On 07/14/2015 03:42 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
That's true--but at the time, CDC's design made a huge amount of sense. The
CPU was left to do what it did best--crunch numbers without the burden of
managing the I/O activity and responding to interrupts. In that sense, the
CPU was treated as more of a peripheral device. In fact, you could order a
CPU-less system. (6416?)
What was the point of that machine? For people doing OS development only?
More aimed at expanding the I/O capabilities. You could, for example,
hook the 6416 up to a couple million words of ECS. Remember too, that
CDC thrived on QSEs.
--Chuck
