> That sucks (in my opinion). (You like my 16bit addressing? kinda make you
> yearn for the good 'ol days when you programmed in hex! Like real men! No
> sir! We didn't have no Visual Basic or C+++++++++! When we wrote a silly
> like program, it was an accomplishment! (....but they still were silly
> little programs.)). But I digress....
> I like:
> IO port 0=Keyboard control
> IO port 1=Keyboard data
> IO port 2=Device 1 control
> IO port 3=Device data
> etc.
Gee fine - back to the time when the CPU had to do any
little pice of sh.. by itself - never asked why Mainframes
can handle so much more date with the same tecnologie
than PCs ? go back and learn.
> Your response: "But, what if you need to transfer a big block of data like
> a NIC? You really need to memory map that."
> My answer: "Pretend that the IO addresses are memory. With a 128 bit
> address bus, you'll never run out of spaces!"
So waht now ? memory maped or I/O space
There is ABSOLUTLY no sense in building a super fast CPU and
then spending all time in I/O polling (or interrupt handling)
Lets get real again.
Gruss
H.
P.S.: in 1986 I had a 100 MHz Turing machine running - I bet
it was one of the fastest computers at this time -
Fast and Useless.
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
Received on Fri Oct 23 1998 - 07:31:46 BST