Machine Forth Mail List Archive

MachineForth is the native assembler for MISC chips and the virtual machine for most ColorForth implementations.

4/22/01

Jeff Fox wrote:
> 
> Dear ColorForth and MachineForth list readers:
> 
> I have recently expanded the UltraTechnology Streaming Video Theater
> http://www.UltraTechnology.com/rmvideo.htm
> with the contents of several CD.  Chuck's latest presentation and a
> number of older presentations are now online and all the Machine
> Forth tutorials that have been done so far are also online.  I have
> also included all the videos of Dr. Ting and John Rible.  I will
> add more videos at some time in the future.
> 
> Jeff Fox
> 
> Michael Alyn Miller wrote:
> >
> > Hi, folks,
> >
> > With help from Penio Penev, the original maintainer of the MISC list, my
> > archive of MISC messages is now complete.  You can access it at:
> >
> >   http://www.strangeGizmo.com/forth/MISC/
> >
> > This is a first attempt at putting the messages online.  I want to clean
> > up the message view and get the list screen paging, but I wanted to have
> > the archive available as soon as possible.
> >
> > Let me know if you have any questions, problems, etc.
> >
> > Michael Alyn Miller

6/01/01
Jeff Fox wrote:
> 
> http://www.mindspring.com/~chipchuck
> 

6/03/01
Dirk Heise wrote:
> 
> > Von: Michael A. Losh 
> 
> > In the current issue of Wired (July 2001), there is an article about
> IBM's
> > Blue Gene machine,
> [...]
> 
> IBM's a great company, i have stocks! They do amazing research.
> Didn't know about the BlueGene, though. Nice name.
> 
> > his chips can do to a bare minimum... 'we found an amazing thing... all
> we
> > ever saw used were the same 50 or 60 or 70 instructions' [in program
> traces
> > of other IBM chips]".
> 
> Huh, pretty amazing every time it's rediscovered, isn't it? ;-)
> 
> All this looks very much like what the transputers were about.
> 
> Probably IBM builds it with 27 copper layers on stretched silicon,
> using black hole quantum points for the interconnection, and one
> chip is delivered for 100000 $, you get an atomic force microscope as
> a bonus, while Chuck tries to sell it for 1 $ but finds noone who's
> interested except for a chinese speaking doll manufacturer... and the
> press will go berzerk about the BlueGene. Maybe good for my IBM
> stock...
> 
> Dirk

Waynesma wrote:
> 
> The Misc world seems to be developing in strange and
> unexpected ways all other the place.  Well even an x18
> on it's own would be a usefull chip (I can think of
> one low volumne group who would be over the moon if it
> was connected to their machine {: ) .
> 
> Congradulations to Chuck, does this mean he's not
> working under iTV at the moment?  The x25 is excellent
> for it's application. Pity 32-bit Misc never came out,
> it would make an excellent front end controller for
> the beast.
> 
> If you look on the news list of www.Tomshardware.com
> last week their in a new simple and cheap ebbeded dram
> process.  It offers 400Mhz-1Ghz e-dram that far
> outstips cost effectiveness of any emmbeded sram type.
>  I thought of Misc when I read it.
> 
> Thanks Chuck.
> 
> Wayne.

Dirk Heise wrote:
> 
> > Von: Waynesma 
> > An: MachineForth List Member 
> > Betreff: [MachineForth] Chuck's 25x and IBM's Blue Gene
> > Datum: Dienstag, 3. Juli 2001 18:08
> >
> > The Misc world seems to be developing in strange and
> > unexpected ways all other the place.  Well even an x18
> > on it's own would be a usefull chip (I can think of
> > one low volumne group who would be over the moon if it
> > was connected to their machine {: ) .
> 
> This leads me to a question. Like everyone and his brother,
> i have a lot of CPUs laying around, non of which is a Risc
> or a Misc CPU, and surely no stack machines. So i'm writing
> my own Forth dialect and gonna implement it on the various
> platforms (some PCs, an RCX (H8 CPU, AFAIK register-based)
> and maybe a Gameboy Color(Z80 lookalike)).
> And if i'm good, i'll get a performance
> of about 1 Forth instruction per 10 machine instructions.
> 
> So, if there would be some cheap board with a Misc or Stack
> based CPU, or some consumer product i can rip such a beast
> off, i'd expect a much better match to the language. Is
> there really no such CPU on the market? I can make my own
> board if necessary, so the chip would suffice. Does anyone
> here have pointers? I can't spend a fortune, so it must be
> cost effective. Hobby for now. Maybe an FPGA based design.
> But looking on sites like opencores.org or how they're called,
> it looks like there's nothing Misc-like on the "GPLed hardware"
> design front at the moment. They seem to be busy cloning
> industrial cores like the ARM, using a whopping 22K gates
> for a CPU core. That's not what i'm seeking.
> 
> Anybody here who got a Misc design working at home, be it a
> stock CPU, an FPGA or whatever without being a full time
> chip designer?
> 
> And is iTVc still in operation?
> 
> Dirk Heise
> dheiseNOdebitelSPAMnet

