The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: Brian Inglis on 2 Apr 2007 05:10 fOn 31 Mar 2007 15:52:19 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers, "Quadibloc" <jsavard(a)ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >David Kanter wrote: >> On Mar 5, 5:20 am, "Quadibloc" <jsav...(a)ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > >> > Struggling with many opcode formats with which I was not completely >> > satisfied in my imaginary architecture that built opcodes up from 16- >> > bit elements, I note that an 18-bit basic element for an instruction >> > solves the problems previously seen, by opening up large vistas of >> > additional opcode space. >> >> Why is 18 bits any better than 32 bits? > >Well, 18 bits is less bits than 32 bits, but it's more bits than 16 >bits. So, if 16 bits aren't enough, jumping to 18 may get me what I >want while using fewer transistors. > >However, further thought has led me to modify my page further, and add > >http://www.quadibloc.com/arch/per01.htm > >where I show it might be possible to build instructions out of units >12 bits long, to economize on RAM, without giving much up. (Of course, >the PDP-8, and more especially the FPP-12, could be cited as >precedents here.) OT followup: PDP-11/74 front panel http://www.ak6dn.com/stuff/1174.jpg -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis(a)CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca) fake address use address above to reply
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Apr 2007 07:25 In article <20070401100525.e3d02109.steveo(a)eircom.net>, Steve O'Hara-Smith <steveo(a)eircom.net> wrote: >On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:39:04 -0500 >Charles Richmond <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> wrote: > >> CBFalconer wrote: >> > Nick Maclaren wrote: >> >> Morten Reistad <first(a)last.name> writes: >> >>> Lastest pc press blurbs. Vista only runs around 80 of 150 >> >>> identified critical XP applications. >> >> Hasta la vista? >> > >> > No, Vista hasta go sista. >> > >> It's just *another* Mi$uck mess... What can we expect??? >> This is their idea of innovation. > > Indeed, soon there will be new versions of the other 70 that will >work on Vista but will not work on XP, 2000, ME, 9x and so forth. These new >versions will have new features so the old versions won't reliably read >files from the new versions thus forcing updates to the new versions and >therefore Vista. This is a painfully familiar pattern that has been reused >over and over again going back (at least) to the move to Windows versions >of DOS software. > Has it been verified that Vista cannot read MS' older formats? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Apr 2007 07:52 In article <f18113dsl8uj8eom3khl8180vk734vj9ei(a)4ax.com>, Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >fOn Sat, 31 Mar 07 12:29:26 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <mddejn6wjk5.fsf(a)panix5.panix.com>, >> Rich Alderson <news(a)alderson.users.panix.com> wrote: >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>> >>>> In article <mddd52rx59j.fsf(a)panix5.panix.com>, >>>> Rich Alderson <news(a)alderson.users.panix.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> They wanted 8-bit bytes and power-of-2 words, and nothing was going to >>>>> change their minds about that. >>> >>>> Then customers would continue to buy -11s and move the boring grunt work to >>>> the -10s and their secretaries. >>> >>>I see that the point was completely missed, and >>>there's no use in trying to fix it. >> >>It was not missed by me. Those people you talked to will continue >>to have their minis bought for them. However, the infrastruture >>that surrounded them would have computing needs beyond mini >>capabilities. Thus, the _bosses_ of those people you talked to >>would buy a -10 because 1. they were already doing business >>with DEC and were pleased with the services; 2. it was easier >>to stay with one supplier than introduce a brand new computer >>culture 3. the -10 was "compatible" with the gear that those >>people to whom you talked insisted on using. >> >>Now do you see? > >In the PDP-11 era Marketing seemed to consider 10s(/20s) suitable only >for educational institutions, not for businesses. Wrong. Note that the PDP-11 era was going strong when I was hired by DEC, 1971, and is still going strong. > >1. Digital made no promises of better (hours of) service from the branch >for 10s than 11s. > >2. The OS and third party software products were from different >cultures, different products would have to be chosen, code would have to >be rewritten, and data converted, regardless of which dissimilar >architecture or vendor was chosen. > >3. Going from 8 bit characters to 7 or 6 bit was seen as a step >backwards, even in an environment where only 7 bits mattered. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. > >How your group saw business was one thing, how local field service and >marketing saw business was another, and how businesses saw Digital thru >their local reps was yet another. Field service was doing just fine at that time. Bad service complaints were rare and if they did exist, it got fixed. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Apr 2007 07:53 In article <mv8113db7op5afc3p181q92gtsjbtg10mk(a)4ax.com>, Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >fOn 29 Mar 2007 22:10:41 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers, "Tarkin" ><Tarkin000(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Mar 30, 3:46 am, CBFalconer <cbfalco...