graham@convex.UUCP (08/13/87)
There was once a company named Nanodata which built a machine called the
QM-1. The QM-1 had two levels of "micro-code" (one called nano-code and the
other call micro-code). It was intended to be used to emulate architectures.
Is Nanodata still around? If so, how can I contact them?
Does any other company build machines intended to be used this way?
Marv Graham; Convex Computer Corp. {sun,uiucdcs,allegra}!convex!grahamoster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (08/22/87)
The Motorola 68000 has two levels of "micro-code" (one called
nano-code and the other call micro-code). It most commonly emulates
the architecture of the motorola 68000, although IBM has used them to
emulate the architecture of the IBM 360 series of machines.
--- David Phillip Oster --My Good News: "I'm a perfectionist."
Arpa: oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu --My Bad News: "I don't charge by the hour."
Uucp: {seismo,decvax,...}!ucbvax!oster%dewey.soe.berkeley.edugraham@convex.UUCP (08/24/87)
One important point which I omitted in the base note: the QM-1 has writeable (sp?) control memory for both the micro-code and the nano-code. It's market is (was?) people with heavy emulation requirements.
alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy) (08/24/87)
In article <63900006@convex> graham@convex.UUCP writes: >[discussion of company that designed nanocode/microcode CPU intended to >emulate other architectures] >Does any other company build machines intended to be used this way? The M680x0 family has a nanocode/microcode architecture, and has been used to emulate other architectures. IBM's XT/370 and AT/370 used remicrocoded M680x0's to emulate S370. --Alan "MOVE.L (A0)+,(A1)+" Lovejoy
mark@aoa.UUCP (Mark Reynolds) (08/27/87)
In article <1118@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes: > >The M680x0 family has a nanocode/microcode architecture, and has been >used to emulate other architectures. IBM's XT/370 and AT/370 used >remicrocoded M680x0's to emulate S370. > I've heard persistent rumors that it is possible to remicrocode some of/ one of the M680x0 series without ripping the chip apart, i.e. that some have a writeable microcode control store. I have never believed this ( and still don't ), but this article has prompted me to raise this rumor, and see if it gets any response. Comments on this ( outlandish ) concept, anyone? Mark Reynolds ...!{wjh12,mit-vax}!biomed!aoa!mark ...!{harvard,ima}!bbn!aoa!mark
melvin@ji.Berkeley.EDU (Steve Melvin) (08/27/87)
In article <63900006@convex> graham@convex.UUCP writes: > >There was once a company named Nanodata which built a machine called the >QM-1. The QM-1 had two levels of "micro-code" (one called nano-code and the >other call micro-code). oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP replies: > >The Motorola 68000 has two levels of "micro-code" (one called >nano-code and the other call micro-code). alan@pdn.UUCP replies: > >The M680x0 family has a nanocode/microcode architecture, and has been >used to emulate other architectures. Actually, the QM-1 and the M68000 are not the same at all. The QM-1 has a *true* two-level structure while the M68000 doe not. In the QM-1, a microinstruction generates a dispatch into nanocode, and a sequence of nanoinstructions is then executed to "interpret" that microinstruction. Thus, a two level interpretive structure exists. The nanocode interprets microcode and the microcode interprets macrocode. In the M68000 however, there is only one level. There, a microinstruction contains within it a field which indexes into a ROM to produce a "nanoinstruction". Each microinstruction specifies only one "nanoinstruction" and there is only combinational logic between the microinstruction and the "nanoinstruction". One advantage of this scheme is that it can save control store space. So, the M68000 really has only one level of interpretation, the only reason that the second group of microcode is called "nanocode" is that the designers of the 68000 didn't understand the use of the term. :-)
steve@nuchat.UUCP (08/29/87)
In article <1118@pdn.UUCP>, alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy) writes: > In article <63900006@convex> graham@convex.UUCP writes: > >[discussion of company that designed nanocode/microcode CPU intended to > >emulate other architectures] > >Does any other company build machines intended to be used this way? > The M680x0 family has a nanocode/microcode architecture, and has been > used to emulate other architectures. IBM's XT/370 and AT/370 used > remicrocoded M680x0's to emulate S370. I had thought it might just be mythology at the time, but I see now that it was probably true. The Perkin-Elmer 3205, at the (very) low end of their line, had a motorola-marked cpu. But it was binary compatible (Double YUK!) with the larger 32XX boxes. It was said to be a re-micro- coded 68000. Steve Nuchia
randyb@halley.UUCP (Randy Banton) (08/31/87)
> I had thought it might just be mythology at the time, but I see now that > it was probably true. The Perkin-Elmer 3205, at the (very) low end of > their line, had a motorola-marked cpu. But it was binary compatible > (Double YUK!) with the larger 32XX boxes. It was said to be a re-micro- > coded 68000. > > Steve Nuchia The 3205 is based on the AMD 29116 with external microcode.
