11 Sep
2016
11 Sep
'16
7:16 a.m.
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=30456459#p30456459
Found via:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/09/an-os-9-odyssey-why-do-some-mac-users-…
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) ? +420 702 829 053 (?R)
11 Sep
11 Sep
11:10 a.m.
I just retired my G4 cube (still working). Replaced it with a NOT NEW iMac.
George Rachor
george at rachors.com <mailto:george at rachors.com>
On Sep 11, 2016, at 7:16 AM, Liam Proven <lproven
at gmail.com> wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=30456459#p30456459
Found via:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/09/an-os-9-odyssey-why-do-some-mac-users-…
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) ? +420 702 829 053 (?R)
6:35 p.m.
What do you mean by ?retired,? and what kind of setup did you have for it?
-- Chris
On Sep 11, 2016, at 11:10 AM, George Rachor
<george.rachor at gmail.com> wrote:
I just retired my G4 cube (still working). Replaced it with a NOT NEW iMac.
George Rachor
george at rachors.com <mailto:george at rachors.com>
On Sep 11, 2016, at 7:16 AM, Liam Proven
<lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=30456459#p30456459
Found via:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/09/an-os-9-odyssey-why-do-some-mac-users-…
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) ? +420 702 829 053 (?R)
8:09 p.m.
My wife and I purchased the G4 cube, monitor, as well as enhanced sound package. It?s
primary purchase was using it as a music server and some games. My wife was working with
Apple II e?s and very early Mac?s at the time.
Over time I had to replace a failing hard drive.
I retired it last week as I couldn?t put a modern browser on it. The last few years I
used it for only music.
Retire means I?m packing it up to put in a dust proof container and placed in storage.
Not looking to get rid of it but will obviously will someday.
Not really vintage but it has served a long and happy life.
George Rachor
Hillsboro, Oregon
george at rachors.com
On Sep 11, 2016, at 6:35 PM, Chris Hanson <cmhanson
at eschatologist.net> wrote:
What do you mean by ?retired,? and what kind of setup did you have for it?
-- Chris
On Sep 11, 2016, at 11:10 AM, George Rachor
<george.rachor at gmail.com> wrote:
I just retired my G4 cube (still working). Replaced it with a NOT NEW iMac.
George Rachor
george at rachors.com <mailto:george at rachors.com>
On Sep 11, 2016, at 7:16 AM, Liam Proven
<lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=30456459#p30456459
Found via:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/09/an-os-9-odyssey-why-do-some-mac-users-…
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) ? +420 702 829 053 (?R)
11:09 p.m.
I retired it last week as I couldn't put a modern
browser on it.
*cough*
http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff. -- Frank Zappa ----
6:43 p.m.
This person was talking about 680x0-based Macs being ?16-bit.? Ugh.
-- Chris
On Sep 11, 2016, at 7:16 AM, Liam Proven <lproven
at gmail.com> wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=30456459#p30456459
Found via:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/09/an-os-9-odyssey-why-do-some-mac-users-…
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) ? +420 702 829 053 (?R)
12 Sep
12 Sep
2:21 a.m.
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 06:43:32PM -0700, Chris Hanson wrote:
This person was talking about 680x0-based Macs being
?16-bit.? Ugh.
The original 68000 *was*. Although there were instructions for 32 bit ALU
operations, it only had a 16 bit ALU and the operands had to go through the ALU
twice. This illusion went away with multiplication and division, which only
existed in 16 bit form.
The 68020 onwards made the CPU fully 32 bit, although various bits of legacy 16
bit cruft remained for compatibility.
1:40 p.m.
On Sep 12, 2016, at 2:21 AM, Peter Corlett <abuse at cabal.org.uk> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 06:43:32PM -0700, Chris Hanson wrote:
No, the 68000 was a 32-bit CPU, as defined by the register width and programming model.
The fact that it was implemented with a 16-bit ALU and had a 16-bit data path to memory is
immaterial.
-- Chris
This person was talking about 680x0-based Macs
being ?16-bit.? Ugh.
The original 68000 *was*. Although there were instructions for 32 bit ALU
operations, it only had a 16 bit ALU and the operands had to go through the ALU
twice. This illusion went away with multiplication and division, which only
existed in 16 bit form.
The 68020 onwards made the CPU fully 32 bit, although various bits of legacy 16
bit cruft remained for compatibility.
15 Sep
15 Sep
11:03 a.m.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 01:40:56PM -0700, Chris Hanson wrote:
By that logic, the Z80 is a 16 bit processor because ADC HL, BC and the like
exist. It even has a 4 bit ALU and passes data through twice, but this is an
invisible implementation detail and it's generally considered to be an 8 bit
CPU. Likewise, the existence of zmm0-zmm31 registers don't mean that
contemporary x86 is 512 bit.
The essential 16 bitness of the 68000 pokes through in a lot of places despite
the register file giving the illusion of 32 bitness. Instructions are 16 bit
aligned. The status register is 16 bits. There are no true 32 bit multiply or
divide instructions. Shift/rotate instructions to memory can only be used on 16
bit quantities. MOVEP exists.
On Sep 12, 2016, at 2:21 AM, Peter Corlett <abuse
at cabal.org.uk> wrote:
[...]