Jeff Fox wrote:
> 
> Waynesma wrote:
> 
> > Well even an x18
> > on it's own would be a usefull chip (I can think of
> > one low volumne group who would be over the moon if it
> > was connected to their machine {: ) .
> 
> It does offer exceptionally low power and high
> performance.  The external 4ns memories are
> easily obtainable and easy to connect.  But to take
> full advantage one might want to get a custom version
> of the 1ns on-chip ROM w/ your app. done by Chuck.
> I like the instruction set. ;-)
> 
> > Congradulations to Chuck, does this mean he's not
> > working under iTV at the moment?
> 
> Yes.  As he said at the very beginning of his
> last presentation to FIG on OKAD II iTV had no
> interest in a rewrite of his CAD software in
> Forth or in any new chip designs by him.  So
> he got a new computer and began working on his
> own on a project where some people had expressed
> interest.  He said they were nice people but
> just not interested in his stuff.
> 
> > The x25 is excellent for it's application.
> > Pity 32-bit Misc never came out, it would make an
> > excellent front end controller for the beast.
> 
> Most likely a Pentium type machine will be used.
> Chuck would most likely use ColorForth.  Other people
> plan to use some industrial strength software
> like BSD.
> 
> > If you look on the news list of www.Tomshardware.com
> 
> Nice site.  I liked the $1700 15" 3D LCD display and
> the 128MB flash stamp,   I was not impressed that Intel
> only gets 1G out of 0.13u technology however. I wonder
> what Chuck's designs would do if scaled from 1.8u
> to 0.13u.  Chuck Moore's law seems different than
> Gordon Moore's law.

6/4/01
Keith Wootten wrote:
> 
> In message  rg>, Dirk Heise  writes
> 
> [snipped]
> 
> >This leads me to a question.
> 
> >So, if there would be some cheap board with a Misc or Stack
> >based CPU, or some consumer product i can rip such a beast
> >off, i'd expect a much better match to the language. Is
> >there really no such CPU on the market? I can make my own
> >board if necessary, so the chip would suffice. Does anyone
> >here have pointers?
> 
> Hi Dirk,
> 
> Patriot Scientific make dual stack Forth engine (which they're trying to
> push as a Java chip) which is based on a Chuck Moore design and has some
> MISC-like features, albeit in a synchronous design.
> 
> It's 32bit 100MHz 3.3V 100pin for $25 one-off, loads four 8bit
> instructions at a time from 32bit memory and many of the opcodes are
> Forth primitives.  I've been using it for a while now, and it works well
> - as far as I know there are no Silicon bugs.  It performs around 100
> Forth MIPS, which isn't up to Jeff and Chuck's offerings, but it's
> stable and inexpensive.
> 
> It's called the PSC1000A or Ignite1 - they make an evaluation board, but
> I've designed three boards using it, and it's quite easy.  Forth Inc
> sell an ANS Forth compiler for it; I use my own written using Win32Forth
> which isn't ANS at all.
> 
> Patriot are at http://www.ptsc.com but you'd need to contact them for a
> full technical manual (.pdf file) which they no longer have on their
> 'improved' WebSite, or I could email you the 1.5MB file if you wish.
> 
> Cheers
> --
> Keith Wootten

Jeff Fox wrote:
> 
> Dirk Heise wrote:
> > So, if there would be some cheap board with a Misc or Stack
> > based CPU, or some consumer product i can rip such a beast
> > off, i'd expect a much better match to the language. Is
> > there really no such CPU on the market? I can make my own
> > board if necessary, so the chip would suffice. Does anyone
> > here have pointers? I can't spend a fortune, so it must be
> > cost effective. Hobby for now. Maybe an FPGA based design.
> 
> X18 and 25x has the same instruction set as F21 but there
> are only a few prototype F21.  But for evaluation purposes
> the simulators and emulators run ROMs, provide
> various profiling and diagnostic capabilities for your
> code, and come with built in MachineForths.
> 
> P21 has nearly the same instruction set, it does not have
> @R+ !R+ and 2/ leaves two bits unchanged.  P21 has been
> available since 94 for $25 in one of.  P21h has been
> available since 95 for $40. Both have $100 kits or
> you can make boards which basically require routing
> chip select and address and data busses between chips.
> 
> X18 has stacks that are about as deep as F21 while P21
> has very shallow stacks only 6/4 cells deep.  This
> makes P21 an excellent trainging machine.  If you
> are used to the idea that C or Windows needs
> megabytes of stacks, and Forth only needs kilobytes
> of stacks you can get used to the idea that
> Forth only needs a few stack cells.  If you get
> used to that the x18 and 25x will seem like they
> have very large stacks.
> 
> P21 and F21 are different than x18 in having an
> extra bit on the stacks.  There are free emulators
> and simulators, lots of example code in MachineForth
> and extensive tutorial information. This makes x18
> simpler and a closer map to the ANS model.
> 
> You can also get Ting's CD with FPGA sources for
> P8, P16, and P24, MachineForths, eForths, and
> various older manuals.  If you like to play with
> those you could roll your own P18 in FPGA.  There
> is also John Rible's QSP16 and other people's
> FPGA designs if you want to that route.  An old
> P16 FPGA source is online.
> 
> > Anybody here who got a Misc design working at home, be it a
> > stock CPU, an FPGA or whatever without being a full time
> > chip designer?
> 
> Yes. P21 ceramic dips, P21 plastic dips, P21h PLCC,
> and F21d CLCC variants as well as the simulators
> and emulators.  No free complete x18 or 25x emulators
> at the present time but that would take a few hours.
> 
> > And is iTVc still in operation?
> 
> Yes. They have other active projects.

Jeff Fox wrote:
> 
> Keith Wootten wrote:
> > Patriot Scientific make dual stack Forth engine
> > which is based on a Chuck Moore design and has some
> > MISC-like features, albeit in a synchronous design.
> 
> The decade of work they to move the hardware away
> from MISC and toward Java and C support make the
> chip far more complex than Chuck's original ShBoom
> but does provide byte addressing etc. etc.
> The programmable hardware stack memory spill/fill
> mechanism makes it quite different than Chuck's later
> MISC designs where that is software only.  Most
> of the larger instruction set could be
> supported in a simple MachineForth compiler style.
> 
> > It's 32bit 100MHz 3.3V 100pin for $25 one-off, loads four 8bit
> > instructions at a time from 32bit memory and many of the opcodes
> > are Forth primitives.  I've been using it for a while now, and
> > it works well - as far as I know there are no Silicon bugs.
> > It performs around 100 Forth MIPS, which isn't up to Jeff and
> > Chuck's offerings, but it's stable and inexpensive.
> 
> But it is production not prototype.  P21 which is about
> the same price has a similar max clock rate but has
> only analog composite video I/O built in while the
> PSC1000 chip has a DMA engine like the old ShBoom.
> P21 has no interrupts or other I/O hardware so it
> requires memory mapped I/O interfaces w/ CPU polling.
> PSC1000 is wider at 32 bits and has more instructions
> and I/O so it is more powerful.
> 
> > It's called the PSC1000A or Ignite1 - they make an
> > evaluation board,
> 
> Which is inexpensive for hobby use.
> 
> > but I've designed three boards using it, and it's quite easy.
> 
> That's nice to hear.
> 
> > Forth Inc sell an ANS Forth compiler for it; I use
> > my own written using Win32Forth which isn't ANS at all.
> 
> Forth Inc.'s SwiftX and SwiftX Pro with optimizer
> should  produce screaming code and can run lots of
> standard ANS code.  But the do cost as much as an
> F21 prototype or several of them.  I don't know if
> they come with an evaluation board.  I know many
> of their SwiftX bundles do.
> 
> > Patriot are at http://www.ptsc.com but you'd need to
> > contact them for a full technical manual (.pdf file)
> > which they no longer have on their 'improved' WebSite,
> > or I could email you the 1.5MB file if you wish.
> 
> Could you shoot me off a reference copy?  (not via
> the mail list.. ;-)

