[sdiy] Re: Bottom Ten ICs ARMed

[Magnus Danielson]

From: "Theo" <t.hogers at home.nl>
Subject: Re: [sdiy] Re: Bottom Ten ICs ARMed
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 04:33:09 +0200
Message-ID: <003801c4ae71$7b5f5800$93b37ad9 at ensch1.ov.home.nl>

Theo,

> 68000 was exiting too, at the time I spent way more than I had to get a
> Atari to play with it.

Sadly enought I never have had the oppertunity to do anything real on the 68k
familly, but I like what I see, I always have. But I went directly from
Commodore 64 to the IBM PC fame (not the actual IBMs, but Ericsson, Panasonic
and whatever).

> Then again that prof included essay questions in his exams like.
> "Explain why in _your_opinion_ RISC and Transputter designs are inferior to
> the CISC argitecture of the 68000"
> Stating this was not your opinion would make you fail the exam.
> Note: the group of the "other" processor professor was involved in the
> development of the Transputter.

I fooled around with Transputers back in those days and just pulled out my
"A tutorial introduction to OCCAM Programming". Also has a bunch of datasheets
and other related material. For more on Occam, check this link out:
http://vl.fmnet.info/occam/

Transputers remains one of these concepts which I really not did get rid from
the back of my head. However, one of the troubles is that for some applications
inter-communications will be the main drawback. The traditional Transputers had
only 4 links, which is a bit limiting topologywise.

Cheers,
Magnus