Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.vintage > #1690 > unrolled thread

Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.vintage

Contents

  Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole) - 2026-06-19 18:42 +0100
    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon JJenssen <joemajen@arcor.de> - 2026-06-20 12:30 +0200
      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole) - 2026-06-20 13:10 +0100
        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-20 14:42 +0100
          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon JJenssen <joemajen@arcor.de> - 2026-06-21 07:51 +0200
            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-06-21 09:35 +0200
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-21 10:29 +0100
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-21 18:10 +0000
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-22 10:16 +1200
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-06-22 08:13 +0200
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-22 10:26 +0100
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-22 14:03 +0000
                      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-22 17:25 +0100
                        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-22 20:51 +0000
                          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-23 04:22 +0100
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-22 17:07 +0000
                      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-22 20:47 +0000
                        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-23 10:49 +1200
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-24 01:30 +0000
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-24 12:07 +0200
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-24 11:41 +0100
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-24 18:42 +0000
                      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-24 19:42 +0000
                        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 13:25 -0700
                          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-25 01:39 +0000
                        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-24 21:53 +0100
                        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-25 01:30 +0000
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 08:29 -0700
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-24 16:36 +0100
                      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-24 17:33 +0000
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 01:13 +0000
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-25 11:26 +0200
                      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 23:21 +0000
                        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-26 10:55 +0200
                          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-26 10:41 +0100
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-06-24 21:38 +0000
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 01:12 +0000
            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole) - 2026-06-21 14:21 +0100
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-21 17:28 +0100
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-21 18:56 +0200
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-21 17:38 +0000
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-21 23:36 +0000
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-21 18:15 +0000
    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-24 01:24 +0000
      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-24 17:35 +1200
        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-06-24 07:45 +0200
          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-24 11:36 +0100
            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-25 09:35 +1200
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 01:17 +0000
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-25 18:24 +1200
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-25 10:19 +0100
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-26 01:59 +0000
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 01:50 +0000
                Retroconning closed-source proprietary software, and wiping the rest (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-25 07:12 +0100
                  Re: Retroconning closed-source proprietary software, and wiping the rest (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-25 18:32 +1200
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-25 18:27 +1200
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 06:50 +0000
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-25 19:41 +1200
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-25 11:37 +0200
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-25 18:19 +0100
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-26 10:01 +0100
              """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-25 06:55 +0100
                Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-25 18:34 +1200
                  Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-26 01:57 +0000
                    Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-26 18:23 +1200
                      Re: """Standard""" software Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-26 09:37 +0100
                        Re: """Standard""" software Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-27 11:00 +1200
                          Re: """Standard""" software Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-28 08:02 +0100
                            Re: """Standard""" software "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-28 12:51 +0200
                              Re: """Standard""" software c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-29 01:53 -0400
                                Re: """Standard""" software "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-29 10:53 +0200
                                  Re: “Standard” software Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-30 02:48 +0000
                                    Re: “Standard” software Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-30 09:08 +0100
                    Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-26 18:03 +0000
                      Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:23 -0700
                        Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-27 11:09 +1200
                          Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-27 18:22 +0000
                            Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-27 19:42 +0000
                            Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-28 10:46 +1200
                              Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-06-28 10:18 +0000
                                Re: """Standard""" software The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-28 11:26 +0100
                                Spreadshi^Heet software (was: Re: """Standard""" software) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-29 08:35 +0100
                                  Re: Spreadshi^Heet software (was: Re: """Standard""" software) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-29 19:51 +1200
                                  Re: Spreadshi^Heet software Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-29 09:28 +0100
                                    Re: Spreadshi^Heet software Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-06-29 10:53 +0200
                                    Re: Spreadshi^Heet software The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-29 12:53 +0100
                              Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-28 18:09 +0000
                                Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-29 10:15 +1200
                                Re: """Standard""" software Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-29 08:24 +0100
                            Re: “Standard” software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-27 23:03 +0000
                              Re: “Standard” software c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-28 04:13 -0400
                                Re: “Standard” software The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-28 11:04 +0100
                                  Re: “Standard” software c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-29 01:42 -0400
                      Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-27 00:10 +0000
                        Can be trusted... (Was: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and) Linux Mint Cinnamon) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-06-27 12:53 +0000
                        Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-27 18:22 +0000
                          Re: """Standard""" software (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-27 19:36 +0000
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-06-25 15:44 +0000
          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 08:01 -0700
            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-24 16:34 +0100
            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-06-25 15:49 +0000
          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-24 18:16 +0000
      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-06-24 17:15 +0200
        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 01:14 +0000
          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-06-25 18:32 +0200
            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-25 23:22 +0000
              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-06-25 23:40 +0000
                Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-26 09:09 +0100
                  Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-26 18:03 +0000
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-27 00:26 +0100
                    Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-27 15:52 +1200
                      Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-27 04:12 +0000
                        Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-27 09:41 +0100
                          Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-27 18:22 +0000
                            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-27 19:57 +0000
                            Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-06-28 10:35 +1200
                              Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-28 00:13 +0100

