On 9/16/2016 7:45 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
My point being that it's a slippery concept that can mean a lot of
different things, depending upon who's doing the calling.
And Anything if you are with Marketing..
--Chuck
Ben.
On 09/17/2016 01:11 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> One other example of a machine that confuses the picture is the CDC
> 6000 series peripheral processor. I doubt there would be much
> objection to calling that a 12 bit architecture. But its main
> register (the accumulator) is 18 bits wide.
And, i
Op 17 sep. 2016 8:34 p.m. schreef "Guy Sotomayor Jr" :
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 2016, at 10:10 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> >
> > On 09/17/2016 09:23 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know what the width of the TMS9900 ALU is, but I'm pretty
> >> sure it's not bit-serial, as an add instruction only tak
> On Sep 17, 2016, at 3:03 PM, Lyle Bickley wrote:
>
> ...
> Since I have a running PDP-8/S as an example, I want to back up what Guy
> has said.
>
> The User Manual for the PDP-8/S says: "The PDP-8/S is a one-address,
> fixed word length, serial computer using a word length of 12-bits plus
> p
> From: Guy Sotomayor Jr
> Why? What does the width of the ALU have to do with the "bitness" of
> the architecture? If the programmer's view is 8-bits .., what does it
> matter (other than performance) what the width of the internal data
> paths or ALU are?
> It's interesti
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 11:38:13 -0700
Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 2016, at 10:10 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> >
> > On 09/17/2016 09:23 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know what the width of the TMS9900 ALU is, but I'm pretty
> >> sure it's not bit-serial, as an add instruction on
> On Sep 17, 2016, at 10:10 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>
> On 09/17/2016 09:23 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
>
>> I don't know what the width of the TMS9900 ALU is, but I'm pretty
>> sure it's not bit-serial, as an add instruction only takes 14 clock
>> cycles, including four memory cycles. I'd be very sur
On 09/17/2016 09:23 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
> I don't know what the width of the TMS9900 ALU is, but I'm pretty
> sure it's not bit-serial, as an add instruction only takes 14 clock
> cycles, including four memory cycles. I'd be very surprised if the
> ALU isn't either 8 or 16 bits, though 4 might b
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> The TMS9900 has already been identified as a 16-bit ISA, even with its
> bit-serial ALU.
I don't know what the width of the TMS9900 ALU is, but I'm pretty sure
it's not bit-serial, as an add instruction only takes 14 clock cycles,
including fo
On 09/16/2016 07:33 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
>> The PB250 is serial throughout--the registers are implemented as 1
>> bit recirculating devices that are 22 bits in length. Memory is
>> addressable in 22 bit words (no shorter unit of addressing is
>> present) and is again, loops of recirculating
> > I don't think this follows. Looking at the TMS 9900 datasheet, the
> > block diagram shows a full 16 bits on each ALU input and 16 bits
> > leaving it. There's no 1-bit bus directly to memory.
>
> So the "bitedness" is determined by the memory bus? e.g., a 68008 is an
> 8-bit MPU?
I'm not su
On 09/16/2016 05:37 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> I don't think this follows. Looking at the TMS 9900 datasheet, the
> block diagram shows a full 16 bits on each ALU input and 16 bits
> leaving it. There's no 1-bit bus directly to memory.
>
So the "bitedness" is determined by the memory bus? e.g
> The TMS9900 has already been identified as a 16-bit ISA, even with its
> bit-serial ALU.
>
> So some enterprising soul could device a shift-register-based MPU with
> 1-bit memory bus, but with a 256 bit word size and it would be a 256 bit
> ISA?
I don't think this follows. Looking at the TMS 99
> On Sep 16, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>
> On 09/16/2016 03:20 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
>
>> Note that in the conclusion to this 1979 article, the Motorola
>> engineers say "It is a 32-bit architecture that supports many data
>> types and data addresses."
>
The important part
> On Sep 16, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Antonio Carlini wrote:
>
>> ...
> I've never encountered anyone claiming that a 10Mb/s network means anything
> other than ten million bits per second.
I once worked for a company that said Ethernet switch ports were 20 Mb/s
because they are 10 Mb/s each way.
B
On 09/16/2016 03:20 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
> Note that in the conclusion to this 1979 article, the Motorola
> engineers say "It is a 32-bit architecture that supports many data
> types and data addresses."
Unfortunately, that doesn't clear the picture any.
