12 Apr
1999
12 Apr
'99
4:09 p.m.
On Apr 11, 17:21, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Allison wrote:
::the oder of learning for me was PDP-8, PDP-10, CM2100, 8008, 8080 then
::over a span of 6 years. From the 1975 to 1978 the list is z80, 8048,
:: 1802, sc/mp, 6800, 650x, 9900, pdp-11!
::
::I have fewer biases. ;) Well ok, if said 8085 for some, 804x for
others,
::T-11 (pdp-11 on a single chip), and z80. Never had
more than the few
6502s
::until recently but they are fun too.
Heavily biased to 6502 myself :-) then Z80, 9995 and x86. I'll learm M68K
one of these days.
I started on the Z80, then 6502, followed by ARM, 68K, 6809, 8048, PDP11,
MIPS in no particular order. I still like the Z80 and 6502, but the ARM is
one of my favourites. I've never written any serious code for x86, and
what I've seen of the architecture fills me with loathing ;-)
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
13 Apr
13 Apr
4:35 a.m.
Pete Turnbull wrote:
I started on the Z80, then 6502, followed by ARM, 68K,
6809, 8048, PDP11,
MIPS in no particular order. I still like the Z80 and 6502, but the ARM is
one of my favourites. I've never written any serious code for x86, and
what I've seen of the architecture fills me with loathing ;-)
Jerome Fine replies:
I had an OLD 286 back when the 486 was already old. Just for fun,
I re-wrote some PRIME number programs from VMS in FORTRAN
to Turbo C. The most fun was in taking the inner loop routines and
converting to assembler. I learned a lot about the x86 architecture.
While at least I had a lot more memory immediately available to
save the tables (about 400 Kbytes - much more than on the PDP-11)
the addressing reminded me a bit of the old CDC 6600. I agree
that the old x86 memory usage is very bad for sizes more than
64 KBytes, but I seem to get the impression that under the 32 bit
memory map on the 586 machines (I have not done ANY programming,
so I am probably wrong) when in W95/98, there is a substantial address
space available. Am I wrong?
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
RT-11/TSX-PLUS User/Addict
4:42 a.m.
New subject: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4
At 09:35 AM 4/13/99 -0400, Jerome Fine wrote:
but I seem to get the impression that under the 32 bit
memory map on the 586 machines (I have not done ANY programming,
so I am probably wrong) when in W95/98, there is a substantial address
space available. Am I wrong?
Thread veering off-topic, but memory resembling a 32-bit space
appeared with the Windows 3.1 add-on known as "Win32s", circa
late 1994 or so.
- John
5:06 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1344 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990413/af149fca/at…
7:20 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1022 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990413/2df9bac9/at…
8:07 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 955 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990413/28f33a84/at…
8:07 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1038 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990413/f37206c6/at…
9215
days inactive
9216
days old
6 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
ckaiser＠oa.ptloma.edu -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jhfine＠idirect.com -
pete＠dunnington.u-net.com -
spc＠armigeron.com