| SEX [message #348855] |
Thu, 20 July 2017 18:00  |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Not what you think. ;-)
I was glancing through some mnemonics of opcodes for various CPUs and
found SEX (Sign EXtentend) for the Motorola M6809, used in the TRS Color
Computer (CoCo) for example.
I wonder if there were more "naught" mnemonics for other CPUs. Since many
are limited to three characters I would agree to "FUC". :-)
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
you have spent more on your pickup truck than on your education.
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348867 is a reply to message #348855] |
Thu, 20 July 2017 18:35  |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:00:48 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> Not what you think. ;-)
>
> I was glancing through some mnemonics of opcodes for various CPUs and
> found SEX (Sign EXtentend) for the Motorola M6809, used in the TRS Color
> Computer (CoCo) for example.
>
> I wonder if there were more "naught" mnemonics for other CPUs. Since
> many are limited to three characters I would agree to "FUC". :-)
The PDP-11 had SEX (Sign Extend) too.
Apparently, the 8086 had SEX as well (operating on byte or word
operands). But they changed it, before release, to CBW and CWD.
The PDP-11 also had Subtract One and Branch (SOB).
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348877 is a reply to message #348855] |
Thu, 20 July 2017 20:37 |
pechter
Messages: 452
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <871spaydin.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>,
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> Not what you think. ;-)
>
> I was glancing through some mnemonics of opcodes for various CPUs and
> found SEX (Sign EXtentend) for the Motorola M6809, used in the TRS Color
> Computer (CoCo) for example.
The PDP11 had a SignEXtend Multiplier labeled as SEX MUX on the print
set for the PDP11/34...
Unfortunately they made the instruction SXT because senior managment
got involved.
>
> I wonder if there were more "naught" mnemonics for other CPUs. Since many
> are limited to three characters I would agree to "FUC". :-)
> --
> Andreas
> You know you are a redneck if
> you have spent more on your pickup truck than on your education.
Bill Pechter
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348884 is a reply to message #348855] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 02:13 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:00:48 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach
<ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> Not what you think. ;-)
>
> I was glancing through some mnemonics of opcodes for various CPUs and
> found SEX (Sign EXtentend) for the Motorola M6809, used in the TRS Color
> Computer (CoCo) for example.
>
> I wonder if there were more "naught" mnemonics for other CPUs. Since many
> are limited to three characters I would agree to "FUC". :-)
The 1702 microprocessor had SEX for Set X Register.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348899 is a reply to message #348855] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 08:43 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
> Not what you think. ;-)
>
> I was glancing through some mnemonics of opcodes for various CPUs and
> found SEX (Sign EXtentend) for the Motorola M6809, used in the TRS Color
> Computer (CoCo) for example.
>
> I wonder if there were more "naught" mnemonics for other CPUs. Since many
> are limited to three characters I would agree to "FUC". :-)
Burroughs Medium Systems:
WHR (Write Hardware Register), spoken as "whore"
SLT (Search Linked List), spoken as "slut"
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348907 is a reply to message #348855] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 10:44 |
Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
> Not what you think. ;-)
>
> I was glancing through some mnemonics of opcodes for various CPUs and
> found SEX (Sign EXtentend) for the Motorola M6809, used in the TRS Color
> Computer (CoCo) for example.
>
> I wonder if there were more "naught" mnemonics for other CPUs. Since many
> are limited to three characters I would agree to "FUC". :-)
The Harris /7 was another one with SEX (Set E to X)
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348919 is a reply to message #348902] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 13:15 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/21/2017 8:16 AM, roger.ivie@gmail.com wrote:
> 8051 had ANL and ORL. The manual warned you to be careful about
> pronouncing them in mixed company.
>
The COSMAC 1802 has SEX instruction... it meant "set index register".
Th Power PC instruction set had an EIEIO instruction... "enforced
in-order execution of I/O".
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348921 is a reply to message #348919] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 13:34 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Charles Richmond wrote:
> On 7/21/2017 8:16 AM, roger.ivie@gmail.com wrote:
>> 8051 had ANL and ORL. The manual warned you to be careful about
>> pronouncing them in mixed company.
>>
>
> The COSMAC 1802 has SEX instruction... it meant "set index register". Th
> Power PC instruction set had an EIEIO instruction... "enforced in-order
> execution of I/O".
>
Don Lancaster had a joke about an EIEIO standard, unfortunately I can't
remember the joke.
This started with a 6909 instruction, but that was a very specific
instruction. Most of the instructions were more general, needing a
modifier to specify which register or whatever. The 68000 was even cleaner
in that regard. I gather the Z80 had a lot of such instructions, the
kitchen sink ones that did complicated things (and took time) that were
added onto the 8080 instruction set.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348924 is a reply to message #348921] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 14:24 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-07-21, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> On 7/21/2017 8:16 AM, roger.ivie@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> 8051 had ANL and ORL. The manual warned you to be careful about
>>> pronouncing them in mixed company.
>>
>> The COSMAC 1802 has SEX instruction... it meant "set index register". Th
>> Power PC instruction set had an EIEIO instruction... "enforced in-order
>> execution of I/O".
>
> Don Lancaster had a joke about an EIEIO standard, unfortunately I can't
> remember the joke.
Damn, I vaguely recall that too. I think it was a shaggy dog story about an
interface to farm equipment, whose specifications were issued by a fictitious
outfit called something like the "Engineering Institute for Electronics" -
which meant that the old MacDonald farm interface was an EIE I/O.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348929 is a reply to message #348924] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 15:47 |
Freddy1X
Messages: 61
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2017-07-21, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/21/2017 8:16 AM, roger.ivie@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> 8051 had ANL and ORL. The manual warned you to be careful about
>>>> pronouncing them in mixed company.
>>>
>>> The COSMAC 1802 has SEX instruction... it meant "set index register". Th
>>> Power PC instruction set had an EIEIO instruction... "enforced in-order
>>> execution of I/O".
>>
>> Don Lancaster had a joke about an EIEIO standard, unfortunately I can't
>> remember the joke.
>
> Damn, I vaguely recall that too. I think it was a shaggy dog story about
> an interface to farm equipment, whose specifications were issued by a
> fictitious outfit called something like the "Engineering Institute for
> Electronics" - which meant that the old MacDonald farm interface was an
> EIE I/O.
>
I recall something like that in an April edition Q&A letters colum of an
electronics magazine, possibly Radio Electronics.
Another letter asked about automobile speaker palcement, "... up for
traction or down for thrust. "
Freddy,
always thrust!
--
Please do not sit or play on railings.
/|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\|
/| I may be demented \|
/| but I'm not crazy! \|
/|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\|
* SPAyM trap: there is no X in my address *
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348931 is a reply to message #348921] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 15:54 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/21/2017 12:34 PM, Michael Black wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> On 7/21/2017 8:16 AM, roger.ivie@gmail.com wrote:
>>> 8051 had ANL and ORL. The manual warned you to be careful about
>>> pronouncing them in mixed company.
>>>
>>
>> The COSMAC 1802 has SEX instruction... it meant "set index register".
>> Th Power PC instruction set had an EIEIO instruction... "enforced
>> in-order execution of I/O".
>>
> Don Lancaster had a joke about an EIEIO standard, unfortunately I can't
> remember the joke.
>
> This started with a 6909 instruction, but that was a very specific
> instruction. Most of the instructions were more general, needing a
> modifier to specify which register or whatever. The 68000 was even
> cleaner in that regard. I gather the Z80 had a lot of such
> instructions, the kitchen sink ones that did complicated things (and
> took time) that were added onto the 8080 instruction set.
>
ISTM the Z80 had *no* kitchen sink instructions. The Z80 added two
index registers and also PC relative addressing.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348932 is a reply to message #348877] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 15:55 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:37:16 -0000 (UTC), none) (Bill Pechter wrote:
>
> In article <871spaydin.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>,
> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> Not what you think. ;-)
>>
>> I was glancing through some mnemonics of opcodes for various CPUs and
>> found SEX (Sign EXtentend) for the Motorola M6809, used in the TRS Color
>> Computer (CoCo) for example.
>
> The PDP11 had a SignEXtend Multiplier labeled as SEX MUX on the print
> set for the PDP11/34...
Sex much. *g*
> Unfortunately they made the instruction SXT because senior managment
> got involved.
I wonder why they used SEX in the M6809. It's not like we follow a
pattern no matter what. They could had called it SXT for example. Got to
be on purpose to call it SEX. And their management agreed (prolly didn't
even know). But then they missed CUM (Clear Unallocated Memory). ;-)
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
you pick your teeth from a catalog.
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348934 is a reply to message #348921] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 16:02 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:34:34 -0400, Michael Black wrote:
>
> Don Lancaster had a joke about an EIEIO standard, unfortunately I
> can't remember the joke.
>
> This started with a 6909 instruction, but that was a very specific
> instruction. Most of the instructions were more general, needing a
> modifier to specify which register or whatever. The 68000 was even
> cleaner in that regard. I gather the Z80 had a lot of such
> instructions, the kitchen sink ones that did complicated things (and
> took time) that were added onto the 8080 instruction set.
When I started this thread here I knew 6502, Zilog Z80 (not 8080 which is
also a subset of Z80 mnemonics), checked 8086, M68000 (not thoroughly
yet, still learning it) and M6809. None but the M6809 has these or any
other naughty sounding mnemonics.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
you pick your teeth from a catalog.
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348935 is a reply to message #348924] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 16:04 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2017-07-21, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/21/2017 8:16 AM, roger.ivie@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> 8051 had ANL and ORL. The manual warned you to be careful about
>>>> pronouncing them in mixed company.
>>>
>>> The COSMAC 1802 has SEX instruction... it meant "set index register". Th
>>> Power PC instruction set had an EIEIO instruction... "enforced in-order
>>> execution of I/O".
>>
>> Don Lancaster had a joke about an EIEIO standard, unfortunately I can't
>> remember the joke.
>
> Damn, I vaguely recall that too. I think it was a shaggy dog story about an
> interface to farm equipment, whose specifications were issued by a fictitious
> outfit called something like the "Engineering Institute for Electronics" -
> which meant that the old MacDonald farm interface was an EIE I/O.
>
There certainly was a reference to Old MacDonald Farm.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348936 is a reply to message #348929] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 16:08 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Freddy wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2017-07-21, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/21/2017 8:16 AM, roger.ivie@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > 8051 had ANL and ORL. The manual warned you to be careful about
>>>> > pronouncing them in mixed company.
>>>>
>>>> The COSMAC 1802 has SEX instruction... it meant "set index register". Th
>>>> Power PC instruction set had an EIEIO instruction... "enforced in-order
>>>> execution of I/O".
>>>
>>> Don Lancaster had a joke about an EIEIO standard, unfortunately I can't
>>> remember the joke.
>>
>> Damn, I vaguely recall that too. I think it was a shaggy dog story about
>> an interface to farm equipment, whose specifications were issued by a
>> fictitious outfit called something like the "Engineering Institute for
>> Electronics" - which meant that the old MacDonald farm interface was an
>> EIE I/O.
>>
>
> I recall something like that in an April edition Q&A letters colum of an
> electronics magazine, possibly Radio Electronics.
>
> Another letter asked about automobile speaker palcement, "... up for
> traction or down for thrust. "
>
Someone bought a big hefty transformer at a fleamarket, I suddenly can't
remember the company's name but it kept a constant voltage. And he left
it in his car for weeks afterwards. He claimed "it gives better traction"
but I think it was just too much trouble to get it out of the car and up
to his apartment.
I said he should just stick a dark star in there for traction.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348937 is a reply to message #348931] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 16:11 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Charles Richmond wrote:
> On 7/21/2017 12:34 PM, Michael Black wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/21/2017 8:16 AM, roger.ivie@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> 8051 had ANL and ORL. The manual warned you to be careful about
>>>> pronouncing them in mixed company.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The COSMAC 1802 has SEX instruction... it meant "set index register". Th
>>> Power PC instruction set had an EIEIO instruction... "enforced in-order
>>> execution of I/O".
>>>
>> Don Lancaster had a joke about an EIEIO standard, unfortunately I can't
>> remember the joke.
>>
>> This started with a 6909 instruction, but that was a very specific
>> instruction. Most of the instructions were more general, needing a
>> modifier to specify which register or whatever. The 68000 was even cleaner
>> in that regard. I gather the Z80 had a lot of such instructions, the
>> kitchen sink ones that did complicated things (and took time) that were
>> added onto the 8080 instruction set.
>>
>
> ISTM the Z80 had *no* kitchen sink instructions. The Z80 added two index
> registers and also PC relative addressing.
>
I've never programmed the Z80. But I thought there were some instructions
that did a lot. A block move comes to mind, you could do it other ways,
but this did it with one instruction, but it took its time.
Maybe "kitchen sink instruction" was a bad descriptor. Not so much that
they did everything, but they took care of a lot with one instruction.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348943 is a reply to message #348931] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 17:01 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 14:54:22 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
> ISTM the Z80 had *no* kitchen sink instructions. The Z80 added two
> index registers and also PC relative addressing.
Z80 and index registers? Do you mean like DJNZ?
I know the 6502 has index registers, like
LDA $2000,X
STA $5000,X
INX
....
to create loops. But the Z80 did it in a more complicated way not having
index registers. It would do something like
ld b, #0 ;; i = 0
ld a, 10 ;; i != 10
cp b
jp z, loop_exit
....
Using b, which is AFAIK not a dedicated index register. You could equally
also use c, d or others. I know you can also use 6502's X and Y for other
purposes, they are usually used for indexing. Something like STA,X does
not exist in Z80 mnemonics.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
you pick your teeth from a catalog.
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348947 is a reply to message #348934] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 17:22 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-07-21, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> When I started this thread here I knew 6502, Zilog Z80 (not 8080 which is
> also a subset of Z80 mnemonics),
Not mnemonics, but instruction sets. The Z80 mnemonics were totally
different from the 8080 mnemonics, even for identical instructions.
I never did like the Z80 mnemonics; they tried to create an illusion
of orthogonality where none existed. Besides, I figured if they were
going to use LD for everything, why not go all the way: replace INP
with LD A,#<portnum> for instance. Once you've turned everything into
LD, you can dispense with the mnemonic completely - an assembly language
consisting solely of operands would look kind of interesting. Oh, labels
too - jumps would be LD PC,@<label>...
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348949 is a reply to message #348947] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 19:11 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:22:43 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> Not mnemonics, but instruction sets. The Z80 mnemonics were totally
> different from the 8080 mnemonics, even for identical instructions.
That was not by Zilog's choice. Intel copyrighted the mnemonics of the 8080
in order to hamper, as much as it could using the laws as they stood,
anyone who would think of making an ISA-compatible chip.
As if Intel had written the operating system and compilers for that chip,
and so competitors making them would have been freeloading on that.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348950 is a reply to message #348943] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 19:30 |
|
|
Originally posted by: roger.ivie
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:01:04 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 14:54:22 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>> ISTM the Z80 had *no* kitchen sink instructions. The Z80 added two
>> index registers and also PC relative addressing.
>
> Z80 and index registers? Do you mean like DJNZ?
No, he means like IX and IY.
As far as kitchen sink instructions, that'd probably be things
like OTIR (out, increment, repeat).
--
roger ivie
roger.ivie@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348972 is a reply to message #348936] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 07:19 |
Freddy1X
Messages: 61
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Michael Black wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Freddy wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-07-21, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 7/21/2017 8:16 AM, roger.ivie@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> 8051 had ANL and ORL. The manual warned you to be careful about
>>>> >> pronouncing them in mixed company.