Waynesma wrote:
> 
>  --- Jeff Fox  wrote: >
> Waynesma wrote:
> >
> > > Well even an x18
> > > on it's own would be a usefull chip (I can think
> > of
> > > one low volumne group who would be over the moon
> > if it
> > > was connected to their machine {: ) .
> >
> > It does offer exceptionally low power and high
> > performance.  The external 4ns memories are
> > easily obtainable and easy to connect.  But to take
> > full advantage one might want to get a custom
> > version
> > of the 1ns on-chip ROM w/ your app. done by Chuck.
> > I like the instruction set. ;-)
> 
> I don't even need that, the 2400Mip ram should be fast
> enough for basic floating point.  I have only two sets
> of routines I would stick in Rom, but sram is just as
> good, so except for a enhanced serial boot loader
> (from Rom and flash) I don't need it.
> 
> >From all thats said and done I guess that the x-18
> hasn't been prototyped and hasn't become available
> yet?
> 
> I remember Sir Clive Sinclair invested heavily in a
> parrallel Misc type concept with serial bus on a wafer
> in the late 80's and early 90's, he would probably be
> interesrted in such technology (as he still hasn't got
> it to market).
> 
> Still keep in mind:
> That 400Mhz-1Ghz cheap edram.  It might be of interest
> to investrors in a future design.
> http://www.eetimes.com/story/industry/semiconductor_news/OEG20010620S0056
> 
> While I was looking it up I came accross these:
> 
> Sub-Minature 333Mhz+ DDR
> http://www.tomshardware.com/technews/technews-20010626.html
> 
> IBM's 210Ghz silicon transistor process.
> http://www.ibm.com/news/2001/06/25.phtml
> 
> If companies like this can pay the inventor of Pascal
> 1 Million dollers (from an article 20 years ago that
> interveiwed and profiled Pascal inventor and Chuck) to
> come and research with them, surely one of them could
> pay Chuck to research with their high speed processes,
> or to help him setup another company to do it.
> Imagine where AMD, IBM or Sony would be with the
> resulting products?
> 
> > > Congradulations to Chuck, does this mean he's not
> > > working under iTV at the moment?
> >
> > Yes.  As he said at the very beginning of his
> > last presentation to FIG on OKAD II iTV had no
> > interest in a rewrite of his CAD software in
> > Forth or in any new chip designs by him.  So
> > he got a new computer and began working on his
> > own on a project where some people had expressed
> > interest.  He said they were nice people but
> > just not interested in his stuff.
> 
> Maybe he could become involved in some alternative
> technology, say Optical computing.
> 
> > only gets 1G out of 0.13u technology however. I
> > wonder
> > what Chuck's designs would do if scaled from 1.8u
> > to 0.13u.  Chuck Moore's law seems different than
> > Gordon Moore's law.
> > ------------------------
> 
> Out of curiosity, are they somehow distantly related ?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Wayne.

Jeff Fox wrote:
> 
> Waynesma wrote:
> > Still keep in mind:
> > That 400Mhz-1Ghz cheap edram.  It might be of interest
> > to investrors in a future design.
> 
> I have little idea any more what investors want
> they seem to want tried and true, proven, technology
> in wide use and don't want to risk being first at anything.
> 
> They have 400Mhz in 0.15u and 600Mhz to 1G in 0.13u
> while Chuck is saying 1G at .18u so he is still 
> ahead because of his improved
> transistor model and superior layout technique.
> That is transistor level.  At the chip level his
> approach and language ideas translate into more
> compact elegant code and much smaller nodes with
> much fewer transitors.
> 
> > IBM's 210Ghz silicon transistor process.
> > http://www.ibm.com/news/2001/06/25.phtml.
> 
> He has talked with folks with exotic technology
> with 1000000 Ghz transistors who wanted to see
> what his designs would do on that.  100M Mips per
> node with 3D fabrication and no heat issues?
> But Chuck is still working with commonly available
> silicon fabrication in 1.8u.
> 
> > > Chuck Moore's law seems different than
> > > Gordon Moore's law.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, are they somehow distantly related ?
> 
> I don't think so. Chuck might have mentioned it
> or gotten better funding.
> 
> I saw a presentation by Gordon at a NASA conference
> on parallel processing and the grand challange problems.
> I thought Gordon was very funny, entertaining, and
> politically incorrect like Chuck.  He scolded all
> these NASA scientists for wasting all his tax money
> trying to outspend each other.  It sounded like what
> I say about the PC industry marketing strategy, but of
> course they do have absurd budgets and their status is
> all about who can spend more of our tax money.
> 
> Gordon also said that he was president of the "Don't
> Behead Workstations Society."  He felt that putting
> workstations on rack to make workstation farms and
> removing their monitors and keyboards was cruel and
> should not be allowed.  It reminded me of Chuck
> questioning if turning of a PC was ethical. ;-)


