William Donzelli wrote:
>
> > Since when are one-shots are a problem, they have there place.
> > Thinking back more; most timing was asynchronous that needed
> > a lot set/reset flip flops and delay buffers to keep things in sync.
> > It is tricks to save a gate or two that is the problem.
>
> It is not "the IBM way". Back in the 1960s and 1970s, IBM strongly tended
> to have everything clocked, sometimes using rather impressive circuitry.
> The clock generator of an S/3 is astoundingly complex, and gets around
> some of the uncertainty involved with one-shots and delays.
I do remember a lot of clocks to there. One thing that they may have
done
is run the raw data from the drives to the main disk controller. Getting
a IBM from that running if you had one could be hard because IBM had its
own logic chips. They also had computer generated schematic listings
too.
> No, it was a real microcode machine. It could run a set of complicated
> diagnostics on a disk, without bothering the channel. Real front panel, too.
Likely the price of the CPU to. The IBM 1130 was meant still as cards
in/
cards out system.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
Received on Mon Jan 28 2002 - 10:34:00 GMT