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#1720

On 24/06/2026 11:07, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-06-24 03:30, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 09:35:34 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>>
>>> This thread for some reason gave me 40 year old 6502 vibes, where the
>>> only fully usable register is called the accumulator.
>>
>> “Accumulator” was a common synonym for “register” in the early days.
>>
>> E.g. I think the PDP-10 had 4 accumulators. Their assembly-language
>> names were AC0, AC1, AC2, AC3.
> 
> An accumulator is not a register. It is different, you can do operations 
> on it. Maybe on current processors the difference is not that big.
> 
You can do operations on all registers too.
The accumulator is the register where the *results* of those operations 
typically get stored.

Bit not always.
 From my days of 8088 assembler

PUSH BX  has no effect on the AX accumulator. Only on general memory and 
the stack pointer

Some processors did not have 'accumulators' as such, any register could 
be used...

"The Motorola 68000 features sixteen 32-bit general-purpose registers 
(eight data and eight address), a 32-bit Program Counter (PC), and a 
16-bit Status Register (SR). It is designed with a highly orthogonal 
architecture where registers operate interchangeably for most data and 
address calculations"


-- 
     “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the 
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most 
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of 
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which 
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by 
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

     ― Leo Tolstoy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1728

On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:41:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> You can do operations on all registers too.
> The accumulator is the register where the *results* of those operations
> typically get stored.

On the Z80 the AF register pair were often called the accumulator but F 
was the flag register. 

JR  NC, FOO  does the relative jump if the last operation on A cleared the 
carry bit.


* so says the internet. I remember it as 'JNC FOO' but there was always 
the confusion since Zilog couldn't use Intel's super duper patented 
mnemonics. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1729

On 2026-06-24, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:41:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> You can do operations on all registers too.
>> The accumulator is the register where the *results* of those operations
>> typically get stored.
>
> On the Z80 the AF register pair were often called the accumulator but F 
> was the flag register. 
>
> JR  NC, FOO  does the relative jump if the last operation on A cleared the 
> carry bit.
>
> * so says the internet. I remember it as 'JNC FOO' but there was always 
> the confusion since Zilog couldn't use Intel's super duper patented 
> mnemonics. 

Too bad.  I liked the Intel mnemonics better; they gave a clue as
to the operation of the instruction, which appealed to low-level
dweebs like me.  I'm sure the CS weenies liked Zilog's mnemonics
better, where every data movement instruction seemed to be some
form of LD.  I figured that if they were going to do that, they
might as well go whole hog and have constructs like LD PC,<addr>
for a jump, and LD A,@<portnum> for input (LD @<portnum>,A for
output, of course).  Then they could eliminate the now-redundant
instruction mnemonic entirely; programs would be just a long list
of operands, with the operation implied.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  No artificial
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  intelligence was
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  used in the creation
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  of this post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1730

On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 19:42:20 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> I figured that if they were going to do that, they might as well go
> whole hog and have constructs like LD PC,<addr> for a jump, and LD
> A,@<portnum> for input (LD @<portnum>,A for output, of course).

MOV [operand], PC is actually a valid if non-conventional form of jump
on the PDP-11; the primary difference is that it sets the flags based
on the value of the target address. And, of course, it has memory-
mapped I/O, so MOV Rn, [port]/MOV [port], Rn is indeed how it's done ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1739

On 2026-06-24, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 19:42:20 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I figured that if they were going to do that, they might as well go
>> whole hog and have constructs like LD PC,<addr> for a jump, and LD
>> A,@<portnum> for input (LD @<portnum>,A for output, of course).
>
> MOV [operand], PC is actually a valid if non-conventional form of jump
> on the PDP-11; the primary difference is that it sets the flags based
> on the value of the target address. And, of course, it has memory-
> mapped I/O, so MOV Rn, [port]/MOV [port], Rn is indeed how it's done ;)

I remember being dazzled by the PDP-11's machine code.  Making PC and
SP just another two registers allowed all sorts of neat tricks, such
as enabling programmers to write threaded code that the hardware could
interpret as a byproduct of the architecture, not by convoluted tricks.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  No artificial
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  intelligence was
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  used in the creation
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  of this post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1731

On 24/06/2026 20:42, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>   I liked the Intel mnemonics better; they gave a clue as
> to the operation of the instruction, which appealed to low-level
> dweebs like me.  I'm sure the CS weenies liked Zilog's mnemonics
> better, where every data movement instruction seemed to be some
> form of LD.