lawrie@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (09/01/87)
/* Written 8:43 am Aug 27, 1987 by mark@aoa.UUCP in uicsrd:comp.arch */ In article <1118@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes: > >The M680x0 family has a nanocode/microcode architecture, and has been >used to emulate other architectures. IBM's XT/370 and AT/370 used >remicrocoded M680x0's to emulate S370. > I've heard persistent rumors that it is possible to remicrocode some of/ one of the M680x0 series without ripping the chip apart, i.e. that some have a writeable microcode control store. I have never believed this ( and still don't ), but this article has prompted me to raise this rumor, and see if it gets any response. Comments on this ( outlandish ) concept, anyone? Mark Reynolds ...!{wjh12,mit-vax}!biomed!aoa!mark ...!{harvard,ima}!bbn!aoa!mark /* End of text from uicsrd:comp.arch */
lawrie@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (09/01/87)
>>>/* Written 3:35 pm Aug 13, 1987 by graham@convex.UUCP in uicsrd:comp.arch */ >>>/* ---------- "QM-1 or like machines???" ---------- */ >>> >>>There was once a company named Nanodata which built a machine called the >>>QM-1. The QM-1 had two levels of "micro-code" (one called nano-code and the >>>other call micro-code). It was intended to be used to emulate architectures. >>>1 >>>Does any other company build machines intended to be used this way? >>> >>>Marv Graham; Convex Computer Corp. {sun,uiucdcs,allegra}!convex!graham >>>/* End of text from uicsrd:comp.arch */ Burroughs, AKA Unisys, designed a machine called the "D" machine, around the early to mid ''70s. We had a prototype here at Illinois. It had a nanomemory. (Damn thing was designed so the nanomemory board was symetric, you inserted it one way and it worked, insert it upside down and it burned out. We didn't have it very long.) I'm not sure if it ever made it to the marketplace--in my memory I associate it with the 1800; that was either it's final name or the machine that won out over it-- it probably died along with the FMP and BSP. For a free Convex I might be able to dig up a manual... There once was a machine from Urbana Built in a poolside cabana... Duncan Lawrie lawrie@a.cs.uiuc.edu lawrie@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu {allegra ihnp4}!uiucdcs!lawrie
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (09/03/87)
In article <43700020@uicsrd>, lawrie@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes: > > >> There was once a company named Nanodata which built a machine called the > >> QM-1. The QM-1 had two levels of "micro-code" (one called nano-code and > >> the other call micro-code). It was intended to be used to emulate > >>> architectures. Actually, Nanodata Corp. is still alive and eeking out a bare subsistence in Cheektowaga, NY. From what I understand, all they do now is maintain systems which they once built; I don't believe that they still make the QM-1 or any successor. Nanodata Corp. filed bankruptcy about 5 years or so ago. Most of their assets along with "One Computer Place" in downtown Buffalo, NY were sold to pay creditors. From what I understand, the thing that killed Nanodata Corp. (besides spending too much money too fast) was their "QM-X", which was a machine to compete with the IBM 360/370. The QM-X had a number of design problems, and Nanodata was just too small to compete in the dog-eat-dog business computer world of the early 80's. I don't believe that any QM-X was ever sold, but they sure spent a lot of money trying... My organization did some subcontract work for Nanodata Corp. around 1979/1980, so I got to know them. The QM-1 (at the time) was an impressive machine with some of the densest multi-layer PC boards I have ever seen (at the time). The QM-1 used a huge 5 volt @ 300 ampere Lambda power supply to run a board set less than 2 feet on a side (when viewed from the front). That's a lot of power and a lot of logic... Anyone have a QM-1? If only Nanodata had prospered perhaps today we would have QM-UNIX... :-) <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (09/03/87)
In article <43700019@uicsrd> lawrie@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes: >I've heard persistent rumors that it is possible to remicrocode some of/ >one of the M680x0 series without ripping the chip apart, i.e. that some >have a writeable microcode control store. Totally false. -- Dave Trissel Motorola Semiconductor, Austin