>>>> >
>>>> > The COSMAC 1802 has SEX instruction... it meant "set index register".
>>>> > Th Power PC instruction set had an EIEIO instruction... "enforced
>>>> > in-order execution of I/O".
>>>>
>>>> Don Lancaster had a joke about an EIEIO standard, unfortunately I can't
>>>> remember the joke.
>>>
>>> Damn, I vaguely recall that too. I think it was a shaggy dog story
>>> about an interface to farm equipment, whose specifications were issued
>>> by a fictitious outfit called something like the "Engineering Institute
>>> for Electronics" - which meant that the old MacDonald farm interface was
>>> an EIE I/O.
>>>
>>
>> I recall something like that in an April edition Q&A letters colum of an
>> electronics magazine, possibly Radio Electronics.
>>
>> Another letter asked about automobile speaker palcement, "... up for
>> traction or down for thrust. "
>>
> Someone bought a big hefty transformer at a fleamarket, I suddenly can't
> remember the company's name but it kept a constant voltage. And he left
> it in his car for weeks afterwards. He claimed "it gives better traction"
> but I think it was just too much trouble to get it out of the car and up
> to his apartment.
>
> I said he should just stick a dark star in there for traction.
>
> Michael
Most likely a Sola. A big, heavy, noisy, hot running, constant voltage
transformer frequently used on computer systems( bringing us back on topic
). They protected computers from power line sags and spikes that could
crash your computer, as well as protect from lightening strikes as good as
anything available in the day. They fell out of favor when UPSs became
economically price competitive. The rest was taken over by surge strips.
Freddy,
feeling the power.
--
Price includes manufacturer's funded price promotion.
/|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\|
/| I may be demented \|
/| but I'm not crazy! \|
/|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\|
* SPAyM trap: there is no X in my address *
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348981 is a reply to message #348972] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 10:30 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017, Freddy wrote:
> Michael Black wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Freddy wrote:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-07-21, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 7/21/2017 8:16 AM, roger.ivie@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> 8051 had ANL and ORL. The manual warned you to be careful about
>>>> >>> pronouncing them in mixed company.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The COSMAC 1802 has SEX instruction... it meant "set index register".
>>>> >> Th Power PC instruction set had an EIEIO instruction... "enforced
>>>> >> in-order execution of I/O".
>>>> >
>>>> > Don Lancaster had a joke about an EIEIO standard, unfortunately I can't
>>>> > remember the joke.
>>>>
>>>> Damn, I vaguely recall that too. I think it was a shaggy dog story
>>>> about an interface to farm equipment, whose specifications were issued
>>>> by a fictitious outfit called something like the "Engineering Institute
>>>> for Electronics" - which meant that the old MacDonald farm interface was
>>>> an EIE I/O.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I recall something like that in an April edition Q&A letters colum of an
>>> electronics magazine, possibly Radio Electronics.
>>>
>>> Another letter asked about automobile speaker palcement, "... up for
>>> traction or down for thrust. "
>>>
>> Someone bought a big hefty transformer at a fleamarket, I suddenly can't
>> remember the company's name but it kept a constant voltage. And he left
>> it in his car for weeks afterwards. He claimed "it gives better traction"
>> but I think it was just too much trouble to get it out of the car and up
>> to his apartment.
>>
>> I said he should just stick a dark star in there for traction.
>>
>> Michael
>
> Most likely a Sola. A big, heavy, noisy, hot running, constant voltage
> transformer frequently used on computer systems( bringing us back on topic
> ). They protected computers from power line sags and spikes that could
> crash your computer, as well as protect from lightening strikes as good as
> anything available in the day. They fell out of favor when UPSs became
> economically price competitive. The rest was taken over by surge strips.
>
That's it. For some reason, maybe the Tom Swift book, I was thinking
"Solatron" and a search didn't show that as the name.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348988 is a reply to message #348937] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 12:01 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/21/2017 3:11 PM, Michael Black wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> On 7/21/2017 12:34 PM, Michael Black wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/21/2017 8:16 AM, roger.ivie@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> > 8051 had ANL and ORL. The manual warned you to be careful about
>>>> > pronouncing them in mixed company.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> The COSMAC 1802 has SEX instruction... it meant "set index
>>>> register". Th Power PC instruction set had an EIEIO instruction...
>>>> "enforced in-order execution of I/O".
>>>>
>>> Don Lancaster had a joke about an EIEIO standard, unfortunately I
>>> can't remember the joke.
>>>
>>> This started with a 6909 instruction, but that was a very specific
>>> instruction. Most of the instructions were more general, needing a
>>> modifier to specify which register or whatever. The 68000 was even
>>> cleaner in that regard. I gather the Z80 had a lot of such
>>> instructions, the kitchen sink ones that did complicated things (and
>>> took time) that were added onto the 8080 instruction set.
>>>
>>
>> ISTM the Z80 had *no* kitchen sink instructions. The Z80 added two
>> index registers and also PC relative addressing.
>>
> I've never programmed the Z80. But I thought there were some
> instructions that did a lot. A block move comes to mind, you could do
> it other ways, but this did it with one instruction, but it took its time.