We learnt was what necessary to get the assembler to assemble ,machine code.
No one gave a shit about 'mnemonics'

We left that argument to computer scientists who couldn't write code. 
Kept them off the micros


-- 
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a 
kind word alone.

Al Capone

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1738

On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 19:42:20 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> Too bad.  I liked the Intel mnemonics better; they gave a clue as to the
> operation of the instruction, which appealed to low-level dweebs like
> me. I'm sure the CS weenies liked Zilog's mnemonics better, where every
> data movement instruction seemed to be some form of LD.  I figured that
> if they were going to do that, they might as well go whole hog and have
> constructs like LD PC,<addr> for a jump, and LD A,@<portnum> for input
> (LD @<portnum>,A for output, of course).  Then they could eliminate the
> now-redundant instruction mnemonic entirely; programs would be just a
> long list of operands, with the operation implied.

Digging a little deeper...

http://www.gaby.de/cpm/manuals/archive/cpm22htm/ch3.htm#Section_3.5.1

I'm not sure if I ever had a real live 8080 but the CP/M assembler stuck 
used the Intel set. I was pretty set in my ways when I ran into AT&T 
syntax.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1723

On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:07:47 +0200
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> An accumulator is not a register. It is different, you can do
> operations on it. Maybe on current processors the difference is not
> that big.

The specifics depend on the architecture in question, but generally
speaking "accumulator" is used for a general-purpose register in an
architecture where there are other, non-general-purpose ones - e.g. the
6502, which has A (which most of the ALU instructions work on) plus the
X and Y registers, which are index registers but can also be used as
counters or spare registers for intermediate values in a pinch.

Other architectures take a different approach, and treat most or all
registers as general-purpose - e.g. the PDP-11, and any RISC design
I've ever heard of. Some split the difference, with a set of general-
purpose registers plus a set of specialized ones (the 68k, which has
eight GPRs and eight address registers.)

And then there's the 8086, in which all registers are *sorta* general-
purpose, except they also all have special functions the others don't,
except when you can override them, but sometimes you can't... :/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1725

On 24/06/2026 16:29, John Ames wrote:
> And then there's the 8086, in which all registers are*sorta*  general-
> purpose, except they also all have special functions the others don't,
> except when you can override them, but sometimes you can't... :/

Ah the joys of doing CISC with microcode 'we've got a few more opcode 
slots we can use, what weird instructions can we put in them?

-- 
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1726

On 2026-06-24, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 24/06/2026 16:29, John Ames wrote:
>
>> And then there's the 8086, in which all registers are*sorta*  general-
>> purpose, except they also all have special functions the others don't,
>> except when you can override them, but sometimes you can't... :/
>
> Ah the joys of doing CISC with microcode 'we've got a few more opcode 
> slots we can use, what weird instructions can we put in them?

Or what happens when I feed it this undocumented opcode?
People built a large table for the Z-80, which would do
all sorts of strange things with those opcodes.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  No artificial
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  intelligence was
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  used in the creation
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  of this post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1735

On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:07:47 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> On 2026-06-24 03:30, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 09:35:34 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>>
>>> This thread for some reason gave me 40 year old 6502 vibes, where
>>> the only fully usable register is called the accumulator.
>>
>> “Accumulator” was a common synonym for “register” in the early
>> days.
>>
>> E.g. I think the PDP-10 had 4 accumulators. Their assembly-language
>> names were AC0, AC1, AC2, AC3.
>
> An accumulator is not a register. It is different, you can do
> operations on it.

