Article View: alt.folklore.computers
Article #5244Re: Okay, I'll speak up in defense of the IBM 1130
From: g... Guy Harris
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 1990 18:50
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 1990 18:50
19 lines
1562 bytes
1562 bytes
>Speaking of the 1130/1800, does anyone know of any other architectures >that are binarily compatible but use different "word" sizes? If I >remember correctly, the 1130 used 16-bits while the 1800 used 18-bits(?). The 1130 had, as I remember, 16 bits per word plus two parity bits. (I'm certain about the 16 bits per word.) As I remember, the 1800 had 16 bits per word plus one parity bit plus a "write protect" bit, which could be set (or maybe cleared, it may have been a "write enable" bit) to prevent attempts to write to a location. The registers were 16 bits long on both machines, the instructions were 16 or 32 bits long, and all data items were 16 bits long or a multiple thereof. I.e. you had 16 data bits per word on both architectures; MAXINT was 32767 on both machines. >But they both used the same instruction set and software. Well, not exactly; the 1800 had some additional instructions and ran a different OS.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4176@auspex.auspex.com>Path:
mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!auspex!guyReferences:
<418@synsys.UUCP> <3833@network.ucsd.edu> <330@inews.intel.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!auspex!guy From: g...@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Okay, I'll speak up in defense of the IBM 1130 Keywords: training system, learning, lotsa fun Message-ID: <4176@auspex.auspex.com> Date: 10 Oct 90 18:50:19 GMT References: <418@synsys.UUCP> <3833@network.ucsd.edu> <330@inews.intel.com> Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara Lines: 19 Posted: Wed Oct 10 19:50:19 1990 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit