Is microprocessor an integrated circuit???

[Paul Burke]

Thaas wrote:

Please stop using opine as a noun. It is wrong, pompous, pretentious,
and grating in my humble opinion

I don't know, there's that most dogmatic of mammals, the opine marten.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:13:25 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:29:49 GMT, the renowned "Bradley1234"
someone@yahoo.com> wrote:

Now here is the sure-fire way to discern the incompetent, unqualified,
pretentious individual anywhere in the industry, anyone who would start out
by saying something to the effect of "Your limited experience..." or "Since
you are so inexperienced, but me, Im so worldly and all knowing..." or
"You should leave the high tech concepts to people who are more
experienced..."

Ive seen them in the industry, they hide the lack of ability by being the
first to call others incompetent, everything is rehearsed, they dont like
people watching them solve problems, they form into tight cliques and launch
office politics type attacks to defend their job. I seek out that attitude,
if I find it in my company? The person is fired about as surely as Donald
Trump fires people for his reasons.

Yeah, that L*rk*n fellow is a viper. Always attacking. And a terrible
employee, I'll bet. You might want to hold off on posting as long as
he's around here.

Hisssss. Or something.

John

 

[Bradley1234]

I dont recall saying the PDP 11 or 11/780 were microprocessors,

Allow me to refresh your memory:

quote and reply from my post:

No it doesn't. It means micro-sized processor. What you're describing
also
includes the vax-11/780 whose processor board was hardly a
microprocessor.

Yes, the 11/780 cpu was a microprocessor. Who on earth came up with micro
sized processor? Why not micro stereotypical processor?

--------<end quote>--------
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, Still Waiting for
Some Hot Babe to Ask What My Favorite Planet Is.

Thanks for proving what I said was correct. The 11/780 CPU, meaning its
processor board(s) If I recall there were options, you could have a
floating point unit or some other thing to add also, the cpu would be a
collection of large sized boards, which were..... drum roll please........
microprogrammed

The 11/780 chassis had cpu boards, I/O processor boards, memory boards and
large power supplies, usually had a tape drive, some user console, some
large removable disk most likely. It was a supermini system. The
reference to the cpu meant that part of the system. Its been a long time
since Ive ever dealt with one.

 

[Michael Black]

"Bradley1234" (someone@yahoo.com) writes:

Translates to some 10 bit code thing? So you now admit its never, ever
claiming to be a 10 bit byte?

The data remains an 8 bit byte, since universally the obvious definition for
byte is an undisputed 8 bit width.

The trick is to use a source that is old enough not to be corrupted by

more recent and common useage of the word.

Take, for instance, "The Dictionary of Electronics" by Rudolph Graf,
with a copyright of 1972. Mine has a Radio Shack imprint, but the book
was published by Howard Sams.

"Byte - 1. A single group of bits processed together (in parallel). It
can consist of a variable number of bits. 2. A sequence of adjacent
binary digits, usually shorter than a word, operated on as a single unit."

Just to put that in context,
"Word - 1. A group of characters occupying one storage location in a computer.
It is treated by the computer circuits as an entity, by the control unit
as an instruction, and by the arithmetic unit as a quantity."

Any concept of how data is transferred serially? There are zillions of
schemes that use start bits, stop bits, parity, control, bamboo bits, endian
ness bits, it becomes extra bits to help establish framing to deliver the 8
bit bytes.


No, serial data is always defined in terms of how many data bits, and

the start and stop were just that. So a 5bit teletype code was treated
as a 5-bit code, after all there weren't enough combinations for a full
character set, but there were extra bits in order to transmit those
five bits correctly. Same with 8-bit ASCII.


Here's a classic example, the PDP-8. Used 12 bits per address. You'd
toss bits away, or use odd compression to keep 8-bit ASCII characters
in that memory. But you could only access each memory location as 12bit
bytes.

Before microprocessors, ie CPUs in an IC, bytes were all kinds of widths.
Of course, there were relatively few computers back then. When
microprocessors took off, their ALUs were mostly 8-bits wide (with of course
a few 4-bit to begin with, and the odd exception like the INtersil 6100
that was a microprocessor version of the PDP-8, so it had a 12bit ALU).
Hence bytes were commonly explained as being 8bits wide, since that was
what was being talked about, and a lot of computers were 8bits wide. And
of course, when later generations were added, they were in multiples of 8bits,
so a byte could remain 8bits (since most of those could access 8bits at a
time.)

Michael

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:56:46 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:21:29 GMT, the renowned mzenier@eskimo.com
(Mark Zenier) wrote:

In article <uZTJd.187$Eh5.115@trnddc04>, Bradley1234 <someone@yahoo.com> wrote:
PLEASE show an example of a microprocessor that doesnt use microcode

Most of them have their control unit logic implemented in a PLA
(Programmable Logic Array) which directly implements a two level logic
equation. With microcode, there would be an address that was decoded
to provide a word (or row) of the ROM's contents. There's no such thing
as an address in a PLA, just inputs and outputs.

If you have a PLA and a ROM in a black box, and are allowed to observe
the outputs only after they have settled, what difference is there
between the two?