Which one? What’s the point of having one where “you cannot do
operations on it”?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1750

On 2026-06-25 03:13, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:07:47 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-06-24 03:30, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 09:35:34 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>>>
>>>> This thread for some reason gave me 40 year old 6502 vibes, where
>>>> the only fully usable register is called the accumulator.
>>>
>>> “Accumulator” was a common synonym for “register” in the early
>>> days.
>>>
>>> E.g. I think the PDP-10 had 4 accumulators. Their assembly-language
>>> names were AC0, AC1, AC2, AC3.
>>
>> An accumulator is not a register. It is different, you can do
>> operations on it.
> 
> Which one? What’s the point of having one where “you cannot do
> operations on it”?

It just was so. The ALU wrote to the accumulator, not to other registers.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1756

On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 11:26:47 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> On 2026-06-25 03:13, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:07:47 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-06-24 03:30, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 09:35:34 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This thread for some reason gave me 40 year old 6502 vibes,
>>>>> where the only fully usable register is called the accumulator.
>>>>
>>>> “Accumulator” was a common synonym for “register” in the early
>>>> days.
>>>>
>>>> E.g. I think the PDP-10 had 4 accumulators. Their
>>>> assembly-language names were AC0, AC1, AC2, AC3.
>>>
>>> An accumulator is not a register. It is different, you can do
>>> operations on it.
>>
>> Which one? What’s the point of having one where “you cannot do
>> operations on it”?
>
> It just was so. The ALU wrote to the accumulator, not to other
> registers.

There was also an older usage where “register” was a synonym for
“memory location”. You’re not using it in that sense, are you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1764

On 2026-06-26 01:21, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 11:26:47 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-06-25 03:13, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:07:47 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2026-06-24 03:30, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 09:35:34 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This thread for some reason gave me 40 year old 6502 vibes,
>>>>>> where the only fully usable register is called the accumulator.
>>>>>
>>>>> “Accumulator” was a common synonym for “register” in the early
>>>>> days.
>>>>>
>>>>> E.g. I think the PDP-10 had 4 accumulators. Their
>>>>> assembly-language names were AC0, AC1, AC2, AC3.
>>>>
>>>> An accumulator is not a register. It is different, you can do
>>>> operations on it.
>>>
>>> Which one? What’s the point of having one where “you cannot do
>>> operations on it”?
>>
>> It just was so. The ALU wrote to the accumulator, not to other
>> registers.
> 
> There was also an older usage where “register” was a synonym for
> “memory location”. You’re not using it in that sense, are you?

Nono, just some storage inside the CPU.


Later processors, like the 68000, could receive results on any register.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1766

On 26/06/2026 09:55, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-06-26 01:21, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 11:26:47 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-06-25 03:13, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:07:47 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2026-06-24 03:30, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 09:35:34 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This thread for some reason gave me 40 year old 6502 vibes,
>>>>>>> where the only fully usable register is called the accumulator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Accumulator” was a common synonym for “register” in the early
>>>>>> days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E.g. I think the PDP-10 had 4 accumulators. Their
>>>>>> assembly-language names were AC0, AC1, AC2, AC3.
>>>>>
>>>>> An accumulator is not a register. It is different, you can do
>>>>> operations on it.
>>>>
>>>> Which one? What’s the point of having one where “you cannot do
>>>> operations on it”?
>>>
>>> It just was so. The ALU wrote to the accumulator, not to other
>>> registers.
>>
>> There was also an older usage where “register” was a synonym for
>> “memory location”. You’re not using it in that sense, are you?
> 
> Nono, just some storage inside the CPU.
> 
> 
No. In some architectures its in memory

> Later processors, like the 68000, could receive results on any register.
> 
And more importantly some other CPUs did not really make a distinction 
between RAM and onboard registers.

ISTR that Turing's original theoretical machine only had, in effect, an 
instruction pointer.

It's perfectly possible to construct a CPU that has only one 'register' 
- a frame pointer pointing to a frame in which all the RAM based 
registers are to be found. Arguably even this is not necessary, as you 
could reserve a fixed piece of RAM to contain that data.

It's merely a matter of speed. And modern CPUS map huge areas of RAM 
into cache 'registers' anyway. The distinction is very blurred

It represents te perfect dichotomy between the idealisations of the 
'computer scientist' and the fundamental realities of engineering a 
blisteringly fast machine to process serial intsructions




-- 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to 
rule.
– H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1733

In article <111fbuv$2lq9d$8@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro  <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 09:35:34 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>> This thread for some reason gave me 40 year old 6502 vibes, where the
>> only fully usable register is called the accumulator.
>
>"Accumulator" was a common synonym for "register" in the early days.

