBM building the 8088 into the > : PC. What I heard was that IBM considered the Motorola 68000 but chose the > : 8088 with the 8-bit data buss so that all the 8-bit support chips could be > : used. > > The 68008 is a 68000 with an 8 bit bus. I guess it came out later. Anyway, > the 68000 has a way of allowing the user to do byte addressing and used > all the 6800 support chips in the beginning. I was pretty sure memory and > the cost of using 16 bits was why IBM chose the 8088 over the 68000. > This could be, but I do *not* understand what you mean about memory...the same memory could be used with the 68000 that was used with the 8088. You just have to wire it up differently. But you could use the same type of memory chips. Also in this thread someone mentioned that the IBM minicomputer people would have felt threatened by the PC people putting out a 16-bit machine. This probably has a lot of truth in it. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 17:51:43 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 27 Message-ID: <392C791F.8D0F3541@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8ggoc8$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!feeder.via.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57004 Eric Chomko wrote: > > [sip...] [sip...] [snip...] > > The Interdata systems were dubbed "IBM 360-like architecture" mini. I > programmed a 370 years later and found that though some of the addressing > modes were similar and the Store File instruction, which allowed you to > copy part or all of the registers to memory, the 360/370 was 32 bit and > the 7/16 was 16 bit, end of story. Now, Interdata did make a 8/32 system > that probably was a heck of a minicomputer. But tyhey seemed to disappear > after that system, probably another victum of the coming microprocessor! > The Space Shuttle simulator was built around a UNIVAC mainframe (1108, I think) and *four* Interdata 8/32's. The Interdatas were used to handle all the cockpit instrument inputs. (Maybe they handled the scenes on the windows too...I do *not* know.) Someone mentioned that Interdata stuff was taken over by Perkin-Elmer. Knowing how NASA and military projects work, I am sure they require support for these 8/32's and may have bought up a few for parts just in case. These contracts tend to build in a certain type of computer and then they just *have* to have one to keep things going. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: bruce+usenet2@NOSPAMfanboy.net (Bruce Tomlin) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Organization: San Antonio, TX Lines: 9 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 21:49:58 CDT X-Trace: sv2-Uxq9dKgmuWp5O6Zkp9t7A8QnoBXUGFbUAP+/5wB5wR3uuCEJcQdZMowCuY015d2Ms4L71cFermm5iDg!51nzpbJsAABq95YdgQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 21:50:34 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!152.163.239.129!portc01.blue.aol.com!nntp2.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news6.giganews.com.POSTED!atuin.bruce!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57084 In article <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: > I'm pretty sure IBM considered using the 68000 at one point in its > priginal plans for the IBM PC, but went with Intel instead. Maybe it was > ploy to get Intel to drop their price, I don't know. The way I heard it, Motorola wouldn't commit to the ship date that IBM wanted, and Intel would. Ironically, the 68000 was ready before IBM's date. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392BA00B.A5669B15@netinsight.se> Organization: Daedalus Consulting X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Message-ID: <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Cache-Post-Path: shelley.paradise.net.nz!unknown@203-96-144-16.cable.paradise.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 37 Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 08:56:21 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.96.152.26 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 959244981 203.96.152.26 (Thu, 25 May 2000 20:56:21 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 20:56:21 NZST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57077 Johnny Billquist wrote: >and never had enough applications. The PRO-350 and PRO-325 was also >based on the F-11 which meant max 256 Kbyte of memory. The PRO-380 Um, the F11 is perfectly capable of addressing a 22 bit bus. Early KDF11-As only brought out 18 bits, but later ones (and all KDF11-Bs) brought out the full 22. The 11/24 came with a Unibus map to let it map all 22 bits too. (Or was the KT-24 optional?) >Hmmm, thinking of it, perhaps the biggest drawback of the PRO was >that it wasn't IBM compatible. That factor can't be stressed >enough. All applications got written for the IBM PC, and clones fought >hard to get their machines IBM compatible. DEC didn't, and DEC lost. DEC never got the hang of the desktop market. Up until they started re-badging Tandy machines, all desktop machines were either niche efforts, abject failures, or more often both. Lessee, there's the Robin, the Pro, the Rainbow and the VAXmate as the abject failures. Moderately successful in their own little niche were the DECmate line, but there really are limits to what you can do with a PDP-8 derivative... (Watch me get flamed to a crisp for that last comment... 8-) >Perhaps this is one reason why DEC then tried to become a new IBM. >Companies bought the IBM PC not because it was a good product (it >wasn't) but because it had the IBM label on it. ("Noone ever got >fired for buying IBM".) That's a big factor, but IBM (uncharacteristically) managed to fold the major virtues of the Apple ][ (king of the 8-bit hill at the time) into the thing, without also introducing too many of its (many) vices. That meant that the thing was actually viable, as opposed to previous IBM machines which had suffered much the same fate as DEC's efforts (only with a bigger price tag). -- don ###### From: mc@hack.org Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 12:10:14 +0200 Organization: Temple of the Moby Hack Lines: 29 Sender: mc@caerbannogh.area41.hack.org Message-ID: <87ya4zvt2w.fsf@caerbannogh.area41.hack.org> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392B8492.A0489A1B@dallas.net> <8ggotg$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: mc@hack.org NNTP-Posting-Host: h246n3fls20o974.telia.com Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: hitler.sno.pp.se 959249423 29795 212.181.166.246 (25 May 2000 10:10:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@sno.pp.se NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 May 2000 10:10:23 GMT X-Waved: Chicken (dead). Curse all those damn UCE bots! X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.6.45/Emacs 19.34 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!newnews.hk-r.se!news.lth.se!grendel.df.lth.se!snopp!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57097 Eric Chomko writes: > The 68008 is a 68000 with an 8 bit bus. I guess it came out later. I don't remember when I first saw one, but the Luxor ABC 1600 personal workstation, a Swedish low end Unix `PC', was based on a 68008. A stupid choice for a Unix machine if you ask me, but the ABC 1600 ran fine (for some value of ``fine'') with 1 MiB RAM and a 12.5 MiB hard disk. The Unix used was ABCenix, a slightly modified Xenix. Later ABCenix evolved into DNIX, the Unix of Diab Data. I think Diab is still around as a compiler company, but the computer division was bought by Bull. The ABC 1600 came with a large _twistable_ bitmapped monitor. I used to use it in portrait mode for maximum amount of visible lines of code at the same time. It also featured a primitive window system and a mouse, called, I believe, the R8. This is hilarious if you know some Swedish. I bought my first ABC 1600 in 1987 or 1988, I believe. I bought it used. The ABC 1600 was a commercial failure. The bigger models in the same line (as sold by Diab, not Luxor), the DS90/xx, was a commercial success and was, I believe, based on 68010 (DS90/00) and up. -- Mikael "MC" Cardell Temple of the Moby Hack Bomb the temple at 58.415018 N, 15.608618 E! ###### From: "Roger Johnstone" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:34:30 +1200 Organization: Ihug Limited (Invercargill) Lines: 27 Message-ID: <959250858.425932@inv.ihug.co.nz> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392B8492.A0489A1B@dallas.net> <8ggotg$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <392C77BA.2F1B029B@dallas.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: inv.ihug.co.nz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.01 (295) Cache-Post-Path: inv.ihug.co.nz!unknown@p41-max1.inv.ihug.co.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.yosemite.net!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57018 ---------- In article <392C77BA.2F1B029B@dallas.net>, Charles Richmond wrote: >This could be, but I do *not* understand what you mean about >memory...the same memory could be used with the 68000 that was >used with the 8088. You just have to wire it up differently. >But you could use the same type of memory chips. > >Also in this thread someone mentioned that the IBM minicomputer people would >have felt threatened by the PC people putting out a 16-bit machine. >This probably has a lot of truth in it. Surely the 68000 is a 32-bit processor? I know it only had a 16-bit data bus. Something I've never understood, is the number of companies who used it, but only described it as a 16-bit. You would think they would have been falling all over themselves to boast that there computer was a 32-bit, yet they seem to have been very shy to do so. e.g. Sega Megadrive/Genesis actually had "16 bit" stamped on the front and most references to the Amiga or Atari ST called it a 16-bit computer. Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rojaws ------------------------------------------ My software never has bugs. It just develops random features. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: <2000May25.111349.2270@lorelei.approve.se> Originator: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Sender: hoh@lorelei.approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Organization: [1] + 5934 done /bin/rm -rf ~/ & X-No-Archive: yes X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test66 (4 June 1998) References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392B8492.A0489A1B@dallas.net> <8ggotg$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <87ya4zvt2w.fsf@caerbannogh.area41.hack.org> Lines: 49 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.216.141 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 959253490 130.244.216.141 (Thu, 25 May 2000 13:18:10 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 13:18:10 MET DST X-Sender: q-11932@isdn216-1-141.swipnet.se Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 11:13:49 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57071 In article <87ya4zvt2w.fsf@caerbannogh.area41.hack.org>, wrote: > The Unix used was ABCenix, a slightly modified Xenix. Later ABCenix > evolved into DNIX, the Unix of Diab Data. I think Diab is still around > as a compiler company, but the computer division was bought by Bull. ABCenix was divided into two parts, the kernel with essential userland programs, and the development system with the rest of the userland programs. The ABCenix kernel was a version of DNIX with different device drivers and it had nothing to do with Xenix. It didn't even look like a traditional Unix kernel inside as it had a realtime kernel (with its own set of system calls) with a Unix layer around it. The development system with its userland programs, however, was licensed from Xenix. This arrangement made it possible to sell a turnkey system without the extra license costs for the Xenix parts. The DNIX/ABCenix had some nice features that I miss from more modern Unix kernels. In DNIX/ABCenix a program could "mount" itself on a directory and any file system access to that directory (and any path below it) would be sent as a message to that program. The program would then act as a filesystem. This was used for the ABCnet network system (access to other systems as /net/machine_name/path) and the window system (all windows were available as "files" in /win). > The ABC 1600 came with a large _twistable_ bitmapped monitor. I used It was 1024 x 768 with overscan and it was a very good monitor for its time. > I bought my first ABC 1600 in 1987 or 1988, I believe. I bought it > used. The ABC 1600 was a commercial failure. The bigger models in the > same line (as sold by Diab, not Luxor), the DS90/xx, was a commercial > success and was, I believe, based on 68010 (DS90/00) and up. The Diab systems and the Luxor systems had much in common, but they were done by different companies. Diab had different DS90 systems and Luxor sold a rebadged DS90 as ABC9000 and its own ABC1600 (X35) with the intention of using the ABC9000 as a fileserver. At the time the line was killed Luxor had some prototypes for the next system (X37) with 68010, more memory, and color graphics. It is difficult to say if they were a commercial failure or not as the Luxor computer products were killed when Nokia bought Luxor for their sat. receiver technology. Diab wasn't bought by Nokia and was therefore not treated the wasy Luxor was. Who knows what would have happened if Nokia hadn't killed the Luxor computers? -- Göran Larsson hoh AT approve DOT se Senior Systems Analyst ###### From: "river" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 21:27:29 +1000 Organization: Pacific Internet (Australia) Lines: 62 Message-ID: <8gj23a$iq7$1@nina.pacific.net.au> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: brian-boitano140.zip.com.au X-Trace: nina.pacific.net.au 959253419 19271 210.23.147.140 (25 May 2000 11:16:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacific.net.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 May 2000 11:16:59 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!newsfeed.zip.com.au!news.syd.pacific.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57048 hi, ibm did make a 68000 based lab computer - but i think it was after the pc. the 8088 came out a couple of years after the 8086. i think the 8086 came out in late 1978 - but i'll have to check. don't forget, at the time, the biggest selling pc's were 6502 (apple 11) and z80 (various systems). sure, the 6502 is a great little processor, but, an 8088 with 512k of ram was soooo much more powerful! intel regarded the 8088 as an 8-bit device, so it was cheaper for interfacing memory (no need to double your 8bit drams to give a 16bit number) and you could use the wealth of 8080/85 interface chips. then again, a 16bit processor could use the same interface chips - you just do byte operations. and some interface chips, imho, would be dumb if they were 16bits - for example, what benefit would a 16-bit (or 32 bit) usart chip offer? ibm, at the time of the pc, consisted of many groups and maybe these other groups would get a little peeved if the pc division produced a machine that was as powerful as some of their minis and was cheaper. ibm, i think, at that time, was still largely dependant upon the revenues of their mainframes -support, software and leasing, and i don't think they thought the pc would take off like it did. then ibm brought out the pc/at. massive size - a real mans computer - 10kg of metal that sat on your desk and ran at a whopping 6mhz!!!!! from that point on, things just got bigger and quicker and i reckon that was when the home-grown systems started to die off. there wasn't much being made in the way of 8bit development kits, from the early-mid 80s. have u tried to program an 8086 system in hex, using a keypad and 7segment display - aka sdk86 system? it's a bitch. i can sit down and roll out plenty of 8bit code on the z80,8080/85,6502 and 6800 systems, but i found it teadious and error-prone to try and program the 16bitters that easily. the ti9900 was another that was a bitch to program unless you had some form of assembler to make it easier. funnily enough, i found the old 2650 (8 bitter) also harder to program 'cos of the way its instruction set was constructed. seeyuzz river ###### Message-ID: <392CE999.697C228C@trailing-edge.com> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 08:51:37 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392BA00B.A5669B15@netinsight.se> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 19 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader1.news.uu.net 959259098 22692 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.online.be!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.cybercity.dk!zur.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!spool1.news.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader1.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57045 Don Stokes wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > >and never had enough applications. The PRO-350 and PRO-325 was also > >based on the F-11 which meant max 256 Kbyte of memory. The PRO-380 > > Um, the F11 is perfectly capable of addressing a 22 bit bus. Early > KDF11-As only brought out 18 bits, but later ones (and all KDF11-Bs) > brought out the full 22. The 11/24 came with a Unibus map to let it > map all 22 bits too. (Or was the KT-24 optional?) It was an option, but *almost* all systems with more than 256Kbytes had it installed. Why the *almost*? You didn't need the KT24 unless you wanted to do I/O above 256kBytes! The processor itself was quite capable of addressing up to 4 Mbytes without it. Tim. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 13:26:08 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 35 Message-ID: <8gj9lg$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392BA00B.A5669B15@netinsight.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-feed.fnsi.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57037 Johnny Billquist wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > [...] : > That would have been a trick, getting the PDP-11 shrunk down to a micro : > and make it price comparable to an IBM PC. The Rainbow was disaster for : > DEC, as I recall. : They called it the Professional... : It was a disaster too, perhaps even more than the Rainbow. For some : obscure reason they did a brain damaged version of RSX for the system, : had a proprietary bus, incompatible (with PDP-11s) interrupt scheme, : and never had enough applications. The PRO-350 and PRO-325 was also : based on the F-11 which meant max 256 Kbyte of memory. The PRO-380 : was a much needed improvement, but by then it was too late. : I guess the price wasn't on the cheap side either, but that could : have been excused if it had been good enough. : Hmmm, thinking of it, perhaps the biggest drawback of the PRO was : that it wasn't IBM compatible. That factor can't be stressed : enough. All applications got written for the IBM PC, and clones fought : hard to get their machines IBM compatible. DEC didn't, and DEC lost. : Perhaps this is one reason why DEC then tried to become a new IBM. : Companies bought the IBM PC not because it was a good product (it : wasn't) but because it had the IBM label on it. ("Noone ever got : fired for buying IBM".) : DEC crashed and burned after trying to become a copy of IBM, IMHO. The irony of course is that DEC made a name for themselves by providing a good alternative to IBM at a very reasonable cost. And then as you stated they tried to mimic them and failed. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 13:29:12 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 14 Message-ID: <8gj9r8$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8ggoc8$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <959186339.23241.5.nnrp-06.9e98250c@news.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57034 Liberal Republican wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote in message : news:8ggoc8$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net... : >Now, Interdata did make a 8/32 system : > that probably was a heck of a minicomputer. But tyhey seemed to disappear : > after that system, probably another victum of the coming microprocessor! : They became part of Perkin-Elmer. I used and programmed them in 84 - 87 What ever happened to P-E? Are they still making systems? Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 13:33:55 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 20 Message-ID: <8gja43$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8ggoc8$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <959186339.23241.5.nnrp-06.9e98250c@news.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57031 Roger Blake wrote: : On Wed, 24 May 2000 17:32:58 +0100, Liberal Republican wrote: : >They became part of Perkin-Elmer. I used and programmed them in 84 - 87 : They're still around and are operating with a skeleton crew to maintain : their installed base. (A friend of a friend who has been with them since : Interdata days will probably be the one to switch the lights out and lock : the front door when they finally shut down entirely...) This answers my question from the previous post. Sounds kind of like a sad environment. I've shut out the lights before in a operation, and let me tell you, folks treat you like you have leaporsy when you're out trying to get picked up by a new operation. At least that was the way it was for me. The thougt is that all you know is that which has now beome obsolete. Had to reinvent myself as I was dubbed knowing only "old iron" and FORTRAN. Now, those same folks are happy to be a sub in a C/Unix based contract using Suns and SGIs that I am a lead in. Sweet revenge! Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 13:41:19 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 57 Message-ID: <8gjahv$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <6un1lf22n0.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57042 Neil Franklin wrote: : Eric Chomko writes: [...] : > I'm pretty sure IBM considered using the 68000 at one point in its : > priginal plans for the IBM PC, but went with Intel instead. Maybe it was : > ploy to get Intel to drop their price, I don't know. : From Byte Sept 1990, Page 414ff: : The Creation of the IBM PC, by David J Bradley (one of its designers) : In August 1980, I had finished my work on what eas to become the IBM : System/23 Datamaster ... : .. was an 8085 based system ... : .. we ran up against the limits of the 64k address space ... : .. There were a number of reasons we chose the Intel 8088 ... : : 1. The 64k limit had to be overcome : 2. The processor and its peripherals had to be available immediately : 3. We couldn't afford a long learning period : 4. There had to be both OS and Apps available : We narrowed our decision down to the Intel 8086 or 8088. The Boca : Raton engineers fer familiar with these ... : .. We chose the 8088 for its 8 bit data bus. The smaller bus saved : money in the areas of RAM, ROM and logic fo ran simple system. Why mention RAM and ROM if its NOT a factor? Does using a 8086 (What speed were they at that time -MHz?) cripple the chip by making it do a byte access vs. a 16 bit fetch? The 8088 was 4.77 MHz. What would the 8086 throughput have been? : Fazit: no trace of 68k mentioned, no trace of price pushing. Yes, but that does not make it conclusive. All that you have shown is that it was not mentioned in the Byte article. Touche'. Didn't mean that the 68K was NOT considered. : > : The 8088 predates the PC by 2 years. IBM used it because the group : > : designing the PC had 8085 experience and were under time pressure. : > : Also they took 8088 over the 8086 because the 8085 peripherals chips : > : were easier to interface to it. Above is from an interview of the PC : > : designers. : > : > The took the 8088 over the 8086 because the cost of memory was cheaper : > using an 8 bit data bus rather than a 16 bit data bus. : And that is mainly the peripherals. The photo of the wire wrapped : prototype vlearly has 2*9 RAM chip sockets, so that would serve just : as well on an 8086. Equally the 6 8-bit ROM sockets. But would byte oriented memory work as well on an 8086? Is the 8086 byte addressable? The 68K is. I think that to fully utilize the 8086, that you'd have to do 16 bit accesses and that was too costly. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 13:46:29 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 26 Message-ID: <8gjarl$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392B8492.A0489A1B@dallas.net> <8ggotg$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <392C77BA.2F1B029B@dallas.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57041 Charles Richmond wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > [...] : > The 68008 is a 68000 with an 8 bit bus. I guess it came out later. Anyway, : > the 68000 has a way of allowing the user to do byte addressing and used : > all the 6800 support chips in the beginning. I was pretty sure memory and : > the cost of using 16 bits was why IBM chose the 8088 over the 68000. : > : This could be, but I do *not* understand what you mean about : memory...the same memory could be used with the 68000 that was : used with the 8088. You just have to wire it up differently. : But you could use the same type of memory chips. Its the difference with implementing ISA-8 before making ISA-16. IBM deemed making the ISA-8 as more economically as the start up system. Using an ISA-8 on a 16 bit microprocessor like the 8086 or 68000 would have crippled the processor too much. : Also in this thread someone mentioned that the IBM minicomputer people would : have felt threatened by the PC people putting out a 16-bit machine. : This probably has a lot of truth in it. Who were the IBM minicomputer peolpe in 1980? The 5100 series? Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 13:50:05 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 31 Message-ID: <8gjb2d$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8ggoc8$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <392C791F.8D0F3541@dallas.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!news-feed.fnsi.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57035 Charles Richmond wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > : > [sip...] [sip...] [snip...] : > : > The Interdata systems were dubbed "IBM 360-like architecture" mini. I : > programmed a 370 years later and found that though some of the addressing : > modes were similar and the Store File instruction, which allowed you to : > copy part or all of the registers to memory, the 360/370 was 32 bit and : > the 7/16 was 16 bit, end of story. Now, Interdata did make a 8/32 system : > that probably was a heck of a minicomputer. But tyhey seemed to disappear : > after that system, probably another victum of the coming microprocessor! : > : The Space Shuttle simulator was built around a UNIVAC mainframe (1108, I : think) and *four* Interdata 8/32's. The Interdatas were used to handle all : the cockpit instrument inputs. (Maybe they handled the scenes on the windows : too...I do *not* know.) : Someone mentioned that Interdata stuff was taken over by Perkin-Elmer. : Knowing how NASA and military projects work, I am sure they require : support for these 8/32's and may have bought up a few for parts just : in case. These contracts tend to build in a certain type of computer : and then they just *have* to have one to keep things going. Yes, the project that I mentioned where I turned off the lights, so to speak, was based upon a SEL/Gould/Encore 32/77. We couldn't even upgrade the OS (MPX) to the latest version do to prototype interface hardware. Yes, the govt. contract business, though pushing COTS, still likes prototype stuff. Eric ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 09:00:17 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 37 Message-ID: <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!152.163.239.129!portc01.blue.aol.com!peerfeed.news.psi.