OT: A call to arms (sort of)

From: Allison J Parent <allisonp_at_world.std.com>
Date: Sat Jul 3 10:28:05 1999

<agree on what your goals are? Some of these suggestions indicate that
<certain people like certain things, but there's really been no discussion o
<why one might want to use one or another. In the absence of
<goals/requirements, there can be no analysis or design.
<Does anybody know where this is supposed to lead?

To yet another iteration of the last 30 years of computer and bus design.

To me it's mostly an exercise, few are into construction of their own
design and fewer still actually have the resources to do it. Those that
can aren't going to let a committe design their box (they do that at work).
so whats left... A discussion of buses and what was good or bad about each

FYI: the greatest common problem of most buses is they tend to be somewhat
processor centric. To wit.

Multibus 8080, 8085, 808x, z80 mostly
Qbus PDP-11 or VAX
Unibus PDP-11 or VAX
SS50 6800 and 6809

The ugly exception! This doesn't make it good, only the odd exception
for unexplainable reasons despite being primarily a 8080 bus!

S100 8080, 8085, 808x, 80x86, z80, z180, LSI-11, AM100, TI9900, 6502,
          6800, 6809, 6800x

How is it that one of the ugly busses stands out like this in history?
My cut is that the very flavor of an experimentors "hobby" bus was the

Received on Sat Jul 03 1999 - 10:28:05 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:10 BST