[sdiy] Re: Bottom Ten ICs

[Theo]

Hi Richard,
Inline.

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Wentk <richard at skydancer.com>
<snip>
> And why, if the design was that smart, why did TI's engineers then cripple
> it with an 8-bit external bus?
>
It was a 16 bit processor with a 16 bit bus, but could address only 64Kb
like the 8 bitters did.

> The whole thing seems like a classic case of wood for trees. One unusual
> architectural feature makes no sense on its own. You need everything
around
> it to work too. All the way up to the s/ware support and marketing levels,
> which is another area where TI crashed and burned.
>
If you say so...

> >Besides, as already mentioned otherwise, the design of the TMS9900
> >allowed for fast context switches. With other architectures you always
> >had to go through a push/pull orgy
>
> Yes, but how often did you use time sharing on a processor designed for
use
> in a home micro?
>
No The TMS9900 was for the big bulky multi-processor machines.
There even are addressing modes to access the memory of and execute code
from other TMS9900s.
Considering the 64k of addressable control lines the main target would be
industrial control applications.

<snip>
>
> Richard
>

Cheers,
Theo