>
> Maybe "kitchen sink instruction" was a bad descriptor. Not so much that
> they did everything, but they took care of a lot with one instruction.
>
You are right! I forgot about the block move and block memory search
instructions. ISTM that these instructions worked by *inhibiting* the
incrementing/decrementing of the program counter. I *never* used these
instructions... Z80 did refresh of dynamic RAM memory and the block
move/search instructions could interfere with the refresh.
IIRC, there was a 16-bit source pointer and a 16-bit destination
pointer, and a register containing the count. The instruction is
fetched, one byte is moved from the source area to the destination area,
the source and destination pointers are incrementing or decrementing as
appropriate. The count is decremented by one. If the count is *not*
equal to zero, the *same* instruction is fetched again and done... until
the count equals zero.
Perhaps those with more Z80 experience can correct my explanation. But
I think these block instructions were largely avoided by most Z80
programmers.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348995 is a reply to message #348972] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 14:59 |
sidd
Messages: 239
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <2oGdnUJbq74jqe7EnZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Freddy <freddy1X@indyX.netX> wrote:
> Michael Black wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Freddy wrote:
>
> Most likely a Sola. A big, heavy, noisy, hot running, constant voltage
> transformer frequently used on computer systems( bringing us back on topic
> ). They protected computers from power line sags and spikes that could
> crash your computer, as well as protect from lightening strikes as good as
> anything available in the day. They fell out of favor when UPSs became
> economically price competitive. The rest was taken over by surge strips.
I have one that currently functions as a line regulator and warm footstool.
Some cats like it too. It's warm and hums.
sidd
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348997 is a reply to message #348947] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 15:19 |
|
|
Originally posted by: dglenn
In article <oktrab0pp5@news3.newsguy.com>,
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-07-21, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> When I started this thread here I knew 6502, Zilog Z80 (not 8080 which is
>> also a subset of Z80 mnemonics),
>
> Not mnemonics, but instruction sets. The Z80 mnemonics were totally
> different from the 8080 mnemonics, even for identical instructions.
>
> I never did like the Z80 mnemonics; they tried to create an illusion
> of orthogonality where none existed. [...]
I always preferred the Zilog mnemonics, but that probably has more to do
with which I learned first (Zilog because I had a TRS-80), than any
other factor. But this thread does bring back some memories ...
Y'see, when I decided I wanted to learn assembler, even the ... $30? ...
for Tandy's EDTASM program was a little more than I could muster, so I
just started translating to decimal opcodes and POKEing them into RAM,
later cobbling together a short BASIC program to let me use hex instead
because that was easier. (Folks told me writing machine code in hex
instead of assembly language was going to cause brain damage. But I was
impatient.) Eventually I did scrape together the dough for the assembler
and things started going a little faster for me.
Fast forward to my time as a consultant when I hadn't touched the TRS-80
or any other Z80/8080 hardware for several years. I got sent out to a
client site to modify some legacy code in Pascal. It turned out to be
on an ancient CP/M machine, using an IBM PC/AT and Crosstalk as a
console for the CP/M box. This amused me. Anyhow, I got to a point
where I needed to snarf data out of hardware registers that the dialect
of Pascal they were using had no direct way to get at. But it had an
assemble() statement. :-) But being CP/M it used Intel mnemonics,
which I didn't really know (and I wanted to use the non-Intel LDIR
instruction anyhow). :-( But I still remembered the hex opcodes! :->
So I stuck the machine code in there as hex literals, with the
equivalent Z80 assembly language in comments for whoever got stuck with
that code after me. Got it correct on the first try, too.
While I'm thinking about the Z80 -- I remember when the 8088 IBM PC came
out and there was a huge fuss about it being the first 16-bit personal
computer. Since it used an 8-bit data bus, and its 16-bit registers
could be split and used as 8-bit registers, I thought that was terribly
unfair to the TRS-80 which had 8-bit registers that could be stuck
together and treated as 16-bit registers, which sounded like the same
thing viewed from a different angle. As far as I was concerned, the
first 16-bit personal computer was the TI-99/4 with its TMS9900 CPU, but
if folks got to claim their IBM-PCs then I got to claim my TRS-80s. :-P
As for the 6809, the SEX mnemonic jumped out at me in its huge bold type
in the corner of a page as I was flipping through a book on 6809
assembly one day, and yeah, I did a double take. Then it occurred to me
that in addition to having a SEX instruction, that chip was also
exceptionally stacked. (There were two separate stack pointers, for
system stack & user stack. Every CPU I'd known about until then had a
single stack.) Alas, I never did get around to doing any 6809
programming.
--
D. Glenn Arthur Jr./The Human Vibrator, dglenn@panix.com
Due to hand/wrist problems my newsreading time varies so I may miss followups.
"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."
http://www.dglenn.org/ http://dglenn.dreamwidth.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #348998 is a reply to message #348988] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 15:58 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 11:01:02 -0500
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> Perhaps those with more Z80 experience can correct my explanation. But
> I think these block instructions were largely avoided by most Z80
> programmers.
