modern stuff

[ben]

On 10/24/2018 12:31 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 24, 2018, at 2:22 PM, ben via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/24/2018 11:57 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
>>> On 10/24/18 10:53 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:
>>>> I have no idea what is in a modern home computer, but I suspect
>>>> it still follows the same design of the IBM PC. Single CPU
>>>> with segmented memory and bit of DMA here and there.
>>> Wow...
>>> You are out of touch, aren't you.
>>
>> Am I really, every thing is so backwards compatable with the classic
>> PC's I don't see much new other than what was hacked on.
> 
> Single CPU, segmented memory?  No.  Multiple CPUs (8 or so in my laptop, many more in servers).  Flat 64 bit address space.
> 

Well I can still run DOS BOX and get my nice 8086 instruction set.

> It's true that the original 8086 instruction set lives on with all its warts, and many more added over the years.  And yes, I guess that you *can* run them in 32 bit segmented mode if you're crazy.  But that's not how they are actually used.  The same applies to other successful architectures: MIPS, IBM 360.  Or programming languages -- consider C for a particularly horrid example, or worse yet C++.

All the computer science books push RISC now. EVEN KUTH has gone to the 
DARK SIDE.

The point I was making and it got lost, for efficient programing the 
programmer has to know some times the fine detail of cpu and memory.
With the way hardware keeps being revised often for more profit, nobody 
knows the hardware any more.

> Al is right.  You might benefit from some more studying of these subjects.

That may be true, but I can't change the market place for crappy 
designs, since for
now I am locked into a windows OS. I use a free FPGA and PAL programing 
software.


> 	paul

70's computers are more interesting. That is why do we have PI computers 
running PDP 8 emulators?

Ben,