Re: TI-H: heh

To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: TI-H: heh
From: Adam Davis <adavis@baladyne.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 10:27:50 -0500
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
References: <v04020a05b288f7674d1a@[24.237.1.200]>
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org

I divide the line at a bus.  There are implementations of the z80 line
which do not have an external bus, which I would call uC.  The chips in
our calcs have an external bus, so I'd call the uP.
Another thought is that the uC generally contains all the code in the
chip, and it controls things.  The uP gets its code externally, and
simply prcesses external data with external code.  Therefore it only
processes.

Of course, both of these lines are fuzzy for a great many micros.

-Adam

Grant Stockly wrote:
> 
> >that was very good grant, not that i necessarily support either side
> 
> Technically, should the Z80 be considered a uC or uP?  I'd sway to the uP
> side...
> 
> Grant

References:

Re: TI-H: heh

From: Grant Stockly <gussie@alaska.net>

Prev: Re: TI-H: heh
Next: Re: TI-H: haye...why not one more off-topic message?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread