jal41820@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Smiley Face) (04/13/91)
Can anyone tell me what the applesoft basic commands are for using a modem, such as to dial, hangup, etc. I need to test my modem to see if I have the right cable (and if the modem works), and I don't have access to a real program yet. Please mail any replies to me, as I'm in a real hurry and don't have time to edit through nn (nor do I know how to do so quickly). Thanks in advance. -Mr. Smiley Face -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Josh Laff: e-mail to: jal41820@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu or # # Mr-Smiley-Face@uiuc.edu or _ _ joshlaff@gnu.ai.mit.edu |#\_____/#| Have a nice day! \#######/
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (04/14/91)
U > On Fri, 12 Apr 91 22:20:31 GMT Mr. Smiley Face said: >Can anyone tell me what the applesoft basic commands are for using a modem, >such >as to dial, hangup, etc. I need to test my modem to see if I have the right >cable (and if the modem works), and I don't have access to a real program >yet. Please mail any replies to me, as I'm in a real hurry and don't have time >to edit through nn (nor do I know how to do so quickly). Thanks in advance. > -Mr. Smiley Face There are no built in Applesoft commands that control the modem. Morgan Davis has written some ampersand command drivers for Applesoft to do this, but you'd probably be better off just buying a telecom program if that's what you want. >_______________________________________________________________________________ >Josh Laff: e-mail to: >jal41820@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu or # # >Mr-Smiley-Face@uiuc.edu or _ _ >joshlaff@gnu.ai.mit.edu |#\_____/#| >Have a nice day! \#######/ ---------------------------------------- BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm <------------send files here pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
PYC121@URIACC.URI.EDU (Andy Kress) (04/19/91)
Reading the notes about accessing the modem from basic reminded me of
something. The GS has a built in terminal. Im not sure if I remember this
right but you type at the basic promt the following:
PR#2
IN#2
PR#0 (press return after each.)
cntl-A
T
Not sure if this is right but Im pretty sure.
On a side note....
There is an Easter Egg in both the ROM 1 and 3 GS's. I know where
it is...Does anyone else? I have a Rom 1 and it shows a good portion of the
people who worked on the GS. A friend with a ROM 3 told me that on his there
is a digitized sound of the word "GS". Pretty cool. Wonder if the Mac has
that!
Andy Kress
PYC121 AT URIACC.URI.EDU
Apple II: The power to take over the world!daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Huang) (04/20/91)
In article <9104191500.AA14877@apple.com> PYC121@URIACC.URI.EDU (Andy Kress) writes: > Reading the notes about accessing the modem from basic reminded me of > something. The GS has a built in terminal. Im not sure if I remember this > right but you type at the basic promt the following: > PR#2 > IN#2 > PR#0 (press return after each.) > cntl-A > T > Not sure if this is right but Im pretty sure. I always do: PR#3 IN#2 Ctrl-AT (no return between the ^A and the T). > On a side note.... > There is an Easter Egg in both the ROM 1 and 3 GS's. I know where > it is...Does anyone else? I have a Rom 1 and it shows a good portion of the > people who worked on the GS. A friend with a ROM 3 told me that on his there > is a digitized sound of the word "GS". Pretty cool. Wonder if the Mac has > that! I thought the ROM 3 one was "Apple II!" Anyways, you do a Control-Option-OpenApple-Shift-N at the sliding apple screen (a nasty system death or the Check Startup thing will work). The Shift might not be necessary... On the Mac SE, you can go to the mini debugger thingy (press the interrupt switch) and type some command (it started with "G 4" I think) and it'll show digitized pictures of the development team. Also, on the Mac IIsi, if you set the date to the day the IIsi was released, set the time to something and did something or other with the modifier keys and the "s" and "i" keys, something would happen. I forgot what though. I've never gotten my hands on a si, so I don't know if this works, but I know the SE trick works. It's more fun than leaving the "You may now turn your Macintosh off safely" message on the school's SEs :-) > Andy Kress > PYC121 AT URIACC.URI.EDU > > Apple II: The power to take over the world! -- David Huang | Internet: daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "How much is that hamster UUCP: ..!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!daveh | in the window?" America Online: DrWho29 |
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (04/20/91)
