Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!maddie From: maddie@crash.cts.com (Tom Schenck) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: If the GS meant business... Summary: ** Flame ON ** Message-ID: <3231@crash.cts.com> Date: 22 Jul 88 18:51:29 GMT References: <8807131148.aa01449@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> <3214@crash.cts.com> <834@lakesys.UUCP> <3228@crash.cts.com> <6254@uwmcsd1.UUCP> Reply-To: maddie@crash.CTS.COM (Tom Schenck) Organization: Crash TS, El Cajon, CA Lines: 95 In article <6254@uwmcsd1.UUCP> neighbor@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Jeffrey Alan Ding) writes: >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. > THAT was a typo. (Yes, good flame on it too.. sheesh). What I was SPEAKING of is the 68000 (extra 0 at the end). And the //gs is built to simulate the 68000 as close as it can. >Well now these two microprocessors are the same. Now does the manual speak >of any PRE-processing? No, the manual doesn't speak of any pre-processing, because you're looking in the wrong manual. Look in the 68000 manual. > >> 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? Well, ever seen the message "Sorry a System error has occured"? > >> 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. When you call the toolbox, or when the computer itself calls the toolbox (and it does. When the mouse moves, when any interrupt occurs, it calls the toolbox (including a screen refresh interrupt) and does something with it, and makes the computer wait) it takes time, because it has to determine what you want to do before it can act. Yes, you can write your own routines. I always do. I even have my own (substatially faster) "HOME" routine for the Apple ][ series. I never rely on the ROM routines, unless I don't have TIME to do it myself, in which case I provide a way for me to include my own routine. > >> 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! :-) > I DID say *IF* is starts. I know the IBM's aren't interpreted YET, and they may never be. But if they do, look for an Apple ][-like computer running at 25Mhz, with 1 meg (expandable to 16) of RAM, OS in ROM (with some exceptions, to provide for improvements). It will probably have to include more than one processor. Oh well... A ][e with 16 65c02's, that's an idea.. hmmm... 8-) > >>Tom Schenck, Member 52nd St Development Team > >neighbor@csd4.milw.wisc.edu > >_______________________________________________________________________________ >| arpanet: neighbor@csd4.milw.wisc.edu | >| UUCP: ihnp4!uwmcsd1!csd4!neighbor | Tom Schenck, Member 52nd St Development Team -- UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!maddie ARPA: crash!pnet01!maddie@nosc.mil INET: maddie@pnet01.CTS.COM Disclaimer : The only company who's thoughts are my own is owned by me. Tom Schenck, member 52nd Street Development Team.