INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3
REPLYADDR tnp@invalid.invalid
REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP
MSGID: 1e2366b1
REPLY: 2d937f1e
PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
On 30/08/2024 20:50, mm0fmf wrote:
> On 30/08/2024 15:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 30/08/2024 15:39, mm0fmf wrote:
>>> On 30/08/2024 14:28, John Aldridge wrote:
>>>> In article <20240829191334.570e88c7507598ffe5b28d87@eircom.net>,
>>>> steveo@eircom.net says...
>>>>>>> Portable code should only rely on the standards not
>>>>>>> implementations, some very weird possibilities are legal within the
>>>>>>> standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heh, yes. I worked for several years on a machine where a null
>>>>>> pointer
>>>>>> wasn't all bits zero, and where char* was a different size to any
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> pointer.
>>>>>
>>>>> That rings vague bells, what was it ?
>>>>
>>>> Prime. It was word, not byte, addressed, so a char* had to be bigger.
>>>>
>>> I used a Prime750 at Uni. But only undergrad tasks in Prime BASIC and
>>> some Fortran. It seemed quite fast at the time in timeshare mode with
>>> plenty of undergrads using it. But the CPU was only as fast as an
>>> 8MHz 68000!
>>>
>> That is the staggering thing. CPU performance in the mini era wasn't
>> that hot at all.
>>
>> I see someone has made a Pi PICO emulate a range of 6502 based
>> computers - apple II etc.
>>
>> I am fairly sure a PI Zero could outperform a 386 running SCO
>> Unix...and that was pretty comparable with - if not better than - a
>> PDP 11.
>>
>>
>
> The CPUs may not have had stunning performance but were generally quite
> a bit quicker than the Z80/6502s of the day. The real performance came
> from having disks and ISTR hardware assisted IO. i.e. the CPU didn't
> have to poll or handle IRQs from each UART but there was something
> helping. It's all so long ago now I forget the details. What I do
> remember was it was around 1985 when someone lit the blue touch paper
> and the performance of micros started rocketing. Though if you started
> 10 years before me there will have been something that was when
> performance took off for you. I think everyone has some point in their
> memory when things started to go whoosh!
>
> In 1989 I was writing Z80 assembler to control medical gear. All the
> code took about 45mins to cross assemble and link on a Unix system
> running on a Vax 11/730. In 1990 we got a 25MHz 80386 running DOS and
> the same source took under 3mins to cross assemble and link. The
> bottleneck went from the time to build the code to the time to erase,
> download and burn the EPROMS.
>
Yes. I was writing C and assembler for a 6809 cross complied on a PDP/11.
We had PCS as serial terminals and text editors.
Compile was very slow compared to on a PC.
The thing was that until the 386 Intel CPUs didn't have the big boy
features. After that they did.
Even an old IBM mainframe could be emulated under AIX on a PC.
I did some work on a Vax running Unix too. Better, but still pretty awful
--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
...than to have answers that cannot be questioned
Richard Feynman
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
SEEN-BY: 10/0 1 90/1 103/705 105/81 106/201 124/5016 129/305 153/757
SEEN-BY: 153/7715 218/0 1 601 700 840 870 930 220/70 221/1 6 360 226/17
SEEN-BY: 226/30 100 227/114 229/110 111 114 200 206 300 317 400 426
SEEN-BY: 229/428 470 550 616 664 700 240/1120 266/512 267/800 282/1038
SEEN-BY: 291/111 292/854 301/1 113 812 310/31 320/219 322/757 335/364
SEEN-BY: 341/66 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280 712/848 770/1 3 100
SEEN-BY: 770/330 340 772/210 220 230 5020/400 1042 5058/104 5075/35
PATH: 770/3 1 218/840 221/6 301/1 218/700 229/426
|
