6 ms·

> In many ways, the tuple (BBC Micro, Acorn Computers, arm) is analogous to (IBM PC, Intel, x86) Except the BBC micro didn't use an ARM processor - it used a

> In many ways, the tuple (BBC Micro, Acorn Computers, arm) is analogous to (IBM PC, Intel, x86) Except the BBC micro didn't use an ARM processor - it used a 6502. Whereas the IBM PC did use the Intel processor.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
afandian 1y ago
Depends how nitpicky you want to be. There was an ARM “BBC Micro”. https://www.retro-kit.co.uk/page.cfm/content/Acorn-BBC-Archimedes-A310/ https://www.retro-kit.co.uk/page.cfm/content/Acorn-BBC-Archi... And the IBM PC used an 8088. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer
cperciva 1y ago
Sure, but modern x86 has very little in common with the 8088.
- lproven 1y ago
  > modern x86 has very little in common with the 8088. It is directly binary compatible. A Core i7 can boot and run MS-DOS from the 8088. I offer a freebie DOS distro for modern PCs: https://github.com/lproven/usb-dos https://github.com/lproven/usb-dos What more do you want than "executes the same binaries"?
- mojuba 1y ago
  Depends on how you define "common" but the entire lineage 8080 -> 8086 -> 8088 are backwards compatible and therefore are very much related.
  - klelatti 1y ago
    8080 -> 8086 not compatible although assembly code translation was possible.
    - mananaysiempre 1y ago
      Some parts of the lineage are nevertheless very important. When I wrote a 8086 assembler, I’ve come across the idea of of writing the instruction encodings in octal instead of hexadecimal purely by accident, described as some sort of little-known neat trick hidden from the casual reader of the CPU documentation. It’s only by reading the manual for the Datapoint 2200 much later that I found a confirmation that this was very much intentional and (in the distant past) documented.
      - klelatti 1y ago
        100%! There is clear lineage back to the Datapoint 2200 which is remarkable given that it wasn't even an Intel design and CTC gave away the rights IIRC.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    It goes further back than that, just not as backwards compatible. 4004 -> 8008, 8080 and so on. Just like the 6800, 6809, 68000 etc progression. All of these are families that have more in common with each other from one generation to the next than with other such families. It's logical: usually those were the same teams designing them with better tools and more money at their disposal, as well as a vastly increased transistor budget. Notable exception: the 6800 is in many ways simply an improved 6502 but by a different manufacturer.
    - tonyedgecombe 1y ago
      Another similar exception is the Z80 to the 8080.
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        That's Zilog, not Intel!
        tonyedgecombe 1y ago
        That's the point: >Notable exception: the 6800 is in many ways simply an improved 6502 but by a different manufacturer.
        jacquesm 1y ago
        Ah I see now what you meant.
    - leoc 1y ago
      The 8008 is not a 4004 descendant, though: it was a new design originally done for the Datapoint 2200!
      - klelatti 1y ago
        With Datapoint’s own ISA of course!
      - 1y ago
- userbinator 1y ago
  The 16-bit mode instruction set of a modern x86 is almost entirely a superset of the 8088.
jacquesm 1y ago
Except, of course there was the Archimedes. Which was a BBC Micro on steroids. Besides, it did say 'in many ways' so I think that this is really needless nitpicking.
- taylorius 1y ago
  The Archimedes was called a "BBC Micro" because it was part of the BBC's home computing initiative, but architecturally, it had nothing to do with the original BBC Micro.
  - lproven 1y ago
    > architecturally, it had nothing to do with the original BBC Micro. This is not true. It had lots to do with it. * The Archimedes used a CPU whose designers (Sophie Wilson and Steve Furber) have specifically said they built it to be conceptually similar to the 6502. Source: I have met both and seen them say this in person. * The Archimedes ran RISC OS which is a rewrite of the BBC MOS. Source: I have interviewed the project leader, Paul Fellows. https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/23/how_risc_os_happened/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/23/how_risc_os_happened/ The Archie came with !6052tube and could run some BBC apps. Source code: http://bbc.nvg.org/rom/Acorn/os/?C=N;O=A http://bbc.nvg.org/rom/Acorn/os/?C=N;O=A