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Nick Maclaren wrote: >>> >>> ... snip ... >>> >>> > No, but nor could the Z80 compete on industry-quality functionality >>> > and reliability. I know quite a few people who used Z80s for that, >>> > and they never really cut the mustard for mission-critical tasks >>> > (despite being a factor of 10 or more cheaper). >>> >>> Nonsense. I had 8080 based communications systems that ran >>> continuously (no restart) for 2 to 3 years, until brought down by a >>> mains power failure. > >>8080 != Z80. ISTR reading from a few different >>places that early Z80's were 'twitchy'; that's >>also why there are 'undocumented' opcodes- >>those opcodes did not work reliably until the kinks >>were worked out of the (wafer production [?]) >>process. > >Nonsense. Undocumented opcodes tend to be a side effect of a particular >implementation of an architecture: that implementation does this if you >set those bits in an instruction. That's why they're undocumented: if >they change the implementation, the side effects of setting those bits >may produce a different result. DEC documented all of its opcodes. Those that were not used were documented as "Reserved for future use". /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Apr 2007 07:55
In article <ag9113lncbeo99n4smua1o6f2rq72cm0dk(a)4ax.com>, Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >On Sat, 31 Mar 07 11:41:25 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <1ptr03dlr4i094g32r3aflhsg8e12ing85(a)4ax.com>, >> Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >>>On Thu, 29 Mar 07 13:29:12 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <tl7n03h8uppujai6ck0ap794okqulb9i71(a)4ax.com>, >>>> Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >>>>>fOn Wed, 28 Mar 07 11:16:23 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <46099974$0$18859$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>, >>>>>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And I'm telling you, again, that DEC did not have the infrastructure >>>>>>>> to handle that support. DEC's main business was not retail-ish. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Even IBM decided they didn't want to be in this business. >>>>>> >>>>>>I've spent quite a bit of my thinking time trying to figure out >>>>>>how to do the single task of software support with 200 million >>>>>>systems. I still don't have it. Micshit is trying by using the >>>>>>internet and edictive practices. That's not working either. >>>>>> >>>>>>Number one rule is to not ship security holes and have a backout >>>>>>plan when you do. >>>>>> >>>>>>I haven't thought of any way to do this. Micshit's answer is an >>>>>>"as is" which was anathema to the manufacturers of the past. >>>>> >>>>>Ahem, manufacturers didn't do software support: they did production and >>>>>maintenance. >>>> >>>><ahem> But DEC did do software support for the products it did >>>>ship. This was part of our corporate folklore. It would ahve >>>>been unthinkable to sell millions of _systems_ with no followup. >>>>It simply was not in our blood to do this. If the customers >>>>wanted us to leave them alone, we did. However, the reverse >>>>was never true. >>>> >>>>>A few inhouse staff did the software support, complained to the >>>>>manufacturer occasionally, mostly got some response, rarely got changes >>>>>made, if it followed the strategic direction (on the mini products). >>>>>The same model would have worked for personal workstations, with the >>>>>customer being responsible for most support. >>>> >>>>That implies that all sources are shipped with the toy. You >>>>people are talking about a product line that made acquiring sources >>>>a miracle. >>> >>>DEC did not ship sources for their popular PDP-11 OSes, >> >>Since when? >> >>> we had to work >>>with the documented system interfaces, but they were pretty good for >>>most purposes. >>> >>>>>DEC FE supported their terminals >>>> >>>>Terminals did not run OSes. We knew how do hardware in that >>>>number but not systems. Do you understand the difference >>>>between a piece of gear and a _system_? >>> >>>Do you understnad the difference between supporting hundreds of >>>mainframe systems on a few hardware bases and thousands of mini systems >>>on a variety of hardware bases? >> >>Do you understand that support a PC base would have been giving >>direct corporate support to each and every person who had accounts >>on the mainframes? Not only would we have to "train" all users >>to be sysadmins, but they would also have to be trained to be >>field service, operator, systems analyst, etc. >> >>>IMHO the mini people really had to have had their ducks in a row to deal >>>with the volume. >>>Remember there were independent industry mags for at least some of the >>>popular mini OSes. >> >>This has nothing to do with supporting the _systems_ that we sold. > >The distinction is that the customers supported the systems, and shared >information thru industry mags: DEC supported the customers, via DEC and >the customers' support staff. > >Your definition of systems includes only the DEC hardware and software: You have an incorrect assumption. >useful customer systems (typically) contained much more hardware and >software than DEC provided or supported. You do not know what you're talking about. <snip> /BAH |