It's been a long time but I recall benchmarking some code using
them and finding it slower than a simple loop - IIRC the block instruction
would win if the block was large enough, but it never was.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #349000 is a reply to message #348997] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 16:12 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 19:19:05 +0000 (UTC), D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote:
>
> In article <oktrab0pp5@news3.newsguy.com>,
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2017-07-21, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>
>>> When I started this thread here I knew 6502, Zilog Z80 (not 8080 which is
>>> also a subset of Z80 mnemonics),
>>
>> Not mnemonics, but instruction sets. The Z80 mnemonics were totally
>> different from the 8080 mnemonics, even for identical instructions.
>>
>> I never did like the Z80 mnemonics; they tried to create an illusion
>> of orthogonality where none existed. [...]
>
> I always preferred the Zilog mnemonics, but that probably has more to do
> with which I learned first (Zilog because I had a TRS-80), than any
> other factor. But this thread does bring back some memories ...
Same here. Well I learned 6502 back in the day. Z80 only now. But never
cared about the 8080.
[...]
> While I'm thinking about the Z80 -- I remember when the 8088 IBM PC came
> out and there was a huge fuss about it being the first 16-bit personal
> computer. Since it used an 8-bit data bus, and its 16-bit registers
> could be split and used as 8-bit registers, I thought that was terribly
> unfair to the TRS-80 which had 8-bit registers that could be stuck
> together and treated as 16-bit registers, which sounded like the same
> thing viewed from a different angle. As far as I was concerned, the
> first 16-bit personal computer was the TI-99/4 with its TMS9900 CPU, but
> if folks got to claim their IBM-PCs then I got to claim my TRS-80s. :-P
From what I read the IX and IY of the 80 are 16-bit only, cannot carry an
8-bit address. And there is no IXH or IXL like you would have in the 8086.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
the best way to keep things cold is to leave'em in the shade.
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #349001 is a reply to message #348997] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 17:20 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017, D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote:
> In article <oktrab0pp5@news3.newsguy.com>,
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2017-07-21, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>
>>> When I started this thread here I knew 6502, Zilog Z80 (not 8080 which is
>>> also a subset of Z80 mnemonics),
>>
>> Not mnemonics, but instruction sets. The Z80 mnemonics were totally
>> different from the 8080 mnemonics, even for identical instructions.
>>
>> I never did like the Z80 mnemonics; they tried to create an illusion
>> of orthogonality where none existed. [...]
>
> I always preferred the Zilog mnemonics, but that probably has more to do
> with which I learned first (Zilog because I had a TRS-80), than any
> other factor. But this thread does bring back some memories ...
>
> Y'see, when I decided I wanted to learn assembler, even the ... $30? ...
> for Tandy's EDTASM program was a little more than I could muster, so I
> just started translating to decimal opcodes and POKEing them into RAM,
> later cobbling together a short BASIC program to let me use hex instead
> because that was easier. (Folks told me writing machine code in hex
> instead of assembly language was going to cause brain damage. But I was
> impatient.) Eventually I did scrape together the dough for the assembler
> and things started going a little faster for me.
>
There wasn't enough memory on my first computer, a KIM-1, to run an
assembler. So I never gave it thought, I just hand assembled. I even
photocopied some things, and glued them to cardboard to help. One
magazine article had the hex values needed for branches, that helped. I
had an ASCII chart, maybe something else, and of course the all important
programmer's card from Mos Technology, that detailed the 6502
When I moved to an OSI Superboard, I did get the Apple II miniassembler
going, but usually it wasn't worth the effort, since I had to load it
first. Maybe if it had been in ROM, like in the Apple II, I'd have used
it more.
I remember somebody analyzing code in magazines, and discovering that a
relative few 6502 instructions got used, which certainly helped, a limited
set you needed to remember.
But I gave it all up when I moved to a 6809 in 1984. That just seemed too
complicated, especially with all the address modes and the prefix bytes
and such.
>
> While I'm thinking about the Z80 -- I remember when the 8088 IBM PC came
> out and there was a huge fuss about it being the first 16-bit personal
> computer. Since it used an 8-bit data bus, and its 16-bit registers
> could be split and used as 8-bit registers, I thought that was terribly
> unfair to the TRS-80 which had 8-bit registers that could be stuck
> together and treated as 16-bit registers, which sounded like the same
> thing viewed from a different angle. As far as I was concerned, the
> first 16-bit personal computer was the TI-99/4 with its TMS9900 CPU, but
> if folks got to claim their IBM-PCs then I got to claim my TRS-80s. :-P
>
IN the fall of 1975, Godbout had a contest which was I think about
guessing what 16bit CPU they were going to use in a computer. Maybe it
was just to name the upcoming computer. They did reveal the CPU on
schedule, it was the National PACE. But having run the contest, they
never did produce that early 16bit computer.
Technically, the first 16bit "personal computer" was the LSI-11. I think
it was early 1976, Byte ran some articles about it, and around the same
time, some California group did a group buy. It was expensive, so limited
how many would use it, but it was there. And once you started getting
full blown systems, the price of the LSI-11 was probably less distinct.
And then of course, Heathkit offered their H-11 computer with the LSI-11.
Agian probably few hobbyists bought one, but it was out there.
There seemed endless arguments about whether this one or that one was
16bit. Motorola defined the 6809 as 8 bit, or maybe it was 8/16bit. It
could do 16 bit operations, but it also did 8bit. The 68000 in contrast
was a 16bit, that had some 8bit operations.
The 6809 of course had a multiplier instruction, I'm not sure it got used
much, but that seemed distinctive at the time.