7/05/01
Waynesma wrote:
> 
>  --- Jeff Fox  wrote: >
> Waynesma wrote:
> > > Still keep in mind:
> > > That 400Mhz-1Ghz cheap edram.  It might be of
> > interest
> > > to investrors in a future design.
> 
> > I have little idea any more what investors want
> > they seem to want tried and true, proven, technology
> > in wide use and don't want to risk being first at
> > anything.
> 
> Well this technology is meant to replace the current
> widely used technologies with many advantages.  Unless
> something better upstages it I think they definitely
> are going to succeed due to amrket demand.
> 
> >
> > They have 400Mhz in 0.15u and 600Mhz to 1G in 0.13u
> > while Chuck is saying 1G at .18u so he is still 
> > ahead because of his improved
> > transistor model and superior layout technique.
> > That is transistor level.  At the chip level his
> > approach and language ideas translate into more
> > compact elegant code and much smaller nodes with
> > much fewer transitors.
> 
> True, but it offers attreactive cheap high
> density/performance memory options for high end
> investors who want cheap large megabyte memory on
> chip.  But until somebody with money and access to the
> technologuy comes it wouldn't cost much as an option.
> 
> >
> > > IBM's 210Ghz silicon transistor process.
> > > http://www.ibm.com/news/2001/06/25.phtml
> > 
> I'm just mentioning it in passing (as IBM won't even
> use it commercially as common technology itself for a
> few years), but it would be interesting to see what
> they are doing and what Chuck could do with it
> instead.
> 
> I still think that the x25, extremely good (of course
> we may not even see this for a while).  A x25 with a
> P64 (sorry still want monolithic Linux type OS) as a
> front end processor (with Floating point/DSP/3D
> Graphic routines in X25 ROMs) would give almost any
> desktop a run for it's money.  Has Chuck ever
> considered approaching some of the minor (hopefull)
> players in the handheld video game industry, there has
> been a number out there wanting to do systems?  An
> x-25 with P32 front end would be great for a handheld,
> and cost less money than a strong Arm.  Some 3D
> systems and VOS's scale beutifully when extra
> Parrallel processign power is added.  A module system
> could be made to accept additional proccessors to
> increase graphical performane, for 10 dollers the user
> would stack x-25's.  Really, with the right functional
> mix the X25 style chip array would make a greatly
> competitive console that could emulate games machines
> or run virtual code.  At the risk of promoting
> competitors, the Toas based Amiga VOS is good and
> should have much software shortly, and a port ot the
> x25 would allow the x25 to tap into that software.
> 
> > > Maybe he could become involved in some alternative
> > > technology, say Optical computing.
> >
> > He has talked with folks with exotic technology
> > with 1000000 Ghz transistors who wanted to see
> > what his designs would do on that.  100M Mips per
> > node with 3D fabrication and no heat issues?
> > But Chuck is still working with commonly available
> > silicon fabrication in 1.8u.
> 
> Thats a shame, so they aren't interested in hiring
> him.  It would be a crowning acheivement in the
> computer industry.
> 
> >
> > > > Chuck Moore's law seems different than
> > > > Gordon Moore's law.
> > >
> > > Out of curiosity, are they somehow distantly
> > related ?
> >
> > I don't think so. Chuck might have mentioned it
> > or gotten better funding.
> 
> :)
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Wayne.

Jeff Fox wrote:
> 
> Waynesma wrote:
> > Well this technology is meant to replace the current
> > widely used technologies with many advantages.  Unless
> > something better upstages it I think they definitely
> > are going to succeed due to amrket demand.
> 
> Yes, Wayne.  I have no doubt that they will get
> funding and will succeed in the market place.
> I did not question that they will get support
> or even that they will get bandwidth in a
> MachineForth mail list which I don't quite
> understand since I just don't see what their
> funding or market sucess has to do with MachineForth.
> 
> > True, but it offers attreactive cheap high
> > density/performance memory options for high end
> > investors who want cheap large megabyte memory on
> > chip.
> 
> You are pitching the inferior technologies that
> will most likely suceed while MISC will not.  They
> have inferior technology but funding and your
> support in pitching these technologies even to
> the few people interested in MISC and in learning
> about MachineForth programming.  Why keep rubbing
> it in people's faces?
> 
> > But until somebody with money and access to the
> > technologuy comes it wouldn't cost much as an option.
> 
> Then by all means, pitch it to the high end
> investors in this mail list who might otherwise
> consider Chuck's technology or have interest in it.
> 
> > I'm just mentioning it in passing (as IBM won't even
> > use it commercially as common technology itself for a
> > few years), but it would be interesting to see what
> > they are doing and what Chuck could do with it
> > instead.
> 
> It looks more like repeated pitching than mentioning
> in passing to me.  I would think it would be a better
> fit to a blue sky hardware design list than the
> MachineForth programming mail list.  But I am not
> a list moderator or anything.  If this list is
> not about MachineForth programming I might just
> unsubscribe.
> 
> > I still think that the x25, extremely good (of course
> > we may not even see this for a while).  A x25 with a
> > P64 (sorry still want monolithic Linux type OS) as a
> > front end processor (with Floating point/DSP/3D
> > Graphic routines in X25 ROMs) would give almost any
> > desktop a run for it's money.
> 
> They by all means, save enough money to fund
> prototyping a dozen runs of large chips and to
> advertize and market them then do it. Pitching it
> to people in a MachineForth mail list is not likely
> to produce the funding or interest in 64 bit
> UNIX/3D/floating point chips needed to make that
> more than BlueSky.  It seems more like
> a subject for the a hardware wish list list.  I
> just don't see the relevance to MachineForth
> programming.  Which is what I thought this mail
> list was for.
> 
> > Has Chuck ever
> > considered approaching some of the minor (hopefull)
> > players in the handheld video game industry, there has
> > been a number out there wanting to do systems?
> 
> Ting is involved with companies interested in games
> in Taiwan and has invited the Forth community to
> get involved in the project and modify the MISC
> designs he has published or to write code in
> MachineForth or eForth.
> 
> The problem that I see with game machines is that
> they may only cost millions to develop but they usually
> require billions in advertizing and billions in
> marketing budgets to make them available at
> very low wholesale prices if not below cost to keep
> retail prices low after retail markup as a way to
> sell the media.  The media also has high marketing
> costs but is where the money is.  I always thought
> it was funny that a commerical could cost much more
> to make than the game it avertizes and the cost
> to run it is much more than the cost to make it is
> much more than the cost to write which required
> developing and marketing the hardware in the first
> place.  Once again, if you have a way to raise
> those billions and do all that great.  I just
> don't see how pitching it to people intersted
> in MachineForth programming will do that.
> 
> > An x-25 with P32 front end would be great for a handheld,
> > and cost less money than a strong Arm.  Some 3D
> > systems and VOS's scale beutifully when extra
> > Parrallel processign power is added.  A module system
> > could be made to accept additional proccessors to
> > increase graphical performane, for 10 dollers the user
> > would stack x-25's.  Really, with the right functional
> > mix the X25 style chip array would make a greatly
> > competitive console that could emulate games machines
> 
> True.  True.  True.  I always felt that with the
> extra power compared to conventional designs and with
> things like Chuck's software that the same hardware
> could make a education machine that could teach
> people about computers and programming instead of
> teaching kids to shoot other kids or learning how
> to be an evil hedgehog and conquer the world.  But
> I know that pitching such ideas to poor programmers
> is not going to produce the billions needed to
> compete in a marketplace that is mostly about
> marketing budgets.
> 
> > or run virtual code.  At the risk of promoting
> > competitors, the Toas based Amiga VOS is good and
> > should have much software shortly, and a port ot the
> > x25 would allow the x25 to tap into that software.
> 
> If there is a risk to using the MachineForth mail
> list to promote competing products it is that it
> will drive the few people with any interest in
> MachineForth away.  But it is easier to leave than
> to argue with you about using these mail lists
> to promote the competition.
> 
> You are pitching it to the wrong people.  Telling
> people interested in MachineForth programming does
> not seem to me to be a way to promote that.  Have
> you spent a similar amount of time pitching the
> idea to Amiga?  Are they receptive to the idea?
> Any interest there in such things?  Are they
> waiting for this technology to become more mainstream?
> Do you want other MachineForth programmers to stop
> programming and spend time promoting these ideas?
> 
> > > optical stuff...
> >
> > Thats a shame, so they aren't interested in hiring
> > him.
> 
> I didn't say that.  You are making assumptions.
> Chuck enjoys his work on silicon and on computers
> to educate and empower individuals and has not
> shown a great deal of interest in giving up on
> silicon for civilian projects yet.
> 
> But I will quit complaining about the list
> being used to promote the competition.

Jeff Fox wrote:
> 
> I resubscribed long enough to post this
> retraction of my errors on the scale issues.
> Some people are talking .08 so that is only
> about 2x smaller than the .18 available now.
> 
> And sure some researchers are making really
> small experimental stuff that will change the
> picture when it becomes production stuff.