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    Hardware architecture not, for very obvious reasons. But if you wrote BBC Basic you'd have felt right at home and this continuity was one of the reasons they sold quite well, lots of people that were using the BBC Micro in ways that it wasn't intended for had run into the limitations of the platform and wanted something similar but bigger and faster. The Archimedes was that - and more. To get maximum performance (still very anemic by today's standards) out of a 6502 based BBC you'd have been programming in assembly and that of course did not port at all to the ARM based machines. As I wrote in another comment I was pretty close to the fire and had very early access to the ARM architecture based beebs courtesy of a friendly contact but I realized soon enough that the future for home computing and SMB business computing did not lie with either Acorn, Atari, Commodore or any of the other contenders. In '88 or so (my memory is a bit hazy about the dates, there was a lot going on in my life back then) I moved to x86 professionally with a side of Atari ST (using the fantastic Mark Williams C compiler + documentation) for more fun stuff and with the advent of the availability of the internet for the masses I ran SGI Irix for a couple of years until I settled on Linux which has been my daily driver for decades now. Hardware architecture used to be a super important factor for me, now the only thing that matters is whether or not I can run Ubuntu and whether the hardware is sufficiently powerful to get me through my working day. The fact that my daily driver is a 12 year old laptop is a nice indication of how far we've come, it is pretty rare that I put together machines where performance really matters. But regardless of all of that I have a fond spot in my heart for the BBC, regardless of processor used, it was the machine that allowed me to finally do some more structured programming and explore other languages without breaking the bank.
Kim_Bruning 1y ago
Sort of true, but yet, what does my eye spy on an early Archimedes A310 keyboard? (detail: https://www.retro-kit.co.uk/user/custom/Acorn/32bit/A310/310-Keyboard-detail.jpg https://www.retro-kit.co.uk/user/custom/Acorn/32bit/A310/310... ) (full article for reference: https://www.retro-kit.co.uk/page.cfm/content/Acorn-BBC-Archimedes-A310/ https://www.retro-kit.co.uk/page.cfm/content/Acorn-BBC-Archi... ) ... and besides, it runs BBC BASIC!
djmips 1y ago
Let's be serious, the BBC micro is awesome but it's no more the ancestor to my phone than an Apple II.
- lproven 1y ago
  > it's no more the ancestor to my phone than an Apple II. It really is. Both Acorn (BBC Micro designers/manufacturers) and Apple Computer (Apple II ditto) bought in the MOS 6502 chip. When it came to successor models, both tried the 65C816. Acorn made the Communicator: https://chrisacorns.computinghistory.org.uk/Computers/Communicator.html https://chrisacorns.computinghistory.org.uk/Computers/Commun... Apple made the Apple IIgs: https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_553246 https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_55324... Both were not delighted with its performance and looked elsewhere. Apple went for the 68000 for its next mass-market model, the Mac. (I am aware the timeline is more complex; this is a simplification.) Acorn evaluated the 68000, the 80186, the NatSemi 16032 and others. It designed its own chip instead: the ARM, Acorn RISC Machine. This was first launched as an add-on accelerator for the BBC Micro. https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/48862/Acorn-1MB-A-Second-Processor/ https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/48862/Acorn-1MB-A-Se... It was later launched as an Acorn computer, running a 32-bit port of Acorn's MOS and BASIC. It included a 6502 emulators and so could run some BBC Micro software. https://www.onirom.fr/wiki/blog/21-04-2022_Acorn-Archimedes/ https://www.onirom.fr/wiki/blog/21-04-2022_Acorn-Archimedes/ That ARM chip is the direct ancestor of the chip in all Android devices, all iOS devices, and modern Macs.
- rjsw 1y ago
  It is a bit closer link than that, the same people designed the BBC micro and ARM1.
  - cesaref 1y ago
    If he'd been talking about the Acorn Archimedes, he'd have had a point.
    - jacquesm 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