To whoever was jumping on Todd for pointing out that an Apple II with no drives is much more useful than a Mac with no drives, I've got another reason why it is: (someone posted something about this a couple of messages ago.) If you have a modem (a Datalink, anyway), you can type IN#2, ^A, T, and use the modem to call out. You can also program in AppleSoft or use the miniassembler, or print out anything you can display on the screen... or make a tiny (one screen in height) AppleSoft program that uses the mouse as a drawing device and have a mini-paint program. On the GS, you can make a mini-audio digitizer with nothing more than a microphone (or a speaker) and a couple of wire, and a small ML subroutine. If you have a Vision Plus, you can make a 2 line ML sub that will digitize. You can make a 50 line space invaders program... What can you do with a Mac. OH! I KNOW!! You can stare at the little picture of a disk with a question mark in it. The Apple II was originally designed to be used WITHOUT drives. The Mac can't do a darn thing without'em. ---------------------------------------- BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm <------------send files here pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (04/20/91)
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >The Apple II was originally designed to be used WITHOUT drives. The Mac >can't do a darn thing without'em. Neither can a lot of other machines, and I think it is a symptom of the generally lopsided development the industry is bent on. Everybody struggles to implement NEW technologies and legislate everyone else to gain time -- WHY DOES NOBODY SPEND ANY TIME MAKING THE TRIED AND TRUE TECHNOLOGIES WORK REALLY REALLY WELL?? One of my Mac friends agrees with me heartily on this. Computers in the future should be self-contained out of the box, with the drivers for the built in hardware and the O/S (and a few sample applications) in ROM. When the machine is turned on, it literally starts up the O/S and is ready to go after polling all installed devices. Hard disks or inserted floppies are mounted automatically; system extensions and other stuff is loaded automatically from a volume as it is mounted (unless a key like Option is held down). A CLI and the core of a programming environment (probably a mini-assembler designed to work with the operating system, sort of like the monitor but in a blank process's address space) are available immediately, perhaps a windowing system and finder if they will fit in ROM. A terminal program to use the serial ports (using the drivers and communications tools in ROM) is another must. A small set of HD utilities like the RAMfast's would be a nice touch (as would a simple game!). The point is, not only is the computer self-sufficient, but it's USABLE FASTER than computers that are dependent on system disks just to run. Boot time is substantially reduced, and the system is designed well enough to allow patching of nearly everything and installation of things on the fly. This is the sort of computer I was beginning to concieve of when I wrote the //f papers. It would be vastly more useful to me than a Sparc or a NeXT. I could actually believe that assembly on such a beast would be reasonable, since I don't think it would need an assembly-from-hell RISC CPU to get good performance, with proper lightweight coprocessors for I/O and DMA built in to the system. Better yet, use VRAMs as a high speed access path to the sound and video memory (or the cache even). The main memory would have to be DRAMs to keep the cost reasonable but if that memory is interleaved then DMA could be done between the main RAM and the 'block transfer bus' at the bandwidth of the VRAM serial I/O ... Such a machine could probably afford to have a sane assembly language and would kick butt while remaining a hacker-capable machine, and my life's goal is to get on the development team for one. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu P.S. What I am talking about is the real spirit of the Apple II that Apple and most of the industry have nearly forgotten in their rush to market everything.
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (04/20/91)
In article <9104191500.AA14877@apple.com> PYC121@URIACC.URI.EDU (Andy Kress) writes:
. Reading the notes about accessing the modem from basic reminded me of
. something. The GS has a built in terminal. Im not sure if I remember this
. right but you type at the basic promt the following:
. PR#2
. IN#2
. PR#0 (press return after each.)
. cntl-A
. T
This is NOT only on the GS. This exists on the GS because the GS's
serial port is emulating a Super Serial Card, and that had the dumb
terminal mode built in.
