didi <dp@tgi-sci.com> writes:> Didn't know Intel had ever produced a clean architecture - never > looked into the 40xx things.The i860 (a 64-bit microprocesor, not the recent "chipset") was fairly clean other than that it unnecessarily exposed some details of the pipeline, making it hard to implement interrupt handlers and context switching. The i960 was fairly clean. The iAPX 432 was elegant in some ways, though just about as far from RISC as anyone's every gone, and not a commercial success.
Intels chips in early days...Quire interesting...
Started by ●May 28, 2009
Reply by ●May 31, 20092009-05-31
Reply by ●June 1, 20092009-06-01
On 2009-05-31, Eric Smith <eric@brouhaha.com> wrote:> The iAPX 432 was elegant in some ways, though just about as > far from RISC as anyone's every gone, and not a commercial > success.It seemed very VAXesque to me. Not that the instruction sets lined up that exactly, but the feeling of "no matter what you want to do, it can be done in a single instruction." I also heard that it was intended specifically as an Ada target. I don't know if I believe that, but it seemed clearly designed to map well into high-level-languages. It was also reputed to be extrememly slow. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! What I want to find at out is -- do parrots know visi.com much about Astro-Turf?
Reply by ●June 1, 20092009-06-01
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:31:25 -0500, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:>On 2009-05-31, Eric Smith <eric@brouhaha.com> wrote: > >> The iAPX 432 was elegant in some ways, though just about as >> far from RISC as anyone's every gone, and not a commercial >> success. > >It seemed very VAXesque to me.VAX had a single 4 GiB virtual address space, but iAPX432 had multiple variable sized address spaces for each "object", so IBM AS400 would be a better example. The 8086 had only four (up to 64 KiB) segmented address spaces (CS:, DS:, SS:, ES:), while PDP-11 had up to eight up to 8 KiB virtual memory segments.>Not that the instruction sets >lined up that exactly, but the feeling of "no matter what you >want to do, it can be done in a single instruction." I also >heard that it was intended specifically as an Ada target. I >don't know if I believe that, but it seemed clearly designed to >map well into high-level-languages.For typical application programs, 8-16 bit offsets in a multiple segmented environment is not a bad idea, however, accessing large tables is a real PITA.>It was also reputed to be extrememly slow.Some urban legend claim that the slowest instruction took 1 ms, so the processor could execute only about 1000 such instructions each second:-), so no multiple kIPS nor MIPS. Paul
Reply by ●June 1, 20092009-06-01
ssubbarayan wrote:> > Just was going through this video from Howstuff works and I got > amazed by the invention of the Intel4004 in the companies earlier > days way back in 1969.Quite a remarkable work I believe. Share > your thoughts.... > > http://videos.howstuffworks.com/intel-corporation/865-4004-intels-first-microprocessor-video.htm > > Just wondered how much technology has changed from those days > till date....Try: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net/firstpc/> for a machine available in 1965. Floating point arithmetic. Nested subroutines. Non-volatile memory. 1000 transistors, 3000 diodes. $9,000. Closest competition was DEC PDP11S at $18,000 -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section.
Reply by ●June 2, 20092009-06-02
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4A2475F2.36149E53@yahoo.com...> > Try: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net/firstpc/> > > for a machine available in 1965. Floating point arithmetic. > Nested subroutines. Non-volatile memory. 1000 transistors, 3000 > diodes. > > $9,000. Closest competition was DEC PDP11S at $18,000 >Not disputing the extent of your technical achievement here - but "First PC"? I thought the 1973 Micral was the leading contender for that title. http://www.feb-patrimoine.com/projet/micral/micral.htm "Although Data Acquisition Corp. called the machine a "Digital Computer", it was most definitely a calculator, albeit a capable programmable machine. At the time it was introduced (mid-1965), it was arguably the most powerful desktop electronic calculating machine available." http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/w-dac512.html -- Chris Burrows CFB Software Armaide v2.0: ARM Oberon-07 Development System http://www.cfbsoftware.com/armaide
Reply by ●June 2, 20092009-06-02
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:38:23 +0930, Chris Burrows wrote:> Not disputing the extent of your technical achievement here - but "First > PC"? I thought the 1973 Micral was the leading contender for that title. > > http://www.feb-patrimoine.com/projet/micral/micral.htm > > "Although Data Acquisition Corp. called the machine a "Digital Computer", it > was most definitely a calculator, albeit a capable programmable machine. At > the time it was introduced (mid-1965), it was arguably the most powerful > desktop electronic calculating machine available." > > http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/w-dac512.htmlBut the author doesn't say why it "was most definitely a calculator". I don't see what's missing.