des@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) (09/04/87)
In article <1978@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > If only Nanodata had prospered perhaps >today we would have QM-UNIX... :-) We actually made 2.7bsd UNIX run on a QM-1. Well, we had to make it rather brain damaged, like, say, UNIX on an International BM PC. I really never did figure out WHY we hosted UNIX on it, however... re QM-X, I was always amazed at that one. It was basically a QM-1 running 360/370 instructions. Since the QM-1 emulated an 8080 in approximately real-time, I can't quite figure out WHY anyone would buy one. I guess Nanodata never found anybody that dumb either... I did like the blinking lights! It was fun showwing off to neophytes, And the heat! Imagine working in a computer room all day, without needing a sweater! Yup, the poor system mothers for those lowley Vax, eclipse, and PDP/11 hackers had to freeze, while I got to bask in tropical warmth at the QM-1 ... Summary: Boat Anchor-IX Expires: References: <63900006@convex> <43700020@uicsrd> <1978@kitty.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: des@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA. Keywords: In article <1978@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > If only Nanodata had prospered perhaps >today we would have QM-UNIX... :-) We actually made 2.7bsd UNIX run on a QM-1. Well, we had to make it rather brain damaged, like, say, UNIX on an International BM PC. I really never did figure out WHY we hosted UNIX on it, however... re QM-X, I was always amazed at that one. It was basically a QM-1 running 360/370 instructions. Since the QM-1 emulated an 8080 in approximately real-time, I can't quite figure out WHY anyone would buy one. I guess Nanodata never found anybody that dumb either... I did like the blinking lights! It was fun showwing off to neophytes, And the heat! Imagine working in a computer room all day, without needing a sweater! Yup, the poor system mothers for those lowley Vax, eclip Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: QM-1 or like machines??? Summary: Expires: References: <63900006@convex> <43700020@uicsrd> <1978@kitty.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: des@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA. Keywords: In article <1978@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >In article <43700020@uicsrd>, lawrie@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes: >> >> >> There was once a company named Nanodata which built a machine called the >> >> QM-1. The QM-1 had two levels of "micro-code" (one called nano-code and >> >> the other call micro-code). It was intended to be used to emulate >> >>> architectures. > > Actually, Nanodata Corp. is still alive and eeking out a bare >subsistence in Cheektowaga, NY. From what I understand, all they do >now is maintain systems which they once built; I don't believe that >they still make the QM-1 or any successor. > Nanodata Corp. filed bankruptcy about 5 years or so ago. Most >of their assets along with "One Computer Place" in downtown Buffalo, NY >were sold to pay creditors. > From what I understand, the thing that killed Nanodata Corp. >(besides spending too much money too fast) was their "QM-X", which was >a machine to compete with the IBM 360/370. The QM-X had a number of >design problems, and Nanodata was just too small to compete in the >dog-eat-dog business computer world of the early 80's. I don't believe >that any QM-X was ever sold, but they sure spent a lot of money trying... > My organization did some subcontract work for Nanodata Corp. >around 1979/1980, so I got to know them. The QM-1 (at the time) was >an impressive machine with some of the densest multi-layer PC boards >I have ever seen (at the time). The QM-1 used a huge 5 volt @ 300 ampere >Lambda power supply to run a board set less than 2 feet on a side >(when viewed from the front). That's a lot of power and a lot of >logic... > Anyone have a QM-1? If only Nanodata had prospered perhaps >today we would have QM-UNIX... :-) > ><> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York ><> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry ><> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/ ><> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (09/04/87)