--
/unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever! WANT ULTIMA VI //e or GS?-mail me.\
\CHEAP CDs info-mail me. McIntosh Junior: The Power to Crush the Other Kids. /unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (04/20/91)
In article <9104200147.AA05353@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >The Apple II was originally designed to be used WITHOUT drives. The Mac >can't do a darn thing without'em. Oh COME on! Didn't the tape drive (i.e. any cassette player) exist from day 1? You -have- to have some way of saving stuff. It's completely ridiculous saying a computer was made to be used with no drives. Not being able to save stuff almost totally removes the usefulness of a computer. -- /unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever! WANT ULTIMA VI //e or GS?-mail me.\ \CHEAP CDs info-mail me. McIntosh Junior: The Power to Crush the Other Kids. /
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (04/20/91)
> There is an Easter Egg in both the ROM 1 and 3 GS's. I know where > it is...Does anyone else? I have a Rom 1 and it shows a good portion of the > people who worked on the GS. Do you mean Control-Option-Apple-N when the sliding Apple is displayed on the text screen? That is documented in "The Apple IIGS Technical Reference" a LONG time ago... > A friend with a ROM 3 told me that on his there is a digitized sound of > the word "GS". Pretty cool. Wonder if the Mac has that! I thought it was the developers screaming "Apple!!!". Some of the newer Macs have a digitized photo (B&W) of the development team. Brian T. Tao *B-) | t569taob@bluffs.scar.utoronto.ca | "Though this be U of Metro Toronto | - or - | madness, yet there Scarberia, ON | taob@pnet91.cts.com | is method in 't."
daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Huang) (04/20/91)
In article <14755@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: [ stuff about the terminal mode on the GS ] > This is NOT only on the GS. This exists on the GS because the GS's >serial port is emulating a Super Serial Card, and that had the dumb >terminal mode built in. Really? I was almost positive that I tried it with a SSC and it didn't work. I guess I'll have to check again. >/unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever! WANT ULTIMA VI //e or GS?-mail me.\ >\CHEAP CDs info-mail me. McIntosh Junior: The Power to Crush the Other Kids. / -- David Huang | Internet: daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "How much is that hamster UUCP: ..!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!daveh | in the window?" America Online: DrWho29 |
daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Huang) (04/20/91)
In article <14756@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > >In article <9104200147.AA05353@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >>The Apple II was originally designed to be used WITHOUT drives. The Mac >>can't do a darn thing without'em. > > Oh COME on! Didn't the tape drive (i.e. any cassette player) >exist from day 1? I think he meant disk drives :) > You -have- to have some way of saving stuff. It's completely >ridiculous saying a computer was made to be used with no drives. Not being >able to save stuff almost totally removes the usefulness of a computer. That's true... I never did have luck with my old cassette player though. Probably problems with the volume level... >-- >/unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever! WANT ULTIMA VI //e or GS?-mail me.\ >\CHEAP CDs info-mail me. McIntosh Junior: The Power to Crush the Other Kids. / -- David Huang | Internet: daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "How much is that hamster UUCP: ..!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!daveh | in the window?" America Online: DrWho29 |
greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.) (04/21/91)
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: >MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >>The Apple II was originally designed to be used WITHOUT drives. The Mac >>can't do a darn thing without'em. > Oh COME on! Didn't the tape drive (i.e. any cassette player) >exist from day 1? > > You -have- to have some way of saving stuff. It's completely >ridiculous saying a computer was made to be used with no drives. Not being >able to save stuff almost totally removes the usefulness of a computer. Not always. Haven't you ever had the need to type in a quick program to do a specific task for the moment, one that you don't need to save because as soon as it gives you the output you want it is no-longer useful? I've written TONS of that stuff. Of course, I can't prove it, since I don't have a copy of the stuff on disk, but the programs weren't worth more than the one-time run I needed them for. It would seem like the era of being able to do something on a computer without any kind of mass storage device is coming to an end. >-- >/unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever! WANT ULTIMA VI //e or GS?-mail me.\ >\CHEAP CDs info-mail me. McIntosh Junior: The Power to Crush the Other Kids. / Anyone know if the addresses used for the cassette ports have been reallocated to other purposes on a IIgs? I feel like re-installing them, or at least the cassette out to one of the conductors on the headphone out, for the fun of it (and the ability to get some kind of stereo output). -- /// ____ \\\ "It says, `Golgafrincham Ark Fleet, Ship B, Hold 7, Telephone | |/ / \ \| | Sanitizer, Second Class,' and a serial number." "A telephone \\_(\____/)_// sanitizer? A dead telephone sanitizer?" "Best greg \_\\\/ hoss.unl.edu kind." "But what's he doing here?" "Not a lot."