afandian 1y ago

Depends how nitpicky you want to be. There was an ARM “BBC Micro”. https://www.retro-kit.co.uk/page.cfm/content/Acorn-BBC-Archimedes-A310/ https://www.retro-kit.co.uk/page.cfm/content/Acorn-BBC-Archi... And the IBM PC used an 8088. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer

cperciva 1y ago

Sure, but modern x86 has very little in common with the 8088.

lproven 1y ago
> modern x86 has very little in common with the 8088. It is directly binary compatible. A Core i7 can boot and run MS-DOS from the 8088. I offer a freebie DOS distro for modern PCs: https://github.com/lproven/usb-dos https://github.com/lproven/usb-dos What more do you want than "executes the same binaries"?
mojuba 1y ago
Depends on how you define "common" but the entire lineage 8080 -> 8086 -> 8088 are backwards compatible and therefore are very much related.
- klelatti 1y ago
  8080 -> 8086 not compatible although assembly code translation was possible.
  - mananaysiempre 1y ago
    Some parts of the lineage are nevertheless very important. When I wrote a 8086 assembler, I’ve come across the idea of of writing the instruction encodings in octal instead of hexadecimal purely by accident, described as some sort of little-known neat trick hidden from the casual reader of the CPU documentation. It’s only by reading the manual for the Datapoint 2200 much later that I found a confirmation that this was very much intentional and (in the distant past) documented.
    - klelatti 1y ago
      100%! There is clear lineage back to the Datapoint 2200 which is remarkable given that it wasn't even an Intel design and CTC gave away the rights IIRC.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  It goes further back than that, just not as backwards compatible. 4004 -> 8008, 8080 and so on. Just like the 6800, 6809, 68000 etc progression. All of these are families that have more in common with each other from one generation to the next than with other such families. It's logical: usually those were the same teams designing them with better tools and more money at their disposal, as well as a vastly increased transistor budget. Notable exception: the 6800 is in many ways simply an improved 6502 but by a different manufacturer.
  - tonyedgecombe 1y ago
    Another similar exception is the Z80 to the 8080.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      That's Zilog, not Intel!
      - tonyedgecombe 1y ago
        That's the point: >Notable exception: the 6800 is in many ways simply an improved 6502 but by a different manufacturer.
        jacquesm 1y ago
        Ah I see now what you meant.
  - leoc 1y ago
    The 8008 is not a 4004 descendant, though: it was a new design originally done for the Datapoint 2200!
    - klelatti 1y ago
      With Datapoint’s own ISA of course!
    - 1y ago
userbinator 1y ago
The 16-bit mode instruction set of a modern x86 is almost entirely a superset of the 8088.

jacquesm 1y ago

Except, of course there was the Archimedes. Which was a BBC Micro on steroids. Besides, it did say 'in many ways' so I think that this is really needless nitpicking.