7/06/01
Waynesma wrote:
> 
> To everybody I would like to apologise for this silly
> waste of space in replying to this, and others. This
> is intended to be the last reply and message in the
> list.  I love positive and truthful things like Misc
> and even barracking for them, but some things are too
> much to deal with and best left alone before they lead
> you along into an ambush (like this time).  I have
> other work to do that probably, in the end, will
> benefit Misc, so I don't have time to get into this.
> 
> Only the first page is relevant for most of us:
> 
> - I replied to a non machine Forth thread (first mistake).
> 
> - I made comments in passing (except e-dram comment)
> which are about offering options, that are low cost
> "carrot" design/service options until an investor
> wants to pay for detailed design and prototyping etc
> (options that the real market can take notice of and
> ‘dish' their money out for).  Instead this has been
> confused with the experience of 'paying for it all yourself'.
> 
> - The primary offering has no competitive Misc
> alternative (cheap on chip, high density and high speed memory).
>
> - Rather than leave them at that the thread starter
> misreads them, and I have follow up to clear up
> misunderstandings, which promotes said person to make
> more misunderstandings.
> 
> - Why: doesn't some people seem to want others to win,
> or to leave it alone till they have won dominance over
> others; all the carping on; do they object to
> explanations when they make mistaken comments against
> somebody else?  Why is the only way out is to pack it
> in and let these people think they have ‘won' and are
> right, when they haven't.  Why do some other people
> have to answer to do the right thing, support the
> truth and to clear things up.  Seems like an episode
> for the X files.  Why don't the people adopt the above
> approach to the first lot of people when they get
> like this, and just ignore and drop it.
> 
> 
> Machine Forth (and Misc) related suggestions:
> - The market reality is: if you want to make the money
> give them something people will invest in and that
> others will buy (it doesn't have to be something they
> think they want at the moment).  These product can
> also be made to do what you want as a sideline, or
> they can pay for what you want to do.
> 
> - Forth is both a commercial and enthusiast community
> and Misc and machine forth are both research and a
> hobby.  If you want Machine Forth to be more than a
> hobby then Machine Forth and Misc has to offer support
> for a broad range of commercially viable applications
> and as one of it's languages Color Forth as well (but
> still on a minimalist scale).  This support is
> increasingly the abstract managed support used in
> modern OS's.  We are moving towards a managed ‘do any
> group of things at anytime' form of computing across
> the board, and new commercial applications will
> increasingly require the resource management for this.
> Dr Ting's present commercial venture and 6 Bit
> instructions have the right idea.  People want
> commercial applications to invest in.
> 
> 
> Yes it does say that I am unsubscribing below, I think
> somebody misread who was going to leave as a result of
> ‘their" thread.
> 
> The rest of the comments below are basically in reply
> to Jeff's comments and are (as well as those in this
> whole message) of course purely my personal opinion.
> 
> So you don't have to read on if you don't want to.
> 
>
> Jeff Fox wrote:
> > Yes, Wayne.  I have no doubt that they will get
> > funding and will succeed in the market place.
> > I did not question that they will get support
> > or even that they will get bandwidth in a
> > MachineForth mail list which I don't quite
> > understand since I just don't see what their
> > funding or market success has to do with MachineForth.
> >
> Yes Jeff is sniping again about positive comments in
> passing made concerning the topic of his email to this
> list that was not about machine forth.  He has not
> figured out that I have only just taken him off my
> kill file (on both accounts) a few days that I have
> had him in since Christmas last year (only about the
> second person in there in 4 years).  It appears that
> likes making mistaken comments against what others say
> and objecting to explanations.  I guess the only way
> to let him go is to let him think his right.  Never
> the less a lack of foresight into realities of the
> market (such as "carrot" Misc options mentioned to
> people that might offer them, rather than "high end
> investors) is what keeps Misc/Machine Forth back.
> Chuck makes assertions in his color forth web pages
> about OS's and code that I almost entirely agree with,
> but this doesn't include some of the realities of
> modern computer usage (plug in anything and do any
> group of things at the same time) which require a bit
> of management (though not anywhere near or 100Mb of
> management :( or even probably 1 Mb).
> 
> > > True, but it offers attreactive cheap high
> > > density/performance memory options for high end
> > > investors who want cheap large megabyte memory on
> > > chip.
> > >
> > You are pitching the inferior technologies that
> > will most likely suceed while MISC will not.  They
> He has no competitive alternative, you are sniping
> again.  This is just a bullet in the arsenal"carrot"
> for investors, that's it.
> 
> > about MachineForth programming.  Why keep rubbing
> > it in people's faces?
> 
> A credible side comment that was meant to be the last,
> any other posts where just to clear up mistaken assertions.
> 
> > It looks more like repeated pitching than mentioning
> 
> Pitching, I don't make anything out of it but Misc,