Reply by ●June 2, 20092009-06-02
"Nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:pan.2009.06.02.13.43.20.188000@nowhere.com...> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:38:23 +0930, Chris Burrows wrote: > >> "Although Data Acquisition Corp. called the machine a "Digital Computer", >> it >> was most definitely a calculator, albeit a capable programmable machine. >> At >> the time it was introduced (mid-1965), it was arguably the most powerful >> desktop electronic calculating machine available." >> >> http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/w-dac512.html > > But the author doesn't say why it "was most definitely a calculator". I > don't see what's missing. >The 'alpha' out of 'alphanumeric' perhaps? As far as I can see it could only process numeric data. -- Chris Burrows CFB Software Armaide v2.0: ARM Oberon-07 Development System http://www.cfbsoftware.com/armaide
Reply by ●June 2, 20092009-06-02
Chris Burrows wrote:> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> Try: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net/firstpc/> >> >> for a machine available in 1965. Floating point arithmetic. >> Nested subroutines. Non-volatile memory. 1000 transistors, 3000 >> diodes. >> >> $9,000. Closest competition was DEC PDP11S at $18,000 > > Not disputing the extent of your technical achievement here - but > "First PC"? I thought the 1973 Micral was the leading contender > for that title. > > http://www.feb-patrimoine.com/projet/micral/micral.htm > > "Although Data Acquisition Corp. called the machine a "Digital > Computer", it was most definitely a calculator, albeit a capable > programmable machine. At the time it was introduced (mid-1965), > it was arguably the most powerful desktop electronic calculating > machine available." > > http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/w-dac512.htmlI am prepared to argue that classification. I concede that it was not a conventional computer. For example, it could invert matrices. -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section.
Reply by ●June 2, 20092009-06-02
Chris Burrows wrote:> "Nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> Chris Burrows wrote: >> >>> "Although Data Acquisition Corp. called the machine a "Digital >>> Computer", it was most definitely a calculator, albeit a capable >>> programmable machine. At the time it was introduced (mid-1965), >>> it was arguably the most powerful desktop electronic calculating >>> machine available." >>> >>> http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/w-dac512.html >> >> But the author doesn't say why it "was most definitely a >> calculator". I don't see what's missing. > > The 'alpha' out of 'alphanumeric' perhaps? As far as I can see it > could only process numeric data.So? I know of no computers that treat chars as other than special integer values. They add software to make it convenient. -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section.
Reply by ●June 2, 20092009-06-02
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4A25D2D6.3FA73531@yahoo.com...> Chris Burrows wrote: >>> >>> But the author doesn't say why it "was most definitely a >>> calculator". I don't see what's missing. >> >> The 'alpha' out of 'alphanumeric' perhaps? As far as I can see it >> could only process numeric data. > > So? I know of no computers that treat chars as other than special > integer values.True but irrelevant.>They add software to make it convenient. >Exactly! It is the computer's ability to process that 'convenient software' and communicate with the user with alphanumeric information that differentiates it from a programmable calculator. A calculator accepts numeric data, processes it and returns numeric results. a) What non-numeric information was the DAC-512 able to display to the operator? b) How would you define the difference between a programmable calculator and a personal computer? -- Chris Burrows CFB Software Armaide v2.0: ARM Oberon-07 Development System http://www.cfbsoftware.com/armaide
