The IBM5100 also uses the term "microcode" - but I'm not sure if that term
pre-1975 means the same as what, say, Intel used it for around the x86?
I've seen a glimpse into the syntax of the x86 microcode.     In the IBM
5100's case, its CPU is distributed across 14 or so SLT chips - so I never
fully understood how it implements its PALM instruction set.    I know the
two large IC on that process are two 64-byte memory things (dunno if
categorized as SRAM or DRAM, or neither), mapped to the first 128 bytes of
system RAM (so a high speed pass through, where that 128 bytes correspond
to the registers used by each of the 4 interrupt levels).  That PALM
processor was developed right around the time of the Intel 4004 (late '71 /
mid '72), and stout enough to run a version of APL about a year later  (I
see Intel made a version of FORTRAN for the 8008, or at least a claim for
it in the Intertec brochures).

Anyway, all I mean is, in early 70s did "microcode" just mean
instruction-set, and that changed a few years later?  Or did microcode
always mean some kind of "more primitive sequence" used to construct into
an instruction set?

-Steve



On Sun, May 4, 2025 at 1:33 PM ben via cctalk <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2025-05-04 2:11 a.m., jos via cctalk wrote:
> >> I recall that system had many boards, the whole "CPU" box was external
> to
> >> the monitor (and in the earliest versions, the power supply was also a
> >> large external box).   I can't really fathom creating a BASIC out of raw
> >> TTL, or maybe I'm misunderstanding the approach.
> > You build a processor with some TTL, and then implement a BASIC on that
> > microprocessor.
> > There is always this intermediate step, no machine executes BASIC
> > directly in TTL.
> >
> Well for BASIC that is true.
> The Fairchild Symbol Computer was test to just how far TTL could go.
>
> > Look here for an example of a processor (Datapoint 2200) in TTL :
> >
> >
> https://bitsavers.org/pdf/datapoint/2200/jdreesen_shematics/DP2200_mb.pdf
> >
> > Jos
> Micocoded coded machines, could likely be programed to run basic.
>
> Ben.
>
>

Reply via email to