Date   : Mon, 09 Apr 1990 22:54:52 GMT
From   : ficc!korenek@uunet.uu.net (Gary Korenek)
Subject: Non-Intel Bashing...

In article <1990Apr4.210949.18187@eng.umd.edu>, chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck
Harris) writes:
>In article <9004040702.AA08985@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> JSHIN@HAMPVMS.BITNET
("No, me?") writes:
>>[stuff deleted...]
>>Hmmmm.....
>>This is a serious matter, you see.
>>Personally, I think everything that Intel has ever come up with tend to
>>be rather demented; especially the iAPX86 family.  The segmentation system
>- I won't even touch this!
>[more stuff deleted...]

    IMHO, a _really_ twisted microprocessor is the RCA 1802.  No "CALL"
or "RETURN" instructions, for example.  If you want subroutines, you
have to execute "CALL" code (that you have to include), and for the
subroutine to return, the subroutine has to execute "RETURN" code
(that you also must provide!).

    I learned to program in the machine-instruction world with the INTEL
8080.  This was back in the days when S-100 machines (IMSAI 8080, Altair,
Cromemco, North Star, etc.) were the "going thing".  The 8080 then seemed
to be a straightforward processor.

    I then worked with the Z-80.  I remember thinking it to be more time
consuming to program (and debug) due to the increased number of insructions.
The Z-80, at the time, was the "hot chip".

    Subconsciously, I use the 8080 as a reference processor (in terms of
simplicity).  I suppose that I have a attachement to the 8080 because it
was the chip I learned on.

-- 
Gary Korenek    (korenek@ficc.uu.net)    |          This space
Ferranti International Controls Corp.    |         intentionally 
Sugar Land, Texas       (713)274-5357    |          left blank