What would you call a Packard-B
I wrote:
> The 68000 has three separate 16 bit ALUs: one for DataLow, one for
> AddressLow and another for AdressHigh. DataHigh can be processed by
> either the first or the second one. The first one implements all
> operations while the other two only do add/subtract and some limited
> shifting.
>
The 68000 has three separate 16 bit ALUs: one for DataLow, one for
AddressLow and another for AdressHigh. DataHigh can be processed by
either the first or the second one. The first one implements all
operations while the other two only do add/subtract and some limited
shifting.
See figure 8 of:
ht
On 16/09/16 12:19, Peter Corlett wrote:
It seems that as soon as one is measuring something that is related to
computers, some people think that centuries of convention and
standards should be ignored and SI multipliers now mean powers of
1024, even when measuring a quantity that is not natural
On 2016-09-16 2:32 AM, Camiel Vanderhoeven wrote:
Op 15 sep. 2016 11:57 p.m. schreef "Toby Thain" :
On 2016-09-15 2:38 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Chuck Guzis
> Call it anything you want, but we know what Motorola called it.
The _first implementation_ may have been 16-bit, but I
Op 15 sep. 2016 11:57 p.m. schreef "Toby Thain" :
>
> On 2016-09-15 2:38 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>
>> > From: Chuck Guzis
>>
>> > Call it anything you want, but we know what Motorola called it.
>>
>> The _first implementation_ may have been 16-bit, but I am in no doubt
>> whatsover (having
On 09/15/2016 11:18 PM, ben wrote:
> On 9/15/2016 6:56 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>
>> So what's the width of an IBM 1620?
>
> I don't expect to fit in a standard rack... runs.
> Ben.
> PS: I think it is 12 bits, to offset the slow core speed
> if I am thinking of the right machine.
Nope, that can't b
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:34:38PM -0500, Kyle Owen wrote:
[...]
> How about 65k of RAM?!
> http://tr3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2011/04/06/5174da48-c3aa-11e2-bc00-02911874f8c8/2e9edc467174c362dd543d51b886196a/02-IMSAI_1977.jpg
> That's like...a whole 1k more than the competition!
And underselling it,
On 9/15/2016 6:56 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 09/15/2016 05:17 PM, j...@cimmeri.com wrote:
Also, Apple Computer referred to it as a 32 bit microprocessor in
their early Macintosh ads. I always just considered it a 32 bit CPU
with a 16 bit external bus.
So what's the width of an IBM 1620?
--C
> Why not have two concepts? They're free. Gordon Bell probably laid this
> out somewhere. Or Blaauw and Brooks.
In a talk on the HP9810 desktop calculator I said, somewhat tongue-in-cheek
that it could claim to be 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 or 16 bits.
The justifications for those are as follows : The proce
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Cameron Kaiser
wrote:
> > Also, Apple Computer referred to [the 68000] as a 32 bit microprocessor
> in
> > their early Macintosh ads.
>
> And Apple *never* oversells *anything.* ;)
>
How about 65k of RAM?!
http://tr3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2011/04/06/5174da48-c3aa
> Also, Apple Computer referred to [the 68000] as a 32 bit microprocessor in
> their early Macintosh ads.
And Apple *never* oversells *anything.* ;)
--
personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...
On 09/15/2016 05:17 PM, j...@cimmeri.com wrote:
> Also, Apple Computer referred to it as a 32 bit microprocessor in
> their early Macintosh ads. I always just considered it a 32 bit CPU
> with a 16 bit external bus.
So what's the width of an IBM 1620?
--Chuck
On 2016-09-15 2:38 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Chuck Guzis
> Call it anything you want, but we know what Motorola called it.
The _first implementation_ may have been 16-bit, but I am in no doubt
whatsover (having written a lot of assembler code for the 68K family)
that the _architec
> On Sep 15, 2016, at 5:57 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
>
> On 2016-09-15 2:38 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>> From: Chuck Guzis
>>
>>> Call it anything you want, but we know what Motorola called it.
>>
>> The _first implementation_ may have been 16-bit, but I am in no doubt
>> whatsover (having
On 2016-09-15 2:38 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Chuck Guzis
> Call it anything you want, but we know what Motorola called it.
The _first implementation_ may have been 16-bit, but I am in no doubt
whatsover (having written a lot of assembler code for the 68K family)
that the _architec
31 matches
Mail list logo