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.uiowa.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57061 In article <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net>, jchausler wrote: >Eric Chomko wrote: >> I don't know, I think IBM was pretty close to using the 68000 in the PC, >> but since Intel offered to make the 8088, as a 8 bit external data bus of >> the 8086 at a lower cost, IBM chose Intel. >What a different world it would have been... Maybe even no M$. "Maybe" ??? With a 68000, there would have been no desire for a CP/M clone to run the thing, which would make it unlikely that they would have gone to MS for that. On the other hand, it still would have almost certainly had MS basic in ROM, and have had other MS programming languages available. This probably wouldn't have interfered with ms writng word and later excel for the mac, which would have led MS to be a major (but not dominant) software player. ANd given the pc also on a 68k, usable ports might have been availalbe much sooner. (ANd for those who didn't use them, prior to word 6, those were actually good products. [Yes, my students look at me funny when I tell them I'm old enough to remember when microsoft wrote good producs :) ]). Without the dos/windows monopoly, ms might have *continued* to write good programs . . . hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: glass2@glass2.lexington.ibm.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 14:07:19 GMT Organization: IBM Austin Lines: 69 Message-ID: <8gjc2n$13hk$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <6un1lf22n0.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8gjahv$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: wa4qal@vnet.ibm.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glass2.cv.lexington.ibm.com X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!znr.news.ans.net!news.chips.ibm.com!newsfeed.btv.ibm.com!news2atm.raleigh.ibm.com!ausnews.austin.ibm.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57080 In <8gjahv$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko writes: >Neil Franklin wrote: >: Eric Chomko writes: >[...] >: > I'm pretty sure IBM considered using the 68000 at one point in its >: > priginal plans for the IBM PC, but went with Intel instead. Maybe it was >: > ploy to get Intel to drop their price, I don't know. > >: From Byte Sept 1990, Page 414ff: > >: The Creation of the IBM PC, by David J Bradley (one of its designers) > >: In August 1980, I had finished my work on what eas to become the IBM >: System/23 Datamaster ... >: .. was an 8085 based system ... >: .. we ran up against the limits of the 64k address space ... >: .. There were a number of reasons we chose the Intel 8088 ... : > >: 1. The 64k limit had to be overcome >: 2. The processor and its peripherals had to be available immediately >: 3. We couldn't afford a long learning period >: 4. There had to be both OS and Apps available > >: We narrowed our decision down to the Intel 8086 or 8088. The Boca >: Raton engineers fer familiar with these ... >: .. We chose the 8088 for its 8 bit data bus. The smaller bus saved >: money in the areas of RAM, ROM and logic fo ran simple system. > >Why mention RAM and ROM if its NOT a factor? Does using a 8086 (What speed >were they at that time -MHz?) cripple the chip by making it do a byte >access vs. a 16 bit fetch? The 8088 was 4.77 MHz. What would the 8086 >throughput have been? > >: Fazit: no trace of 68k mentioned, no trace of price pushing. > >Yes, but that does not make it conclusive. All that you have shown is that >it was not mentioned in the Byte article. Touche'. Didn't mean that the >68K was NOT considered. > > >: > : The 8088 predates the PC by 2 years. IBM used it because the group >: > : designing the PC had 8085 experience and were under time pressure. >: > : Also they took 8088 over the 8086 because the 8085 peripherals chips >: > : were easier to interface to it. Above is from an interview of the PC >: > : designers. >: > >: > The took the 8088 over the 8086 because the cost of memory was cheaper >: > using an 8 bit data bus rather than a 16 bit data bus. > >: And that is mainly the peripherals. The photo of the wire wrapped >: prototype vlearly has 2*9 RAM chip sockets, so that would serve just >: as well on an 8086. Equally the 6 8-bit ROM sockets. > >But would byte oriented memory work as well on an 8086? Is the 8086 byte >addressable? The 68K is. I think that to fully utilize the 8086, that >you'd have to do 16 bit accesses and that was too costly. > >Eric Didn't the original design for the IBM PC support a minimum memory size of 16K, which would have been nine 16Kx1 chips? I think the smallest model actually announced was the 64K model, though, since there were concerns about actually getting any software to run in 16K. Dave P.S. Standard Disclaimer: I work for them, but I don't speak for them (especially in this post!). ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 09:20:02 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 73 Message-ID: <8gjcqi$ufg$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <6un1lf22n0.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8gjahv$ffg@n <8gjc2n$13hk$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.uiowa.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57063 In article <8gjc2n$13hk$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>, wrote: >In <8gjahv$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko writes: >>Neil Franklin wrote: >>: Eric Chomko writes: >>: We narrowed our decision down to the Intel 8086 or 8088. The Boca >>: Raton engineers fer familiar with these ... >>: .. We chose the 8088 for its 8 bit data bus. The smaller bus saved >>: money in the areas of RAM, ROM and logic fo ran simple system. >>Why mention RAM and ROM if its NOT a factor? Does using a 8086 (What speed >>were they at that time -MHz?) cripple the chip by making it do a byte >>access vs. a 16 bit fetch? NO! the 8086 and 8088 were different only in bus width and a small buffer. Generally, code was incapable of telling which it was running on, although there was a trick that would cause something different to happen with that buffer between the two chips if your code *really* wanted to know. I forget exactly what it was, but there's probably plenty of others here who remember. Anyway, all of the addressing modes were identical; anything you could do with one, you could do with the other. >The 8088 was 4.77 MHz. No it wasn't. IBM clocked it at that speed. The top speed was 8mhz, and I believe that there was a slower version rated at 5 or 6 mhz. >What would the 8086 throughput have been? The Olivetti M24/AT&T 6300 with a 8mhz 8086 pushed a bit more than twice as any bits. I was running the tests for other purposes, but I could start both machines at the same time, and take a moment to restart the M24 when it ran, and it would finish the second run before the pc finished. I expect other machines got about the same. The general rule of thumb was about an extra 30% for the 16 bit path, iirc. >>But would byte oriented memory work as well on an 8086? Is the 8086 byte >>addressable? The 68K is. I think that to fully utilize the 8086, that >>you'd have to do 16 bit accesses and that was too costly. no. You could have stuck in an 8086 with 16 bit memory and kept the same code (except for timing loops). >Didn't the original design for the IBM PC support a minimum memory size >of 16K, which would have been nine 16Kx1 chips? I think the smallest >model actually announced was the 64K model, though, since there were >concerns about actually getting any software to run in 16K. Nope. I sold 16k models. The original pc came with 4 banks of sockets, at least one of which was populated with 16k chips, for a maximum of 64k on the motherboard. It had a nominal maximum of 256k memory, which you really couldn't reach with ibm parts. The largest board ibm initially sold was 64k. However, you only had 5 slots. YOu needed one for the video display, another for the floppy controller, and usually another for the printer (but if you chose the monochrome display, the controller also had a parallel port). Third party products quickly brought it up to 512k. I seem to recall that 640k wasn't immediately possible; that something had to happen before going past 512k, but it's been so long that I'm not sure. hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: Andrew Paul Cadley Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 15:21:13 +0100 Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, NR47TJ, UK Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392B8492.A0489A1B@dallas.net> <8ggotg$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <392C77BA.2F1B029B@dallas.net> <959250858.425932@inv.ihug.co.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: cpca7.uea.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: cpca14.uea.ac.uk 959264473 27090 139.222.130.7 (25 May 2000 14:21:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@uea.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 May 2000 14:21:13 GMT In-Reply-To: <959250858.425932@inv.ihug.co.nz> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!server1.netnews.ja.net!news.uea.ac.uk!cpca7.uea.ac.uk!a962115 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57091 On Thu, 25 May 2000, Roger Johnstone wrote: > Surely the 68000 is a 32-bit processor? I know it only had a 16-bit data > bus. Something I've never understood, is the number of companies who used > it, but only described it as a 16-bit. You would think they would have been > falling all over themselves to boast that there computer was a 32-bit, yet > they seem to have been very shy to do so. e.g. Sega Megadrive/Genesis > actually had "16 bit" stamped on the front and most references to the Amiga > or Atari ST called it a 16-bit computer. It's a 16-bit implementation of a 32-bit architecture. The 68020 was the first real 32-bit 680x0 processor. AndyC ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 09:23:35 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 27 Message-ID: <8gjd17$uh2$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8ggotg$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <392C77BA.2F1B029B@dallas.net> <959250858.425932@inv.ihug.co.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!zur.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news.uiowa.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57051 In article <959250858.425932@inv.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Johnstone wrote: >In article <392C77BA.2F1B029B@dallas.net>, Charles Richmond > wrote: >Surely the 68000 is a 32-bit processor? I know it only had a 16-bit data >bus. Something I've never understood, is the number of companies who used >it, but only described it as a 16-bit. You would think they would have been >falling all over themselves to boast that there computer was a 32-bit, yet >they seem to have been very shy to do so. e.g. Sega Megadrive/Genesis >actually had "16 bit" stamped on the front and most references to the Amiga >or Atari ST called it a 16-bit computer. The 68000 was 32 bits in the same senses that the 8088 was 16 bits. It didn't fully reach 32 bits until the 68020. Thinking *way* back to the introductory articles about it (kilobaud? I think I still have it somewhere), the 68k showed registers that would be expanded in future 32 bit implementations (the program counter, among others). hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: TheCentralScrutinizer.195@pobox.com () Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <6un1lf22n0.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8gjahv$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8gjc2n$13hk$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> Reply-To: TheCentralScrutinizer.195@pobox.com Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (Linux) Lines: 9 Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:03:42 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.4.228.121 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc2.tx.home.com 959270622 24.4.228.121 (Thu, 25 May 2000 09:03:42 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 09:03:42 PDT Organization: @Home Network Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!torn!newsfeed.direct.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc2.tx.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57100 On 25 May 2000 14:07:19 GMT, glass2@glass2.lexington.ibm.com wrote: > >Didn't the original design for the IBM PC support a minimum memory size >of 16K, which would have been nine 16Kx1 chips? I think the smallest >model actually announced was the 64K model, though, since there were >concerns about actually getting any software to run in 16K. The original IBM PC was a 16K model w/ a cassette interface and no floppy drives. ###### Message-ID: <392D5467.2B68C5DA@aldon.com> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 09:27:19 -0700 From: Douglas Weber X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <6un1lf22n0.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8gjahv$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: aldongw.aldon.com X-Trace: 25 May 2000 09:21:55 -0700, aldongw.aldon.com Lines: 80 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!npeer.kpnqwest.net!EU.net!den-news-02.qwest.net!qwest!news01.m-l.net!aldongw.aldon.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57101 Eric Chomko wrote: > Neil Franklin wrote: > : Eric Chomko writes: > [...] > : > I'm pretty sure IBM considered using the 68000 at one point in its > : > priginal plans for the IBM PC, but went with Intel instead. Maybe it was > : > ploy to get Intel to drop their price, I don't know. > > : From Byte Sept 1990, Page 414ff: > > : The Creation of the IBM PC, by David J Bradley (one of its designers) > > : In August 1980, I had finished my work on what eas to become the IBM > : System/23 Datamaster ... > : .. was an 8085 based system ... > : .. we ran up against the limits of the 64k address space ... > : .. There were a number of reasons we chose the Intel 8088 ... : > > : 1. The 64k limit had to be overcome > : 2. The processor and its peripherals had to be available immediately > : 3. We couldn't afford a long learning period > : 4. There had to be both OS and Apps available > > : We narrowed our decision down to the Intel 8086 or 8088. The Boca > : Raton engineers fer familiar with these ... > : .. We chose the 8088 for its 8 bit data bus. The smaller bus saved > : money in the areas of RAM, ROM and logic fo ran simple system. > > Why mention RAM and ROM if its NOT a factor? Does using a 8086 (What speed > were they at that time -MHz?) cripple the chip by making it do a byte > access vs. a 16 bit fetch? The 8088 was 4.77 MHz. What would the 8086 > throughput have been? > > : Fazit: no trace of 68k mentioned, no trace of price pushing. > > Yes, but that does not make it conclusive. All that you have shown is that > it was not mentioned in the Byte article. Touche'. Didn't mean that the > 68K was NOT considered. > > : > : The 8088 predates the PC by 2 years. IBM used it because the group > : > : designing the PC had 8085 experience and were under time pressure. > : > : Also they took 8088 over the 8086 because the 8085 peripherals chips > : > : were easier to interface to it. Above is from an interview of the PC > : > : designers. > : > > : > The took the 8088 over the 8086 because the cost of memory was cheaper > : > using an 8 bit data bus rather than a 16 bit data bus. > > : And that is mainly the peripherals. The photo of the wire wrapped > : prototype vlearly has 2*9 RAM chip sockets, so that would serve just > : as well on an 8086. Equally the 6 8-bit ROM sockets. > > But would byte oriented memory work as well on an 8086? Is the 8086 byte > addressable? The 68K is. I think that to fully utilize the 8086, that > you'd have to do 16 bit accesses and that was too costly. > > Eric The Convergent Tech machines of the era make it clear the difference between the 8086 and the 8088 in performance. The original machines were pure 8086, as I understand. Savin wanted a lower price machine than the 8086 would allow and so Convergent generated 8088 based set in the same form factor. The word processor the CT produced made clear the performance difference. Since CTOS was a real time multiprocessing(priority driven) OS, the word processor was written as three cooperating tasks:keyboard, coordintor, and screen driver/formatter. On a 8086 machine I could not type fast enough to get ahead of the screen. On the 8088 based ones, it was easy to do so. Note this is a pure CPU/memory restricted operation. No paging on this machine so no disk it. Both used the same video scheme. I believe the code did not distinguish between the chips. The difference was the CPU and the 8 bit memory access. As I remember, they said that the 8bit memory access was also where the money savings was. Doug Weber ###### From: Joe Pfeiffer Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 11:23:39 -0600 Organization: NMSU Computer Science Lines: 22 Message-ID: <1bpuqa5ysk.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <6un1lf22n0.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8gjahv$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: viper.cs.nmsu.edu X-Trace: bubba.NMSU.Edu 959275417 13485 128.123.64.113 (25 May 2000 17:23:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@bubba.NMSU.Edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 May 2000 17:23:37 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.5 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!upp1.onvoy!msc1.onvoy!onvoy.com!hardy.tc.umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!news.NMSU.Edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57072 Eric Chomko writes: > > : Fazit: no trace of 68k mentioned, no trace of price pushing. > > Yes, but that does not make it conclusive. All that you have shown is that > it was not mentioned in the Byte article. Touche'. Didn't mean that the > 68K was NOT considered. Sorry, doesn't work like that. You and I both remember the 68000 was considerred; you remember they picked Intel due to cost, while I remember it was because Motorola wouldn't commit to the quantities (and that the Motorola PC design was the basis of the lab computer that came out a year or so later). But the article doesn't mention 68000 at all. Until you or I can come up with a cite, from a PC designer, that agrees with us, the only available evidence is that Motorola was never considered for the PC. -- Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer VL 2000 Homepage: http://www.cs.orst.edu/~burnett/vl2000/ ###### From: Joe Pfeiffer Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 11:28:05 -0600 Organization: NMSU Computer Science Lines: 19 Message-ID: <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: viper.cs.nmsu.edu X-Trace: bubba.NMSU.Edu 959275682 13485 128.123.64.113 (25 May 2000 17:28:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@bubba.NMSU.Edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 May 2000 17:28:02 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.5 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!upp1.onvoy!msc1.onvoy!onvoy.com!hardy.tc.umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!news.NMSU.Edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57067 hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu writes: > > >What a different world it would have been... Maybe even no M$. > > "Maybe" ??? With a 68000, there would have been no desire for a CP/M > clone to run the thing, which would make it unlikely that they would > have gone to MS for that. But MS didn't write CP/M, either. They wouldn't have gone to Digital Research... I don't quite know who they would have gone to. But there's no immediate reason to suppose Gates couldn't have gotten his foot in the door, sold them a PC-DOS, and then found another of the little Seattle Computer-like outfits to buy a 68000 DOS with which to meet the contract. ``No MS'' is definitely not a given. -- Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer VL 2000 Homepage: http://www.cs.orst.edu/~burnett/vl2000/ ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8ggotg$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <87ya4zvt2w.fsf@caerbannogh.area41.hack.org> <2000May25.111349.2270@lorelei.approve.se> Organization: None X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) Lines: 33 Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 14:42:21 EDT Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 18:42:21 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!news-east.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57009 In article <2000May25.111349.2270@lorelei.approve.se>, Goran Larsson wrote: >The DNIX/ABCenix had some nice features that I miss from more modern >Unix kernels. In DNIX/ABCenix a program could "mount" itself on >a directory and any file system access to that directory (and any >path below it) would be sent as a message to that program. The program >would then act as a filesystem. Linux has several implementations of this: userfs, PerlFS, and podfuk come to mind. There's also ofs from wvfs, but I don't know if ofs really exists --- I've never heard of anyone using it. userfs and PerlFS have a tendency to permanently and irrevocably hang processes accessing the virtual filesystem when bugs in them pop up --- or, worse, when bugs in the userland program implementing the filesystem pop up. I haven't tried podfuk, but it has a good pedigree. :) Also, I would expect it to be portable to any OS that supports the Coda client --- Win95, Win98, Linux, FreeBSD, and NetBSD --- but I haven't heard its author comment on that. >This was used for the ABCnet network >system (access to other systems as /net/machine_name/path) and the >window system (all windows were available as "files" in /win). What year was this? Was it before or after the 8th Edition/Plan9 guys were doing this? -- Kragen Sitaker The Internet stock bubble didn't burst on 1999-11-08. Hurrah! The power didn't go out on 2000-01-01 either. :) ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392BA00B.A5669B15@netinsight.se> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Organization: None X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) Lines: 34 Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 14:47:48 EDT Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 18:47:48 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeed.germany.net!news.netcologne.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!news-east.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57010 In article <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz>, Don Stokes wrote: >DEC never got the hang of the desktop market. Up until they started >re-badging Tandy machines, all desktop machines were either niche >efforts, abject failures, or more often both. Lessee, there's the >Robin, the Pro, the Rainbow and the VAXmate as the abject failures. >Moderately successful in their own little niche were the DECmate line, >but there really are limits to what you can do with a PDP-8 >derivative... What about the MicroVAX and DECStation? I thought those were successful desktop machines. My initiation into Unix ("set path=. --- What do you mean, 'ls: Command not found'?") was on one of several DECStations running the BSD Unix with the goofy name --- what was it called? Oh! Ultrix! >. . . IBM (uncharacteristically) managed to fold the >major virtues of the Apple ][ (king of the 8-bit hill at the time) into >the thing, without also introducing too many of its (many) vices. That >meant that the thing was actually viable, as opposed to previous IBM >machines which had suffered much the same fate as DEC's efforts (only >with a bigger price tag). What were these virtues? I can think of these: - lots of expansion slots - memory-mapped video memory But the Apple also had two other major virtues ("cheap", "video") the PC didn't. -- Kragen Sitaker The Internet stock bubble didn't burst on 1999-11-08. Hurrah! The power didn't go out on 2000-01-01 either. :) ###### Message-ID: <392D42F3.1FEA4AB6@trailing-edge.com> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 15:12:51 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader2.news.uu.net 959281972 2605 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!uninett.no!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed.icl.net!diablo.theplanet.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!spool1.news.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader2.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57046 Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu writes: > > > > >What a different world it would have been... Maybe even no M$. > > > > "Maybe" ??? With a 68000, there would have been no desire for a CP/M > > clone to run the thing, which would make it unlikely that they would > > have gone to MS for that. > > But MS didn't write CP/M, either. They wouldn't have gone to Digital > Research... Microsoft sold CP/M and paid royalties to Digital Research. I can't be the only one left here who remembers the Microsoft Softcard, which came packaged with CP/M on an Apple GCR format floppy, can I? Tim. ###### From: byatesiii@my-deja.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 20:16:25 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 31 Message-ID: <8gk1m9$pva$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392D42F3.1FEA4AB6@trailing-edge.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.17.20.4 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu May 25 20:16:25 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 95) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x66.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 4.17.20.4 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDbyatesiii Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-out.nibble.net!news-in.nibble.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!206.13.28.125!cyclone-transit.snfc21.pbi.net!216.218.192.242!news.he.net!newspeer1.nac.