taylorius 1y ago
The Archimedes was called a "BBC Micro" because it was part of the BBC's home computing initiative, but architecturally, it had nothing to do with the original BBC Micro.
- lproven 1y ago
  > architecturally, it had nothing to do with the original BBC Micro. This is not true. It had lots to do with it. * The Archimedes used a CPU whose designers (Sophie Wilson and Steve Furber) have specifically said they built it to be conceptually similar to the 6502. Source: I have met both and seen them say this in person. * The Archimedes ran RISC OS which is a rewrite of the BBC MOS. Source: I have interviewed the project leader, Paul Fellows. https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/23/how_risc_os_happened/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/23/how_risc_os_happened/ The Archie came with !6052tube and could run some BBC apps. Source code: http://bbc.nvg.org/rom/Acorn/os/?C=N;O=A http://bbc.nvg.org/rom/Acorn/os/?C=N;O=A
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Hardware architecture not, for very obvious reasons. But if you wrote BBC Basic you'd have felt right at home and this continuity was one of the reasons they sold quite well, lots of people that were using the BBC Micro in ways that it wasn't intended for had run into the limitations of the platform and wanted something similar but bigger and faster. The Archimedes was that - and more. To get maximum performance (still very anemic by today's standards) out of a 6502 based BBC you'd have been programming in assembly and that of course did not port at all to the ARM based machines. As I wrote in another comment I was pretty close to the fire and had very early access to the ARM architecture based beebs courtesy of a friendly contact but I realized soon enough that the future for home computing and SMB business computing did not lie with either Acorn, Atari, Commodore or any of the other contenders. In '88 or so (my memory is a bit hazy about the dates, there was a lot going on in my life back then) I moved to x86 professionally with a side of Atari ST (using the fantastic Mark Williams C compiler + documentation) for more fun stuff and with the advent of the availability of the internet for the masses I ran SGI Irix for a couple of years until I settled on Linux which has been my daily driver for decades now. Hardware architecture used to be a super important factor for me, now the only thing that matters is whether or not I can run Ubuntu and whether the hardware is sufficiently powerful to get me through my working day. The fact that my daily driver is a 12 year old laptop is a nice indication of how far we've come, it is pretty rare that I put together machines where performance really matters. But regardless of all of that I have a fond spot in my heart for the BBC, regardless of processor used, it was the machine that allowed me to finally do some more structured programming and explore other languages without breaking the bank.

Kim_Bruning 1y ago

Sort of true, but yet, what does my eye spy on an early Archimedes A310 keyboard? (detail: https://www.retro-kit.co.uk/user/custom/Acorn/32bit/A310/310-Keyboard-detail.jpg https://www.retro-kit.co.uk/user/custom/Acorn/32bit/A310/310... ) (full article for reference: https://www.retro-kit.co.uk/page.cfm/content/Acorn-BBC-Archimedes-A310/ https://www.retro-kit.co.uk/page.cfm/content/Acorn-BBC-Archi... ) ... and besides, it runs BBC BASIC!

djmips 1y ago

Let's be serious, the BBC micro is awesome but it's no more the ancestor to my phone than an Apple II.

lproven 1y ago
> it's no more the ancestor to my phone than an Apple II. It really is. Both Acorn (BBC Micro designers/manufacturers) and Apple Computer (Apple II ditto) bought in the MOS 6502 chip. When it came to successor models, both tried the 65C816. Acorn made the Communicator: https://chrisacorns.computinghistory.org.uk/Computers/Communicator.html https://chrisacorns.computinghistory.org.uk/Computers/Commun... Apple made the Apple IIgs: https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_553246 https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_55324... Both were not delighted with its performance and looked elsewhere. Apple went for the 68000 for its next mass-market model, the Mac. (I am aware the timeline is more complex; this is a simplification.) Acorn evaluated the 68000, the 80186, the NatSemi 16032 and others. It designed its own chip instead: the ARM, Acorn RISC Machine. This was first launched as an add-on accelerator for the BBC Micro. https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/48862/Acorn-1MB-A-Second-Processor/ https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/48862/Acorn-1MB-A-Se... It was later launched as an Acorn computer, running a 32-bit port of Acorn's MOS and BASIC. It included a 6502 emulators and so could run some BBC Micro software. https://www.onirom.fr/wiki/blog/21-04-2022_Acorn-Archimedes/ https://www.onirom.fr/wiki/blog/21-04-2022_Acorn-Archimedes/ That ARM chip is the direct ancestor of the chip in all Android devices, all iOS devices, and modern Macs.
rjsw 1y ago
It is a bit closer link than that, the same people designed the BBC micro and ARM1.
- cesaref 1y ago
  If he'd been talking about the Acorn Archimedes, he'd have had a point.
  - jacquesm 1y ago