Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!neighbor
From: neighbor@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Jeffrey Alan Ding)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: If the GS meant business...
Summary: *FLAME ALERT*
Message-ID: <6254@uwmcsd1.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jul 88 07:22:38 GMT
References: <8807131148.aa01449@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> <3214@crash.cts.com> <834@lakesys.UUCP> <3228@crash.cts.com>
Sender: news@uwmcsd1.UUCP
Reply-To: neighbor@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Jeffrey Alan Ding)
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Lines: 73

In article <3228@crash.cts.com> maddie@crash.CTS.COM (Tom Schenck) writes:
>In article <834@lakesys.UUCP> marc@lakesys.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>Tom,
>>
>>    What do you mean when you say "all code goes through an interperter?"  
>>Do you mean the 'standard user interface' ie the 'toolbox' or the microcode on
>>the microprocessor?  
>
>  I mean that the 6800 family is not a microprocessor, but, in fact, a small

6800?  What computer uses the 6800 family?  The Apple ][ series computers
All use the 6500 family of microprocessors.  I don't know about the 6800
series but the 6500 series has *NO* bullshi*t as to what your talking about.

I have the *HARDWARE* manual on the 6500 MOS series microprocessors.  It talks
about the 6500,6501,6502,6503,6504, and 6505 microprocessors.  It even talks
about the Motorola 6800 chip, compares them, and points out the strengths of
the MOS series.

(Pull out my trusty Apple ][ reference manual)  Here it says:

The 6502 Microprocessor
  Model:        MCS6502/SY6502
  Manufactured: MOS Technology, Inc.
		Synertek
		Rockwell

(Take a look at my hardware manual)  Here it says:

MCS6502 Microcomputer family hardware manual
	MOS technology, inc.

Well now these two microprocessors are the same.  Now does the manual speak
of any PRE-processing?

>  equivilent of a computer. It checks ever instruction that comes in against
>  a set list, and then against a user list. If a problem is encountered, it
>  jumps to an error handling section, and generates a few interrupts.

I don't see anything meantioned in the manual about what you just said.
This IS what it does:  Each instruction is loaded into the micro, If it doesnt
match up to a real instruction, the micro sh*ts and the computer bombs.
Anything can happen when the computer bombs.  Where the H*LL to you get off
saying it generates interrupts?

>  I don't mean the Toolbox, but the toolbox is cause for a lot of overhead.
>  A toolbox, however, is a great way to provide compatability between models.

All the toolbox does it provide the user with machine language programs to
perform miscellaneous tasks.  If the toolbox wasn't there, the user would have
to write the same programs anyway.  *NO* overhead is lost.  The only reason
you lose perforance is because the toolbox has *generalized* routines.  If
the user writes is own, he can make them specific and more efficient.

>  An IBM is great for doing this, yes. But if it starts using the interpreting
>  OS, I'm going back to my Apple ][, and going to build a 25Mhz accelearator!

Yes the newer IBM's are going the way of the MAC, but this does *NOT* mean
the OS is interpreted!  Machine language is the LOWEST form of programming.
The ONLY other interpretation is the decoding of the instructions by
HARDWARE.  This is NOT interpreted!  It is my guess you have never owned
an Apple ][ computer.  And you can go ahead and TRY to buile a 25Mhz
accelerator!  It will NEVER work!  Besides, How can you build anything
when you don't even know what microprocessor the computer used! :-)


>Tom Schenck, Member 52nd Development Team

neighbor@csd4.milw.wisc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________
| arpanet: neighbor@csd4.milw.wisc.edu                                        |
|    UUCP: ihnp4!uwmcsd1!csd4!neighbor                                        |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~