The 68020
onwards made the CPU fully 32 bit, although various bits of legacy
16 bit cruft remained for compatibility.
No, the 68000 was a 32-bit CPU, as
defined by the register width and
programming model. The fact that it was implemented with a 16-bit ALU and had
a 16-bit data path to memory is immaterial. 
11:24 a.m.
On 09/15/2016 11:03 AM, Peter Corlett wrote:
My 68K manual, as handed to me by the Moto sales guy at Wescon back in
the day says "MC68000 16-BIT MICROPROCESSOR User's Manual". Page 1-1
reiterates essentially the same sentiment:
"The MC68000...combines state-of-the-art technology and advanced circuit
design techniques with computer sciences to achieve an architecturally
advanced 16-bit microprocessor."
Call it anything you want, but we know what Motorola called it.
--Chuck
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 01:40:56PM -0700, Chris Hanson
wrote:
No, the 68000
was a 32-bit CPU, as defined by the register width
and programming model. The fact that it was implemented with a
16-bit ALU and had a 16-bit data path to memory is immaterial.
By that logic, the Z80 is a 16 bit processor because ADC HL, BC and
the like exist. It even has a 4 bit ALU and passes data through
twice, but this is an invisible implementation detail and it's
generally considered to be an 8 bit CPU. Likewise, the existence of
zmm0-zmm31 registers don't mean that contemporary x86 is 512 bit. 
11:28 a.m.
And, to 'put a nail in it', the bitsavers file for the MC68000 is
'68000_16-Bit_Microprocessor_Apr83.pdf'.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:24:11 AM
Subject: Re: 68K Macs with MacOS 7.5 still in production use...
On 09/15/2016 11:03 AM, Peter Corlett wrote:
My 68K manual, as handed to me by the Moto sales guy at Wescon back in
the day says "MC68000 16-BIT MICROPROCESSOR User's Manual". Page 1-1
reiterates essentially the same sentiment:
"The MC68000...combines state-of-the-art technology and advanced circuit
design techniques with computer sciences to achieve an architecturally
advanced 16-bit microprocessor."
Call it anything you want, but we know what Motorola called it.
--Chuck
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 01:40:56PM -0700, Chris Hanson
wrote:
No, the 68000
was a 32-bit CPU, as defined by the register width
and programming model. The fact that it was implemented with a
16-bit ALU and had a 16-bit data path to memory is immaterial.
By that logic, the Z80 is a 16 bit processor because ADC HL, BC and
the like exist. It even has a 4 bit ALU and passes data through
twice, but this is an invisible implementation detail and it's
generally considered to be an 8 bit CPU. Likewise, the existence of
zmm0-zmm31 registers don't mean that contemporary x86 is 512 bit.
12 Sep
12 Sep
7:33 a.m.
On 12 September 2016 at 03:43, Chris Hanson <cmhanson at eschatologist.net> wrote:
This person was talking about 680x0-based Macs being
?16-bit.? Ugh.
Well, to be specific, the interviewee was talking about something that
is networking-specific on System 7.5, which implies pre-7.6 and thus
pre-Open Transport. IIRC 7.6 is also the first release that requires
32-bit clean ROMs -- 7.5 and earlier didn't.
So it sounds like a legitimate misunderstanding, probably via
over-zealous editing.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) ? +420 702 829 053 (?R)
1:42 p.m.
On Sep 12, 2016, at 7:33 AM, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 September 2016 at 03:43, Chris Hanson <cmhanson at eschatologist.net> wrote:
It was from a forum post, and the editors should have caught it. The existence of
"32-bit clean" ROMs does not imply that the prior ROMs ? or CPU architecture! ?
were 16-bit, or that operating systems that ran on them were.
-- Chris
This person was talking about 680x0-based Macs
being ?16-bit.? Ugh.
Well, to be specific, the interviewee was talking about something that
is networking-specific on System 7.5, which implies pre-7.6 and thus
pre-Open Transport. IIRC 7.6 is also the first release that requires
32-bit clean ROMs -- 7.5 and earlier didn't.
So it sounds like a legitimate misunderstanding, probably via
over-zealous editing. 
2:34 p.m.
On 9/12/16 3:42 PM, Chris Hanson wrote:
On Sep 12, 2016, at 7:33 AM, Liam Proven <lproven
at gmail.com> wrote:
Particularly when the issue was 24-bit vs 32-bit.
On 12 September 2016 at 03:43, Chris Hanson
<cmhanson at eschatologist.net> wrote:
It was from a forum post, and the editors should have caught
it. The existence of "32-bit clean" ROMs does not imply that the prior ROMs ? or
CPU architecture! ? were 16-bit, or that operating systems that ran on them were.
This person was talking about 680x0-based Macs
being ?16-bit.? Ugh.
Well, to be specific, the interviewee was talking about something that
is networking-specific on System 7.5, which implies pre-7.6 and thus
pre-Open Transport. IIRC 7.6 is also the first release that requires
32-bit clean ROMs -- 7.5 and earlier didn't.
So it sounds like a legitimate misunderstanding, probably via
over-zealous editing.
3020
days inactive
3024
days old
13 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
abuse＠cabal.org.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cmhanson＠eschatologist.net -
george.rachor＠gmail.com -
lproven＠gmail.com -
ryan＠hack.net -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
turing＠shaw.ca