In article <329@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, des@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) writes: > We actually made 2.7bsd UNIX run on a QM-1. Well, we had to make it > rather brain damaged, like, say, UNIX on an International BM PC. From what I can recall, the QM-1 had comparatively little serial I/O support (at least using any Nanodata hardware). I suppose that any intended "large scale" serial I/O would be handled by a 360/370 channel attachment to say, a 3704/5. > I really never did figure out WHY we hosted UNIX on it, however... I couldn't even begin to guess, especially in view of the above. UNIX drivers for a 3704/5?! > I did like the blinking lights! It was fun showwing off to neophytes, What always amazed me was that the lights were NOT labeled! Perhaps there was a template or guide somewhere, but I never saw one. I have seen QM-1's that had the lights spell out ``QM-1'' when the CPU was in a wait state (I don't know what emulation or O/S was being run to create that pattern, though). > And the heat! Imagine working in a computer room all day, without > needing a sweater! Yup, the poor system mothers for those lowley > Vax, eclipse, and PDP/11 hackers had to freeze, while I got to bask > in tropical warmth at the QM-1 ... From the size and rating of the power supply, I would guess that the CPU cabinet alone dissipated 3 KW of heat. That'll keep you warm... <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat todayATLa
leech@unc.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (09/04/87)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <1980@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >> I really never did figure out WHY we hosted UNIX on it, however... > > I couldn't even begin to guess, especially in view of the above. >UNIX drivers for a 3704/5?! Why the "?!"? Do you LIKE 3270 type tubes? Amdahl's UTS has had full-duplex serial line support on the 4705 (Amdahl equivalent of a 3705) available for a long time - I used it myself when working there 2 summers ago. I think they have better hardware for that purpose now, however. -- Jon Leech (leech@dopey.cs.unc.edu) [Note changed address!] __@/
alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy) (09/04/87)
In article <43700019@uicsrd> lawrie@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes: >/* Written 8:43 am Aug 27, 1987 by mark@aoa.UUCP in uicsrd:comp.arch */ >I've heard persistent rumors that it is possible to remicrocode some of/ >one of the M680x0 series without ripping the chip apart, i.e. that some >have a writeable microcode control store. I have never believed this >( and still don't ), but this article has prompted me to raise this >rumor, and see if it gets any response. Comments on this ( outlandish ) >concept, anyone? No, no, no! USERS can't remicrocode m680x0's!!! Motorola, however, can and will (for the right reason or fee :-) ). --alan@pdn
mjl@tropix.UUCP (Mike Lutz) (09/05/87)
In article <43700020@uicsrd> lawrie@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes: > >>>>/* Written 3:35 pm Aug 13, 1987 by graham@convex.UUCP >>>>There was once a company named Nanodata which built a machine called the >>>>QM-1. The QM-1 had two levels of "micro-code" (one called nano-code and the >>>>other call micro-code). > >Burroughs, AKA Unisys, designed a machine called the "D" machine, >around the early to mid ''70s. We had a prototype here at Illinois. >It had a nanomemory. ... I'm not sure if it ever made >it to the marketplace--in my memory I associate it with the 1800; >that was either it's final name or the machine that won out over it. Ok, the straight poop (from an old poop) about the QM-1, the D-machine, and the Burroughs 1700/1800. 