Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #161804 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-01 21:22 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-04-17 02:37 -0500 |
| Articles | 18 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-01 21:22 -0400
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-01 21:26 -0400
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-04-02 08:46 +0000
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve) - 2016-04-03 12:31 +0000
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-04-03 14:44 +0200
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-04-03 18:53 +0000
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve) - 2016-04-03 20:07 +0000
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-04-03 21:18 +0000
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 20:20 -0400
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 20:17 -0400
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-04-04 15:53 +0000
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] roger.ivie@gmail.com - 2016-04-02 09:48 -0700
Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-04-04 17:24 -0500
Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-04-04 23:08 +0000
Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-05 03:05 +0000
Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve) - 2016-04-05 17:43 +0000
Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-04-05 19:15 +0100
Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-04-17 02:37 -0500
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 21:22 -0400 |
| Subject | OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] |
| Message-ID | <20160401212231.1c439bc6@_> |
On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 22:48:32 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/04/2016 12:16, wolfgang kern wrote: > > James Harris wrote: > > [Z80 binary compatibility] The issue of processor pin-compatibility versus binary-compatibility comes up from time to time on alt.os.development. I decided to post a basic list for reference: NEC V20 - pin compatible with 8088 NEC V30 - pin compatible with 8086 Cyrix Cx486 series - pin compatible with 80386 W65C802 - pin compatible with 65C02 6501 - pin compatible with 6800 68010 - pin compatible with 68010 NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186 Z80 - binary compatible with 8080 8008 - binary compatible with 2200 KL5C8400 - binary compatible with Z80 Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 21:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20160401212654.16d3f9f0@_> |
| In reply to | #161804 |
On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400 Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 22:48:32 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 01/04/2016 12:16, wolfgang kern wrote: > > > James Harris wrote: > > > > [Z80 binary compatibility] > The issue of processor pin-compatibility versus > binary-compatibility comes up from time to time > on alt.os.development. > > I decided to post a basic list for reference: > > NEC V20 - pin compatible with 8088 > NEC V30 - pin compatible with 8086 > Cyrix Cx486 series - pin compatible with 80386 > W65C802 - pin compatible with 65C02 > 6501 - pin compatible with 6800 > 68010 - pin compatible with 68010 Correction: 68010 - pin compatible with 68000 > NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186 > Z80 - binary compatible with 8080 > 8008 - binary compatible with 2200 > KL5C8400 - binary compatible with Z80 > Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 08:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dm9f78FflomU36@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161804 |
On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote: > NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186 That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the interrupt controller. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 12:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor |
| Message-ID | <c1.2b8.3qdDy3$05p@NOVOSAD3.EMBARQ.COM> |
| In reply to | #161819 |
Hi, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes: >On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186 > >That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction >set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the >interrupt controller. According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support undocumented 80186 opcodes. It also had a mode where it supported 8080 binary code. Regards, Steve N.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 14:44 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor |
| Message-ID | <7qf7tc-i61.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #161866 |
In article <c1.2b8.3qdDy3$05p@NOVOSAD3.EMBARQ.COM>, Steve <Bogus@Embarq.com> wrote: >Hi, > >Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes: >>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> >>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186 >> >>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction >>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the >>interrupt controller. > > According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support >undocumented 80186 opcodes. It also had a mode where it >supported 8080 binary code. Also, it was noticably faster, especially with early multitasking stuff like QNX and GEM. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 18:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor |
| Message-ID | <dmd755Fs66uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161866 |
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:31:39 +0000, Steve wrote: > Hi, > > Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes: >>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> >>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186 >> >>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction >>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the >>interrupt controller. > > According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support > undocumented 80186 opcodes. It also had a mode where it supported 8080 > binary code. > > Regards, > > Steve N. I actually had some V30s on a few PCs (the V30 was to the 8086 what the V20 was to the 8088). The V3x was significantly faster than the 808x on multiply and divide, etc. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 20:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor |
| Message-ID | <c1.2b8.3qdR4T$05q@NOVOSAD3.EMBARQ.COM> |
| In reply to | #161916 |