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57022 In article <392D42F3.1FEA4AB6@trailing-edge.com>, Tim Shoppa wrote: > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > > > hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu writes: > > > > > > >What a different world it would have been... Maybe even no M$. > > > > > > "Maybe" ??? With a 68000, there would have been no desire for a CP/M > > > clone to run the thing, which would make it unlikely that they would > > > have gone to MS for that. > > > > But MS didn't write CP/M, either. They wouldn't have gone to Digital > > Research... > > Microsoft sold CP/M and paid royalties to Digital Research. I can't > be the only one left here who remembers the Microsoft Softcard, which > came packaged with CP/M on an Apple GCR format floppy, can I? > > Tim. > No, you are not. I remember reading a review of it by Patricia Swift in Home Computer Magazine. The review showed what appeared (at the time of review) to be an incomplete product... Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: korpela@islay.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 20:23:25 GMT Organization: Cal Berkeley-- Space Sciences Lab Lines: 16 Message-ID: <8gk23t$9vp$1@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8ggotg$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <392C77BA.2F1B029B@dallas.net> <959250858.425932@inv.ihug.co.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: islay.ssl.berkeley.edu X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 959286205 10233 128.32.98.192 (25 May 2000 20:23:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 May 2000 20:23:25 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.inc.net!news-hog.berkeley.edu!agate.berkeley.edu!agate!islay.ssl.berkeley.edu!korpela Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57047 In article <959250858.425932@inv.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Johnstone wrote: >Surely the 68000 is a 32-bit processor? No it is definitely not. The ALU was definitely a 16 bit design, and the proper size for a fast integer is a halfword. Register size doesn't tell you the bitness. If it did, the Z80 would be a 16 bit processor. Wan't until the 020 that the 68k line got a 32 bit processor. Eric -- Eric Korpela | An object at rest can never be korpela@ssl.berkeley.edu | stopped. Click for home page. ###### From: rivie@server.logan.teraglobal (Roger Ivie) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <6un1lf22n0.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8gjahv$ffg@n <8gjc2n$13hk$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> <8gjcqi$ufg$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> Reply-To: rivie@teraglobal.com Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (FreeBSD) NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.186.13.23 Date: 25 May 2000 15:34:08 -0500 X-Trace: 25 May 2000 15:34:08 -0500, 208.186.13.23 Lines: 25 X-Comments: This message was posted through Newsfeeds.com X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeeds.com does not condone, nor support, spam or any illegal or copyrighted postings. X-Comments3: IMPORTANT: Under NO circumstances will postings containing illegal or copyrighted material through this service be tolerated!! X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to You may also use our online abuse reporting from: http://www.newsfeeds.com/abuseform.htm X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers, INCLUDING the body (DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS) Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 73,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!telocity-west!TELOCITY!local-out.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!news5.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!rivie Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57014 In article <8gjcqi$ufg$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu>, hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote: >NO! the 8086 and 8088 were different only in bus width and a small >buffer. Generally, code was incapable of telling which it was running >on, although there was a trick that would cause something different to >happen with that buffer between the two chips if your code *really* >wanted to know. I forget exactly what it was, but there's probably >plenty of others here who remember. It was done by modifying code close to where you were executing. The 8086 would execute the old code (because it had prefetched it) while the 8088 would execute the new code (because its prefetch buffer was smaller). -- Roger Ivie TeraGlobal Communications Corporation 1770 North Research Park Way Suite 100 Logan, UT 84341 mailto:rivie@teraglobal.com phoneto:(435)787-0555 faxto:(435)787-0516 -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ###### From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 13:34:45 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 54 Message-ID: <392D8E65.38BC@azstarnet.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57016 Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu writes: > > > > >What a different world it would have been... Maybe even no M$. > > > > "Maybe" ??? With a 68000, there would have been no desire for a CP/M > > clone to run the thing, which would make it unlikely that they would > > have gone to MS for that. > > But MS didn't write CP/M, either. They wouldn't have gone to Digital > Research... I don't quite know who they would have gone to. But > there's no immediate reason to suppose Gates couldn't have gotten his > foot in the door, sold them a PC-DOS, and then found another of the > little Seattle Computer-like outfits to buy a 68000 DOS with which to > meet the contract. ``No MS'' is definitely not a given. Boy, talk about a wild-ass speculation! Gates knew about 86-DOS at least six months before IBM ever contacted him about doing anything for the PC. I'm referring to the Fall of 1979. Since I'm not aware that he ever did ANYTHING about a 68000 operating system (but, do supply details if you got 'em!) I have to doubt there was one laying around for him to pick up and re-sell in case IBM or anybody else wanted one. Big difference between knowing in advance about something, and having to go looking for it from scratch. And, no point in speculating about WRITING anything from scratch - I doubt even today Microsoft is able to do that! Clearly, IBM did NOT want to do business with Digital Research. But the reasons appear to be anything BUT what we've been told, and what's appeared in print up to now. For what will become obvious reasons, IBM would NEVER want the whole truth known. Microsoft could have been bankrupted as late as LAST YEAR. Caldera had everything they needed to take not only every penny of profit MS ever earned, but TRIPLED damages. And Punitive damages on top of that, something UNAVAILABLE to MS in their threats and suits against others. If you know Copyright Law, as amended, you know WHY. But Ray Noorda is old and slow and the fight has gone out of him, both with his own lawyers (who only saw virtually instant reward$) and for the prolonged fight it would have taken against Microsoft. The possibility of NO M$? *VERY REAL*. But now, less probable. Funny how truth has a way of getting out, sooner or later. Bill Tucson, AZ ###### From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 13:46:50 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 35 Message-ID: <392D913A.474F@azstarnet.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392D42F3.1FEA4AB6@trailing-edge.com> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57015 Tim Shoppa wrote: > > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > > > hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu writes: > > > > > > >What a different world it would have been... Maybe even no M$. > > > > > > "Maybe" ??? With a 68000, there would have been no desire for a CP/M > > > clone to run the thing, which would make it unlikely that they would > > > have gone to MS for that. > > > > But MS didn't write CP/M, either. They wouldn't have gone to Digital > > Research... > > Microsoft sold CP/M and paid royalties to Digital Research. I can't > be the only one left here who remembers the Microsoft Softcard, which > came packaged with CP/M on an Apple GCR format floppy, can I? And, Tim, don't forget to mention that Tim Paterson, who supposedly didn't know anything about the internals of CP/M, was actually hired by Microsoft to work on that Softcard project. And, that Microsoft signed a NON-DISCLOSURE Agreement with DRI over CP/M in the course of building and selling Softcards. And that Paterson, as an MS employee, was BOUND by that agreement. Sort of puts the 'recent' spin-doctored stories in another light, no? I think the accurate words would be LIES and COVERUP. Bill Tucson, AZ ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392BA00B.A5669B15@netinsight.se> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Organization: Daedalus Consulting X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Message-ID: <959288691.393317@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Cache-Post-Path: shelley.paradise.net.nz!unknown@203-96-144-16.cable.paradise.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 46 Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 21:05:08 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.96.152.26 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 959288708 203.96.152.26 (Fri, 26 May 2000 09:05:08 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 09:05:08 NZST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57079 In article , Kragen Sitaker wrote: >What about the MicroVAX and DECStation? I thought those were >successful desktop machines. My initiation into Unix ("set path=. --- >What do you mean, 'ls: Command not found'?") was on one of several >DECStations running the BSD Unix with the goofy name --- what was it >called? Oh! Ultrix! I tend to regard those as extensions of the minicomputer lines, rather than attempts to get into the small desktop micro business. VAXstations, DECstations ran real timesharing operating systems, not 8 & 16 bit single-user toy OSes. >>. . . IBM (uncharacteristically) managed to fold the >>major virtues of the Apple ][ (king of the 8-bit hill at the time) into >>the thing, without also introducing too many of its (many) vices. That >>meant that the thing was actually viable, as opposed to previous IBM >>machines which had suffered much the same fate as DEC's efforts (only >>with a bigger price tag). > >What were these virtues? I can think of these: >- lots of expansion slots >- memory-mapped video memory Yep. DEC, despite the success brought to its minicomputer lines by having a proper bus, never really got the hint on expansion (and especially, 3rd party expansion) for its attempts at micros. Even the VAXmate (which was a '286 PC) was short on slots, showing the same attitude even in attempting to build a genuine PC compatible. Putting expansion slots in the machine and documenting them meant the apple ][ and IBM PC could be used for more than Apple and IBM had imagined themselves. >But the Apple also had two other major virtues ("cheap", "video") the >PC didn't. CGA still had more resolution than the Apple. HIRES on the Apple was pretty crappy, really. And the Apple was never terribly cheap, at least in any usable configuration (48k, floppies). True, the PC was more expensive, but it was also a noticably more capable machine, and it did have the three magic letters on the front. -- don ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 15:46:59 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 33 Message-ID: <8gk3g3$1mk$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392D42F3.1FEA4AB6@trailing-edge.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!nntp.flash.net!mercury.cts.com!nuq-feed.news.verio.net!dfw-peer.news.verio.net!ord-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!news.uiowa.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57189 In article <392D42F3.1FEA4AB6@trailing-edge.com>, Tim Shoppa wrote: >Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu writes: >> > >What a different world it would have been... Maybe even no M$. >> > "Maybe" ??? With a 68000, there would have been no desire for a CP/M >> > clone to run the thing, which would make it unlikely that they would >> > have gone to MS for that. >> But MS didn't write CP/M, either. They wouldn't have gone to Digital >> Research... >Microsoft sold CP/M and paid royalties to Digital Research. I can't >be the only one left here who remembers the Microsoft Softcard, which >came packaged with CP/M on an Apple GCR format floppy, can I? I remember coveting one quite well :) I'm referring to the trip by IBM to microsoft for a CP/M clone for the PC. Had they gone with the 68k, there would have been no reason to seek semi-backwards compatibility with CP/M, and neither DR nor MS would have become an issue. hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 15:49:47 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 23 Message-ID: <8gk3lb$1nd$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8gjc2n$13hk$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> <8gjcqi$ufg$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!nntp.flash.net!mercury.cts.com!nuq-feed.news.verio.net!dfw-peer.news.verio.net!ord-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!news.uiowa.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57197 In article , Roger Ivie wrote: >In article <8gjcqi$ufg$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu>, hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote: >>NO! the 8086 and 8088 were different only in bus width and a small >>buffer. Generally, code was incapable of telling which it was running >>on, although there was a trick that would cause something different to >>happen with that buffer between the two chips if your code *really* >>wanted to know. I forget exactly what it was, but there's probably >>plenty of others here who remember. >It was done by modifying code close to where you were executing. The >8086 would execute the old code (because it had prefetched it) while >the 8088 would execute the new code (because its prefetch buffer >was smaller). ahh, that's it. THanks. hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 15:55:51 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 36 Message-ID: <8gk40n$1oh$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392D8E65.38BC@azstarnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!HSNX.atgi.net!nuq-feed.news.verio.net!dfw-peer.news.verio.net!ord-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!news.uiowa.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57191 In article <392D8E65.38BC@azstarnet.com>, bill_h wrote: >Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >Since I'm not aware that he ever did ANYTHING about a 68000 operating >system (but, do supply details if you got 'em!) BASIC-80, the standard 8 bit basic for the 8080/z80, was also availalbe as BASIC-68, or some such. At the time, mbasic came in three forms: base, extended, and disk, with disk including all of extended. It had all the hooks needed for what passed for dos's at the time; you could roll the hardware stuff yourself. Given that they had this for the 6800, I see no reason they couldn't have quickly spun it over to the 68k . . . (not that this would be the most efficient OS, but . . .) >Microsoft could have been bankrupted as late as LAST YEAR. Caldera >had everything they needed to take not only every penny of profit >MS ever earned, but TRIPLED damages. And Punitive damages on top of >that, something UNAVAILABLE to MS in their threats and suits against >others. If you know Copyright Law, as amended, you know WHY. Nope. They couldn't get everything from MS. They could triple the damages actually suffered. However, given that they had 10% of the os market at the time microsoft acted, you could make an argument for 10% of the market today, and triple that, but this is really an upper limit. Arguing for continued growth would be speculative at best, and would generally not be permitted. However, 30% of windows is nothing to sneeze at :) hawk, esq. -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: bbreynolds@aol.comskipthis (Bruce B. Reynolds) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Lines: 36 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 25 May 2000 23:37:02 GMT References: <8gj23a$iq7$1@nina.pacific.net.au> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler Message-ID: <20000525193702.06864.00001089@nso-fp.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57199 In article <8gj23a$iq7$1@nina.pacific.net.au>, "river" writes: >ibm did make a 68000 based lab computer - but i think it was after the >pc. The "lab computer" was the CS/9000, marketed by the IBM Instruments Division (based in CT, as I recall); there were maybe four models of various capacities. I'll post some specs on it when next they surface in my piling system. The 9000 made a splash, but then the whole division was trashed. Most of the instruments which the Instruments Division sold were rebadged products of overseas companies, such as Siemens (and this was during the period when IBM was marketing Siemens' PBX's, so that might have been an incentive). The first product from the Instruments Division, however, was the "home grown" 7406-001 Device Coupler: an interface box with A/D, D/A, DI/DO, and PI modules, with a serial communications port using 2741 protocol; the control language for the Device Coupler matched up its five-bit internal addressing scheme, so that the commands were written in duotridecimal (or is it duotricemial?): 0-9,A-H,J-N,P-X, and data were returned through the serial port also in base-32 code The time period here was 1978: actually did useful work with the 7406, as it was easier (and cheaper) to set up than expanding and coding for a diskless System/7 to add new instruments in a clinical laboratory; one 7406 was controlled by an IBM 5100, the other by a Wang PCS II (real fun to write a 2740-2 emulator in Wang BASIC); the controlling computer, in turn, communicated back to an IBM 1800 via 202S modems (excuse me, datasets). -- Bruce B. Reynolds, Independent/Legacy Systems Consultant: Trailing Edge Technologies, Glenside PA---Sweeping Up Behind Data Processing Dinosaurs ###### From: genew@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 01:25:15 GMT Organization: Okanagan Internet Junction Lines: 23 Message-ID: <392dd087.11715135@news.shuswap.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <6un1lf22n0.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8gjahv$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <1bpuqa5ysk.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> Reply-To: genew@shuswap.net NNTP-Posting-Host: salmonarm3-45.shuswap.net X-Trace: news.junction.net 959304086 27283 139.142.177.175 (26 May 2000 01:21:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@junction.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 May 2000 01:21:26 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.direct.ca!cyclone.bc.net!news.junction.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57177 Joe Pfeiffer wrote: [snip] >But the article doesn't mention 68000 at all. Until you or I can come >up with a cite, from a PC designer, that agrees with us, the only >available evidence is that Motorola was never considered for the PC. Say what? Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack! All you can say is that there is no evidence, but it isn't ruled out. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. ###### From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 20:22:24 -0600 Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.dot.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.148.139.24 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.148.139.24 X-Trace: 25 May 2000 20:22:25 -0700, 207.148.139.24 Lines: 17 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.50.1.43 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.flash.net!nntp.cadvision.com!news.cadvision.com!207.148.139.24 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57247 On 23 May 2000 21:54:43 +0200, Neil Franklin wrote: >Eric Chomko writes: > >> I don't know, I think IBM was pretty close to using the 68000 in the PC, > >Nope. The 68000 was used in an laboratory computer 1 year after the >PC. The PC never in its design history had anything non-Intel. Two custom masked 68010s were used in the 370/XT/AT card(s?) to emulate a 370 and allow it to run PC-370. Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- Brian_Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) use address above to reply ###### From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 20:22:26 -0600 Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.dot.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: <9smmisoe4vs9r979pci6c762s9f7tjh91k@4ax.com> References: <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g3ifm$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <8g3qhh$mja@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <8gbfau$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.148.139.24 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.148.139.24 X-Trace: 25 May 2000 20:22:27 -0700, 207.148.139.24 Lines: 32 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.50.1.43 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!nntp.flash.net!nntp.cadvision.com!news.cadvision.com!207.148.139.24 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57238 On 22 May 2000 14:13:50 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: >Eric Chomko wrote: >: Jay Maynard wrote: >: : On 19 May 2000 14:18:30 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: >: : >In fact the clone market lived and died by firmware piracy to >: : >some degree. > >: : Please, trim that broad brush...Compaq, at least, never copied firmware; > >: I guess I was referring to the no-name clones. > >: : they developed it from scratch in the classic clean-room technique. IBM >: : tried and failed to prove Compaq was copying way back when Compaq first hit >: : the market. Even to this day, Compaq develops its own firmware. > >: I don't doubt it. But is it as good as Phoenix, Award and AMI? > >Let me amend my above statement, as Award, AMI and Phoenix, as a distant >third. I fought all weekend long with a Phoenix BIOS, it is clearly not as >good as the other two. > >Eric Is Phoenix still around as a BIOS vendor? I have not seen a system/mobo with that name attached for years. The nonames all seem to be AMI/Award nowadays. Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- Brian_Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) use address above to reply ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 26 May 2000 02:45:33 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 26 Message-ID: <8gkogd$3u5@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392B8492.A0489A1B@dallas.net> <8ggotg$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <392C77BA.2F1B029B@dallas.net> <959250858.425932@inv.ihug.co.nz> <8gk23t$9vp$1@agate.berkeley.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57170 Eric J. Korpela wrote: : In article <959250858.425932@inv.ihug.co.nz>, : Roger Johnstone wrote: : >Surely the 68000 is a 32-bit processor? : No it is definitely not. The ALU was definitely a 16 bit design, and the : proper size for a fast integer is a halfword. Register size doesn't : tell you the bitness. If it did, the Z80 would be a 16 bit processor. As would be the 6809. No the internal register size and the external data bus did not match up at 32 bits until the 68020 in the 68K series. Mot made it a "core" to further designed microprocessors. The core32 (it goes by another name) but the concept is that the 68020 32 bit portion became the standard in the rest of the chips of the series. I saw a 68060 seminar and it was fairly clear from that. : Wan't until the 020 that the 68k line got a 32 bit processor. Right, you are Mr. Korpela. :) : Eric : -- : Eric Korpela | An object at rest can never be : korpela@ssl.berkeley.edu | stopped. : Click for home page. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 26 May 2000 03:01:30 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 19 Message-ID: <8gkpea$3u5@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392D42F3.1FEA4AB6@trailing-edge.com> <8gk3g3$1mk$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57169 hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote: [...] : I'm referring to the trip by IBM to microsoft for a CP/M clone for : the PC. Had they gone with the 68k, there would have been no reason : to seek semi-backwards compatibility with CP/M, and neither DR nor : MS would have become an issue. As mentioned in an earlier post, 68k-based CP/M does exist. Now, I suspect that the 68k CP/M is an early 1980s product. But it is worthy of note. Eric : hawk : -- : Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. : hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu : (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk : These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 26 May 2000 03:11:06 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 29 Message-ID: <8gkq0a$3u5@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392D8E65.38BC@azstarnet.com> <8gk40n$1oh$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!naxos.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.eurocyber.net!howland.erols.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-feed.fnsi.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57165 hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote: : In article <392D8E65.38BC@azstarnet.com>, bill_h wrote: : >Joe Pfeiffer wrote: : >Since I'm not aware that he ever did ANYTHING about a 68000 operating : >system (but, do supply details if you got 'em!) : BASIC-80, the standard 8 bit basic for the 8080/z80, was also availalbe : as BASIC-68, or some such. At the time, mbasic came in three forms: Whoa, the best 6800 based BASIC was Robert Uiterwyk's BASIC. It was the standard from which other's were based. Its kind of unfair to mention 6800 based BASICs and leave out Uiterwyk's version. : base, extended, and disk, with disk including all of extended. It had : all the hooks needed for what passed for dos's at the time; you could : roll the hardware stuff yourself. Given that they had this for the 6800, : I see no reason they couldn't have quickly spun it over to the 68k . . . : (not that this would be the most efficient OS, but . . .) Smoke Signal's disk BASIC was a decent version as well. I am unsure what BASIC was used in the FLEX world, but I'd love to hear how it compared to Smoke's from someone who has used both. And I have been reminded how different 68000 machine and assembly code is from the 6800. Also I know that the 6809 ran all the 6800 machine code. No simple trick but a nice feature from those two. Its deja vu of Z80/8080. Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 26 May 2000 03:15:52 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 19 Message-ID: <8gkq98$3u5@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!207.103.147.20!news.voicenet.com!newsin.iconnet.