D
David Brown
John said:Really? Got a name or a link?
I program mostly 68K's nowadays, very like a 32-bit PDP-11.
John
Which 68k's? I am doing more and more work with ColdFires these days,
which are 68k at heart.
John said:Really? Got a name or a link?
I program mostly 68K's nowadays, very like a 32-bit PDP-11.
John
Which 68k's? I am doing more and more work with ColdFires these days,
which are 68k at heart.
56K is a lot of core - wasn't it all hand knitted back then by ladies with
tweezers?
John said:MC68332. They still make them, and tell me that demand is still strong
and that they are soliciting new business. We'll probably cut over to
Coldfire some day... it has 10x or so times the horsepower. But it
seems like, when we need some hard number crunching, we just stuff
that bit into a Xilinx chip. I worked out a DAC calibration equation,
a table lookup, a couple of adds, a multiply and a divide, and one of
my guys said "oh, I'll just do that for you in the FPGA."
The 68332's 32:64 mul/div operations are great.
John
[/QUOTE]This isn't just waveguides on a chip, they've also added a light source
right on the chip. That part is different. Most light-emitters are
incompatible with silicon.
Mark
John said:They glued individual compound-semiconductor lasers on top of a
silicon chip. Cute, but it hardly deserves front-page headlines. And
all of the press articles I've seen so far have been loaded with
technical inaccuracies and absurd projections. Intel has a fondness
for this sort of thing, and "science writers" rarely know anything
about what they are writing about.
John
As I understand, even the attaching of non-silicon devices onto a
silicon substrate poses technical challenges and
materials-compatibility issues. Wish I knew more about it to explain
better, but that is what I recall from what I have read.
Agreed that it has yet to merit front-page headlines, but I'm surprised
by the disdain shown by some towards any technological news that does
not pertain to a final product that can be purchased right now.
As I understand, even the attaching of non-silicon devices onto a
silicon substrate poses technical challenges and
materials-compatibility issues. Wish I knew more about it to explain
better, but that is what I recall from what I have read.
Agreed that it has yet to merit front-page headlines, but I'm surprised
by the disdain shown by some towards any technological news that does
not pertain to a final product that can be purchased right now.
Really? Got a name or a link?
I program mostly 68K's nowadays, very like a 32-bit PDP-11.
I ran the RSTS/E timesharing system on the big 11/70.
DEC also had...
DOS-11, like it sounds.
RT-11 junior version of DOS. I think DOS inherited a lot from RT-11
They fired me in early '79, so it wasn't much later.
Ah, for some strange reason RSTS didn't get along with me.
It's possible that we had an awful combination of software
bits. I never had the time to figure that mystery out.
Sorry for the delay. I could not recall the name and had
to ask. Mentec. Note that my statement was second-hand
information. You need to verify.
But do they suck?
On Mon, 25 Sep 06 11:59:51 GMT, (e-mail address removed) wrote:
Sorry, I meant PC-DOS. Most of the early micro os's, like CPM and
such, pretty much resembled PDP-11 DOS and RT11.
Homer said:I'd be guessing 512 bytes if it was core.
John said:I started timesharing with a PDP-11/20 with, I think, 32K words (64
kbytes) of core, moved up to an 11/45, and, by the time they fired me,
was running RSTS/E timesharing on a PDP 11/70 with 256k words of
cached dram, a bunch of big disk drives, magtape, DecTape, card
reader, paper tape reader/punch, line printers, modems, and a
full-time operator. We even interfaced an IBM 029 keypunch machine.
The RSTS os would run in native mode or would emulate the RSX-11 or
RT-11 operating systems perfectly.
We bought scores of PDP-11s for pipeline control systems, mostly run
under the REX rtos authored by, um, me.
John
Homer said:56K is a lot of core - wasn't it all hand knitted back then by ladies with
tweezers?
..
..
If you were talking 1965 it would be 512 16-bit words. In 1968 i got to
visit a core memory manufacturer and they had 4k 32-bit words about the
size of a paperback, the drive electronics was about 2 to 3 times as big.
By 1975 i was working on computers with 64K 32-bit words in a module not
much bigger than my fist, and the drive electronics was about 2 X the size
of the core module. Of course heat extraction is becoming a problem at
this point.
If you were talking 1965 it would be 512 16-bit words. In 1968 i got to
visit a core memory manufacturer and they had 4k 32-bit words about the
size of a paperback, the drive electronics was about 2 to 3 times as big.
By 1975 i was working on computers with 64K 32-bit words in a module not
much bigger than my fist, and the drive electronics was about 2 X the size
of the core module. Of course heat extraction is becoming a problem at
this point.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.