Hi Bob, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes: >On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:31:39 +0000, Steve wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes: >>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> >>>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186 >>> >>>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction >>>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the >>>interrupt controller. >> >> According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support >> undocumented 80186 opcodes. It also had a mode where it supported 8080 >> binary code. >> >> Regards, >> >> Steve N. > >I actually had some V30s on a few PCs (the V30 was to the 8086 what the >V20 was to the 8088). The V3x was significantly faster than the 808x on >multiply and divide, etc. Yes I had a Zenith Z-100 and swapped out the 8088 for a while with a V20. It seemed to run 10 to 15 percent faster, on average . It did not like the 8087 I put in, so I went back to the 8088. Regards, Steve N.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 21:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor |
| Message-ID | <dmdfkqFs66uU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161928 |
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 20:07:53 +0000, Steve wrote: > Hi Bob, > > Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes: >>On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:31:39 +0000, Steve wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes: >>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>>> >>>>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186 >>>> >>>>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction >>>>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the >>>>interrupt controller. >>> >>> According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support >>> undocumented 80186 opcodes. It also had a mode where it supported >>> 8080 binary code. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Steve N. >> >>I actually had some V30s on a few PCs (the V30 was to the 8086 what the >>V20 was to the 8088). The V3x was significantly faster than the 808x on >>multiply and divide, etc. > > Yes I had a Zenith Z-100 and swapped out the 8088 for a while with > a V20. It seemed to run 10 to 15 percent faster, on average . It did > not like the 8087 I put in, so I went back to the 8088. I couldn't afford an 8087, so I stuck with the V30! -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 20:20 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor |
| Message-ID | <MPG.316b7d3ea66d790698a079@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #161929 |
In article <dmdfkqFs66uU2@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx says... > > On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 20:07:53 +0000, Steve wrote: > > > Hi Bob, > > > > Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes: > >>On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:31:39 +0000, Steve wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes: > >>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186 > >>>> > >>>>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction > >>>>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the > >>>>interrupt controller. > >>> > >>> According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support > >>> undocumented 80186 opcodes. It also had a mode where it supported > >>> 8080 binary code. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Steve N. > >> > >>I actually had some V30s on a few PCs (the V30 was to the 8086 what the > >>V20 was to the 8088). The V3x was significantly faster than the 808x on > >>multiply and divide, etc. > > > > Yes I had a Zenith Z-100 and swapped out the 8088 for a while with > > a V20. It seemed to run 10 to 15 percent faster, on average . It did > > not like the 8087 I put in, so I went back to the 8088. > > I couldn't afford an 8087, so I stuck with the V30! Interesting--I didn't have an 8087 in my Zenith, but it worked fine in the Genuine IBM PC at work when I added a V20 (note--I _was_ the IT department in that company--no approvals needed except for the expenditure).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 20:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor |
| Message-ID | <MPG.316b7cb038f251da98a078@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #161916 |
In article <dmd755Fs66uU1@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx says... > > On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:31:39 +0000, Steve wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes: > >>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >> > >>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186 > >> > >>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction > >>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the > >>interrupt controller. > > > > According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support > > undocumented 80186 opcodes. It also had a mode where it supported 8080 > > binary code. > > > > Regards, > > > > Steve N. > > I actually had some V30s on a few PCs (the V30 was to the 8086 what the > V20 was to the 8088). The V3x was significantly faster than the 808x on > multiply and divide, etc. I may still have a V30 machine upstairs (I know there are a couple with V20s but I don't recall for sure whether the V30 went in one of _my_ machines or a machine at work).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 15:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor |
| Message-ID | <ndu2l7$r14$1@pechter.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #161916 |
In article <dmd755Fs66uU1@mid.individual.net>, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:31:39 +0000, Steve wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes: >>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> >>>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186 >>> >>>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction >>>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the >>>interrupt controller. >> >> According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support >> undocumented 80186 opcodes. It also had a mode where it supported 8080 >> binary code. >> >> Regards, >> >> Steve N. > >I actually had some V30s on a few PCs (the V30 was to the 8086 what the >V20 was to the 8088). The V3x was significantly faster than the 808x on >multiply and divide, etc. > > > >-- >Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... > >Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: > http://www.mirrorservice.org I used the V30 in my AT&T 6300 (Olivetti M24?) and it was pretty amazing how well the box compared with a 286 on many things... Some instructions seemed to be much faster and it wasn't half bad with Xenix-86 either. Too bad that the they didn't do a 286 look alike as a swap into the AT Clone motherboards with the V20/30 8080 instructions. Bill -- -- Digital had it then. Don't you wish you could buy it now! pechter-at-gmail.com http://xkcd.com/705/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | roger.ivie@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <778fd0a8-337d-484a-914b-2738194ce577@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #161804 |