> Misc/Machine Forth does.
> 
> 
> > > I still think that the x25, extremely good (of course
> > > we may not even see this for a while).  A x25 with a
> 
> > P64 (sorry still want monolithic Linux type OS) as a
> > > front end processor (with Floating point/DSP/3D
> > > Graphic routines in X25 ROMs) would give almost any
> > > desktop a run for it's money.
> >
> > They by all means, save enough money to fund
> > prototyping a dozen runs of large chips and to
> I've got to answer this, as an design option no
> prototyping has to be done until an investor offers,
> so cost are minimal, as an comment it doesn't need to
> be even answered.
> 
> >
> > > Has Chuck ever considered approaching some of the minor
> > > (hopeful) players in the handheld video game industry, there
> > place.  Once again, if you have a way to raise
> > those billions and do all that great.  I just
> Once again I didn't say that, you can merely offer
> your design/service to these people (who have access
> to money) and they will probably want to do the rest.
> 
> > don't see how pitching it to people interested
> > in MachineForth programming will do that.
> Sorry was just "pitching" it to this misc thread
> somebody started.  I received probably 4 messages off
> of this list the whole year before this discussion
> including non machine forth messages from one person.
> 
> 
> > > An x-25 with P32 front end would be great for a handheld,
> > > and cost less money than a strong Arm.  Some 3D
> > > systems and VOS's scale beutifully when extra
> > > Parrallel processign power is added.  A module system
> > > could be made to accept additional proccessors to
> > > increase graphical performane, for 10 dollers the user
> > > would stack x-25's.  Really, with the right functional
> > > mix the X25 style chip array would make a greatly
> > > competitive console that could emulate games machines
> > >
> > True.  True.  True.  I always felt that with the
> > extra power compared to conventional designs and with
> > things like Chuck's software that the same hardware
> > could make a education machine that could teach
> > people about computers and programming instead of
> > teaching kids to shoot other kids or learning how
> > to be an evil hedgehog and conquer the world.  But 
> > I know that pitching such ideas to poor programmers
> > is not going to produce the billions needed to
> > compete in a marketplace that is mostly about
> > marketing budgets.
> 
> Yes, reality marketable games sell, and you can use it
> to produce a machine that can be used for other purposes.
> 
> >
> > > or run virtual code.  At the risk of promoting
> > > competitors, the Toas based Amiga VOS is good and
> > > should have much software shortly, and a port ot the
> > > x25 would allow the x25 to tap into that software.
> >
> > If there is a risk to using the MachineForth mail
> > list to promote competing products it is that it
> To my VOS design, not machine Forth, Taos is a minimal
> function operating system that allows you to a spread
> of activities that require management.
> 
> 
> > > > optical stuff...
> > >
> > > That's a shame, so they aren't interested in hiring him.
> > 
> > I didn't say that.  You are making assumptions.
> I didn't put an question mark after that because I
> knew you would take it negatively if I did, so I left
> it off.  Why don't you want anybody else to win or to
> leave them alone till you won complete dominance.
> I'm not some spotted little kid you can pick on and bully
> with "assumptions" enough of this bickering nonsense
> that is why I gave up the Misc community, market
> unreality, sniping and etc.  Of course I am
> unsubscribing from this list and this is the last
> message, but if you want to succeed then take this
> advice.  Every Misc market suggestion I made has been
> taken up (FGPA, Internet Web (but to late), stamp etc
> etc), those people have been and are going somewhere.
> I wanted to prototype a Palm Pilot type product but
> with a much better solution than their Graffiti
> handwriting recognition, and that was years before
> they came out with the Pilot.  I have made a string of
> predictions about company and product futures years
> before the event, that keep coming true.  If I've
> known more about certain people I would not have
> respectably and loyally waited around for them, hoping
> that they get over there business ‘difficulties'.
> Don't criticise people because they have bigger glass
> balls than you.
> 
> 
> > silicon for civilian projects yet.
> 
> If it's a "salvation Army" you want, I have a better
> cause in that direction, and little time for this.
> Products out there pay for what you want to do.  If
> you want to do this then follow Tings example, aim for
> products in the hand that will financially enable you
> to do what you want or can be made into the products
> you desire.  If you want a educational machine give it
> web/gaming or whatever other functions that will at
> least allow it to be produced.

7/26/01
martin wrote:
> When this list was started in March, there was not much of a description of
> the scope of the list.  So here is an update.
> 
> The MachineForth mailing list is about the native assembler for MISC chips
> (P8, P16, P21, P24   F21, x18 & 25x) and is also the virtual machine model
> beneath most ColorForth implementations
> 
> Please do not stray off the narrow focus of this mailing list.
> 
> There are plenty of other sources for Forth
> information   http://www.forth.org   for example.
> 
> Have fun and ask relavent questions.  There is some further information on
> machineForth at :-
> 
> http://www.ultratechnology.com
> 
> May the Forth be with you...always