>
> As for the 6809, the SEX mnemonic jumped out at me in its huge bold type
> in the corner of a page as I was flipping through a book on 6809
> assembly one day, and yeah, I did a double take. Then it occurred to me
> that in addition to having a SEX instruction, that chip was also
> exceptionally stacked. (There were two separate stack pointers, for
> system stack & user stack. Every CPU I'd known about until then had a
> single stack.) Alas, I never did get around to doing any 6809
> programming.
>
The 6809 got a lot of press ahead of time. There was a three part article
in Byte in 1979 or 80. There had been articles about a successor to the
6502, people writing about their vision of what could replace the 6502.
Then the 6809 came along, and basically it wsa "okay, we'll go with the
6809". So there was a magazine with "6502" in its name, out of
Chelmsford, MA, and they decided the 6809 fit in. So I read a lot about
the 6809 before I actually bought a Radio Shack COlor Computer in 1984,
but I chose it because of the 6809.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #349004 is a reply to message #348867] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 18:13 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Chris
On 07/20/17 22:35, Bob Eager wrote:
> The PDP-11 also had Subtract One and Branch (SOB).
>
Used that one all the time. Ideal for short, tight loops...
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #349005 is a reply to message #348972] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 18:20 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Chris
On 07/22/17 11:19, Freddy wrote:
voltage
> transformer frequently used on computer systems( bringing us back on topic
> ). They protected computers from power line sags and spikes that could
> crash your computer, as well as protect from lightening strikes as good as
> anything available in the day. They fell out of favor when UPSs became
> economically price competitive. The rest was taken over by surge strips.
>
> Freddy,
> feeling the power.
>
Advance made them here in the Uk. Saturating primary and resonant
secondary to provide a constant voltage output with at least a 1/2
cycle holdup on power fail, just what you want for computers. Simple
idea, transformer and a cap or two, but not every efficient, neither
cheap to make...
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #349006 is a reply to message #349001] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 18:38 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/22/2017 4:20 PM, Michael Black wrote:
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> There seemed endless arguments about whether this one or that one was
> 16bit. Motorola defined the 6809 as 8 bit, or maybe it was 8/16bit. It
> could do 16 bit operations, but it also did 8bit. The 68000 in contrast
> was a 16bit, that had some 8bit operations.
>
The Motorola (later Freescale) MC68000 was a 16-bit computer that had
some 32-bit operations!!!
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #349007 is a reply to message #349005] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 20:16 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 6:20:15 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
> Advance made them here in the Uk. Saturating primary and resonant
> secondary to provide a constant voltage output with at least a 1/2
> cycle holdup on power fail, just what you want for computers. Simple
> idea, transformer and a cap or two, but not every efficient, neither
> cheap to make...
Drifting a bit, in railroad power supplies, there is something known
as an "autotransformer". Would anyone know the difference between that
and a regular transformer?
As aside, on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor between New York City and
Washington DC, the power supply remains 25 Hz to this day, and
apparently it will stay that way. Some power still comes direct
from hydro sources. Apparently the 1930s PRR system was very
well designed and works well in practice. Unfortunately, the
delivery wires "catenary" is in terrible shape with frequent failures,
though most of it is 75 years old. (Some is slowly being replaced).
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #349008 is a reply to message #348949] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 20:18 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:22:43 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> Not mnemonics, but instruction sets. The Z80 mnemonics were totally
>> different from the 8080 mnemonics, even for identical instructions.
>
> That was not by Zilog's choice. Intel copyrighted the mnemonics of the 8080
> in order to hamper, as much as it could using the laws as they stood,
> anyone who would think of making an ISA-compatible chip.
>
> As if Intel had written the operating system and compilers for that chip,
> and so competitors making them would have been freeloading on that.
How is AMD able to offer its own chips in competition with Intel?
When IBM developed System/360, in a short time RCA 'cloned' it,
offering the Spectra series with a very similar, if not identical
instruction set. In later years, Univac offered the 90/30 which copied
a lot of S/360, and I think the earlier 9200/9300 did so as well.
I don't think any competitor cloned the 1401. (But I know nothing
about the Univac III, which was a 1401 competitor).
Did IBM copyright the S/360 architecture or instruction set or were
other manufacturers free to rip it off? Or, were IBM's options limited
because of the 1950s consent decree since IBM had agreed to license
all patents (and presumably copyrights).
How about today? IBM got the consent decree lifted years ago. Could
another manufacturer legally clone the Z series (not that it would pay
unless someone else had a some really whiz-bang improvements.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #349009 is a reply to message #349004] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 20:38 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 22:13:50 +0000, Chris wrote:
> On 07/20/17 22:35, Bob Eager wrote:
>
>> The PDP-11 also had Subtract One and Branch (SOB).
>>
>>
> Used that one all the time. Ideal for short, tight loops...
Assuming you had the right model, of course. I had a macro..
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #349010 is a reply to message #349007] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 20:40 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:16:41 -0700, hancock4 wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 6:20:15 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
>
>> Advance made them here in the Uk. Saturating primary and resonant
>> secondary to provide a constant voltage output with at least a 1/2
>> cycle holdup on power fail, just what you want for computers. Simple
>> idea, transformer and a cap or two, but not every efficient, neither
>> cheap to make...
