The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: Brian Inglis on 4 Apr 2007 01:53 On Mon, 02 Apr 07 11:53:42 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <mv8113db7op5afc3p181q92gtsjbtg10mk(a)4ax.com>, > Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >>fOn 29 Mar 2007 22:10:41 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers, "Tarkin" >><Tarkin000(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mar 30, 3:46 am, CBFalconer <cbfalco...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Nick Maclaren wrote: >>>> >>>> ... snip ... >>>> >>>> > No, but nor could the Z80 compete on industry-quality functionality >>>> > and reliability. I know quite a few people who used Z80s for that, >>>> > and they never really cut the mustard for mission-critical tasks >>>> > (despite being a factor of 10 or more cheaper). >>>> >>>> Nonsense. I had 8080 based communications systems that ran >>>> continuously (no restart) for 2 to 3 years, until brought down by a >>>> mains power failure. >> >>>8080 != Z80. ISTR reading from a few different >>>places that early Z80's were 'twitchy'; that's >>>also why there are 'undocumented' opcodes- >>>those opcodes did not work reliably until the kinks >>>were worked out of the (wafer production [?]) >>>process. >> >>Nonsense. Undocumented opcodes tend to be a side effect of a particular >>implementation of an architecture: that implementation does this if you >>set those bits in an instruction. That's why they're undocumented: if >>they change the implementation, the side effects of setting those bits >>may produce a different result. > >DEC documented all of its opcodes. Those that were not used >were documented as "Reserved for future use". Some documented opcodes did different things on different implementations, making it possible to determine what kind of CPU you were running on, based on the bugs. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis(a)CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca) fake address use address above to reply
From: kenney on 4 Apr 2007 05:39 In article <20070402223835.85584adc.steveo(a)eircom.net>, steveo(a)eircom.net (Steve O'Hara-Smith) wrote: > I don't think that's the issue - more that there exists popular > software that runs under older versions of Windows that will not run > under Vista Apparently the security settings have been changed. I don't know the details but older programs that expected to install into C:/ Program Files are going to have problems. That is not the only problem but it will do to start with. There have also been reports of problems with upgrades. Apparently the best bet to get a working system is to buy a new machine with Vista pre-installed. Upgrade prices are ridiculous anyway. Ken Young
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Apr 2007 06:47 In article <a082135mvbkatdo80f6fm2cs4kgt5t8kpf(a)4ax.com>, Frank McCoy <mccoyf(a)millcomm.com> wrote: >In alt.folklore.computers Brian Inglis ><Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: > >>Buffer overflow is a bug caused by amateurs masquerading as programmers. > >.... Or deliberately caused by hackers trying to break a system. > You people need some DDT fixes. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Apr 2007 06:48 In article <proto-6CE80E.14515402042007(a)032-325-625.area1.spcsdns.net>, Walter Bushell <proto(a)oanix.com> wrote: >In article <MPG.207af1c58caebfc498a29f(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> In article <a082135mvbkatdo80f6fm2cs4kgt5t8kpf(a)4ax.com>, >> mccoyf(a)millcomm.com says... >> > In alt.folklore.computers Brian Inglis >> > <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >> > >> > >Buffer overflow is a bug caused by amateurs masquerading as programmers. >> > >> > ... Or deliberately caused by hackers trying to break a system. >> >> No, if there wasn't a loose nut behind the original keyboard the >> hacker wouldn't have a chance at a buffer overflow. The fact that it >> *can* be overflowed shows a poor design. > >Could be bad design or bad implementation. It's something an >applications programmer should not have to worry about. The more things >that a programmer has to concentrate on the more things elude attention. None of you have obviously done any monitor development (as your primary job). /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Apr 2007 06:57
In article <78f6135k6rr5bb351idferugd478t852ba(a)4ax.com>, Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Apr 07 11:53:42 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <mv8113db7op5afc3p181q92gtsjbtg10mk(a)4ax.com>, >> Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >>>fOn 29 Mar 2007 22:10:41 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers, "Tarkin" >>><Tarkin000(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mar 30, 3:46 am, CBFalconer <cbfalco...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> Nick Maclaren wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ... snip ... >>>>> >>>>> > No, but nor could the Z80 compete on industry-quality functionality >>>>> > and reliability. I know quite a few people who used Z80s for that, >>>>> > and they never really cut the mustard for mission-critical tasks >>>>> > (despite being a factor of 10 or more cheaper). >>>>> >>>>> Nonsense. I had 8080 based communications systems that ran >>>>> continuously (no restart) for 2 to 3 years, until brought down by a >>>>> mains power failure. >>> >>>>8080 != Z80. ISTR reading from a few different >>>>places that early Z80's were 'twitchy'; that's >>>>also why there are 'undocumented' opcodes- >>>>those opcodes did not work reliably until the kinks >>>>were worked out of the (wafer production [?]) >>>>process. >>> >>>Nonsense. Undocumented opcodes tend to be a side effect of a particular >>>implementation of an architecture: that implementation does this if you >>>set those bits in an instruction. That's why they're undocumented: if >>>they change the implementation, the side effects of setting those bits >>>may produce a different result. >> >>DEC documented all of its opcodes. Those that were not used >>were documented as "Reserved for future use". > >Some documented opcodes did different things on different >implementations, making it possible to determine what kind of CPU you >were running on, based on the bugs. Those should have been fixed. The -10s provided a way to ask. It is a feature to get an answer that matches what you think you have. /BAH |