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (04/21/91)
On Sat, 20 Apr 91 10:29:45 GMT The Unknown User said: >In article <9104200147.AA05353@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >>The Apple II was originally designed to be used WITHOUT drives. The Mac >>can't do a darn thing without'em. > > Oh COME on! Didn't the tape drive (i.e. any cassette player) >exist from day 1? Yeah, TAPE drives, but not DISK drives... I should have been more clear. But the Apple II -IS- useful even without a tape drive. Of course, it's NOTHING like having a HD, but ti's MORE than not being able to do ANYTHING. >-- >/unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever! WANT ULTIMA VI //e or GS?-mail me.\ >\CHEAP CDs info-mail me. McIntosh Junior: The Power to Crush the Other Kids. / ---------------------------------------- BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm <------------send files here pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (04/21/91)
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > You -have- to have some way of saving stuff. It's completely >ridiculous saying a computer was made to be used with no drives. Not being >able to save stuff almost totally removes the usefulness of a computer. Depends on what you do with it. If you're using a term program you only need to save downloads. If you just want to whip up a memo and print it, all you need is a printer. Sure, it's saving to hard copy, but it isn't a disk drive. If you just need some calculations that are easier to do on the computer than on a calculator or a graph for interpretation, you don't really need to save those either. What I'm getting at is that we've been using disks for so long we forget how much 'little work' really doesn't depend on them except to load the software. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (04/21/91)
>>>>>
I
could actually believe that assembly on such a beast would be reasonable,
since I don't think it would need an assembly-from-hell RISC CPU to get
good performance, with proper lightweight coprocessors for I/O and DMA
built in to the system.
<<<<<
I've started looking at assembly language on a RISC processor recently
(SPARC); mainly because everyone bad mouths RISC assembly so much.
It's not that bad. I'd much rather program a SPARC than a Z-80, for
example. Certainly with a good set of macros SPARC isn't that bad.
*** Randy Hyde
(I can't speak for MIPS, HP, or others as I haven't looked at their
instructions sets; the swordfish [National Semi] looks pretty good tho.)alfter@nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (04/21/91)
In article <14756@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: >In article <9104200147.AA05353@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >>The Apple II was originally designed to be used WITHOUT drives. The Mac >>can't do a darn thing without'em. > Oh COME on! Didn't the tape drive (i.e. any cassette player) >exist from day 1? Umm...I thought it was quite obvious that he was referring to _disk_ drives. (Now that you've mentioned tapes, Woz used to enter the system software into the Apple I every time he started it because he hadn't yet designed a tape interface. Talk about a glutton for punisment...) Scott Alfter-----------------------------_/_---------------------------- Support Operation Apple Storm! / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
Larry.Lee@f438.n109.z1.Fidonet.Org (Larry Lee) (04/22/91)
Well, if the ROM 3 =does= have an easter egg, don't just sit there, tell * Origin: Europa BBS (301) 718-4690 HST/DS 14.4k (1:109/438)
shaunc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Shaun Case) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr20.054824.22158@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: > >Neither can a lot of other machines, and I think it is a symptom of the >generally lopsided development the industry is bent on. Everybody struggles >to implement NEW technologies and legislate everyone else to gain time -- >WHY DOES NOBODY SPEND ANY TIME MAKING THE TRIED AND TRUE TECHNOLOGIES WORK >REALLY REALLY WELL?? Because: 1) The market is smaller than that for newer technologies 2) The profit margin on older technologies is smaller than on newer technologies. I'm not saying it should be this way, just that it is. There is also a school of thought that you should do it right the first time -- there should be no need for putting huge amounts of effort into old technologies, since you thought about things like expansion, reliability, and upwards compatibility while you were still in the specification stage. Additionally, Macs are targeted at a different market than the Apple 2 series was (at first, anyway.) How many people do you know that program their macs, percentagewise, compared to the number of people you know who program their apple 2s? >One of my Mac friends agrees with me heartily on this. Computers in the >future should be self-contained out of the box, with the drivers for the >built in hardware and the O/S (and a few sample applications) in ROM. >When the machine is turned on, it literally starts up the O/S and is ready >to go after polling all installed devices. Hard disks or inserted floppies >are mounted automatically; system extensions and other stuff is loaded >automatically from a volume as it is mounted (unless a key like Option is >held down). A CLI and the core of a programming environment (probably a >mini-assembler designed to work with the operating system, sort of like >the monitor but in a blank process's address space) are available immediately, >perhaps a windowing system and finder if they will fit in ROM. A terminal >program to use the serial ports (using the drivers and communications tools >in ROM) is another must. A small set of HD utilities like the RAMfast's would >be a nice touch (as would a simple game!). This is a pretty good description of the IBM PS/1, I think. >The point is, not only is the computer self-sufficient, but it's USABLE FASTER >than computers that are dependent on system disks just to run. Boot time is >substantially reduced, and the system is designed well enough to allow patching >of nearly everything and installation of things on the fly. Rah! I'm all for that. If you are a computer designer, take a look at Intel's Flash memory technology, especially the JEDEC 2 devices. It is intended for just such an application. >This is the sort of computer I was beginning to concieve of when I wrote the >//f papers. It would be vastly more useful to me than a Sparc or a NeXT. I >could actually believe that assembly on such a beast would be reasonable, >since I don't think it would need an assembly-from-hell RISC CPU to get >good performance, with proper lightweight coprocessors for I/O and DMA Well, if you want it to run multiple processes well, you need virtual memory support and task switching stuff on the processor, which takes away some of the "reasonable"ness. It better be at least 32 bits, too, unless you want your machine to be obsolete before you get one off the line. :-P >built in to the system. Better yet, use VRAMs as a high speed access path >to the sound and video memory (or the cache even). The main memory would >have to be DRAMs to keep the cost reasonable but if that memory is interleaved >then DMA could be done between the main RAM and the 'block transfer bus' at >the bandwidth of the VRAM serial I/O ... Sounds good to me. >Such a machine could probably afford to have a sane assembly language and >would kick butt while remaining a hacker-capable machine, and my life's goal >is to get on the development team for one. Well, don't bother applying at Apple, then. Or IBM. You know, the world really needs a new hot personal computer startup right now. You have a senior project looming in your future, right? >P.S. What I am talking about is the real spirit of the Apple II that Apple and >most of the industry have nearly forgotten in their rush to market everything. Wow, the net is full of great stuff today! Nice change. // Shaun //
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr21.072250.27849@nevada.edu> alfter@nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: .In article <14756@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: .>In article <9104200147.AA05353@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: .>>The Apple II was originally designed to be used WITHOUT drives. The Mac .>>can't do a darn thing without'em. .> Oh COME on! Didn't the tape drive (i.e. any cassette player) .>exist from day 1? .Umm...I thought it was quite obvious that he was referring to _disk_ .drives. Well yeah, he was talking DIRECTLY about disk drives, but it seemed his main point was that you needed NO storage media, and I just pointed out that tape drives were around then. To imply that a computer is extremely useful without ANY storage mechanism just seems silly to me. Yeah people can write small hack programs to test an algorithm or something, but I would doubt it if anybody reading this turns on their computer and uses it any significant amount of time without even booting ProDOS or something. That's using media, so.. -- /unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever! WANT ULTIMA VI //e or GS?-mail me.\ \CHEAP CDs info-mail me. McIntosh Junior: The Power to Crush the Other Kids. /
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (04/23/91)
shaunc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Shaun Case) writes: >I'm not saying it should be this way, just that it is. There is also >a school of thought that you should do it right the first time -- there >should be no need for putting huge amounts of effort into old technologies, >since you thought about things like expansion, reliability, and upwards >compatibility while you were still in the specification stage. Yeah, right. That's not what really happens, all too often. I suppose I should rephrase things a bit -- what I want to see is using new technologies to make the tried and true work better. This is being done, but with such a short term mindset that numbs the imagination. That's what I guess I'm really complaining about. >Additionally, Macs are targeted at a different market than the Apple 2 >series was (at first, anyway.) How many people do you know that program >their macs, percentagewise, compared to the number of people you know who >program their apple 2s? That's because programming the Mac is hell, because they really had no idea how the programmer interfaces should work. A lot more is known, now, but IMHO it is always a plus to spend resources on making a platform easier to develop for, for obvious reasons. [description of bountiful ROM machine deleted] >This is a pretty good description of the IBM PS/1, I think. Really? That's an encouraging sign. Too bad they had to waste it on something as bizarre as the PS/1. >>The point is, not only is the computer self-sufficient, but it's USABLE FASTER >>than computers that are dependent on system disks just to run. Boot time is >Rah! I'm all for that. If you are a computer designer, take a look at Intel's >Flash memory technology, especially the JEDEC 2 devices. It is intended for >just such an application. Hmmm... I don't have a job in design (yet, I hope), but I try to keep up with data books and such (I'm on TI's mailing list). I'll look into it. (While I'm still in college I have to be content with 'armchair design' for this sort of thing...) >Well, if you want it to run multiple processes well, you need virtual memory >support and task switching stuff on the processor, which takes away some of >the "reasonable"ness. It better be at least 32 bits, too, unless you want >your machine to be obsolete before you get one off the line. :-P I know, and I don't think it HAS to take away the "reasonable"ness although that appears to have happened a lot (maybe I need to look at the real state of the art though; I haven't run across SPARC chip data sheets at all yet). 32 bits is a must for new architectures although I wish the instruction sets didn't take up so much space. The process of designing an instruction set is not unlike defining a compression scheme for all the possible instructions the CPU has -- most modern studly RISC CPUs appear to be using none at all for sake of speed. The 80x86 family seems to use the most 'compression' but most of it is derived from the extreme nonorthogonality of the instruction set, which can be a real annoyance when one is programming for it. The 65xxx is about midway: instructions are no larger than they need to be but they each perform a single operation (no postdecrement type stuff), and the nonorthgonality is bearable and in many cases is desirable, because it allows more useful operations to be crammed into the same single byte opcode. I think the real problem is that nobody has tried (please correct me, I'd like to see it) to deliberately encode a well-designed RISC instruction set into variable length instructions. I know it can be done with CISC sets (yeah Randy, the 680x0) but I'm not aware of a studly RISC chip that does it. Chips designed to reduce the overhead of reading the instruction stream _period_ "should" (I'm predicting now) use the available cache RAM and memory bandwidth far more effectively. (If it's already being tried, then that's great, who's doing it?) Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (04/23/91)
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > To imply that a computer is extremely useful without ANY storage >mechanism just seems silly to me. Yeah people can write small hack programs >to test an algorithm or something, but I would doubt it if anybody reading >this turns on their computer and uses it any significant amount of time >without even booting ProDOS or something. That's using media, so.. Whoa. RAM and ROM are storage mechanisms. If you could turn the machine on and have a CLI, text editor, term program, RAM disk, and modem/printer ports ready to go without any disks available, you could still do quite a bit. You could write memos, save them to RAMdisk (don't turn the computer back off!), print them, login and read mail, up/download stuff and look at it, even run it. If network file access were also in ROM (great idea!) you could also run programs from file servers and save your work there. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
shaunc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Shaun Case) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr23.030502.3990@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >shaunc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Shaun Case) writes: > >>I'm not saying it should be this way, just that it is. There is also >>a school of thought that you should do it right the first time -- there >>should be no need for putting huge amounts of effort into old technologies, >>since you thought about things like expansion, reliability, and upwards >>compatibility while you were still in the specification stage. > >Yeah, right. That's not what really happens, all too often. I suppose I should >rephrase things a bit -- what I want to see is using new technologies to make >the tried and true work better. This is being done, but with such a short term >mindset that numbs the imagination. That's what I guess I'm really complaining >about. Well, I'm afraid I have to agree with you that what I mentioned above isn't what happens too often, from first hand experience. Due to that, there is some application of t & t technology to patch difficulties in older products, but people just re-invent the wheel a lot of the time. As I'm sure you know this sort of thing isn't limited to high-tech fields -- just about any field that deals with complicated systems of any kind (including sociopolitical systems) has the same problem with people not looking at what has been done already, and just forging blindly ahead (sometimes into disaster.) >>series was (at first, anyway.) How many people do you know that program >>their macs, percentagewise, compared to the number of people you know who >>program their apple 2s? > >That's because programming the Mac is hell, because they really had no idea >how the programmer interfaces should work. A lot more is known, now, but >IMHO it is always a plus to spend resources on making a platform easier >to develop for, for obvious reasons. I agree with you, but as you know, there are always tradeoffs. Making the machine easier to program might have impacted negatively on some other "user friendly" (user-sycophantic?) feature that corporate & marketing thought was important. About the only thing they can do now is release powerful development tools, since the basic machine architecture is set in stone until the next family is unveiled (which may well be never.) >>This is a pretty good description of the IBM PS/1, I think. > >Really? That's an encouraging sign. Too bad they had to waste it on something >as bizarre as the PS/1. Again, I agree. It's almost as useful to me as a Commodore PET-based workstation. >I think the real problem is that nobody has tried (please correct me, I'd >like to see it) to deliberately encode a well-designed RISC instruction set >into variable length instructions. I know it can be done with CISC sets (yeah >Randy, the 680x0) but I'm not aware of a studly RISC chip that does it. Chips >designed to reduce the overhead of reading the instruction stream _period_ >"should" (I'm predicting now) use the available cache RAM and memory bandwidth >far more effectively. (If it's already being tried, then that's great, who's >doing it?) Here we diverge. I think the idea of a processor that has all instructions equal in length, with the same as the register size, and the same size as the instruction bus (and possibly the data bus too, if you are going with an HA) is the way to go. Sure, in a 32 or 64 bit processor, you have way more instructions than you need, but what you can do with them is put in 1024 or 2048 1-word registers, and put in addressing modes to move any register to any other register or to memory, or mem -> any reg, and do math between large numbers of registers. I'd like to see the stack disappear completely, and I would like to see the stupid normalization that goes on for reading and writing IEEE floats to/from memory to go away too. All this can go away with lots and lots of registers. Word wide instructions over a word-wide bus into a word-wide register require just one memory access (or less if you have a cache), especially if all the data is in the registers already, and all you have to do is read the opcode. Also, (fortune-teller time) as bigger static rams become cheaper, cache sizes will increase to the point where you can fit the same number of word-wide instructions into your instruction cache as you can fit compressed instructions in a current cache for the same percentage of machine parts cost. When you have cheap ram, fast instruction fetch/decode/execute and it's easy to write good compilers, how can you lose? (ans: by putting a windowing GUI on it! Ow, put away that flamethrower! :-) ) BTW, are you use Henessey and Patterson? Shaun. (Yeah, 1024 regs. 10 bits src reg, 10 bits dest reg, with 22 bits left for reg/mem specification plus operation specification. Wonder how small you could make the die?) Maybe we should move this to email or a more appropriate newsgroup. Suggestions?
shaunc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Shaun Case) (04/23/91)
In article <2208@gold.gvg.tek.com> shaunc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Shaun Case) writes: > >(Yeah, 1024 regs. 10 bits src reg, 10 bits dest reg, with 22 bits left for >reg/mem specification plus operation specification. Wonder how small you >could make the die?) > That should be 12 bits, above. How many registers are SPARC and joe average RISC processors sporting now, anyway?
vaughan@henri (George S. Vaughan) (04/23/91)
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: >to test an algorithm or something, but I would doubt it if anybody reading >this turns on their computer and uses it any significant amount of time >without even booting ProDOS or something. That's using media, so.. I don't know about that. Not too long ago, I spent several days hacking away at a peice of code, then 2 1/2 days running it once. and then I ran it again. (computing fractals in Applesoft -- yes!) and never once in that time did I load any version of an apple disk operating system I own (3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 Prodos) George