An accumulator is a register, but registers aren't necessarily accumulators. 
The 6502 has one accumulator (A) and two index registers (X and Y). 
Arithmetic and logic operations work on the accumulator, but not on the
index registers.

-- 
  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/         Top-posting!
 \_^_/                            >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1734

On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:38:09 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:

> In article <111fbuv$2lq9d$8@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro  <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 09:35:34 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>>
>>> This thread for some reason gave me 40 year old 6502 vibes, where
>>> the only fully usable register is called the accumulator.
>>
>>"Accumulator" was a common synonym for "register" in the early days.
>
> An accumulator is a register, but registers aren't necessarily
> accumulators. The 6502 has one accumulator (A) and two index
> registers (X and Y). Arithmetic and logic operations work on the
> accumulator, but not on the index registers.

Hence the qualification “index” on those particular “registers”.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1697

In article <1117u54$iqhs$1@dont-email.me>, joemajen@arcor.de wrote:

> Am 20.06.26 um 15:42 schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
> > On 20/06/2026 13:10, scole wrote:
> > 
> >> I'm unfamiliar with "the accumulator"...
> > 
> > Rechargeable battery?
> > 
> 
> Yes, that is meant.  Thank you :)

OK, understood. So far, there have been no problems with the battery -
charges fine, the laptop works perfectly conencted to the charger and
while disconnected, all seems good.

One oddity I encountered last night, and have repeated a few times since
(although not every time) is when I close the lid while the machine is
still on sometimes the machine turns itself off rather than go to sleep!
Like I said, it doesn't happen every time so I am trying to pin down which
variable I am doing that causes it...

Other than that, all good!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1698

On 21/06/2026 14:21, scole wrote:
> In article <1117u54$iqhs$1@dont-email.me>, joemajen@arcor.de wrote:
> 
>> Am 20.06.26 um 15:42 schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>>> On 20/06/2026 13:10, scole wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm unfamiliar with "the accumulator"...
>>>
>>> Rechargeable battery?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that is meant.  Thank you :)
> 
> OK, understood. So far, there have been no problems with the battery -
> charges fine, the laptop works perfectly conencted to the charger and
> while disconnected, all seems good.
> 
> One oddity I encountered last night, and have repeated a few times since
> (although not every time) is when I close the lid while the machine is
> still on sometimes the machine turns itself off rather than go to sleep!
> Like I said, it doesn't happen every time so I am trying to pin down which
> variable I am doing that causes it...
> 
Linux is rather skittish about resuming after suspending/hibernating. I 
think it has been one of the toughest nuts to crack.

My laptop *generally* comes back and reconnects to  the wifi. But it 
hasn't always been the case with earlier versions.

There may be configuration on whether you are suspending hibernating or 
shutting down on lid close




> Other than that, all good!

-- 
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you 
can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if 
you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed 
whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.

Sir Roger Scruton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1699

On 2026-06-21 18:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 21/06/2026 14:21, scole wrote:
>> In article <1117u54$iqhs$1@dont-email.me>, joemajen@arcor.de wrote:
>>
>>> Am 20.06.26 um 15:42 schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>>>> On 20/06/2026 13:10, scole wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm unfamiliar with "the accumulator"...
>>>>
>>>> Rechargeable battery?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that is meant.  Thank you :)
>>
>> OK, understood. So far, there have been no problems with the battery -
>> charges fine, the laptop works perfectly conencted to the charger and
>> while disconnected, all seems good.
>>
>> One oddity I encountered last night, and have repeated a few times since
>> (although not every time) is when I close the lid while the machine is
>> still on sometimes the machine turns itself off rather than go to sleep!
>> Like I said, it doesn't happen every time so I am trying to pin down 
>> which
>> variable I am doing that causes it...
>>
> Linux is rather skittish about resuming after suspending/hibernating. I 
> think it has been one of the toughest nuts to crack.
> 
> My laptop *generally* comes back and reconnects to  the wifi. But it 
> hasn't always been the case with earlier versions.
> 
> There may be configuration on whether you are suspending hibernating or 
> shutting down on lid close

It varies over the years, same machine.

Mine sometimes freezes on lid opening. Random.

My desktop hibernates fine for about two or three weeks, then crashes: 
new boot on wake up.

Another old and small laptop which I connect to the TV on sitting room 
to watch movies, some times doesn't light up on wake up (either its own 
display or the TV display).


-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.vintage

csiph-web