a577@mindlink.UUCP (Curt Sampson) (04/06/90)
> JSHIN@HAMPVMS.BITNET writes: > > Someone should come up with the guts and money to speed up Z80; > with current AS-TTL technology, we can pull it up to 100MHz!!! Well, I personally think that that would be a good idea, but I'm not sure how necessary it is. I currently do all my word processing on a Kaypro II with a couple of floppy drives, and in most cases it's considerably faster than an hard drive equipped IBM AT. My total time from boot up to the opening screen of WordStar is less than ten seconds. My modem program is a heck of a lot faster to move around in and dial than Telix, too. I think that the CP/M machines are still d*mn useful, even if they are "obselete." And after setting up a brand new Mac with a hard drive for someone, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend a used Kaypro or whatever (assuming it came with the original disks and manuals) to any computer novice looking for an easy-to-use basic word processing system. (I'll reccomend the Mac to anyone who likes to spend hours fiddling with FontMovers and obscure setup commands for desktop accessories and the like.) -CJS ( Curt_Sampson@mindlink.UUCP )
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/08/90)
> - I prefer to use the 80x86 family. Why, because the hardware is simpler to > - design around, and I can fit very substantial programs in very small memory > - space. Making a virtue of necsssity, eh? > I can't with the 68000 family. Ever hear of threaded languages? Besides, if you're really cramming memory you'd probably be better off with one of those 8-bit microcontrollers. -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v
litwack@dccs.upenn.edu (Mark Litwack) (04/10/90)
Zilog will be releasing a 12.5Mhz and 25Mhz version of the Z-280 this May. The Z-80 family isn't dead yet. -mark
korenek@ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) (04/10/90)
In article <1990Apr4.210949.18187@eng.umd.edu>, chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck Harris) writes: >In article <9004040702.AA08985@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> JSHIN@HAMPVMS.BITNET ("No, me?") writes: >>[stuff deleted...] >>Hmmmm..... >>This is a serious matter, you see. >>Personally, I think everything that Intel has ever come up with tend to >>be rather demented; especially the iAPX86 family. The segmentation system >- I won't even touch this! >[more stuff deleted...] IMHO, a _really_ twisted microprocessor is the RCA 1802. No "CALL" or "RETURN" instructions, for example. If you want subroutines, you have to execute "CALL" code (that you have to include), and for the subroutine to return, the subroutine has to execute "RETURN" code (that you also must provide!). I learned to program in the machine-instruction world with the INTEL 8080. This was back in the days when S-100 machines (IMSAI 8080, Altair, Cromemco, North Star, etc.) were the "going thing". The 8080 then seemed to be a straightforward processor. I then worked with the Z-80. I remember thinking it to be more time consuming to program (and debug) due to the increased number of insructions. The Z-80, at the time, was the "hot chip". Subconsciously, I use the 8080 as a reference processor (in terms of simplicity). I suppose that I have a attachement to the 8080 because it was the chip I learned on. -- Gary Korenek (korenek@ficc.uu.net) | This space Ferranti International Controls Corp. | intentionally Sugar Land, Texas (713)274-5357 | left blank
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/10/90)
In article <GRT23E1ccs@ficc.uu.net> korenek@ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) writes: > IMHO, a _really_ twisted microprocessor is the RCA 1802. No "CALL" > or "RETURN" instructions, for example. If you want subroutines, you > have to execute "CALL" code (that you have to include), and for the > subroutine to return, the subroutine has to execute "RETURN" code > (that you also must provide!). Awww, I like the 1802. 16 16-bit registers, any of which could be PC or SP, but no 16-bit load-and-store instructions. It really could do calls and returns, but only to coroutines by setting the PC. And it was a really neat processor for FORTH, because the Forth threaded call was *faster* than the Standard Call and Return Technique. This is getting off the subject of CP/M. Followups to comp.misc. (by the way, this is being posted from my Xerox 820 for the first time. I still don't have anything that can speak any protocols... :-<) -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v