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57162 Brian Inglis wrote: : On 23 May 2000 21:54:43 +0200, Neil Franklin : wrote: : >Eric Chomko writes: : > : >> I don't know, I think IBM was pretty close to using the 68000 in the PC, : > : >Nope. The 68000 was used in an laboratory computer 1 year after the : >PC. The PC never in its design history had anything non-Intel. : Two custom masked 68010s were used in the 370/XT/AT card(s?) to : emulate a 370 and allow it to run PC-370. Was that not different than the "Lab Computer?" I thought both were independent. I could be wrong. The architecture could be what Brian has said and an application could be said "Lab Computer?" Eric ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 26 May 2000 03:19:19 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 18 Message-ID: <8gkqfn$3u5@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g3ifm$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <8g3qhh$mja@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <8gbfau$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <9smmisoe4vs9r979pci6c762s9f7tjh91k@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!207.103.147.20!news.voicenet.com!newsin.iconnet.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57172 Brian Inglis wrote: : On 22 May 2000 14:13:50 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: [...] : >: I don't doubt it. But is it as good as Phoenix, Award and AMI? : > : >Let me amend my above statement, as Award, AMI and Phoenix, as a distant : >third. I fought all weekend long with a Phoenix BIOS, it is clearly not as : >good as the other two. : > : Is Phoenix still around as a BIOS vendor? I have not seen a : system/mobo with that name attached for years. The nonames all : seem to be AMI/Award nowadays. You're probably right. Phoenix, I'm (still!) tangling with, is about 4 years old. I've never seen a version 5.00, so they are probably dead. Eric ###### From: Joe Pfeiffer Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 25 May 2000 23:20:09 -0600 Organization: NMSU Computer Science Lines: 26 Message-ID: <1b3dn599bq.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <6un1lf22n0.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8gjahv$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <1bpuqa5ysk.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392dd087.11715135@news.shuswap.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: viper.cs.nmsu.edu X-Trace: bubba.NMSU.Edu 959318405 29208 128.123.64.113 (26 May 2000 05:20:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@bubba.NMSU.Edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 May 2000 05:20:05 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.5 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.digex.net.MISMATCH!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!intermedia!lynx.unm.edu!news.NMSU.Edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57204 genew@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) writes: > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > [snip] > > >But the article doesn't mention 68000 at all. Until you or I can come > >up with a cite, from a PC designer, that agrees with us, the only > >available evidence is that Motorola was never considered for the PC. > > Say what? > > Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack! > > All you can say is that there is no evidence, but it isn't ruled > out. There's just as much evidence (found so far) that they considered home-brewing a 32 processor out of TTL for the PC as there is that they considered the 68000. ``Well they coulda'' in the absence of evidence is useless. -- Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer VL 2000 Homepage: http://www.cs.orst.edu/~burnett/vl2000/ ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Message-ID: <2000May26.082025.12403@lorelei.approve.se> Originator: hoh@approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Sender: hoh@lorelei.approve.se.NO_JUNK_EMAIL (Goran Larsson) Organization: [1] + 5934 done /bin/rm -rf ~/ & X-No-Archive: yes X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test66 (4 June 1998) References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <87ya4zvt2w.fsf@caerbannogh.area41.hack.org> <2000May25.111349.2270@lorelei.approve.se> Lines: 34 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.217.225 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 959329686 130.244.217.225 (Fri, 26 May 2000 10:28:06 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:28:06 MET DST X-Sender: q-11932@isdn217-1-225.swipnet.se Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 08:20:25 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57216 In article , Kragen Sitaker wrote: > In article <2000May25.111349.2270@lorelei.approve.se>, > Goran Larsson wrote: > >This was used for the ABCnet network > >system (access to other systems as /net/machine_name/path) and the > >window system (all windows were available as "files" in /win). > What year was this? Was it before or after the 8th Edition/Plan9 guys > were doing this? I don't know about 8th Edition/Plan9, but I found a distribution of ABCenix V 3.2 with a copyright date of 1985. If it is very important I could try to fire up my old 1600 (*) (**) and look at the source code that I managed to "save" before everything was gone with the wind. (*) ABC1600 with floppy and a 60MB SCSI QIC streamer instead of 13MB HD, ABC1656 expansion box (***) with extra expansion bus with an extra SCSI bus (****) and two full height 5.25" 154MB SCSI disks. (**) Hasn't been running for something like 7 or 8 years now. (***) I don't think they sold many of these, if any, and originally it didn't work very well. After a new PAL in the bus logic and a heavy gauge ground wire between the two boxes it worked. (****) At one time it even had a third SCSI bus driving two extra disks in a third passive expansion box. I don't think that there ever was any "bigger" ABC1600 than this. -- Göran Larsson hoh AT approve DOT se Senior Systems Analyst ###### Message-ID: <392E428F.1F8ACBB1@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392BA00B.A5669B15@netinsight.se> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 59 Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 09:23:30 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 959333010 194.16.221.33 (Fri, 26 May 2000 11:23:30 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:23:30 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news-x.support.nl!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!newsfeed101.telia.com!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57157 Don Stokes wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > >and never had enough applications. The PRO-350 and PRO-325 was also > >based on the F-11 which meant max 256 Kbyte of memory. The PRO-380 > > Um, the F11 is perfectly capable of addressing a 22 bit bus. Early > KDF11-As only brought out 18 bits, but later ones (and all KDF11-Bs) > brought out the full 22. The 11/24 came with a Unibus map to let it > map all 22 bits too. (Or was the KT-24 optional?) I stand corrected. Why the heck was the PRO-325 and PRO-350 limited to 256K? The -380 has a J11, and can handle more memory. Um, I bet DEC didn't think anyone would want more than 256K, so they didn't put any more address lines on the card... The KT-24 was optional, by the way. [...] > Moderately successful in their own little niche were the DECmate line, > but there really are limits to what you can do with a PDP-8 > derivative... > > (Watch me get flamed to a crisp for that last comment... 8-) Nah. I can't argue with this. There are some pretty hard limits on a 12-bit machine... I was actually quite impressed at how successful the DECmate became, especiall considering the limitations. A little known fact; the pdp-8 was sold until 1990. Pretty long run, since the PDP-5 started selling in 1965 or so. (And for those who don't know, the pdp-5 and pdp-8 was *very* similar.) > >Perhaps this is one reason why DEC then tried to become a new IBM. > >Companies bought the IBM PC not because it was a good product (it > >wasn't) but because it had the IBM label on it. ("Noone ever got > >fired for buying IBM".) > > That's a big factor, but IBM (uncharacteristically) managed to fold the > major virtues of the Apple ][ (king of the 8-bit hill at the time) into > the thing, without also introducing too many of its (many) vices. That > meant that the thing was actually viable, as opposed to previous IBM > machines which had suffered much the same fate as DEC's efforts (only > with a bigger price tag). Yup. Actually, the IBM PC is a real oddball in the IBM park. It even talks ASCII (but with a twist). I wonder how many agonies IBM went through before releasing that machine upon the unsuspecting masses. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### From: dg@pearl.tao.co.uk (David Given) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:19:56 +0100 Organization: I do not speak for anyone but myself, and barely that. Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.19.67.123 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: 959368833 IIX5YQT0T437BD413C uk26.supernews.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarq.com X-Newsreader: knews 1.0b.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!easynews!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!127.0.0.1!nobody Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57237 In article <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu>, hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu writes: [...] > This probably wouldn't have interfered with ms writng word and later excel > for the mac, which would have led MS to be a major (but not dominant) > software player. ANd given the pc also on a 68k, usable ports > might have been availalbe much sooner. (ANd for those who didn't use > them, prior to word 6, those were actually good products. [Yes, my > students look at me funny when I tell them I'm old enough to remember > when microsoft wrote good producs :) ]). It's scary. I have a copy of Word 5 for DOS; it's small, fast, flexible, and streamlined. It's a great word processor for churning out text in. The ruler-based formatting is simple but adequate, as is the text formatting abilities; the user interface is very character-oriented but reasonably fast and easy to use (most operations are three characters). It'll even display genuine italics in graphics mode, if you want it to. Why couldn't they have continued writing programs like this? There are genuinely talented programmers there. It's a waste... -- +- David Given ---------------McQ-+ "While I write this letter, I have a | Work: dg@tao-group.com | pistol in one hand and a sword in the | Play: dgiven@iname.com | other." --- Sir Boyle Roche +- http://wired.st-and.ac.uk/~dg -+ ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 03:53:14 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 16 Message-ID: <392E5799.10E718FD@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392D8E65.38BC@azstarnet.com> <8gk40n$1oh$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <8gkq0a$3u5@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!206.13.28.125!cyclone-transit.snfc21.pbi.net!216.218.192.242!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57121 Eric Chomko wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > And I have been reminded how different 68000 machine and assembly code is > from the 6800. Also I know that the 6809 ran all the 6800 machine code. No > simple trick but a nice feature from those two. Its deja vu of Z80/8080. > The machine code for the 6800 would *not* run on the 6809...you had to re- assemble the 6800 source program on a 6809 assembler. That would generate code that the 6809 would run...from the same assembler source of the 6800. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 04:06:14 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 27 Message-ID: <392E5AA5.14C84E70@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392D42F3.1FEA4AB6@trailing-edge.com> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57118 Tim Shoppa wrote: > > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > > > hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu writes: > > > > > > >What a different world it would have been... Maybe even no M$. > > > > > > "Maybe" ??? With a 68000, there would have been no desire for a CP/M > > > clone to run the thing, which would make it unlikely that they would > > > have gone to MS for that. > > > > But MS didn't write CP/M, either. They wouldn't have gone to Digital > > Research... > > Microsoft sold CP/M and paid royalties to Digital Research. I can't > be the only one left here who remembers the Microsoft Softcard, which > came packaged with CP/M on an Apple GCR format floppy, can I? > Check out the people on . There are always people there trying to get the MS CP/M card working again. Seems like I read there that a couple of other companies made similar cards for the Apple ][. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392BA00B.A5669B15@netinsight.se> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <392E428F.1F8ACBB1@netinsight.se> Organization: Daedalus Consulting X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Message-ID: <959347267.220687@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Cache-Post-Path: shelley.paradise.net.nz!unknown@203-96-144-16.cable.paradise.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 42 Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 13:21:24 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.96.152.26 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 959347284 203.96.152.26 (Sat, 27 May 2000 01:21:24 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 01:21:24 NZST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!europa.netcrusader.net!204.59.152.222!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57221 In article <392E428F.1F8ACBB1@netinsight.se>, Johnny Billquist wrote: >I stand corrected. Why the heck was the PRO-325 and PRO-350 limited to >256K? The -380 has a J11, and can handle more memory. Just one of many blunders in developing the Pro, I'm afraid. >The KT-24 was optional, by the way. I wasn't sure; the only "11/24" I've had anything to do with was the dreaded DECSA, which wasn't exactly a normal pdp11. But it did have 256 kwords of memory, an F11 chipset (I can't remember if it was a KDF11-U or a custom CPU board) and UNIBUS. >Nah. I can't argue with this. There are some pretty hard limits on >a 12-bit machine... I was actually quite impressed at how successful >the DECmate became, especiall considering the limitations. Yeah. I loved the DECmate. I still have a DECmate III+, still worked last time I turned it on. There were limitations; the spelling checker required the APU card to run -- the APU being a Z80 coprocessor. (My III+ has the APU. 8-) You could run CP/M on an APU equipped DECmate II or III; the III+ could run it too but required a lot of jumping through hoops to get it onto the hard disk. Really bizarre was the XPU card for the DECmate II. This thing had its own memory, plus both Z80 and 8086 processors. 8, 12 and 16 bits all in one box, could run CP/M, CP/M-86, MS-DOS, WPS-8, COS-310, OS/8 etc... >A little known fact; the pdp-8 was sold until 1990. Pretty long run, >since the PDP-5 started selling in 1965 or so. >(And for those who don't know, the pdp-5 and pdp-8 was *very* similar.) I've seen WPS-8 booted on a PDP-8/A (I think -- never really played with -8s myself). I believe it can even be convinced to boot on a PDP-5. >Actually, the IBM PC is a real oddball in the IBM park. It even talks >ASCII (but with a twist). I wonder how many agonies IBM went through No more twisted than contemporary 8-bitters. PETSCII, anyone? -- don ###### From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 06:40:33 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 54 Message-ID: <392E7ED1.7AF8@azstarnet.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392D8E65.38BC@azstarnet.com> <8gk40n$1oh$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57134 hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote: > > In article <392D8E65.38BC@azstarnet.com>, bill_h wrote: > >Microsoft could have been bankrupted as late as LAST YEAR. Caldera > >had everything they needed to take not only every penny of profit > >MS ever earned, but TRIPLED damages. And Punitive damages on top of > >that, something UNAVAILABLE to MS in their threats and suits against > >others. If you know Copyright Law, as amended, you know WHY. > > Nope. They couldn't get everything from MS. They could triple the > damages actually suffered. However, given that they had 10% of the > os market at the time microsoft acted, you could make an argument > for 10% of the market today, and triple that, but this is really > an upper limit. Arguing for continued growth would be speculative > at best, and would generally not be permitted. In a quick thumbnail, here's how the law works: If you wrongfully take something, you can be ordered to turn it over. If you did it by fraud or some aggravating circumstance you can be assessed tripled damages. And under the Copyright Law as it existed at the time, DRI/Kildall could have been granted Punitive Damages, which DID NOT require the proof of ANY actual losses but would be intended to prevent the Defendant or any others in similar circumstances from such behavior. Now since Microsoft's entire empire is founded on DOS, and including the DOS derivative Windows, the ACTUAL damages are every penny they ever made selling MS-DOS (does NOT include PC DOS). Also includes every penny ACTUAL DAMAGES you could prove resulted from the tying of other products to the sale of DOS/Windows. And this is just to calculate the ACTUAL DAMAGES. Then, once you've got the kitchen sink into the pile, TRIPLE that. So even if you don't get whatever they made from selling Basic, you sort of hoover it up in the tripled damages section. In a SECOND exercise, you get to explore the results of the behavior, including the current findings of the Federal Court and Anti-Trust violations. Here you get to put together an argument for PUNISHMENT, a punitive award, wholly apart from the actual damages your own business suffered. It's not at all unusual to see punitive awards of TEN TIMES the actual/tripled amounts. It's not tied to the actual amounts, but the Appeals Courts usually get an argument from the Defense that a million dollar Punitive for ten dollars Actual is excessive. So the Courts have, by rulings, created a sort of loose relationship. Add it all up and it WAS possible for Microsoft to have been virtually wiped out, because without their THEFT of the CP/M operating system they have accomplished little on their own. But, the settlement with Caldera seems to have ended that possibility. Almost. Bill Tucson, AZ ###### From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 07:11:01 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 40 Message-ID: <392E85F5.2748@azstarnet.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <6un1lf22n0.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8gjahv$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <1bpuqa5ysk.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392dd087.11715135@news.shuswap.net> <1b3dn599bq.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!news.pbi.net.MISMATCH!cyclone-transit.snfc21.pbi.net!216.218.192.242!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57129 Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > genew@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) writes: > > > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > >But the article doesn't mention 68000 at all. Until you or I can come > > >up with a cite, from a PC designer, that agrees with us, the only > > >available evidence is that Motorola was never considered for the PC. > > > > Say what? > > > > Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack! > > > > All you can say is that there is no evidence, but it isn't ruled > > out. > > There's just as much evidence (found so far) that they considered > home-brewing a 32 processor out of TTL for the PC as there is that > they considered the 68000. ``Well they coulda'' in the absence of > evidence is useless. IBM folk have been very reluctant to discuss the genesis of the PC. Call that the 'smoke'. Unless or until somebody comes forward with what was really going on, we can only guess. But from time to time some real (documentable) facts come to light. And integrating these into the speculative framework sometimes leads to 'new' avenues to explore in the effort to root out the story. Consider the effort akin to the 'story' of WW II; until we (the public) learned of the role of the code breakers, there was no way to counter the patriotic nonsense about winning for God, Country, Mom, the American Way. We won because our intelligence was superior to 'their' plans. But I still like a good Apple Pie. Bill Tucson, AZ ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 26 May 2000 09:17:33 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 111 Message-ID: <8gm11t$4p4$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392D8E65.38BC@azstarnet.com> <8gk40n$1oh$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <392E7ED1.7AF8@azstarnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57186 In article <392E7ED1.7AF8@azstarnet.com>, bill_h wrote: >hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote: >> Nope. They couldn't get everything from MS. They could triple the >> damages actually suffered. However, given that they had 10% of the >> os market at the time microsoft acted, you could make an argument >> for 10% of the market today, and triple that, but this is really >> an upper limit. Arguing for continued growth would be speculative >> at best, and would generally not be permitted. >In a quick thumbnail, here's how the law works: Uhm, did I mention that I'm an antitrust attorney? :) >If you wrongfully take >something, you can be ordered to turn it over. So far, so good. >If you did it by fraud >or some aggravating circumstance you can be assessed tripled damages. This is not generally the law. However, there are several statutes which, under specific circumstances, award treble damages. There are also many circumstances in which punitive damages can be awarded (and civil fraud usually is one of these). >And under the Copyright Law as it existed at the time, DRI/Kildall >could have been granted Punitive Damages, which DID NOT require the >proof of ANY actual losses but would be intended to prevent the >Defendant or any others in similar circumstances from such behavior. t is generally folklorically agreed that some of CP/M made it into MS-DOS 1.0. I've never seen any hard proof, nor have I seen a verified account of finding the CP/M copyright code in 1.0 (though this hasn't stopped me from repeating the legend :) >Now since Microsoft's entire empire is founded on DOS, and including >the DOS derivative Windows, the ACTUAL damages are every penny they >ever made selling MS-DOS (does NOT include PC DOS). No, this just isn't true. Microsoft was well established as a vender of languages and a couple of other programs. Assuming that some CP/M code actually made it into MS-DOS, DRI is entitled to royalties and other damages--but certainly not the entire empire. >Also includes every >penny ACTUAL DAMAGES you could prove resulted from the tying of other >products to the sale of DOS/Windows. No, since this is illegal. You can't claim profits from illegal activities which the defendant blocked you from committing as damages :) >And this is just to calculate the >ACTUAL DAMAGES. Again, you've overstated them by a couple of orders of magnitude. >Then, once you've got the kitchen sink into the pile, >TRIPLE that. So even if you don't get whatever they made from selling >Basic, you sort of hoover it up in the tripled damages section. Again, no, trebling is not the general rule. >In a SECOND exercise, you get to explore the results of the behavior, >including the current findings of the Federal Court and Anti-Trust >violations. Here you get to put together an argument for PUNISHMENT, >a punitive award, wholly apart from the actual damages your own >business suffered. The current findings do *not* allow punishment, but only correction of the situation. There will be *no* punitive action taken in the currently DOJ case. However, DRI/Caldera/whoever-owns-it-this-weeek's case against MS regarding DR-DOS was quite strong, and MS paid the better part of a billion to settle it--which, for them, was pocket change. >It's not at all unusual to see punitive awards >of TEN TIMES the actual/tripled amounts. The U.S. Supreme Court seems to be taking a different view on the subject . . . >It's not tied to the actual >amounts, but the Appeals Courts usually get an argument from the Defense >that a million dollar Punitive for ten dollars Actual is excessive. >So the Courts have, by rulings, created a sort of loose relationship. The relationship is loose, but such extremes are almost always tossed. >Add it all up and it WAS possible for Microsoft to have been virtually >wiped out, because without their THEFT of the CP/M operating system >they have accomplished little on their own. But, the settlement with >Caldera seems to have ended that possibility. Almost. You started from a false premise, and reached a false conclusion. MS-DOS was *not* a cross-compiled CP/M, although the folklore strongly suggests that parts made it into MS-DOS 1.0 by way of QDOS. However, the last remnants of QDOS in MS-DOS were removed several years ago. hawk, esq. -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. *** THIS EMAIL ADDRESS EXPIRES SOON*** If you do not have a new address, try "finger HAWKINS@psu.edu" and look for my name among the results. Upper case is important, as it causes a search for all persons named hawkins. I will also eventually be listed on the faculty list at http://www.ds.psu.edu/directories/faculty.htm (This is a single line to keep my usenet spooler happy) hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu (319) 266-7114 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: Eric Chomko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 26 May 2000 14:20:45 GMT Organization: IDT Internet Services Lines: 19 Message-ID: <8gm17t$k5r@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392D8E65.38BC@azstarnet.com> <392E5799.10E718FD@dallas.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: u3.farm.idt.net X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.via.net!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!u3.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57166 Charles Richmond wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : > : > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] : > : > And I have been reminded how different 68000 machine and assembly code is : > from the 6800. Also I know that the 6809 ran all the 6800 machine code. No : > simple trick but a nice feature from those two. Its deja vu of Z80/8080. : > : The machine code for the 6800 would *not* run on the 6809...you had to re- : assemble the 6800 source program on a 6809 assembler. That would generate You're right. It was soucre code compatible. : code that the 6809 would run...from the same assembler source of the 6800. I confused the 68HC11 with the 6809. Eric ###### From: "S.C.Sprong" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 26 May 2000 14:22:31 GMT Lines: 33 Message-ID: <8gm1b7$1hvbp$1@fu-berlin.de> References: <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8fh68t$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391FA151.99FBF649@netinsight.se> <8fpl2j$qip@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3920E105.F136CF16@netinsight.se> <8fudot$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C820.E98169D7@netinsight.se> <8g0tpt$ln1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923C4B3.128376F4@trailing-edge.com> <8g3ifm$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <8g3qhh$mja@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <8gbfau$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <9smmisoe4vs9r979pci6c762s9f7tjh91k@4ax.com> Reply-To: s.c.sprong@student.utwente.