MASM on x64

[drhowarddrfine]

Mario,

.NET is NOT a language.  It is a collection of classes.  You must use a programming language that works with the .net platform. 

[mariø]

Mario,

.NET is NOT a language.  It is a collection of classes.  You must use a programming language that works with the .net platform. 

yes, but with vb (and C#, if i'm not wrong) your are forced to use  those classes (and distribute the 25Mb Framework). But I don't think that VB-->VB.net or C# will be the natural migration that people will choose.

[pbrennick]

Bieb,
Maybe because I started programming with the Motorola processsor family is the reason that I find, for me, that the reverse was actually true.  I had a difficult time, for a short while, moving to the Z80, 8080, 8085 and 8086 (even the 8088).  BTW: even though the Z80 is in the family, it is not an INTEL processor.  It was developed by MOSTEK and then ZILOG (or is that backwards).  Too many years ago!  I don't think you even know about those days.

mariø,
Nicely stated.

Paul

[00100b]

It was developed by MOSTEK and then ZILOG (or is that backwards).  Too many years ago!

I think you have it in the right order. Zilog's web site

[pbrennick]

Thanks, FourB, it was a nice little processor and so was the 8085.  I spent a good deal of my career programming that processor in a language called NumaLogic which I did not invent but made it function correctly and was responsible for all its development until the advent of the LM6 version of the language (which occurred after I had sold the rights to it and it spread everywhere.  Most all programmable controllers (PCs, as they were known at the time, PCs today are something totally different) today are run using some version of that language.  That is my claim to fame!

Paul

[Porkster]

Loved the z80.  Those days were good.  Sinclair Spectrum 48K.

I loved the Apple II as well but only tinkered a little into the assemble side of it.  I know that wasn't a Zilog based computer.

I remember in the 80's Zilog was about to introduce an advance Z80 called something like z20000 or something (not a product code.)  It may have been the 16bit version.  Never hit the market properly or some other CPU took over sales.

EDIT : Maybe I'm confusing it with the z80000.  http://cpcoxygen.digi-alt.net/magazine/02/z80/z80.htm

.

[pbrennick]

Porkster,
Yes, the Apple 2E used the 6502 (a joy to program) and the Sinclair (TI-99) was a Texas Instrument processor (9900, I think).

Paul

[Porkster]

Sinclair (TI-99) was a Texas Instrument processor (9900, I think).

Hehheh, you obviously had a clone Spectrum.  I think they released the Spectrum in the US under licence to Texas Instruments.

My problem in those days is I would always run out of memory or I would waste too much time making the perfect sound or scroll routine.  My projects were too grand for the technology.

.

[Alloy]

Porkster,

   I think Zilog released the Z8000. I remember TI having the chip but locked it so it was not user programmable. I programmed the Z80 in my first computer, a Sinclair ZX81.

[pbrennick]

Porkster,
I know I am getting old and my memory is failing.  :bdg  But, having said that, I googled it.  The TI-99/4A Home Computer used the TMS9900 16-bit processor, hope this helps.

Paul

[sbrown]

.....

I actually have ambitions of outlasting 512 bit Windows or its successor.  :bg

I'm with you on that one! :wink


Scott

[Bieb]

Wow, the only one of all those CPUs that sounded familiar was the Z80.  I've got one in my calculator, and it was the first chip I ever tried to learn Assembly for (although I soon gave up, I might go back to it some day).