Unknows S-100 System - test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

25 Sep 2007

...

Subject: Re: Unknows S-100 System
   From: "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at verizon.net>
   Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:17:43 -0400
     To: cctech at classiccmp.org

On Sunday 23 September 2007 09:12, Allison wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Unknows S-100 System
> >   From: "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at verizon.net>
> >   Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:44:57 -0400
> >     To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> > <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> >
> >On Saturday 22 September 2007 19:35, Barry Watzman wrote:
> >> All commercial software used 8080 instructions,
> >
> >Well,  no.  Two that I know of that did require a z80 were Turbo Pascal
> > and Mix C.
> >
> >--
>
> What I wrote something similar I used the word "most" as I knew there was
> some CP/M software that required z80.  However from a business user
> perspective most of the deireable and likely used software like word
> preocessors, spreadsheets and databases 8080 was just fine save for
> speed and the 8085 solved that.  Also the 8085 was more of a bridge
> than the ultimate application cpu. 
Somebody else used all.  I used most, you have the series of posters 
crumped..

...
 Yup,  but the word used there was "all".  :-)

By someone that posted before me.  You have a bunch or people and me 
munged together.

I've been at it long enough to know and have delt with the transistion 
...
 from 8080 to z80 and on. My first system was Altair
(8080) upgraded to NS* (z80) and in '79 I bought a Netronics Explorer 8085 all
of which I
still have and all work.

The amount of software that eould ran on 8080 was sufficient to keep 
8080 users going into the 16bit world.

...
 And then there was software that was good enough to
test what it had,  and go 
from there... 
Yes, some of the stuff was adaptive.

There was also a version of ZCPR that was "trimmed" to run on 8080
so that at least a few improvements were available.

Allison