1. The QM-1 grew out of a research project at the University of Buffalo in the late 60's, early 70's -- Project Mu, headed by Bob Rosin. I was a lowly, junior, graduate student assigned to the project. We were investigating the uses of user-level microprogramming: experimental computer architectures, high level language support, etc. After looking at the D-machine, a Microdata processor, and a couple others, we decided none were suitable, so some folks from UB's engineering lab formed Nanodata and proposed what became the QM-1. The main advance of the QM-1 over the D-machine was that vertical microinstructions were interpreted by a *sequence* of horizontal nanoinstructions: the opcode of the microinstruction gave the address of the first nanoinstruction, and other fields in the microinstruction were accessible by the nanocode to select registers and ALU operations. On the D-machine, the microinstruction selected a single nano-instruction, and no parameterization was provided. 2. For technical and political reasons, Project Mu never took delivery of a QM-1 (though Nanodata thoughtfully provided summer employment for many of us students :-). Instead, we purchased a B1700 in 1972; the B1700 was a technical marvel for the time: a) multiprogrammed emulation, with different microcode for each language in use (FORTRAN, COBOL, PASCAL, etc.), b) a multitasking, virtual memory operating system that fit in 32Kbytes (you could run applications with as little as 48K of main memory; we went wild and purchased 64K), c) bit addressable main memory, making it a snap to emulate existing computers, or to try some real exotic architectures, f) a variable precision ALU (1-24 bits). e) and, as they say in marketing, "a whole lot more". The B1800 was a successor this machine; as I understand it, the low-end B700/B800 lines were based on repackaged D-machines. From personal experience, I will state that the B1700 was a pleasure to work with at the microcode level (and anyone who has done serious microprogramming knows what an amazing statement that is!) While not a "RISC" machine, the B1700 was optimized for emulation, and the pieces just fit together well. It was difficult to write bad code, and it always seemed that information ended up in the right place for further processing. Mike Lutz GCA/Tropel tropix!mjl P.S. At the time of Project Mu, dynamically modifying the underlying microcode was viewed as a "neat idea": one could optimize performance of particular applications on the fly, etc. The idea has pretty much been abandoned, as the potential for mass confusion overwhelmed the actual benefits. Oh, well. P.P.S. Anyone wanting more information on the state of microprogramming in the early to mid 70's should take a peek at "Fundamentals of Microprogramming" by Agrawala and Rauscher (Academic Press, I believe). They have a good section on the QM-1. For the B1700/B1800, look for a book by Elliott Organick and Jim Hinds, titled something like "The B1800 Architecture", also by Academic Press, I believe.
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (09/07/87)
In article <1980@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
< What always amazed me was that the lights were NOT labeled!
If you figured out what lights tied to what bits in the register,
you'd know why! Who in their right minds would *label* interleaving
the bits from two registers in six-bit hunks in a vertical line?
<Perhaps there was a template or guide somewhere, but I never saw one.
<I have seen QM-1's that had the lights spell out ``QM-1'' when the CPU
<was in a wait state (I don't know what emulation or O/S was being run to
<create that pattern, though).
That was the "stock" emulation that most of the QM-1 development was
done on. It looke vaguely like a Data General (I think that was what I
was told) machine.
To be accurate, the "stock" nanocode provided a microcode that looked
a little like the DG machine, complete with 18-bit words. Most
applications (for the machine I dealt with, the Air Farce simulating
weapons systems so they could do software developmen in parallel with
the hardware development) were built on top of that.
There was also a PDP-11/10 emulation that put "PDP" in the lights. I
heard rumors of an IBM 360/??? emulation, but never saw it. We did
nanocode to emulate a micro designed by a group at Toronto and tweaked
by us for running code from a C compiler called QM/C. The lights
spelled out "QMC", of course.
<mike
--
Lather was thirty years old today, Mike Meyer
They took away all of his toys. mwm@berkeley.edu
His mother sent newspaper clippings to him, ucbvax!mwm
About his old friends who'd stopped being boys. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET