tm@polari.UUCP (Toshi Morita) (05/07/90)
brianw@microsoft.UUCP writes: >What ARE you talking about? If the CLOCK speed can run at xx Mhz, then it says >something about all aspects of the IC's timing. Other than having a chip that >has to slow down for some instructions, please tell me how a chip whose clock >runs at xx Mhz ISNT a xx Mhz chip... A chance to relate an interesting story! About a year ago I called WDC and ordered an 8 Mhz 65816. They shipped me a 65816, but it came with a tiny tech note that stated that the 65816 would run okay at 4 Mhz but at speeds above 4 Mhz the REP instruction wouldn't function properly unless 1. the clock cycle was extended out to 250 ns or 2. a NOP followed every REP. I'm theorizing that some of the extra hardware on the custom chips on the TWGS does the aforementioned (i.e. does a compare for the REP opcode when SYNC goes high and extend clock cycle w/ a flip-flop) since they've been shipping it (TWGS) for quite a while now. Also, all the people who complained about the GS being "wimped" so it wouldn't "compete with the Mac" please think about the following: the GS was introduced in 1986. WDC still didn't have a "true" 4 Mhz+ 65816 in 1989. How was Apple supposed to build a "superGS" when WDC didn't have the necessary parts? mholtz@sactoh0.UUCP (Mark A. Holtz) writes: >I hate to be saying this, but . . . . > > MY NEXT COMPUTER PURCHASE WILL BE A IBM-PC Gee, we'll miss you so much. Send us a postcard from comp.sys.ibm. tm@polari