4 Oct
2007
4 Oct
'07
6:39 a.m.
Subject: Re: TI 990 architecture / was Re: TI-99/4A Floppies
From: Brent Hilpert <hilpert at cs.ubc.ca>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:56:06 -0700
To: General at priv-edtnaa06.telusplanet.net,
"Discussion at priv-edtnaa06.telusplanet.net":On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Same here. I do find that one has to qualify the views of the authors
as having some bias. Some of the CPUs commented as being least likely
actually had excellent longevity. For example 1802, 6100, 6502 and a
few others. It's interesting that at the time of writing the embedded
system market was still in it infantcy and would grow considerably to be
the primary consumer of microprocessors. But as you say it's at least
an overview of many micros to compare or understand at some level.
Allison
On 3 Oct 2007 at 10:13, Peter C. Wallace wrote:
> I think I chose the 9900 based on the Osborne book, it had the shortest
> benchmark program...
This overly-simple benchmark with varying
assumptions is one of the
biggest weaknesses of Volume II of the Osborne books. Perhaps a
But even with its weaknesses, the "Introduction to Microcomputers"
set was a valuable resource when there was little software and no MPU
was yet dominant.
I love that book, for it's overview of lesser known microprocs and being a
period snapshot of the state-of-the-art. I still find it a useful
technical reference for a lot of chips for which data is hard to come by.