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: wit401307.student.utwente.nl (130.89.236.147) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 959350951 1637753 130.89.236.147 (16 [21098]) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!wit401307.student.utwente.NL!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57148 Brian Inglis wrote: >On 22 May 2000 14:13:50 GMT, Eric Chomko wrote: [ on the virtues of Phoenix BIOS for peecees ] >>Let me amend my above statement, as Award, AMI and Phoenix, as a >>distant third. I fought all weekend long with a Phoenix BIOS, it >>is clearly not as good as the other two. Depends on model and version, I think. My experience with Phoenix BIOSes is that they work rather well with MSDOS but not with peecee Unix. That was with 'Mitac' integrated 386's. >Is Phoenix still around as a BIOS vendor? I have not seen a system/ >mobo with that name attached for years. The nonames all seem to be >AMI/Award nowadays. }BIOS makers Phoenix, Award to merge } }By Robert Lemos, ZDNN, 04.16.98 6:30 pm ET } }BIOS developers Phoenix Technologies Ltd., of San Jose, }Calif., and Award Software International Inc., of }Mountainview, Calif., agreed Thursday to merge in a }stock swap valued at almost $120 million. What I seem to remember, but can't back up with references at the moment, is that Phoenix sells (or used to sell) images of complete BIOSes and VGA BIOSes for embedded systems under its brand. I think the 'Bochs' x86 emulator uses a Phoenix VGA BIOS image. scsprong ###### From: genew@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 16:34:11 GMT Organization: Okanagan Internet Junction Lines: 35 Message-ID: <392e21be.32509350@news.shuswap.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8ggol2$7e4@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <6un1lf22n0.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8gjahv$ffg@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <1bpuqa5ysk.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392dd087.11715135@news.shuswap.net> <1b3dn599bq.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> Reply-To: genew@shuswap.net NNTP-Posting-Host: salmonarm3-41.shuswap.net X-Trace: news.junction.net 959358618 13621 139.142.177.171 (26 May 2000 16:30:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@junction.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 May 2000 16:30:18 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.bc.net!news.junction.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57185 Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >genew@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) writes: > >> Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >But the article doesn't mention 68000 at all. Until you or I can come >> >up with a cite, from a PC designer, that agrees with us, the only >> >available evidence is that Motorola was never considered for the PC. >> >> Say what? >> >> Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack! >> >> All you can say is that there is no evidence, but it isn't ruled >> out. > >There's just as much evidence (found so far) that they considered >home-brewing a 32 processor out of TTL for the PC as there is that >they considered the 68000. ``Well they coulda'' in the absence of >evidence is useless. Of course. I'm not making a claim either way. It's just that both are still possible per the evidence so far. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. ###### From: korpela@islay.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 26 May 2000 17:22:22 GMT Organization: Cal Berkeley-- Space Sciences Lab Lines: 29 Message-ID: <8gmbse$glj$1@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392D42F3.1FEA4AB6@trailing-edge.com> <8gk3g3$1mk$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <8gkpea$3u5@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: islay.ssl.berkeley.edu X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 959361742 17075 128.32.98.192 (26 May 2000 17:22:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 May 2000 17:22:22 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-xfer.siscom.net!tig-news-siscom-out-1.ihug.net.MISMATCH!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-hog.berkeley.edu!agate.berkeley.edu!agate!islay.ssl.berkeley.edu!korpela Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57200 In article <8gkpea$3u5@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko wrote: >hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote: >[...] >: I'm referring to the trip by IBM to microsoft for a CP/M clone for >: the PC. Had they gone with the 68k, there would have been no reason >: to seek semi-backwards compatibility with CP/M, and neither DR nor >: MS would have become an issue. > >As mentioned in an earlier post, 68k-based CP/M does exist. Now, I suspect >that the 68k CP/M is an early 1980s product. But it is worthy of note. IMHO, the problem with CP/M 68k was that there was even less standardization among 68k machines than there was among 8080/Z80 machines. The BIOS port seemed to be more difficult on these machines. CP/M 68k machines did exist. Most were not dedicated CP/M 68k machines though. Most were just machines with a CP/M option. ISTR seeing a Lisa running CP/M 68k at one point. The most sucessful CP/M 68k derivative machine was, of course, the Atari ST. Of course, it didn't run a vanilla CP/M 68k, but one that was modified to look more like MS-DOS. I assume the dossification was ease porting GEM to the ST. Eric -- Eric Korpela | An object at rest can never be korpela@ssl.berkeley.edu | stopped. Click for home page. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8gbfau$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <9smmisoe4vs9r979pci6c762s9f7tjh91k@4ax.com> <8gm1b7$1hvbp$1@fu-berlin.de> Organization: Daedalus Consulting X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Message-ID: <959376725.847227@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Cache-Post-Path: shelley.paradise.net.nz!unknown@203-96-144-16.cable.paradise.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 15 Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 21:32:23 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.96.152.26 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 959376743 203.96.152.26 (Sat, 27 May 2000 09:32:23 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 09:32:23 NZST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57222 S.C.Sprong wrote: >Depends on model and version, I think. My experience with Phoenix >BIOSes is that they work rather well with MSDOS but not with peecee >Unix. That was with 'Mitac' integrated 386's. Que? What is there to not work? With MSDOS, the BIOS does quite a bit of the OS's (and I use the term OS lightly here) work. With Unix, NT and other protected OSes, the BIOS's involvement ends at the point the OS has enough marbles together to identify and talk to its disks without help, typically as soon as the kernel is loaded. Up to that point, the BIOS is used to load the bootblock (which it has to do for MSDOS anyway), write messages to the console and read blocks off the boot disk. That's pretty much it. -- don ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <6u3dn9t530.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Disclaimer: Everything I write is false. Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 26 May 2000 16:22:20 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 16 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: 26 May 2000 16:30:04 -0700, ruckus.brouhaha.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!esel!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news-hog.berkeley.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!nntp.flash.net!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!news.spies.com!ruckus.brouhaha.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57225 Brian Inglis writes: > Two custom masked 68010s were used in the 370/XT/AT card(s?) to > emulate a 370 and allow it to run PC-370. The AT/370 card has one customized 68000 (not 68010) which executes the majority of the 370 instruction set, and a second part which I'm 99.9% certain is a completely standard 68000, judging by the Motorola mask code on the part (GN7). If the microcode (or anything else) had changed, it would have had a different mask code. Since the part is soldered in, I haven't yet gone so far as to desolder it and stick it in a 68000 system. It's on my list of things to try someday. There's also a customized 8087 to emulate the floating point. I imagine that the CPU section of the XT/370 is nearly identical to that of the AT/370, but I don't have one to compare. ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392D8E65.38BC@azstarnet.com> <8gk40n$1oh$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <8gkq0a$3u5@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> X-Disclaimer: Everything I write is false. Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 26 May 2000 16:26:32 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 21 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: 26 May 2000 16:34:17 -0700, ruckus.brouhaha.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!esel!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news-hog.berkeley.edu!nntp.inc.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!204.59.152.222!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!news.spies.com!ruckus.brouhaha.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57227 Eric Chomko writes: > Also I know that the 6809 ran all the 6800 machine code. You know wrong. The opcodes are different. The 6809 was almost, but not quite, assembly *source* code compatible with the 6800/6802. Even then there were some things that had to be changed by the programmer, due to the change in the behavior of the stack (predecrement on 6809 vs. postdecrement on 6800) and other such changes. > No simple trick but a nice feature from those two. Its deja vu of Z80/8080. No, it's deja vu [*] of the 8086 (which was announced later than the 6809). The 8086 was also *mostly* assembly source code compatible with the 8080, but not enough to simply reassemble and run. Eric [*] What's the equivalent phrase for the feeling that you'll experience the same thing again in the future? ###### From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 16:27:05 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 55 Message-ID: <392F0849.205E@azstarnet.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392D8E65.38BC@azstarnet.com> <8gk40n$1oh$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <392E7ED1.7AF8@azstarnet.com> <8gm11t$4p4$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57128 hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote: > >In a SECOND exercise, you get to explore the results of the behavior, > >including the current findings of the Federal Court and Anti-Trust > >violations. Here you get to put together an argument for PUNISHMENT, > >a punitive award, wholly apart from the actual damages your own > >business suffered. > > The current findings do *not* allow punishment, but only correction > of the situation. There will be *no* punitive action taken in > the currently DOJ case. I'm speaking of matters RES JUDICATA. We're talking about a PRIVATE cause of action, NOT the DOJ case. This is the nightmare waiting in the wings for Microsoft - read the FINDINGS; There's enough powder in there to blow them apart. Which, strangely, seems about to happen. In a PRIVATE action, the potential for Punitives arises under Copyright Law. There WAS clearly Contract Law violation in addition but Time has probably run there. You seem to be confused about this. And anyway Caldera may have ended the matter by Settlement. Maybe. > You started from a false premise, and reached a false conclusion. Okay, Hawk, what ''premise'' was that? Oh, you mean YOURS? > MS-DOS was *not* a cross-compiled CP/M, although the folklore strongly > suggests that parts made it into MS-DOS 1.0 by way of QDOS. However, > the last remnants of QDOS in MS-DOS were removed several years ago. > > hawk, esq. Sorry Counselor, I didn't mention anything to do with ''COMPILED''. You did. And you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Insisting on mentioning some QDOS, when the actual Contracts and Documents only refer to 86-DOS, suggests some impairment of faculties. I'll just bet Court Personel love hearing you 'invent' meanings. You have, I presume, tried a case or two? Parties? Venue(s)? I'll stick (for now) to the arguments Kildall made in ''Computer Connections'', including the appended Documents. And, including the meeting with IBM (names withheld) regarding their 'settlement'. I've NEVER seen his arguments advanced or discussed anywhere else. And the facts are, IBM, Gates, and Allen all Admitted infringement. What's that you say? Where? When? Guess you'll just have to ask elsewhere. I'm not at liberty to publish that. So what you're left with, is attacking the Admissions. Good luck! Bill Tucson, AZ ###### From: "S.C.Sprong" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Supersedes: Date: 27 May 2000 00:07:10 GMT Lines: 52 Message-ID: References: <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8gbfau$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <9smmisoe4vs9r979pci6c762s9f7tjh91k@4ax.com> <8gm1b7$1hvbp$1@fu-berlin.de> <959376725.847227@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Reply-To: s.c.sprong@student.utwente.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: wit401307.student.utwente.nl (130.89.236.147) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 959386030 1734332 130.89.236.147 (16 [21098]) X-Superseded-By: "S.C.Sprong" Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!wit401307.student.utwente.NL!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57158 supersede, supersede...damn Don Stokes wrote: >S.C.Sprong wrote: >>Depends on model and version, I think. My experience with Phoenix >>BIOSes is that they work rather well with MSDOS but not with peecee >>Unix. That was with 'Mitac' integrated 386's. >Que? What is there to not work? Panicking the bootloader. I could run WeenieBSD and compile custom kernels (a good sign that the hardware is rather OK), but OpenBSD (which I tried first) would utterly fail to boot from harddisk. That was with their stable releases from 97/98. Life is too short to solve all problems, and it's especially not worth wasting time with sucky peecee hardware, so I moved on. Now a DECStation 5000/33 running NetBSD is my low-end system. My remark was directed at the previous poster's completely negative experience with Phoenix. >[..]the BIOS is used to load the bootblock (which it has to do for >MSDOS anyway), write messages to the console and read blocks off the >boot disk. That's pretty much it. Indeed, but in practice there are complications and odd details. I used to be able to rattle off a list of BIOS probings that would hang the machine, but time has been kind to me. I remember very little about the myriad of obscure details of BIOSes I encountered, but the kind of problems I had are not uncommon. Look for example at: Asus uses Award BIOSes and actually their motherboards are comparably amongst the least awful available, but the point is that their BIOS upgrades fix gems such as: - Fix Parity Error if PS2 mouse installed. - Fix AHA2940UW bootup hangs. - Fix cannotformat 120MB diskette in WIN95-OSR2 when drive A is 1.44MB - Fix UnixWare 2.1 trap. - Fix 3COM 3C619C warmboot hang up problem. - Fix VGA BIOS Runtime > 32K Not properly implemented - Fix 64K boundary error if INT13 extention is called. - Fix NT 4.0 with 4 COM ports (some add-on SIO cards) not recognized correctly. - Fix CDROM boot fail if system is SCO and emulate to floppy - Fix SCO OS bootable CDROM for install error etc. scsprong ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <959288691.393317@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Organization: None X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) Lines: 46 Message-ID: <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 23:09:57 EDT Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 03:09:57 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!news-east.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57258 In article <959288691.393317@shelley.paradise.net.nz>, Don Stokes wrote: >In article , >Kragen Sitaker wrote: >>What about the MicroVAX and DECStation? > >I tend to regard those as extensions of the minicomputer lines, rather >than attempts to get into the small desktop micro business. VAXstations, >DECstations ran real timesharing operating systems, not 8 & 16 bit >single-user toy OSes. It's true they ran Unix --- and I think they cost five figures, which put them in a different market from the PC and Mac. Still, I was under the impression that most of them were used as desktop workstations by single users, not as timesharing machines. (Although the ones I started with were indeed timesharing machines.) >>>. . . IBM (uncharacteristically) managed to fold the >>>major virtues of the Apple ][ . . . into the thing, >>But the Apple also had two other major virtues ("cheap", "video") the >>PC didn't. > >CGA still had more resolution than the Apple. HIRES on the Apple was >pretty crappy, really. When was CGA available? I agree it was quite awesome --- I first used AutoCAD on a CGA/MDA machine. But I thought it wasn't until considerably after the PC was launched that the CGA became available. >And the Apple was never terribly cheap, at least in any usable >configuration (48k, floppies). True, the PC was more expensive, but it >was also a noticably more capable machine, and it did have the three >magic letters on the front. Was it really? I'd heard the 8088 used considerably more cycles per instruction than the 6502, discarding its clock-rate advantage over the ][, and most PCs in the early days didn't have more than 64K or 128K of RAM (which the //e could take). One of these days I'll get a disk OS for my //e. :) -- Kragen Sitaker The Internet stock bubble didn't burst on 1999-11-08. Hurrah! The power didn't go out on 2000-01-01 either. :) ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392BA00B.A5669B15@netinsight.se> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <392E428F.1F8ACBB1@netinsight.se> Organization: None X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) Lines: 14 Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 23:11:53 EDT Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 03:11:53 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!63.211.125.72!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!news-east.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57103 In article <392E428F.1F8ACBB1@netinsight.se>, Johnny Billquist wrote: >A little known fact; the pdp-8 was sold until 1990. Pretty long run, >since the PDP-5 started selling in 1965 or so. >(And for those who don't know, the pdp-5 and pdp-8 was *very* similar.) Wasn't the HP 48G calculator available by 1990? I remember calculating that its CPU power and memory size were roughly equivalent to the PDP-8's, although I think it has a slower bus. -- Kragen Sitaker The Internet stock bubble didn't burst on 1999-11-08. Hurrah! The power didn't go out on 2000-01-01 either. :) ###### From: Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 23:06:05 -0500 Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <392D8E65.38BC@azstarnet.com> <8gk40n$1oh$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <8gkq0a$3u5@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com User-Agent: tin/1.4.3-20000502 ("Marian") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.6 (i586)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!unlisys!news.snafu.de!blackbush.xlink.net!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!ams-newsfeed.speedport.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!newspeer1.nac.net!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57160 Eric Chomko wrote: : Whoa, the best 6800 based BASIC was Robert Uiterwyk's BASIC. It was the : standard from which other's were based. Its kind of unfair to mention 6800 : based BASICs and leave out Uiterwyk's version. Hardly the best, as it was s - l - o - w. TSC's BASICs were perkier performers. Uiterwyk BASIC did use BCD arithmetic so money arithmetic came out right. ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <959288691.393317@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 9 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 23:12:47 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-4vmfQnMWyMwIjSDHat9ON7AsDRHa2SG/7G65qdxtcFJoW3x1Oc2Ngqn7xzfaW/pDn6YD3COyAMBnUQi!TQx3fS7LSsEXe1sYrGSp X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 04:12:47 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!portc03.blue.aol.com!nntp2.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57146 On Sat, 27 May 2000 03:09:57 GMT, Kragen Sitaker wrote: >When was CGA available? I agree it was quite awesome --- I first used >AutoCAD on a CGA/MDA machine. But I thought it wasn't until >considerably after the PC was launched that the CGA became available. The CGA was available upon introduction, but IBM did not offer a CGA monitor for quite some time, which always struck me as Really Weird. My parents got a Princeton Graphics monitor with their CGA-equipped PC not that long after they were introduced. ###### From: bruce@hoult.org (Bruce Hoult) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 18:10:54 +1200 Organization: The Internet Group Ltd Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392BA00B.A5669B15@netinsight.se> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <392E428F.1F8ACBB1@netinsight.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: macinnat.static.star.net.nz X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!bruce Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57149 In article , kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) wrote: > In article <392E428F.1F8ACBB1@netinsight.se>, > Johnny Billquist wrote: > >A little known fact; the pdp-8 was sold until 1990. Pretty long run, > >since the PDP-5 started selling in 1965 or so. > >(And for those who don't know, the pdp-5 and pdp-8 was *very* similar.) > > Wasn't the HP 48G calculator available by 1990? I remember calculating > that its CPU power and memory size were roughly equivalent to the > PDP-8's, although I think it has a slower bus. Is the HP48 any faster than the HP28? They have the same programming language and my 28S (which I still use every day) has 32 KB of RAM and was made in 1986. -- Bruce ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars X-Complaints-To: Email abuse@spc.edu if this posting is inappropriate User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (BSD/OS/4.1 (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: gate.tmk.com Organization: St. Peter's College, US Message-ID: References: <391B1F4A.264B7E30@trailing-edge.com> <8gbfau$a59@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <9smmisoe4vs9r979pci6c762s9f7tjh91k@4ax.com> <8gm1b7$1hvbp$1@fu-berlin.de> <959376725.847227@shelley.paradise.net.nz> X-Trace: spcuna.spc.edu 959424538 23880 terry [204.141.35.61] Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 10:48:59 GMT Lines: 52 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.grnet.gr!news-feed1.eu.concert.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!howland.erols.net!panix!newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu!ord-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!news.spc.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57147 Don Stokes writes: > Que? What is there to not work? With MSDOS, the BIOS does quite a > bit of the OS's (and I use the term OS lightly here) work. With Unix, > NT and other protected OSes, the BIOS's involvement ends at the point > the OS has enough marbles together to identify and talk to its disks > without help, typically as soon as the kernel is loaded. Up to that > point, the BIOS is used to load the bootblock (which it has to do for > MSDOS anyway), write messages to the console and read blocks off the > boot disk. That's pretty much it. Lots of things, unfortunately. A friend of mine ran a public access Unix system on a Gateway 486 box w/ a Phoenix BIOS. Rebooting didn't work because the system would shadow its BIOS (copying it to RAM and then remapping RAM where the BIOS was). When Unix loaded and sized memory, it reset the mapping registers (which was fine, as the BIOS was no longer needed). Unfortunately, the reset that gets generated by the keyboard controller didn't re-enable the BIOS EPROM mapping, so the subsequent branch to the reset vector, allegedly in the BIOS, went to hyperspace. It took a power-cycle to bring the BIOS back. I suggested disabling the BIOS shadowing, so we tried that. We were both surprised when the Gateway emitted a "Moooooooooo!" from its speaker (how apropriate for something that ships in a simulated cowhide box 8-). It turns out the Phoenix BIOS was so brain-dead that it didn't consider the effect of not shadowing the BIOS on processor speed, and the speaker was toggled at a much lower pitch and longer duration as a result. In the "old days", my preference was for Award first, AMI second, and Phoenix and all the also-rans (Ed somebody's BIOS, etc.) last. This is particularly true after I gave Award some ideas (which they implemented without crediting me) for improving their BIOS. Of course, Phoenix and Award merged in 1998, and with the other shake-outs in the industry folks have less of a choice in which BIOS comes in systems they buy or build. But perhaps I'm biased - I sided with Roger and Carl during the TDL/ Xitan wars 8-) As another example - if you've ever tried to implement ECC support under Unix on PC hardware and you thought enabling ECC in the BIOS was enough to get the chipset initialized and memory scrubbed, you'd be mistaken in many cases - even Award got this wrong in some cases (it programmed ECC enable for I/O adapter BIOS segments, so the minute you went to an option ROM, you got an uncorrectable ECC error - since there aren't any ECC bits in the op- tion ROM space). So you have to scrub memory and set up ECC yourself. But since the kernel is loaded (and running from) un-scrubbed memory, if you want ECC protection on the kernel, you need to copy it somewhere else, scrub memory, and put it back. Bleagh. Terry Kennedy http://www.tmk.com terry@tmk.com Jersey City, NJ USA ###### From: bruce@hoult.org (Bruce Hoult) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 00:29:59 +1200 Organization: The Internet Group Ltd Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <959288691.393317@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: macinnat.static.star.net.nz X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!ihug.co.nz!bruce Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57151 In article <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net>, richmond@dallas.net wrote: > This has been pointed out in other threads, but the 8088 architecture was > very CISC, and the 6502 was very RISC-like. True, the 6502 did *not* have > a large register file, but 6502 instructions did very uncompilcated things > and executed in few cycles. True. Things like: - an eight bit instruction that would load the next byte in the instruction stream, use it as an address in memory from which to fetch two bytes, add the contents of those two bytes to a register and use the result of the add as an address in memory from which to fetch a byte to add to another register. - do you really need another example? -- Bruce ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 06:15:09 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 36 Message-ID: <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <959288691.393317@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57124 Kragen Sitaker wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip..] > > In article <959288691.393317@shelley.paradise.net.nz>, > Don Stokes wrote: > > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > > >And the Apple was never terribly cheap, at least in any usable > >configuration (48k, floppies). True, the PC was more expensive, but it > >was also a noticably more capable machine, and it did have the three > >magic letters on the front. > > Was it really? I'd heard the 8088 used considerably more cycles per > instruction than the 6502, discarding its clock-rate advantage over the > ][, and most PCs in the early days didn't have more than 64K or 128K of > RAM (which the //e could take). > This has been pointed out in other threads, but the 8088 architecture was very CISC, and the 6502 was very RISC-like. True, the 6502 did *not* have a large register file, but 6502 instructions did very uncompilcated things and executed in few cycles. I like the 6502, warts and all. But the 8088 had the potential to address larger memory spaces directly. And things like multiply and divide instructions tend to help out. > > One of these days I'll get a disk OS for my //e. :) > Go to the group...there are people there who can provide you with OS disks for your //e. Surprising to some, there still exists a fairly large Apple ][ community. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <959288691.393317@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> Organization: Daedalus Consulting X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Message-ID: <959433393.14014@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Cache-Post-Path: shelley.paradise.net.nz!unknown@203-96-144-16.cable.paradise.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 78 Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 13:16:49 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.96.152.26 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 959433409 203.96.152.26 (Sun, 28 May 2000 01:16:49 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 01:16:49 NZST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57218 Kragen Sitaker wrote: >>>What about the MicroVAX and DECStation? >It's true they ran Unix --- and I think they cost five figures, which >put them in a different market from the PC and Mac. Still, I was under >the impression that most of them were used as desktop workstations by >single users, not as timesharing machines. (Although the ones I >started with were indeed timesharing machines.) DEC never seemed to expect anyone to buy one workstation (although of course some folks did); they were always intended to be put on a network with other (more expensive) systems. The point here is that the workstations fell off the bottom of the minicomputer/timesharing line and its associated attitudes, not off the top of a (nearlt non-existent) standalone personal computer line. >When was CGA available? I agree it was quite awesome --- I first used >AutoCAD on a CGA/MDA machine. But I thought it wasn't until >considerably after the PC was launched that the CGA became available. I thought it was fairly early, but I wasn't paying much attention at the time. >>And the Apple was never terribly cheap, at least in any usable >>configuration (48k, floppies). True, the PC was more expensive, but it >>was also a noticably more capable machine, and it did have the three >>magic letters on the front. > >Was it really? I'd heard the 8088 used considerably more cycles per >instruction than the 6502, discarding its clock-rate advantage over the >][, and most PCs in the early days didn't have more than 64K or 128K of >RAM (which the //e could take). The 6502 gets more done per cycle than an 8088, but not four and a bit time more. The 2 MHz 6502 in a BBC Micro could (just) outrun the PC, but the apple ][ ran at only 1 MHz, putting it at a significant disadvantage speedwise. Also, the apple ][ memory map was always a shambles (especially with HIRES graphics, which mapped the screen right in the middle), and didn't really allow for convenient use of additional memory beyond the basic 48k. The 48k->64k expansion was via the language card, and was basically useless for applications, and IIRC the larger upgrades on the //e were similarly hobbled. The PC pushed the I/O space up abopve 640k, leaving the memory relatively uncluttered, and the segment architecture allowed for easy copying between segments, something that's difficult with external bank switching as found on 8 bit micros with 16 bit address spaces. From (distant) memory, the Apple ][ memory map went: Page 00 Zero page 01 Stack 02 Input buffer 03 Mostly spare, with a few vectors 04-07 Text display 08-0B Text display page 2 0C-1F Program memory 20-3F HIRES page 1 40-5F HIRES page 2 60-AF More program memory B0-BF DOS C0 System board I/O C1-C7 Slot I/O (one page per slot) C8-CF card ROM, mapped to selected slot ROM D0-FF BASIC/Monitor ROM/Language card. (I'm sure someone remembers the details better than me...) The language card simply shadowed the ROM. You got 16k mapped over a 12k area (the bottom 4k shadowed twice). I'm not sure exactly where DOS started, but note that it was read from disk, not ROM. The best case with this map is program memory from $0800 to $B000, or about 40k of free space. But that's for a text-only application using the HIRES memory as normal memory; once HIRES kicks in a dirty great hole opens up in the memory map. -- don ###### From: "The Yangster" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 27 May 2000 13:25:42 GMT Organization: National Taiwan University Lines: 19 Message-ID: <8goicm$oe9$1@gemini.ntu.edu.tw> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <959288691.393317@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: precision.math.ntu.edu.tw X-Trace: gemini.ntu.edu.tw 959433942 25033 140.112.50.235 (27 May 2000 13:25:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: postmaster@news.ntu.edu.tw NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 May 2000 13:25:42 GMT User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990216 ("Styrofoam") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.14 (i686)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!howland.erols.net!spring.edu.tw!news.ntu.edu.tw!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57184 Bruce Hoult wrote: : In article <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net>, richmond@dallas.net wrote: :> This has been pointed out in other threads, but the 8088 architecture was :> very CISC, and the 6502 was very RISC-like. True, the 6502 did *not* have :> a large register file, but 6502 instructions did very uncompilcated things :> and executed in few cycles. : True. Things like: [the Page0 Indexed addressing] LDA (xx),Y : - an eight bit instruction that would load the next byte in the : instruction stream, use it as an address in memory from which to fetch two : bytes, add the contents of those two bytes to a register and use the : result of the add as an address in memory from which to fetch a byte to : add to another register. do you really need another example? IMO, it's better if we think of the 6502 as a CPU with 256 registers, from 0x0 to 0xff :) I remember that there is some wonky Apple ][ Clone that has its 0th Page in SRAM? Or something like that, that flies ... ###### Message-ID: <392FA496.79AA9645@trailing-edge.com> Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 10:33:59 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <959288691.393317@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <959433393.14014@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 50 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader3.news.uu.net 959438040 7787 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader3.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57182 Don Stokes wrote: > From (distant) memory, the Apple ][ memory map went: > > Page 00 Zero page > 01 Stack > 02 Input buffer > 03 Mostly spare, with a few vectors The low part of page 03 was commonly used from basic programs as a convenient place to POKE some machine language routines called from the program. > 04-07 Text display > 08-0B Text display page 2 Very very few programs used the second text page, this was almost always used for program memory. The text displays pages were also the LORES graphics pages (each byte was two 4-bit pixels). > 0C-1F Program memory > 20-3F HIRES page 1 > 40-5F HIRES page 2 Some programs used both Hires pages, but generally only for page- flipping animation techniques. > 60-AF More program memory > B0-BF DOS The lower boundary of DOS and the upper boundary of program memory depended on which version of DOS was present and how many buffers you had allocated to it. > C0 System board I/O > C1-C7 Slot I/O (one page per slot) > C8-CF card ROM, mapped to selected slot ROM I don't think this is *quite* right - I definitely remember that C600 was the start of the ROM on the card in slot 6. And I think that the I/O addresses on slot 6 ran from C060 to C06F, or maybe it was C0E0 to C0EF. (Of course, slot 6 is where most folks installed their floppy disk controller, which is why I remember some of these locations!) > D0-FF BASIC/Monitor ROM/Language card. > > (I'm sure someone remembers the details better than me...) Tim. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars X-Complaints-To: Email abuse@spc.edu if this posting is inappropriate User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (BSD/OS/4.1 (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: gate.tmk.com Organization: St. Peter's College, US Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <959288691.393317@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <959433393.14014@shelley.paradise.net.nz> X-Trace: spcuna.spc.edu 959448594 1097 terry [204.141.35.61] Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 17:29:55 GMT Lines: 18 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!209.50.235.254!europa.netcrusader.net!209.150.97.11!feeder.qis.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!intermedia!news.new-york.net!news.spc.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57130 Don Stokes writes: > The 6502 gets more done per cycle than an 8088, but not four and a bit > time more. The 2 MHz 6502 in a BBC Micro could (just) outrun the PC, > but the apple ][ ran at only 1 MHz, putting it at a significant > disadvantage speedwise. FWIW, the back-port of BASICA/GWBASIC from the 8088/IBM PC to the Spectravideo SV-318 (which used a Z-80 at 3.58MHz) performed much better on the 318 than on the PC, despite the fact that the back-port was done by taking the pseudo-assembler mnemonics (which were themselves an out- growth of Microsoft's DECsystem-based 8080 assembler mnemonics) and gen- erating multiple 8080 opcodes. I assume this is true of most of the MSX (Spectravideo-derived) BASICs. Terry Kennedy http://www.tmk.com terry@tmk.com Jersey City, NJ USA ###### From: wiss@unx.nu ("Jonas Wissting") Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 20:06:55 +0200 Organization: Utfors AB Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392BA00B.A5669B15@netinsight.se> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <392E428F.1F8ACBB1@netinsight.se> Reply-To: "wiss@unx.nu" NNTP-Posting-Host: md4691d09.utfors.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: yggdrasil.utfors.se 959458005 5327 212.105.29.9 (27 May 2000 20:06:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@utfors.se NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 May 2000 20:06:45 GMT X-Newsreader: knews 1.0b.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news.algonet.se!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!uab.ericsson.se!erinews.ericsson.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!news.utfors.se!elwing.arda!nobody Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57155 In article , kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) writes: > Wasn't the HP 48G calculator available by 1990? I remember calculating In Sweden it was introduced late -91, I bought my 28s late -90. Jonas -- http://wiss.unx.nu http://linux.unx.nu v1.2a r FU 0/0/ FD - 0 DSotM 3 0 32.6& <2jan0> Our adventure in relativity begins when a small stone flies past us wearing a wristwatch. Programming a living system is much more interesting than programming "post mortem"... ###### Message-ID: <393264B9.1F6EFD22@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392BA00B.A5669B15@netinsight.se> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <392E428F.1F8ACBB1@netinsight.se> <959347267.220687@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 33 Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 12:38:21 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 959603901 194.16.221.33 (Mon, 29 May 2000 14:38:21 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 14:38:21 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!diablo.theplanet.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!newsfeed101.telia.com!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57271 Don Stokes wrote: > > In article <392E428F.1F8ACBB1@netinsight.se>, > Johnny Billquist wrote: > >A little known fact; the pdp-8 was sold until 1990. Pretty long run, > >since the PDP-5 started selling in 1965 or so. > >(And for those who don't know, the pdp-5 and pdp-8 was *very* similar.) > > I've seen WPS-8 booted on a PDP-8/A (I think -- never really played with > -8s myself). I believe it can even be convinced to boot on a PDP-5. I think I have an 8" WPS-8 diskette somewhere, which I booted on my 8/A a few years ago. I should probably try to look it up. It might work on the PDP-5, but then again, it might very well not. Interrupts are different, since the PDP-5 have the PC at address 0, and puts the return address for interrupts at address 1. > >Actually, the IBM PC is a real oddball in the IBM park. It even talks > >ASCII (but with a twist). I wonder how many agonies IBM went through > > No more twisted than contemporary 8-bitters. PETSCII, anyone? Hey! We're talking IBM here. EBCDIC? Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### Message-ID: <39326507.9EF7C1CF@netinsight.se> From: Johnny Billquist Organization: Netinsight AB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392BA00B.A5669B15@netinsight.se> <959244964.523346@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <392E428F.1F8ACBB1@netinsight.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 20 Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 12:39:35 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.16.221.33 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 959603975 194.16.221.33 (Mon, 29 May 2000 14:39:35 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 14:39:35 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!unlisys!news.snafu.de!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!newsfeed101.telia.com!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57272 Jonas Wissting wrote: > > In article , > kragen@dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) writes: > > Wasn't the HP 48G calculator available by 1990? I remember calculating > > In Sweden it was introduced late -91, I bought my 28s late -90. The 48SX and 48S already existed though. I got my 48SX in 1990, if I remember correctly. Johnny -- Johnny Billquist | johnny.billquist@netinsight.net Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88 Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20 Box 42093 | SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net ###### From: korpela@islay.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 31 May 2000 02:00:02 GMT Organization: Cal Berkeley-- Space Sciences Lab Lines: 37 Message-ID: <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <959288691.393317@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: islay.ssl.berkeley.edu X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 959738402 15158 128.32.98.192 (31 May 2000 02:00:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2000 02:00:02 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.grnet.gr!news-feed1.eu.concert.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news-x.support.nl!128.32.206.60.MISMATCH!news-hog.berkeley.edu!agate.berkeley.edu!agate!islay.ssl.berkeley.edu!korpela Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57363 In article <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net>, Charles Richmond wrote: >This has been pointed out in other threads, but the 8088 architecture was >very CISC, and the 6502 was very RISC-like. True, the 6502 did *not* have >a large register file, but 6502 instructions did very uncompilcated things >and executed in few cycles. As has also been pointed out in those very threads, statements like this are nonsense. Count the addressing modes of the 6502 and tell me it's RISC. Point out another RISC processor with both an indexed indirect and an indirect indexed addressing mode. (For those unfamiliar with the processor, they are the equivalent to "char *m; a=*(m+r)" and "char **m; a=*((*m)+r)"). Double indirection in a single instruction isn't very RISC. Count the "register to register" instructions. Not very many. And don't tell me zero page is a register set until you can point out the instruction to add one "zero page register" to another. >I like the 6502, warts and all. I've never met a processor I didn't enjoy. Some I like better than others. I try not to delude myself, or others, though. > But the 8088 >had the potential to address larger memory spaces directly. And things >like multiply and divide instructions tend to help out. As does a 16 bit ALU. I wouldn't be suprised to see a 1MHz 6502 beat an IBM PC on translated 8080 code. But when you throw in 16 bit instructions and multiply/divide, it's not much of a contest. Eric -- Eric Korpela | An object at rest can never be korpela@ssl.berkeley.edu | stopped. Click for home page. ###### From: bruce@hoult.org (Bruce Hoult) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 15:46:58 +1200 Organization: The Internet Group Ltd Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <959288691.393317@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: macinnat.static.star.net.nz X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.dpn.de!news-out3.f.gtn.com!news-in2.f.gtn.com!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!ihug.co.nz!bruce Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57351 In article <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu>, korpela@islay.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) wrote: > In article <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net>, > Charles Richmond wrote: > >This has been pointed out in other threads, but the 8088 architecture was > >very CISC, and the 6502 was very RISC-like. True, the 6502 did *not* have > >a large register file, but 6502 instructions did very uncompilcated things > >and executed in few cycles. > > As has also been pointed out in those very threads, statements like this > are nonsense. Count the addressing modes of the 6502 and tell me it's RISC. > Point out another RISC processor with both an indexed indirect and an > indirect indexed addressing mode. (For those unfamiliar with the processor, > they are the equivalent to "char *m; a=*(m+r)" and "char **m; a=*((*m)+r)"). > Double indirection in a single instruction isn't very RISC. I agree entirely. > Count the "register to register" instructions. Not very many. And don't tell > me zero page is a register set until you can point out the instruction to > add one "zero page register" to another. Weeeell, it's a macro that takes seven bytes and eleven (counting on my fingers) clock cycles: .macro addzp a,b,c clc lda b adc c sta a endm Strangely enough, this is something that you wouldn't have to do very often in real code. Increment or decrement would be much more common, or adding something pointed to by zero-page to something else in ZP. .macro addmemtoZP offset,ptr,acc # like add acc, offset(ptr) on a bigger CPU clc ldy #offset lda (ptr),y adc acc sta acc iny lda (ptr),y adc acc+1 sta acc+1 endm That's 16 bytes and 29 (I think) cycles. Not exactly compact code. -- Bruce ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 31 May 2000 13:07:53 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 32 Message-ID: <8h3kdp$uig$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57408 In article <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu>, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu writes: >> >What a different world it would have been... Maybe even no M$. >> "Maybe" ??? With a 68000, there would have been no desire for a CP/M >> clone to run the thing, which would make it unlikely that they would >> have gone to MS for that. >But MS didn't write CP/M, either. They wouldn't have gone to Digital >Research... I don't quite know who they would have gone to. But >there's no immediate reason to suppose Gates couldn't have gotten his >foot in the door, sold them a PC-DOS, and then found another of the >little Seattle Computer-like outfits to buy a 68000 DOS with which to >meet the contract. ``No MS'' is definitely not a given. But "MS" is a *really* long shot. The only reason they even got a chance was because IBM approached them when the couldn't (for whatever reasons) come to terms with DR. BUt it was because IBM went to MS that it all happened. I seriously doubt that MS would have gotten anywhere had they approached IBM at the time . . . hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. *** THIS EMAIL ADDRESS EXPIRES SOON*** If you do not have a new address, try "finger HAWKINS@psu.edu" and look for my name among the results. Upper case is important, as it causes a search for all persons named hawkins. I will also eventually be listed on the faculty list at http://www.ds.psu.edu/directories/faculty.htm (This is a single line to keep my usenet spooler happy). The new address will also apear on the website below. hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu (814) 375-4700 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY From: aje9383@osfmail.isc.rit.edu (Andrew Erickson) NNTP-Posting-Host: grace.isc.rit.edu X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: grace.isc.rit.edu Message-ID: <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> Date: 31 May 2000 18:35:09 -0500 X-Trace: 31 May 2000 18:35:09 -0500, grace.isc.rit.edu Lines: 42 XPident: aje9383 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.21.4.100 XPident: Unknown Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.nyu.edu!news-nysernet-16.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.isc.rit.edu!aje9383 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57390 In article <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu>, Eric J. Korpela wrote: >In article <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net>, >Charles Richmond wrote: >>This has been pointed out in other threads, but the 8088 architecture was >>very CISC, and the 6502 was very RISC-like. True, the 6502 did *not* have >>a large register file, but 6502 instructions did very uncompilcated things >>and executed in few cycles. > >As has also been pointed out in those very threads, statements like this >are nonsense. Count the addressing modes of the 6502 and tell me it's RISC. >Point out another RISC processor with both an indexed indirect and an >indirect indexed addressing mode. (For those unfamiliar with the processor, >they are the equivalent to "char *m; a=*(m+r)" and "char **m; a=*((*m)+r)"). >Double indirection in a single instruction isn't very RISC. Actually, I think it's closer to "char *m[]; a = *(m[0]+r)" and "char *m[]; a=*m[r]". Only one level of indirection takes place in either case., though, as m is specified absolutely (not indirectly). It's a question of whether you take the indexing before or after the indirection. Still, not too RISC-like. I think what people are trying to get at is that the 6502 handled addressing modes in a pretty regular way; pretty much any operation could be performed using pretty much any addressing mode. >Count the "register to register" instructions. Not very many. And don't tell >me zero page is a register set until you can point out the instruction to >add one "zero page register" to another. It's hard to have too many register to register instructions when you have only one general purpose register. :-) >>I like the 6502, warts and all. I guess I do, although I would a *lot* more if a couple of the warts were removed (namely, the 8 bit stack pointer and the inability to use anything other than page zero as the zero page). -- Andrew Erickson ###### From: TJ Edmister Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 20:41:48 -0700 Organization: repository of old computer junk Lines: 13 Message-ID: <3935DB7C.4731@hotmail.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57425 Andrew Erickson wrote: > > >>I like the 6502, warts and all. > > I guess I do, although I would a *lot* more if a couple of the warts were > removed (namely, the 8 bit stack pointer and the inability to use anything > other than page zero as the zero page). > > -- > Andrew Erickson this is all what makes the W65C816 so cool (coolest processor ever, IMHO) ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> Organization: Daedalus Consulting X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Message-ID: <959843485.879336@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Cache-Post-Path: shelley.paradise.net.nz!unknown@203-96-144-16.cable.paradise.