Either somebody spent a _hecxx_ of a lot of time designing the truth table
into the PLA, or the ROM is overkill for the app. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:53:03 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that MikeMandaville
MikeMandaville@aol.com> wrote (in <1107023609.064778.204900@f14g2000cwb
.googlegroups.com&gt about 'Is microprocessor an integrated circuit???',
on Sat, 29 Jan 2005:

I recall from the movie about Alexander Graham Bell that when Watson
plucked what can be thought of as an accordion reed over what can be
thought of as an electric guitar pickup, Bell remarked that they were
the first people in history to send a musical note over a wire. Watson
replied that this was nonsense, since Bell had only heard what every
electrician had heard at one time or another during the natural course
of his work. The difference, of course, is that Bell had understood the
significance of the event.

Shouldn't he be sued, then, for facilitating wholesale breaches of
recording copyrights? (;-)

Has anyone figured out yet how to get those audio recordings off the
surface of earthenware jars? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[TCS]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 07:32:32 GMT, Craig Bergren <cbergren@tvbox.bergren.us> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 03:49:10 +0000, Bradley1234 wrote:


This is a very contentious subject, severely lacking in an apparent
interest in facts, only bar room style babble, like drunk talk.

If Im wrong, Ill take back what I said


Intel 4004, 8008
Motorola 6800, 6801, 6805, 6809


Plonk!

I've done the same. Bradley is either a incredibly thickheaded moron
incapable of understanding even the most simple of arguments or truly a
troll, probably the latter. Both get the killfile.

 

[Terry Given]

Keith Williams wrote:

In article <35rvu9F4pogffU1@individual.net>, paul@scazon.com says...

microx wrote:

As far as I always understood it, and all definitions I've read, the
word "microprocessor" literally means "small processor", and what makes
it small is the fact that it is on a single IC chip,

It's a word that never really had a definition- it's as simple as that.


Nonsense.


A microprocessor is a sort of small vaguely handwavingly computery
thingy.


Nonsense.


Now define a microcontroller.


A microprocessor with integrated I/O.

like the 8085 (SID/SOD)

And a RISC processor.


Reduced Instruction Set Complexity processor. No read-modify-writes.
All operations are register based. Register rich. No direct arithmetic
operations allowed on memory. Usually three operand instructions (of
which at least two are registers).

As opposed to say NS32000 series CISC processors, which have string
compare instructions.

And, for that matter, a DSP- I have an old text book on digital signal processing
that's based round discrete systems involving the 6809.


Usually a stream processor.


SoC brought into existence the idea of processor cores that can be
integrated with other components of the computer that originally had
their own chips,

No, SoC is another vague idea. Look, these are marketing terms, nothing
really to do with engineering.


Nonsense.


Interestingly, the orginal poster (Yogesh) who started this thread
never posted again.

We didn't do his homework for him.


Well, if he listened I think we did, though perhaps a little more than
was asked.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Terry Given]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:33:19 GMT, "Bradley1234" <someone@yahoo.com
wrote:


Find anywhere in C code today that redefines sizeof(byte) as other than 8


You have any idea what the C sizeof operator does?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Clearly not.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:27:46 +0000, Paul Burke wrote:

Thaas wrote:

Please stop using opine as a noun. It is wrong, pompous, pretentious,
and grating in my humble opinion


I don't know, there's that most dogmatic of mammals, the o'pine marten.

Only in Ireland. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:37:59 +1300, Terry Given wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:33:19 GMT, "Bradley1234" <someone@yahoo.com
wrote:


Find anywhere in C code today that redefines sizeof(byte) as other than 8


You have any idea what the C sizeof operator does?

Clearly not.

I'd like to see an example of a C compiler that even includes "byte" as a
data type.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:54:34 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
<richgrise@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:37:59 +1300, Terry Given wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:33:19 GMT, "Bradley1234" <someone@yahoo.com
wrote:


Find anywhere in C code today that redefines sizeof(byte) as other than 8


You have any idea what the C sizeof operator does?

Clearly not.

I'd like to see an example of a C compiler that even includes "byte" as a
data type.

Cheers!
Rich

True, but on a deeper level, the sizeof operator definition is tied in
with what a byte is.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:09:07 -0500, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
wrote:

In article <51o701t5h6qa562n8006jpqnrnq60l3cem@4ax.com>,
mysig@sprynet.com says...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:04:53 -0500, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:


ADD <memory addr>,R is another example of a no-no in a RISC ISA.


Why, philosophically? As long as the memory address is not in code
space, wouldn't it be just be an issue of cache design? A
write-through cache would update the cached operand during each
iteration.

Two memory accesses (read-modify-write).

Good grief, you're using IBN (Intel Backwards Notation),

Opcode destination, source

John

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <oke801lvvluqrhkil0hmg6q218c7mdra2g@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:
[...]

Intel couldn't even get the bytes in the right order.

They got it right. The bits are weighted 2^LOCATION. Some tape drive
makers got it wrong, making D7 the LSB.

When writing an integer math library, the LS-MS saves a couple of
instructions in the add routine, saves more in the squareroot and costs
nothing in the divide routine.

When doing floating point, you want the exponent first and then more than
half the time, you want the LSB of the mantissa. This leads to wanting a
very non-IEEE format for the floaters.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Mark Zenier]

In article <5gfa01lbrt88m0jieecp1ucu0pr3gv7470@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:

Intel was way out of the computing mainstream, as was Microsoft. The
thing I'm typing on now is just a punched-out 4004.

Intel didn't design the 8008 architecture, it was speced by CTC?,
the outfit that later did Arcnet. The 8008 was Intel's version
for the brains for the Datapoint 2200, an intelligent terminal
with all of 16k bytes and 2 cassette tapes. They actually used
a TI (bitslice?) chipset, as the 8008 wasn't fast enough.

Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com Washington State resident