tilmann@cosmo.UUCP (Tilmann Reh) (04/11/90)
Hello. The Z280 will be released as a 12.5 MHz version this May. True. But as Zilog says, a 25 MHz version will never appear. Sigh. However, a Z80-CMOS with 20 MHz (5 MIPS) is available NOW! Needs quite fast Cache-RAMs to operate, I guess... This guy from Denmark had the bad luck of buying a CP/M-68K system. Although quite small and fast, this OS never reached the popularity of CP/M-80 (2.2/3.x), of which we are talking when saying just 'CP/M', and for which still new software is available. Besides, if you take the PC & clone market away, there will be few who are using Intel processors. They all use 68K, 32K, Z80/180/8000, TMS9995 etc., and they all know why! Very bad luck that IBM took these chips for their PC. But, if you have a look at PC architecture, it isn't even better than that of Intel processors. Every 10-year-old electronic hobbyist would have made a better design than IBM's 'high-tech' engineers (and would have taken better chips, also). Details are much too much to list here. Last but not least, the architecture and quality of the mostly-used OS on that machines fits CPU and and computer design. They probably found the worst OS for the worst computer based on the worst CPU, but that is now called 'industry standard'. BURP! Tilmann
cs2591aq@carina.unm.edu (aNk1ez) (04/13/90)
In article <5307@balu.UUCP> tilmann@cosmo.UUCP (Tilmann Reh) writes: >The Z280 will be released as a 12.5 MHz version this May. True. >But as Zilog says, a 25 MHz version will never appear. Sigh. Phooey. that would be fun. >However, a Z80-CMOS with 20 MHz (5 MIPS) is available NOW! >Needs quite fast Cache-RAMs to operate, I guess... I didn't even know there was one.. time to give Zilog a call and get some info.. BTW: I was going thru the back of Byte Mag. and i noticed in the Z80 section of stuff you could order, a chip dubbed "Z8400HB1 <Cpu 8MHz.>" what the heck is that chip? anyone have some info? would be nice to find out what it does... >This guy from Denmark had the bad luck of buying a CP/M-68K system. Although >quite small and fast, this OS never reached the popularity of CP/M-80 >(2.2/3.x), of which we are talking when saying just 'CP/M', and for which >still new software is available. True...True...But the 68000's are still very nice processors. I'm actually quite surprised that CP/M-68K didn't get as popular as CP/M-Z80.. I hold the 680x0 line in the same regard as the Z80. its a nice, clean powerful porcessor. I wouldn't mind getting a CP/M-68K machine... (None of this Amiga/Macintosh/Atari ST easy-to-use-but-not-any-fun machines that "Corporate America" is getting screwed with..tho, i'd rather have those be the standard than these IBM crap.) >Besides, if you take the PC & clone market away, there will be few who >are using Intel processors. They all use 68K, 32K, Z80/180/8000, TMS9995 etc., >and they all know why! Very bad luck that IBM took these chips for their PC. >But, if you have a look at PC architecture, it isn't even better than that >of Intel processors. Every 10-year-old electronic hobbyist would have made >a better design than IBM's 'high-tech' engineers (and would have taken better >chips, also). Details are much too much to list here. Last but not least, the >architecture and quality of the mostly-used OS on that machines fits CPU and >and computer design. They probably found the worst OS for the worst computer >based on the worst CPU, but that is now called 'industry standard'. Hear Hear! Well, at least we can be proud to say that we're of a group that knows better! I guess i can be content to use my Z80 machine and let "Corporate America" get ****ed up the ***. Actually, the deserve it. (i'm of the old world "Word Processor? Get a typwriter! Spreadsheet? Get a calculator! Drafting? Get a bloody set of pencils!") Techs / cs2591aq@carina.unm.edu aNk1e ByT0rz k1Ub common account. And God said "Let segment:offset be your punishment for your sins..." unfortunatly, the beauraucratic designers liked the idea. pah.