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 33 Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 07:11:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.96.152.26 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 959843503 203.96.152.26 (Thu, 01 Jun 2000 19:11:43 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 19:11:43 NZST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57411 In article <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu>, Andrew Erickson wrote: >I think what people are trying to get at is that the 6502 handled addressing >modes in a pretty regular way; pretty much any operation could be performed >using pretty much any addressing mode. Huh? This ain't the 6502 I knew and loved. This is the CPU where to save the registers on the stack you have to go: PHP \ Save flags PHA \ Save accumulator TXA \ No PHX instruction, xfer X to A first... PHA \ ... and save TYA \ Ditto for Y PHA and reverse the process to restore 'em. Where conditional branches are all relative and the unconditional branch is absolute (the 65C02 introduced a BRA (branch always) instruction). Where indexing on the Y register works one way and with X another. Where the X & Y registers have a restricted set of address modes for loads and saves, and no arithmetic. Where you can increment or decrement memory (albeit by a restricted set of address modes), X or Y, but not the accumulator. >I guess I do, although I would a *lot* more if a couple of the warts were >removed (namely, the 8 bit stack pointer and the inability to use anything >other than page zero as the zero page). Awww, c'mon, the warts were what made the 6502 fun ... 8-) but yeah, selecting the zero and stack pages would have made practical multitasking on the thing possible. -- don ###### From: "river" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 19:15:34 +1000 Organization: Pacific Internet (Australia) Lines: 26 Message-ID: <8h5922$jv4$1@nina.pacific.net.au> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <8h3kdp$uig$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cartman61.zip.com.au X-Trace: nina.pacific.net.au 959850370 20452 61.8.20.189 (1 Jun 2000 09:06:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacific.net.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Jun 2000 09:06:10 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.zip.com.au!news.syd.pacific.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57401 snip..snip > But "MS" is a *really* long shot. The only reason they even got a chance > was because IBM approached them when the couldn't (for whatever > reasons) come to terms with DR. Why is that? Why didn't IBM write an OS for its PC? Didn't IBM write operating systems for their mainframes and minis? Surely IBM had the skills? If it was because IBM wanted the PC out on the market place very quickly, who was its rival? What other machine could of come out and stole the PC world from under their feet? Was it the AppleIII or Lisa? So, IBM just buys an OS and gets its machine out quickly? Why didn't they just buy M$ after the OS was ready - then they'd have it all! Ah.. questions and questions.. that is all I can offer at the moment... seeyuzz ###### From: dg@pearl.tao.co.uk (David Given) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:06:26 +0100 Organization: I do not speak for anyone but myself, and barely that. Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> <959843485.879336@shelley.paradise.net.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.19.67.123 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: 959870495 IIX5YQT0T437BD413C uk21.supernews.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarq.com X-Newsreader: knews 1.0b.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!feeder.via.net!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!127.0.0.1!nobody Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57417 In article <959843485.879336@shelley.paradise.net.nz>, don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) writes: > Huh? This ain't the 6502 I knew and loved. This is the CPU where > to save the registers on the stack you have to go: > > PHP \ Save flags > PHA \ Save accumulator > TXA \ No PHX instruction, xfer X to A first... > PHA \ ... and save > TYA \ Ditto for Y > PHA [...] > and reverse the process to restore 'em. Where conditional branches are > all relative and the unconditional branch is absolute (the 65C02 > introduced a BRA (branch always) instruction). It had more than just BRA. There were PHX and PHY, which made the code fragment above look a *lot* better, and STZ (store zero), and number of other things that made programming on it a lot easier. [...] > Awww, c'mon, the warts were what made the 6502 fun ... 8-) but yeah, > selecting the zero and stack pages would have made practical multitasking > on the thing possible. Indeed. Those were the only two things that really crippled what was, IMO, a really nice (if ultra-minimalist) processor. (Anyone want to design a 32-bit version?) -- +- David Given ---------------McQ-+ "Apatheism: the school of belief where on | Work: dg@tao-group.com | doesn't particularly care if there is/are | Play: dgiven@iname.com | god(s)." --- Capt. Gym Z. Quirk +- http://wired.st-and.ac.uk/~dg -+ ###### Message-ID: <393680FF.7DEAA2A9@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 17 Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 15:29:35 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.120.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 959873375 63.15.120.167 (Thu, 01 Jun 2000 08:29:35 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 08:29:35 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57395 Andrew Erickson wrote: > >>I like the 6502, warts and all. > > I guess I do, although I would a *lot* more if a couple of the warts were > removed (namely, the 8 bit stack pointer and the inability to use anything > other than page zero as the zero page). Sounds like someone wants a 6809 ;-) Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 08:59:09 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 42 Message-ID: <3936884D.978E6B6C@dallas.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <8h3kdp$uig$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <8h5922$jv4$1@nina.pacific.net.au> Reply-To: richmond@dallas.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57387 river wrote: > > snip..snip > > > But "MS" is a *really* long shot. The only reason they even got a chance > > was because IBM approached them when the couldn't (for whatever > > reasons) come to terms with DR. > > Why is that? Why didn't IBM write an OS for its PC? Didn't IBM write > operating systems for their mainframes and minis? Surely IBM had the > skills? > IBM built the PC in a very un-IBMish way...they bought all the pieces instead of building the pieces themselves. This was a radical departure for them. Yes, they wanted it out the door quick...but I am *not* exactly sure why. > > If it was because IBM wanted the PC out on the market place very quickly, > who was its rival? What other machine could of come out and stole the PC > world from under their feet? Was it the AppleIII or Lisa? So, IBM just > buys an OS and gets its machine out quickly? Why didn't they just buy M$ > after the OS was ready - then they'd have it all! > I do *not* think that M$ was for sale...I think this was before the M$ first public stock offering. But in any case, Mr. Gates, Mr. Allen and Mr. Balmer own a boat-load of the M$ stock. Getting a majority share of the stock is probably impossible. M$ reserved the right to sell MS-DOS themselves, so they obviously had ideas of doing other business. The other machines were the Apple ][ (for using Visicalc, their "killer app") and a raft of CP/M machines based on the Intel 8080 and Zilog Z-80. There was quite a bit of business software (and other software) available for CP/M. And when the IBM PC came out, you could get it with CP/M-86. The Apple III and the Lisa were *never* widely successful. The Apple III was plauged by poor construction problems...the board was *not* build well. The Lisa was too damned expensive for most to consider buying. And it really needed more memory to be very useful. (Memory at that time cost a *lot*!--at least if you needed a megabyte.) -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: "Liberal Republican" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:21:50 +0100 Message-ID: <959876833.20686.0.nnrp-13.9e98250c@news.demon.co.uk> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> <3935DB7C.4731@hotmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cemetery.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: cemetery.demon.co.uk:158.152.37.12 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 959876833 nnrp-13:20686 NO-IDENT cemetery.demon.co.uk:158.152.37.12 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Lines: 21 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-x.support.nl!bullseye.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!cemetery.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57418 Naah. It ran hot to the touch. the 1802 CMOS jobbie ran cooler TJ Edmister wrote in message news:3935DB7C.4731@hotmail.com... > Andrew Erickson wrote: > > > > >>I like the 6502, warts and all. > > > > I guess I do, although I would a *lot* more if a couple of the warts were > > removed (namely, the 8 bit stack pointer and the inability to use anything > > other than page zero as the zero page). > > > > -- > > Andrew Erickson > > this is all what makes the W65C816 so cool (coolest processor ever, > IMHO) ###### From: Alexandre Pechtchanski Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Organization: Rockefeller University Hospital (GCRC), New York Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <8h3kdp$uig$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <8h5922$jv4$1@nina.pacific.net.au> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 29 Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:00:03 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.85.24.56 X-Trace: rockyd.rockefeller.edu 959878956 129.85.24.56 (Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:02:36 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:02:36 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.nyu.edu!rockyd.rockefeller.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57414 On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 19:15:34 +1000, "river" wrote: >snip..snip > >> But "MS" is a *really* long shot. The only reason they even got a chance >> was because IBM approached them when the couldn't (for whatever >> reasons) come to terms with DR. > >Why is that? Why didn't IBM write an OS for its PC? Didn't IBM write >operating systems for their mainframes and minis? Surely IBM had the skills? > >If it was because IBM wanted the PC out on the market place very quickly, >who was its rival? What other machine could of come out and stole the PC world >from under their feet? Was it the AppleIII or Lisa? So, IBM just buys an OS and >gets its machine out quickly? Why didn't they just buy M$ after the OS was >ready - then they'd have it all! > >Ah.. questions and questions.. that is all I can offer at the moment... Well, IIRC, IBM couldn't write home-grown OS for PC because making PC was a shoe-string operation, and they tried to get almost all components off-the-shelf. They had lots and lots of the competitors - PC market was brimming with competition until IBM (a late-comer) stepped in and squashed most of them. They couldn't buy MS because of the anti-trust agreement. -- [ When replying, remove *'s from address ] Alexandre Pechtchanski, Systems Manager, RUH, NY ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> <393680FF.7DEAA2A9@earthlink.net> Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY From: aje9383@osfmail.isc.rit.edu (Andrew Erickson) NNTP-Posting-Host: grace.isc.rit.edu X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: grace.isc.rit.edu Message-ID: <39369019@news.isc.rit.edu> Date: 1 Jun 2000 12:32:25 -0500 X-Trace: 1 Jun 2000 12:32:25 -0500, grace.isc.rit.edu Lines: 33 XPident: aje9383 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.21.4.100 XPident: Unknown Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.nyu.edu!news-nysernet-16.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.isc.rit.edu!aje9383 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57388 In article <393680FF.7DEAA2A9@earthlink.net>, jchausler wrote: > > >Andrew Erickson wrote: > >> >>I like the 6502, warts and all. >> >> I guess I do, although I would a *lot* more if a couple of the warts were >> removed (namely, the 8 bit stack pointer and the inability to use anything >> other than page zero as the zero page). > >Sounds like someone wants a 6809 ;-) Quite true, actually; I'd really like to, when (or if) I get some time, to build a really nifty 6809 based system; something with a relatively big chunk of RAM, some custom MMU stuff (probably just segmenting), and a DMA SCSI interface; perhaps, as well, some reasonable graphics system. What I actually have is a CoCo II with a (minor) problem in the power supply. Somehow, I much prefer programming, say, an Apple //e with a disk drive, a display not plagued by RF interference, and both upper and lower case (and a keyboard which actually feels like a keyboard) to it. With my thesis work and such, though, they're all consigned to storage in the garage, along with the Sun 3/50 and the TRS-80 model 4p (3p?) CP/M box and the VT220 compatible terminal and the jazz organ and the snowmobile and the rowboat and the.... *sigh* -- Andrew Erickson ###### From: dg@pearl.tao.co.uk (David Given) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:31:44 +0100 Organization: I do not speak for anyone but myself, and barely that. Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.19.67.123 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: 959887207 IIX5YQT0T437BD413C uk25.supernews.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarq.com X-Newsreader: knews 1.0b.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!127.0.0.1!nobody Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57484 In article <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu>, aje9383@osfmail.isc.rit.edu (Andrew Erickson) writes: [...] >>>I like the 6502, warts and all. > > I guess I do, although I would a *lot* more if a couple of the warts were > removed (namely, the 8 bit stack pointer and the inability to use anything > other than page zero as the zero page). Actually, now I come to think of it, you could work round this quite simply with a bit of external hardware. You'd need something like an MMU; something that compared the top eight bits of the address bus against 00 and 02 (IIRC) and if they matched, drove the external bus with the values from a latch somewhere instead. Possible, but not pretty; did anyone ever build any machines that did something like this? (I think you should be able to get away with a 7-bit nand and latch. I think. Would make an interesting hardware project, actually.) -- +- David Given ---------------McQ-+ "Apatheism: the school of belief where on | Work: dg@tao-group.com | doesn't particularly care if there is/are | Play: dgiven@iname.com | god(s)." --- Capt. Gym Z. Quirk +- http://wired.st-and.ac.uk/~dg -+ ###### From: "George R. Gonzalez" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:14:00 -0500 Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus Lines: 23 Message-ID: <8h696q$qbh$1@laurel.tc.umn.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> <959843485.879336@shelley.paradise.net.nz> X-Trace: laurel.tc.umn.edu 959883291 26993 134.84.134.102 (1 Jun 2000 18:14:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@laurel.tc.umn.edu X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.netcologne.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer.eecs.umich.edu!hardy.tc.umn.edu!laurel.tc.umn.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57450 Didnt the 6502 have several quirks( "I'd call them "BUGS") The call instruction would push the address of the place it was called from - 1. The return instruction compensated for this. I once wasted a whole week tryinmg to figure out why I couldnt do a reliable computed call Sometimes it worked, other times it went goofy. Of course it was calling one byte too far ahead, which would garble the first instruction. (This was caling routines in the Apple II UCSD card address space, where you couldnt debug into the code as there was major address page-flipping going on). oh, and also: If an instruction crossed a page boundary, one of the lesser-used indexing modes would goof up the address calculation. ###### From: pete@fenelon.com (Pete Fenelon) Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> <959843485.879336@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <8h696q$qbh$1@laurel.tc.umn.edu> User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990216 ("Styrofoam") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.13 (i586)) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 19:37:30 +0100 Message-ID: Lines: 14 NNTP-Posting-Host: man-120.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Trace: news.zetnet.co.uk 959968594 31676 news@194.247.40.153 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!master.news.zetnet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57437 George R. Gonzalez wrote: > If an instruction crossed a page boundary, one of the lesser-used > indexing modes would goof up the address calculation. Yes, it fetched the wrong page but got the low-order byte right, IIRC. This one bit me and kept me puzzled for some time when I was a youngster hand-hacking machine language on PETs :) Still, a useful introduction to the fact that CPU's aren't always right -- one that's done me a lot of good in an embedded context. pete -- pete@fenelon.com "You know Howard Molson's shovel I was telling you about?" ###### Message-ID: <39367A23.21E34C0@trailing-edge.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:58:43 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa Organization: Trailing Edge Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V7.0 DEC 3000 Model 300L) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> <959843485.879336@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <8h696q$qbh$1@laurel.tc.umn.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.130 X-Trace: reader3.news.uu.net 959885924 9702 63.73.218.130 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!portc03.blue.aol.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!spool1.news.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader3.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57451 George R. Gonzalez wrote: > > Didnt the 6502 have several quirks( "I'd call them "BUGS") > > If an instruction crossed a page boundary, one of the lesser-used > indexing modes would goof up the address calculation. The indirect jump is what you're thinking of. JMP ($09FF) would, for example, take the address from $09FF and $0900. Tim. ###### From: timothy.mccaffrey@spam2filter.unisys.com.takethisoff (Tim McCaffrey) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 1 Jun 2000 23:17:41 GMT Organization: A series networking Lines: 22 Message-ID: <8h6qul$nmb$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.63.212.151 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.9 (Released Version) (x86 32bit) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!ams.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!eanews1.unisys.com!plnews.pl.unisys.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57464 In article , David Given says... > >Actually, now I come to think of it, you could work round this quite >simply with a bit of external hardware. You'd need something like an MMU; >something that compared the top eight bits of the address bus against 00 >and 02 (IIRC) and if they matched, drove the external bus with the values >from a latch somewhere instead. Possible, but not pretty; did anyone ever >build any machines that did something like this? I do not recall the magazine (probably Kilobaud, perhaps Byte or Dr. Dobbs), but there was an article on building a relocation register (latch and 8 bit adder) for the top 8 bits for a 6800. I recall one of the advantages is that it allowed you to have a zero page for every process. Obviously, it would probably work for a 6502 in the same way. I recall the implementation was very simple (half a dozen SSI/MSI chips). Time frame was 77-80, I think, I don't know if I still have the article. Tim McCaffrey ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8h696q$qbh$1@laurel.tc.umn.edu> <39367A23.21E34C0@trailing-edge.com> Organization: Daedalus Consulting X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Message-ID: <959904188.486988@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Cache-Post-Path: shelley.paradise.net.nz!unknown@203-96-144-16.cable.paradise.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 13 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 00:03:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.96.152.26 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 959904205 203.96.152.26 (Fri, 02 Jun 2000 12:03:25 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 12:03:25 NZST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57473 In article <39367A23.21E34C0@trailing-edge.com>, Tim Shoppa wrote: >The indirect jump is what you're thinking of. >JMP ($09FF) would, for example, take the address from $09FF and $0900. That one was usually not a big problem to avoid -- I knew about it but never saw it in the wild. There were quite frequent articles about 6502 bugs and undocumented features. Some apple ][ software relied on them and broke when apple //es (and the //c) started getting 65C02s. -- don ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> <959843485.879336@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Organization: Daedalus Consulting X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Message-ID: <959904522.715658@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Cache-Post-Path: shelley.paradise.net.nz!unknown@203-96-144-16.cable.paradise.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 22 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 00:09:00 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.96.152.26 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 959904540 203.96.152.26 (Fri, 02 Jun 2000 12:09:00 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 12:09:00 NZST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57472 In article , David Given wrote: >It had more than just BRA. There were PHX and PHY, which made the code >fragment above look a *lot* better, and STZ (store zero), and number of >other things that made programming on it a lot easier. Oh, OK, I never used the 65C02 as anything but a debugged 6502. IIRC, STZ was also a 6502 undocumented instruction -- dunno if it was the same opcodes on th 65C02. >Indeed. Those were the only two things that really crippled what was, IMO, >a really nice (if ultra-minimalist) processor. > >(Anyone want to design a 32-bit version?) I understood the ARM was designed with the intent of preserving some of the 6502's attributes, but within a modern (at the time) RISC architecture. (ARM at the time of course standing for Acorn RISC Machine, the Acorn folks being long time devotees of the 6502.) -- don ###### From: TJ Edmister Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 17:16:52 -0700 Organization: repository of old computer junk Lines: 6 Message-ID: <3936FCF4.13E8@hotmail.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> <3935DB7C.4731@hotmail.com> <959876833.20686.0.nnrp-13.9e98250c@news.demon.co.uk> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57498 Liberal Republican wrote: > > Naah. It ran hot to the touch. the 1802 CMOS jobbie ran cooler > I was asking for it ###### From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 18:12:21 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 22 Message-ID: <393709F5.1087@azstarnet.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <8h3kdp$uig$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!feeder.via.net!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57431 hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote: > But "MS" is a *really* long shot. The only reason they even got a chance > was because IBM approached them when the couldn't (for whatever > reasons) come to terms with DR. Let me make it really simple for you. No more ''whatever reasons''. When IBM came calling at Digital Research they wanted DRI to sign a non-disclosure that clearly stated everything spoken about became the property of IBM. Since DRI was already selling an operating system, something called CP/M, there was some confusion about just exactly what IBM was thinking - did they really expect to OWN this CP/M if anyone from Digital Research happened to mention it? On the other hand, Microsoft had nothing to lose, as I'm sure you know. Now, Counselor, what part of that explanation don't you understand? Bill Tucson, AZ ###### From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 18:25:14 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 31 Message-ID: <39370CFA.3421@azstarnet.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <8h3kdp$uig$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <8h5922$jv4$1@nina.pacific.net.au> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57432 river wrote: > > snip..snip > > > But "MS" is a *really* long shot. The only reason they even got a chance > > was because IBM approached them when the couldn't (for whatever > > reasons) come to terms with DR. > > Why is that? Why didn't IBM write an OS for its PC? Didn't IBM write > operating > systems for their mainframes and minis? Surely IBM had the skills? They DID. According to Ferguson and Morris in ''Computer Wars'' the Yorktown Group had something called, I believe, CPX or CPX-86 that was miles ahead of anything Microsoft (or even, probably, DRI) was offering. The ''answer''? Internal politics. IBM's a BIG company. Would NEVER have made it past CMC (Central Management Committee). There is something called a CARD CATALOGUE; it's a useful tool at strange places called LIBRARIES. If you try real hard, you can probably identify, oh, a couple hundred books about IBM, Microsoft, Apple, and a whole bunch of related titles covering some part of the personal computing story. Like the elephant and the blind men, everybody has found some little piece of the ''truth''. And every piece different. Might be worth spending a little time there. Bill Tucson, AZ ###### From: dowe@krikkit.localdomain (Dowe Keller) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <8h3kdp$uig$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <8h5922$jv4$1@nina.pacific.net.au> <39370CFA.3421@azstarnet.com> X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.4.3 UNIX) NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.234.196.109 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.234.196.109 Message-ID: <39371b16@news.sierratel.com> Date: 1 Jun 2000 19:25:26 -0700 X-Trace: 1 Jun 2000 19:25:26 -0700, 209.234.196.109 Organization: news.sierratel.com Lines: 40 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!europa.netcrusader.net!208.184.7.66!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!209.155.26.10!news.sierratel.com!dowe Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57441 On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 18:25:14 -0700, bill_h wrote: >river wrote: >> >> snip..snip >> >> > But "MS" is a *really* long shot. The only reason they even got a chance >> > was because IBM approached them when the couldn't (for whatever >> > reasons) come to terms with DR. >> >> Why is that? Why didn't IBM write an OS for its PC? Didn't IBM write >> operating >> systems for their mainframes and minis? Surely IBM had the skills? > >They DID. According to Ferguson and Morris in ''Computer Wars'' the >Yorktown Group had something called, I believe, CPX or CPX-86 that >was miles ahead of anything Microsoft (or even, probably, DRI) was >offering. The ''answer''? Internal politics. IBM's a BIG company. > >Would NEVER have made it past CMC (Central Management Committee). > >There is something called a CARD CATALOGUE; it's a useful tool at >strange places called LIBRARIES. If you try real hard, you can probably >identify, oh, a couple hundred books about IBM, Microsoft, Apple, and >a whole bunch of related titles covering some part of the personal >computing story. Like the elephant and the blind men, everybody has >found some little piece of the ''truth''. And every piece different. > >Might be worth spending a little time there. I did, I (like, I imagine, a majority of the posters in a.f.c.) Find the whole computer history thing pretty neat. I can honestly state that I have not read a single version of the IBM-PC/MicroSoft/CPM story that didn't contradict every other version. -- dowe@sierratel.com --- I wanted to emulate some of my hero's, but I didn't know thier op-codes. --dowe ###### From: "Roger Johnstone" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 19:12:22 +1200 Organization: Ihug Limited (Invercargill) Lines: 25 Message-ID: <959929922.182866@inv.ihug.co.nz> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> <959843485.879336@shelley.paradise.net.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: inv.ihug.co.nz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.01 (295) Cache-Post-Path: inv.ihug.co.nz!unknown@p59-max1.inv.ihug.co.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57436 ---------- In article , dg@pearl.tao.co.uk (David Given) wrote: >In article <959843485.879336@shelley.paradise.net.nz>, >[...] >> Awww, c'mon, the warts were what made the 6502 fun ... 8-) but yeah, >> selecting the zero and stack pages would have made practical multitasking >> on the thing possible. > >Indeed. Those were the only two things that really crippled what was, IMO, >a really nice (if ultra-minimalist) processor. > >(Anyone want to design a 32-bit version?) The Western Design Center (makers of the 16-bit 65816) did have a design for a 65832 (32-bit) but it never went into production, I don't even know if there were any prototypes made. Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rojaws ------------------------------------------ There are two ways to write error-free programs. Only the third one works. ###### From: "Roger Johnstone" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 19:19:23 +1200 Organization: Ihug Limited (Invercargill) Lines: 26 Message-ID: <959930342.580071@inv.ihug.co.nz> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> <959843485.879336@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <8h696q$qbh$1@laurel.tc.umn.edu> <39367A23.21E34C0@trailing-edge.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: inv.ihug.co.nz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.01 (295) Cache-Post-Path: inv.ihug.co.nz!unknown@p59-max1.inv.ihug.co.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.152.166.98.MISMATCH!newsmaster-01.atnet.at!atnet.at!newsrouter.chello.at!amsnews01.chello.com!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57433 ---------- In article <39367A23.21E34C0@trailing-edge.com>, Tim Shoppa wrote: >George R. Gonzalez wrote: >> >> Didnt the 6502 have several quirks( "I'd call them "BUGS") >> >> If an instruction crossed a page boundary, one of the lesser-used >> indexing modes would goof up the address calculation. > >The indirect jump is what you're thinking of. >JMP ($09FF) would, for example, take the address from $09FF and $0900. > >Tim. No, no, its not a bug, in the NCR65C02 manual the new (correct) way it worked is listed as a "Microprocessor Operational Enhancement" :-) Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rojaws ------------------------------------------ There are two ways to write error-free programs. Only the third one works. ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 2 Jun 2000 07:36:59 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 38 Message-ID: <8h89pb$5es$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <8h3kdp$uig$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <393709F5.1087@azstarnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57460 In article <393709F5.1087@azstarnet.com>, bill_h wrote: >hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu wrote: > >> But "MS" is a *really* long shot. The only reason they even got a chance >> was because IBM approached them when the couldn't (for whatever >> reasons) come to terms with DR. >Let me make it really simple for you. No more ''whatever reasons''. Where in the world did your hostile attitude come from? This is *really* the wrong place to attempt to lecture people on things like this. >When IBM came calling at Digital Research they wanted DRI to sign >a non-disclosure that clearly stated everything spoken about became >the property of IBM. Since DRI was already selling an operating system, >something called CP/M, there was some confusion about just exactly >what IBM was thinking - did they really expect to OWN this CP/M if >anyone from Digital Research happened to mention it? Yes, this is very close to what I would have written. Hovever, there are still periodic arguments and variations on that, which is what I'm trying to avoid. >On the other hand, Microsoft had nothing to lose, as I'm sure you know. >Now, Counselor, what part of that explanation don't you understand? Again, what's with the attitude. And where did you learn to translate "for whatever reason" into "I don't know, and I don't understand whatever explanation might come up." ??? hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. *** THIS EMAIL ADDRESS EXPIRES SOON*** If you do not have a new address, try "finger HAWKINS@psu.edu" and look for my name among the results. Upper case is important, as it causes a search for all persons named hawkins. I will also eventually be listed on the faculty list at http://www.ds.psu.edu/directories/faculty.htm (This is a single line to keep my usenet spooler happy). The new address will also apear on the website below. hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu (814) 375-4700 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### From: hawk@hawkins.cba.uni.edu Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 2 Jun 2000 07:40:36 -0500 Organization: House of Hawkins Lines: 31 Message-ID: <8h8a05$5fk$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: hawkins.cba.uni.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uni.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57453 In article , David Given wrote: >In article <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu>, > aje9383@osfmail.isc.rit.edu (Andrew Erickson) writes: >[...] >>>>I like the 6502, warts and all. >> I guess I do, although I would a *lot* more if a couple of the warts were >> removed (namely, the 8 bit stack pointer and the inability to use anything >> other than page zero as the zero page). >Actually, now I come to think of it, you could work round this quite >simply with a bit of external hardware. You'd need something like an MMU; >something that compared the top eight bits of the address bus against 00 >and 02 (IIRC) and if they matched, drove the external bus with the values >from a latch somewhere instead. Possible, but not pretty; did anyone ever >build any machines that did something like this? >(I think you should be able to get away with a 7-bit nand and latch. I >think. Would make an interesting hardware project, actually.) Now that you mention it, istr that the Apple III created a relocatable page 0. And didn't a couple of the 6502-on-steroids from Ohio Scientific do it as well? hawk -- Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. *** THIS EMAIL ADDRESS EXPIRES SOON*** If you do not have a new address, try "finger HAWKINS@psu.edu" and look for my name among the results. Upper case is important, as it causes a search for all persons named hawkins. I will also eventually be listed on the faculty list at http://www.ds.psu.edu/directories/faculty.htm (This is a single line to keep my usenet spooler happy). The new address will also apear on the website below. hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu (814) 375-4700 http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer. ###### Message-ID: <3937BDF0.E86BA322@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> <8h6qul$nmb$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 36 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 14:01:55 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.15.101.179 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 959954515 63.15.101.179 (Fri, 02 Jun 2000 07:01:55 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 07:01:55 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!logbridge.uoregon.edu!cyclone-west.rr.com!news.rr.com|news-west.rr.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57444 Tim McCaffrey wrote: > In article , David Given says... > > > > >Actually, now I come to think of it, you could work round this quite > >simply with a bit of external hardware. You'd need something like an MMU; > >something that compared the top eight bits of the address bus against 00 > >and 02 (IIRC) and if they matched, drove the external bus with the values > >from a latch somewhere instead. Possible, but not pretty; did anyone ever > >build any machines that did something like this? > > I do not recall the magazine (probably Kilobaud, perhaps Byte or Dr. Dobbs), > but there was an article on building a relocation register (latch and 8 bit > adder) for the top 8 bits for a 6800. I recall one of the advantages is that > it allowed you to have a zero page for every process. Obviously, it would > probably work for a 6502 in the same way. I recall the implementation was > very simple (half a dozen SSI/MSI chips). > > Time frame was 77-80, I think, I don't know if I still have the article. The whole SS-50 6809 world did this, unfortunately with some differences between vendors. I have both SWTPC and GIMIX systems where this was done on their processor cards. This was to expand the 64K address space limit, not to expand page zero as the 6809 had a relocatable page zero which was a register with the high 8 bits of the address for page zero. The above MMUs would remap this further as well. Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### From: Paul Guertin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 01:07:38 +0900 Organization: Amalgamated Karma Lines: 15 Message-ID: <7hmfjs4mlcjpb6b48al4dkqq4nl8ehjg5t@news.newsguy.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8h696q$qbh$1@laurel.tc.umn.edu> <39367A23.21E34C0@trailing-edge.com> <959904188.486988@shelley.paradise.net.nz> Reply-To: pg@sff.net NNTP-Posting-Host: p-214.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!EU.net!blackbush.xlink.net!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!skynet.be!208.171.248.21.MISMATCH!pln-e!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news2 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57461 don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) wrote: > Tim Shoppa wrote: > >The indirect jump is what you're thinking of. > >JMP ($09FF) would, for example, take the address from $09FF and $0900. > > That one was usually not a big problem to avoid -- I knew about it but > never saw it in the wild. I saw it used once in a copy-protection scheme on the Apple II. It was presumably put there to confuse people attempting to boot-trace the code. Paul Guertin pg@sff.net ###### From: Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 22:33:08 -0500 Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> <8h6qul$nmb$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-980226 (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.6 (i586)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57532 Tim McCaffrey wrote: : I do not recall the magazine (probably Kilobaud, perhaps Byte or Dr. Dobbs), : but there was an article on building a relocation register (latch and 8 bit : adder) for the top 8 bits for a 6800. I recall one of the advantages is that : it allowed you to have a zero page for every process. Obviously, it would : probably work for a 6502 in the same way. I recall the implementation was : very simple (half a dozen SSI/MSI chips). I remember the article in Kilobaud. Basically he used a fast bipolar RAM part as an address translation table. Southwest Technical Products Corp. did build a 6809 processor board that bank switched memory using a similar scheme that they called dynamic address translation. The Tandy CoCo III used a Motorola part (the GIME) the same way. ###### From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 00:11:56 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Lines: 37 Message-ID: <3938AFBC.2217@azstarnet.com> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> <8gjblh$uda$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <1bn1le5yl6.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu> <8h3kdp$uig$1@hawkins.cba.uni.edu> <8h5922$jv4$1@nina.pacific.net.au> <39370CFA.3421@azstarnet.com> <39371b16@news.sierratel.com> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57547 Dowe Keller wrote: > bill_h@azstarnet.com wrote: > > > > ..................... If you try real hard, you can probably > >identify, oh, a couple hundred books about IBM, Microsoft, Apple, and > >a whole bunch of related titles covering some part of the personal > >computing story. Like the elephant and the blind men, everybody has > >found some little piece of the ''truth''. And every piece different. > > > >Might be worth spending a little time there. > > I did, I (like, I imagine, a majority of the posters in a.f.c.) > Find the whole computer history thing pretty neat. I can honestly > state that I have not read a single version of the IBM-PC/MicroSoft/CPM > story that didn't contradict every other version. Well that's the challenge, figuring out where each author has gotten down to bedrock, and where he's mining the topsoil and fertilizer. The funny thing is, depending on how you define 'proof', a picture can be pieced together that covers a lot more than is 'common knowledge'' or maybe ''folklore'', and from that picture the reasons Microsoft IS going to be busted up, and crippled permanently, is a lot easier to fathom. Remember a couple years ago almost every commentator was saying things like this would NEVER happen. Now, they're stressing Microsoft will Appeal. Well, Appeals generally have about a 0.1% chance of succeeding! Something's been going on, and relatively few people have been paying attention. When you've got money invested, or a job on the line, that sort of thing can be dangerous. Bill Tucson, AZ ###### From: ard@p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 3 Jun 2000 20:21:19 +0100 Organization: P850 User Group Message-ID: <8hblrf$ms@p850ug1.demon.co.uk> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> <8h6qul$nmb$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p850ug1.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: p850ug1.demon.co.uk:158.152.97.199 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 960063659 nnrp-09:730 NO-IDENT p850ug1.demon.co.uk:158.152.97.199 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Lines: 20 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!p850ug1.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57560 bud@mycomputer.example.net wrote: [MMU on 6809] : I remember the article in Kilobaud. Basically he used a fast bipolar : RAM part as an address translation table. Southwest Technical Products : Corp. did build a 6809 processor board that bank switched memory using : a similar scheme that they called dynamic address translation. : The Tandy CoCo III used a Motorola part (the GIME) the same way. Minor correction. AFAIK the GIME (Graphics, Interrupt, Memory Enhancements) chip was a custom Tandy part and wasn't a standard Motorola chip. Certainly the CoCo 3 service manual gives that impression. It included (most of) the functions of the Motorola 6883 SAM (Synchronous Address Multiplexer) and 6847 VDG (Video Display Generator) along with the address translation registers, support for lots of extra graphics mode (80 column upper/lower case text, 640*192 (at least) graphics), colour lookup table, interrupt control, etc. -tony ###### From: "Geoffrey G. Rochat" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:12:24 -0400 Organization: Kersur Technologies Lines: 32 Message-ID: <8hcdq3$een$1@news.kersur.net> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <90HX4.75917$681.1466702@news-east.usenetserver.com> <392FCA5E.309DC60F@dallas.net> <8h1rn2$epm$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <3935939d@news.isc.rit.edu> <8h6qul$nmb$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: nas-8-87.boston.navipath.net X-Trace: news.kersur.net 960084611 14807 64.20.8.87 (4 Jun 2000 02:10:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@kersur.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jun 2000 02:10:11 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.kersur.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57561 Motorola had an MC6829 chip (with A and B speed versions) that was an external MMU for the 6809. It expanded the address space from 64K to 2M while adding all sorts of task swapping, interprocess communications and write protection features. Also popular back in "the old days" was the 74LS612 memory mapping chip from TI and others. It took the top few address bits of your micro and looked them up in an internal register bank that added more address bits to give you a simple bank-switching system. The 74LS612 can still be found in various electronic chip surplus places. Try Alltronics, Just In Time ICs, Unicorn Electronics, etc... bud@mycomputer.example.net wrote in message ... >Tim McCaffrey wrote: >: I do not recall the magazine (probably Kilobaud, perhaps Byte or Dr. Dobbs), >: but there was an article on building a relocation register (latch and 8 bit >: adder) for the top 8 bits for a 6800. I recall one of the advantages is that >: it allowed you to have a zero page for every process. Obviously, it would >: probably work for a 6502 in the same way. I recall the implementation was >: very simple (half a dozen SSI/MSI chips). >I remember the article in Kilobaud. Basically he used a fast bipolar >RAM part as an address translation table. Southwest Technical Products >Corp. did build a 6809 processor board that bank switched memory using >a similar scheme that they called dynamic address translation. >The Tandy CoCo III used a Motorola part (the GIME) the same way. ###### Message-ID: <393C6579.98E7CD1D@bellatlantic.net> From: hg/jb Reply-To: shsrms@bellatlantic.net Organization: The Keltic League X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-CCK-MCD BA45DSL (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 46 Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 02:40:48 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.88.34.169 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@bellatlantic.net X-Trace: typhoon2.ba-dsg.net 960259248 138.88.34.169 (Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:40:48 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:40:48 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!199.45.45.8!cyclone1.ba-dsg.net!typhoon2.ba-dsg.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57657 Pro series were DEC PDP11 desktop. 325 and 350 were F11 *aka FONZ-11* based. 380 was J11 based. AKA JAWS 11, and 11/70 class chip. T11 was a pdp11 CPU/ISP in a chip, set to compete with 8086....but... jchausler wrote: > > Eric Chomko wrote: > > > That would have been a trick, getting the PDP-11 shrunk down to a micro > > and make it price comparable to an IBM PC. The Rainbow was disaster for > > DEC, as I recall. > > The Rainbow was a disaster, they couldn't even make a cost effective > PC. I can't speak directly to cost issues but DEC did have some > desk-top 11's (I forget the name) running a version of RSX11M+ > IIRC. The real problem I believe was that their marketing department > didn't see this as a market and/or were unwilling to drop the SW > prices for 11 stuff down to the level which would have been > required to sell to that market. Like IBM, DEC was respected > in the business world and could have sold into that world if it > had tried (and had an appropriately priced product :-) > > > I don't know, I think IBM was pretty close to using the 68000 in the PC, > > but since Intel offered to make the 8088, as a 8 bit external data bus of > > the 8086 at a lower cost, IBM chose Intel. > > What a different world it would have been... Maybe even no M$. > > > My first mini was an Interdata 7/16. All the US schools overseas > > (military) had them in the mid to late 70s. When I went back to see > > Frankfurt American High School (now closed) back in 1991, they had > > switched over to PCs, which was understandable. > > I recall seeing these machines but I never had the pleasure of > programming them. I never did much with the PDP-8 either, > most of my recreational mini programming was with the > PDP-9 (if you consider that a mini). Once out into the real > world, as I said in the previous post I left the DEC world > and joined the DG world for about eight to ten years. > > Chris > AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE > $$ ###### Message-ID: <393C65C0.3092947E@bellatlantic.net> From: hg/jb Reply-To: shsrms@bellatlantic.net Organization: The Keltic League X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-CCK-MCD BA45DSL (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <3919CF26.FC2EDFA3@earthlink.net> <8fekci$m33@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391C1918.19BF831E@earthlink.net> <8fhgm1$9g7@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <391D895C.EFB52F2E@earthlink.net> <8fnong$eql@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8fud4d$5j1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <3923F80C.5E7A6E9A@earthlink.net> <8g3hkr$hbq@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <39294069.F0406D83@earthlink.net> <8ge9p3$sfn@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <392AB991.CD24D3D5@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 46 Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 02:41:58 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.88.34.169 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@bellatlantic.net X-Trace: typhoon2.ba-dsg.net 960259318 138.88.34.169 (Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:41:58 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:41:58 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!199.45.45.9!cyclone2.ba-dsg.net!typhoon2.ba-dsg.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57655 Pro series were DEC PDP11 desktop. 325 and 350 were F11 *aka FONZ-11* based. 380 was J11 based. AKA JAWS 11, and 11/70 class chip. T11 was a pdp11 CPU/ISP in a chip, set to compete with 8086....but... jchausler wrote: > > Eric Chomko wrote: > > > That would have been a trick, getting the PDP-11 shrunk down to a micro > > and make it price comparable to an IBM PC. The Rainbow was disaster for > > DEC, as I recall. > > The Rainbow was a disaster, they couldn't even make a cost effective > PC. I can't speak directly to cost issues but DEC did have some > desk-top 11's (I forget the name) running a version of RSX11M+ > IIRC. The real problem I believe was that their marketing department > didn't see this as a market and/or were unwilling to drop the SW > prices for 11 stuff down to the level which would have been > required to sell to that market. Like IBM, DEC was respected > in the business world and could have sold into that world if it > had tried (and had an appropriately priced product :-) > > > I don't know, I think IBM was pretty close to using the 68000 in the PC, > > but since Intel offered to make the 8088, as a 8 bit external data bus of > > the 8086 at a lower cost, IBM chose Intel. > > What a different world it would have been... Maybe even no M$. > > > My first mini was an Interdata 7/16. All the US schools overseas > > (military) had them in the mid to late 70s. When I went back to see > > Frankfurt American High School (now closed) back in 1991, they had > > switched over to PCs, which was understandable. > > I recall seeing these machines but I never had the pleasure of > programming them. I never did much with the PDP-8 either, > most of my recreational mini programming was with the > PDP-9 (if you consider that a mini). Once out into the real > world, as I said in the previous post I left the DEC world > and joined the DG world for about eight to ten years. > > Chris > AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE > $$ ###### From: perle@cs.tu-berlin.de (Frank Wilde) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Motorola/Intel Wars Date: 6 Jun 2000 18:27:38 GMT Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany Lines: 19 Message-ID: <8hjfqq$t14$1@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <8fanf1$ih4@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <391C1A43.C4582FB5@netinsight.se> <391BF5EC.4642D331@trailing-edge.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: gestern.cs.tu-berlin.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.cs.tu-berlin.de 960316058 29732 130.149.19.18 (6 Jun 2000 18:27:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@cs.tu-berlin.de NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Jun 2000 18:27:38 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!do.de.uu.net!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-ham1.dfn.de!news.uni-hamburg.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!perle Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:57666 In article , Jeff DelPapa wrote: > [...] The exception was Add -- if you > set the high bit, you didn't get add byte (which would have been > real handy at times) you got subtract word. I suppose that was warranted by the number of opcodes you can allow to have both source and destination to be a general effective address being quite limited. You need 12 bits for the operands, leaving 4 for the operation. BI[CST]{,B}, MOV{,B}, ADD and SUB make ten out of sixteen possible. Some opcode space has to be left for all those other operations, after all. Ciao, Perle -- ____ Frank Wilde | perle@cs.TU-Berlin.DE | +49 30 3454141 / +-.\ Spelling errors are covert channels | |-' | PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU RECORD MY EMAIL ADDRESS SO I CAN FORWARD CHANGES \_|__/ Subject: Please inform