Often it's the semantics rather than the technical substance that cause the
problems.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sipke de Wal" <sipke_at_wxs.nl>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: 6502/Z80 speed comparison (was MITS 2SIO serial chip?)
> All this fighting over valid "computer"definitions .....
>
> Alan Turing would turn in his grave !
>
> Almost merry XMAS everybody so "Peace"
>
>
> Sipke de Wal
> ---------------------------------------------------
> http://xgistor.ath.cx
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ajp166 <ajp166_at_bellatlantic.net>
> To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 3:27 AM
> Subject: Re: 6502/Z80 speed comparison (was MITS 2SIO serial chip?)
>
>
> > When you get over it...
> >
> > Talking about 20mhz 65C02s and other "fast" parts that didn't exist when
> > even the z180 (orginally 64180) was introduced is equally bogus.
> >
> > A Pentuim anything running a Z80 emulator is still emulation and not
> > native silicon.
> >
> > Now cut the crap.
> >
> > Allison
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
> > To: classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
> > Date: Friday, December 21, 2001 7:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: 6502/Z80 speed comparison (was MITS 2SIO serial chip?)
> >
> >
> > >We went through all this a couple of years back under the same heading.
> > If the
> > >Z235980 at 234 THz is code compatible then, if I understand you
> > correctly, it IS
> > >a Z80, right? Even though the Z180 won't fit in a Z80 socket, you'd
> > sell it as
> > >a Z80 anyway, right? Even though it didn't even exist back when it
> > mattered,
> > >you still insist it's a Z80, right?
> > >
> > >My Pentium executes the Z80 code just fine at about 75x the speed of of
> > a Z80.
> > >Does that mean it's a Z-80?
> > >
> > >We're comparing CHIPS, not philosophical constructs. If it IS a Z80, or
> > Mostek
> > >3480, or something else EXACTLY a Z80, i.e. built under the license,
> > >pin-compatible, code-compatible, etc. then MAYBE it's germane to this
> > >discussion. No chip that isn't a pin-compatible substitute commonly
> > referred to
> > >as a Z80 back in the days when the Z80 mattered is germane to this
> > topic. If it
> > >won't plug into the socket of a Z80, FORGET IT, because it's not a Z80.
> > If
> > >that's too difficult for you, then please ask an adult why a 47-ohm
> > resistor
> > >isn't the same thing as a 75-ohm resistor.
> > >
> > >I'm sure glad you're not trying to sell parts any more, Allison. I'd
> > hate to
> > >have to argue with you that the choke you're trying to pitch isn't a
> > diode.
> > >
> > >Dick
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "ajp166" <ajp166_at_bellatlantic.net>
> > >To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
> > >Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 4:24 PM
> > >Subject: Re: 6502/Z80 speed comparison (was MITS 2SIO serial chip?)
> > >
> > >
> > >> From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >There are lots of things that you could compare, but the first things
> > >> you've got
> > >> >to leave out are the ones that aren't a Z80, which immediately
> > deletes
> > >> the Z180,
> > >> >and Z280. The Z80 is not around any more than the 6502 is around.
> > >> There are
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Why? they are still z80 core and code compatable. While they add
> > things
> > >> like
> > >> serial IO, timers and MMU they are Z80, maybe more so than 65C02.
> > >>
> > >> Allison
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Received on Sat Dec 22 2001 - 14:20:04 GMT