>
> Drifting a bit, in railroad power supplies, there is something known as
> an "autotransformer". Would anyone know the difference between that and
> a regular transformer?
A single winding, with taps for input and output.
As opposed to two separate windings.
Cheaper and a bit more efficient, but no isolation of course.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #349011 is a reply to message #349006] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 20:41 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:38:42 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 4:20 PM, Michael Black wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> There seemed endless arguments about whether this one or that one was
>> 16bit. Motorola defined the 6809 as 8 bit, or maybe it was 8/16bit.
>> It could do 16 bit operations, but it also did 8bit. The 68000 in
>> contrast was a 16bit, that had some 8bit operations.
>>
>>
> The Motorola (later Freescale) MC68000 was a 16-bit computer that had
> some 32-bit operations!!!
The MC68008 was an 8-bit computer with 32-bit operations!
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #349016 is a reply to message #349008] |
Sun, 23 July 2017 00:25 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <86e4f681-0697-4ded-af49-4eda8b457c99@googlegroups.com>,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says...
>
> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:22:43 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> Not mnemonics, but instruction sets. The Z80 mnemonics were totally
>>> different from the 8080 mnemonics, even for identical instructions.
>>
>> That was not by Zilog's choice. Intel copyrighted the mnemonics of the 8080
>> in order to hamper, as much as it could using the laws as they stood,
>> anyone who would think of making an ISA-compatible chip.
>>
>> As if Intel had written the operating system and compilers for that chip,
>> and so competitors making them would have been freeloading on that.
>
> How is AMD able to offer its own chips in competition with Intel?
>
> When IBM developed System/360, in a short time RCA 'cloned' it,
> offering the Spectra series with a very similar, if not identical
> instruction set. In later years, Univac offered the 90/30 which copied
> a lot of S/360, and I think the earlier 9200/9300 did so as well.
>
> I don't think any competitor cloned the 1401. (But I know nothing
> about the Univac III, which was a 1401 competitor).
>
> Did IBM copyright the S/360 architecture or instruction set or were
> other manufacturers free to rip it off? Or, were IBM's options limited
> because of the 1950s consent decree since IBM had agreed to license
> all patents (and presumably copyrights).
>
> How about today? IBM got the consent decree lifted years ago. Could
> another manufacturer legally clone the Z series (not that it would pay
> unless someone else had a some really whiz-bang improvements.)
You can run your very own Z machine if you want to--Hercules emulates a
fairly recent release of the Z architecture. Runs Z/OS just fine. The
problem isn't the hardware, it's the operating system, which is covered by
every kind of intellectual property protection that IBM's lawyers can dream
up. IBM didn't copyright their eary system software--it was effectively
open-source. Around the time that MVS was getting popular Gene Amdahl left
IBM and started his own company that made credible plug-compatibles--at
that point IBM tightened up the software licensing.
I suspect anybody who wants to can clone the Z machines, but if you don't
have an operating system for them what good are they? A Z with Z/OS is
formidable, a Z without it doesnt' have much to offer over a similarly
priced server farm.
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #349022 is a reply to message #349011] |
Sun, 23 July 2017 05:55 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Gareth's Downstairs Computer
On 23/07/2017 01:41, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:38:42 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> On 7/22/2017 4:20 PM, Michael Black wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>>
>>> There seemed endless arguments about whether this one or that one was
>>> 16bit. Motorola defined the 6809 as 8 bit, or maybe it was 8/16bit.
>>> It could do 16 bit operations, but it also did 8bit. The 68000 in
>>> contrast was a 16bit, that had some 8bit operations.
>>>
>>>
>> The Motorola (later Freescale) MC68000 was a 16-bit computer that had
>> some 32-bit operations!!!
>
> The MC68008 was an 8-bit computer with 32-bit operations!
>
The 68000 instruction set, with a clear inheritance from that of the
PDP11, would have been an ideal assembler programmer's dream in a
microprocessor, but unfortunately it came on the scene just when
there was a large scale move into HLL usage in real-time and
embedded projects.
Also - for those of us playing with sub-minimal ideas, it was
a dynamic processor which you could not stop the clock in
order to single step it; an advantage of both the Z80 and the SC/MP.
(Speaking as a hobbyist nerd as well as a 40-year professional softy)
|
|
|
|
| Re: SEX [message #349023 is a reply to message #349010] |
Sun, 23 July 2017 05:58 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Gareth's Downstairs Computer
On 23/07/2017 01:40, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:16:41 -0700, hancock4 wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 6:20:15 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Advance made them here in the Uk. Saturating primary and resonant
>>> secondary to provide a constant voltage output with at least a 1/2
>>> cycle holdup on power fail, just what you want for computers. Simple
>>> idea, transformer and a cap or two, but not every efficient, neither
>>> cheap to make...
>>
>> Drifting a bit, in railroad power supplies, there is something known as
>> an "autotransformer". Would anyone know the difference between that and
>> a regular transformer?
>
> A single winding, with taps for input and output.
>
> As opposed to two separate windings.
>
> Cheaper and a bit more efficient, but no isolation of course.
>
Brings to mind the effective bootstrapping used in the line output
stage of glass TV sets.
An overwind on the line output transformer is rectified by the
boost diode to increase the HT supply feeding the line output valve!
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