VAX NV5+ largely pin-compatible with Alpha 21064. There are some things that are configurable options for 21064 that are fixed on NV5+. -- roger ivie roger.ivie@gmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 17:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] |
| Message-ID | <ndupd5$5d1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #161804 |
"Rod Pemberton" <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote in message news:20160401212231.1c439bc6@_... > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > Z80 - binary compatible with 8080 The Z80 is *not* strictly "binary compatible" with the 8080. There is some slight difference in the way the parity flag is used in some compare instructions, and also some incompatibility with the half-carry flag. Everywhere I look on the 'net, it seems people are trying to plow this knowledge under and ignore it. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 23:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] |
| Message-ID | <dmgafnFrjkoU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #162046 |
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 17:24:28 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote: > "Rod Pemberton" <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote in message > news:20160401212231.1c439bc6@_... >> >> [snip...] [snip...] >> [snip...] >> >> Z80 - binary compatible with 8080 > > The Z80 is *not* strictly "binary compatible" with the 8080. There is > some slight difference in the way the parity flag is used in some > compare instructions, and also some incompatibility with the half-carry > flag. Everywhere I look on the 'net, it seems people are trying to plow > this knowledge under and ignore it. Very few things are 100% binary compatible. Even the 8088 was different to the 8086 - it was easy to write a program to tell them apart. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 03:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] |
| Message-ID | <ndva17115nk@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #162046 |
On 2016-04-04, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > "Rod Pemberton" <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote in message > news:20160401212231.1c439bc6@_... > >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >> >> Z80 - binary compatible with 8080 > > The Z80 is *not* strictly "binary compatible" with the 8080. There is some > slight difference in the way the parity flag is used in some compare > instructions, and also some incompatibility with the half-carry flag. I remember reading about programs that would figure out which processor they were running on... > Everywhere I look on the 'net, it seems people are trying to plow this > knowledge under and ignore it. "The worst thing about getting older is watching knowledge die." -- me -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 17:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] |
| Message-ID | <c1.2b8.3qfbn2$05r@NOVOSAD3.EMBARQ.COM> |
| In reply to | #162046 |
Hi, "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes: >"Rod Pemberton" <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote in message >news:20160401212231.1c439bc6@_... >> >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >> >> Z80 - binary compatible with 8080 > >The Z80 is *not* strictly "binary compatible" with the 8080. There is some >slight difference in the way the parity flag is used in some compare >instructions, and also some incompatibility with the half-carry flag. >Everywhere I look on the 'net, it seems people are trying to plow this >knowledge under and ignore it. Well if the Z80 runs your 8080 operating system, editor, games, assembler, and other programs, perhaps it is compatible enough to ignore the differences. Or at least to forget about them. Regards, Steve N.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 19:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] |
| Message-ID | <20160405191505.3b9d78b93f580beed65481ac@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #162132 |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 17:43:34 GMT Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve) wrote: > Hi, > > "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes: > >"Rod Pemberton" <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote in message > >news:20160401212231.1c439bc6@_... > >> > >> [snip...] [snip...] > >> [snip...] > >> > >> Z80 - binary compatible with 8080 > > > >The Z80 is *not* strictly "binary compatible" with the 8080. There is > >some slight difference in the way the parity flag is used in some > >compare instructions, and also some incompatibility with the half-carry > >flag. Everywhere I look on the 'net, it seems people are trying to plow > >this knowledge under and ignore it. > > Well if the Z80 runs your 8080 operating system, editor, games, > assembler, and other programs, perhaps it is compatible enough to > ignore the differences. Or at least to forget about them. It was a rare program that depended on the difference, and anyone sane wrote for the intersection knowing that there were a lot more Z80 machines than 8080 but you couldn't rule out the latter. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 02:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] |
| Message-ID | <nevea1$q9c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162141 |
"Jon Elson" <jmelson@wustl.edu> wrote in message news:arWdnVu0vfUQZJLKnZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com... > Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > > >> It was a rare program that depended on the difference, and anyone >> sane wrote for the intersection knowing that there were a lot more Z80 >> machines than 8080 but you couldn't rule out the latter. >> > Subtle differences, maybe so. But, the Z80 had a bunch of instructions to > handle 16-bit address calculations that were very useful. And there were > the INIR and OUTIR (I think) opcodes that were almost DMA, but controlled > by > the processor. VERY handy for controlling various gear. They put the CPU > in a loop, moving some counted number of bytes from a sequence of memory > locations to or from an I/O port. You could do this at something like > half > a MB/second. > Yes, and the Z80 added PC relative addressing and *two* index registers. But the discussion was compatibility. The Z80 got rid of the need for a 12v power supply, and the 8085 did the same later for Intel. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web