gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) (06/15/85)
> we can expect them to microcode the microcode, leading to fascinating > generations of nano-, pico-, femto-, and attocode. > > John Levine, ima!johnl How did we manage to skip millicode? Anybody know?
ee163acp@sdcc13.UUCP (DARIN JOHNSON) (06/16/85)
In article <2304@sun.uucp>, gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > > we can expect them to microcode the microcode, leading to fascinating > > generations of nano-, pico-, femto-, and attocode. > > > > John Levine, ima!johnl > > How did we manage to skip millicode? Anybody know? I think it may be an unlucky number of computers.
kinne@asgb.UUCP (Robert W Kinne) (06/17/85)
> > we can expect them to microcode the microcode, leading to fascinating > > generations of nano-, pico-, femto-, and attocode. > > > > John Levine, ima!johnl > > How did we manage to skip millicode? Anybody know? The prefix micro- has two senses; one scientific and technical, which has the precise meaning of 10 ^-6, the second a general sense of very small scale. Microcode, like microeconomics, microscope, and indeed, microprocessor, is the second sense. So microcoded microcode could be described by almost any generic superlative; for example, we could call it awesomecode.
marv@ISM780.UUCP (06/24/85)
>> How did we manage to skip millicode? Anybody know? >Did you ever hear of a milliprocessor? No. However Standard Computer did build a family of machines (circa 1964), the IC400, IC600. Each machine had two alu's. One was 12 bits wide and one was 38 bits wide. The 12 bit alu was used for doing address arithmetic for the program in the control store, the 38 bit alu was used for performing operations of the target machine. The 12 bit alu was called the mini-engine, while the 36 bit one was called the main-engine. The program in the control store was refered to as Miniflow*. The Machine was used to emulate the IBM 704, 709, 7094, 7074, and 1401 as well as some machines designed by me (e.g. the EX01 and ES01) The EX01 had a dynamically alterable control store. A programmer using the ICAP assembly language could define a "MINI". This was anagoulous to a ordinary macro except that the body of the MINI was a "miniflow" sequence to implement a user defined target instruction. The Object module produced by ICAP containd code that was loaded control storage as well as code that was loaded into main storage. * Miniflow is a trademark of Standard Computer Co. Marv Rubinstein, Interactive Systems
crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) (06/27/85)
> >> How did we manage to skip millicode? Anybody know? > > >Did you ever hear of a milliprocessor? Almost. There was (is?) a ``millicomputer'' from Computer Automation, if I remember correctly. I think there was a Naked Milli (circle R, no doubt), as well. -- Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell