Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!lib!.hsch.utexas.edu
From: jmaynard@.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: registerless architecture
Message-ID: <4315@lib.tmc.edu>
Date: 13 Nov 90 18:34:43 GMT
References: <1990Nov12.145410.29035@cs.cmu.edu> <3168@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <39637@ut-emx.uucp>
Sender: usenet@lib.tmc.edu
Organization: University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Lines: 29
Nntp-Posting-Host: thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu

In article <39637@ut-emx.uucp> nather@ut-emx.uucp (Ed Nather) writes:
>Many years ago there was this microprocessor, see, that was 16 bits (!!)
>when all the others were only 8 bits, and it was going to be a real
>world-beater and wipe out Intel, Motorola, etc.  The thing HAD NO
>REGISTERS either, went memory-to-memory because that's where everything
>ends up anyway, so what good are registers?  It was made by that powerhouse
>of computing called Texas Instruments who, as you know, wiped out all the
>competition and changed its name to IBM and ...

>Actually, I've forgotten (or suppressed) the chip number, but it was a
>real dog, much too slow compared with its competition, and died the
>Death of Dumb Chips long, long ago.

The chip you're thinking of is the TMS9900. I have one in a small card cage
of a development system, with some flaky bubble memory and a cassette port,
and one of the screwiest dialects of BASIC I've ever met. It's a real
{curi,monstr}osity.

The 9900's big failing, though, was its 64K addressing limit; that was a
severe competitive disadvantage compared to the newer 16-bit chips being
introduced. I think there were later versions that didn't have that problem,
but my memory for such details is getting fuzzy.

Oh, yes...there was one common application for the 9900: the TI 99/4[a]
home computer.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu  | adequately be explained by stupidity.
         "With design like this, who needs bugs?" - Boyd Roberts