20 Aug
1998
20 Aug
'98
5:57 p.m.
On Thu, 20 Aug 1998 Philip.Belben(a)powertech.co.uk wrote:
donm(a)cts.com
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Don Maslin - Keeper of the Dina-SIG CP/M System Disk Archives
Chairman, Dina-SIG of the San Diego Computer Society
Clinging tenaciously to the trailing edge of technology.
Sysop - Elephant's Graveyard (CP/M) Z-Node 9 - 619-454-8412
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*
see old system support at http://www.psyber.com/~tcj
visit the "Unofficial" CP/M Web site at http://cdl.uta.edu/cpm
with Mirror at http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~cfs/cpm
Jeff wrote:
I remember when the 4052 made the scene, and it was dramatically faster
that the 4051!
- don
Yow!!! That means maybe it will run FLEX!
[insert Homer Simpson
impersonation]
Could someone please enlighten me... What, pray, is FLEX?
Woo Hoo!. Dang! I can just imagine running FLEX
at 25Mc! Its performance
over a 1Mc 6800 must have been blistering!
Warning. Clock speeds may not be comparable. 6800 and friends
(including 6502) often do more per cycle than 2901s.
That said, the 4052 is a 16 bit system, despite its 8-bit instruction
set. The data path is 16 bit throughout, it fetches two byte
instructions in a single memory cycle, etc.
And Tek do claim some quite impressive performance boosts upgrading from
4051 to 4052 (average gain they claimed was ten times, I think) Yikes!! I
think I may have seen some boards from a system like that one
in a junk heap last week! It used four 2901's eh? Hm, I'm gonna haveto
revisit that particular junque pile . . .
Bear in mind Tony Duell's comments - 16 bit systems based around 4 2901s
used to be common, but may now be worth grabbing anyway.
I must do some more research into the relationship between 4052 and 6800
instruction sets.
P.