Skip to main content
Retrocomputing

Return to Question

Copy edited (e.g. ref. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system>). Fixed the question formation - see e.g. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4yWEt0OSpg&t=1m49s> (see also <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS5NfSzXfrI> (QUASM)).
Source Link
edit approved Oct 18, 2020 at 18:49
Peter Mortensen
edit approved Oct 18, 2020 at 18:49
Peter Mortensen
  • 260
  • 2
  • 7

Why are old CPUs like MOS Technology 6502 and Motorola 68000 are considered better for real time systems applications than modern x86 based CPUs?

Reading the Wikipedia article about real-time computing, I found written that:

Once when the MOS Technology 6502 (used in the Commodore 64 and Apple II), and later when the Motorola 68000 (used in the Macintosh, Atari ST, and Commodore Amiga) were popular, anybody could use their home computer as a real-time system.

The next sentence elaborates a little on that claim:

The possibility to deactivate other interrupts allowed for hard-coded loops with defined timing and the low interrupt latency allowed the implementation of a real-time operating system, giving the user interface and the disk drives lower priority than the real-time thread.

After this they are contrasted with the modern CPUs and opertingoperating systems depending on them:

Compared to these the programmable interrupt controller of the Intel CPUs (8086..80586) generates a very large latency and the Windows operating system is neither a real-time operating system nor does it allow a program to take over the CPU completely and use its own scheduler, without using native machine language and thus surpassing all interrupting Windows code.

Could someone elaborate a bit more on this information and give some examples for "deactivating other interupts" and "hard-coded loops with defined timing" to clear what it exactly means and to give some additional reasons with appropriate examples, if any?

Why old CPUs like MOS Technology 6502 and Motorola 68000 are considered better for real time systems applications than modern x86 based CPUs?

Reading the Wikipedia article about real-time computing I found written that:

Once when the MOS Technology 6502 (used in the Commodore 64 and Apple II), and later when the Motorola 68000 (used in the Macintosh, Atari ST, and Commodore Amiga) were popular, anybody could use their home computer as a real-time system.

The next sentence elaborates a little on that claim:

The possibility to deactivate other interrupts allowed for hard-coded loops with defined timing and the low interrupt latency allowed the implementation of a real-time operating system, giving the user interface and the disk drives lower priority than the real-time thread.

After this they are contrasted with the modern CPUs and operting systems depending on them:

Compared to these the programmable interrupt controller of the Intel CPUs (8086..80586) generates a very large latency and the Windows operating system is neither a real-time operating system nor does it allow a program to take over the CPU completely and use its own scheduler, without using native machine language and thus surpassing all interrupting Windows code.

Could someone elaborate a bit more on this information and give some examples for "deactivating other interupts" and "hard-coded loops with defined timing" to clear what it exactly means and to give some additional reasons with appropriate examples if any?

Why are old CPUs like MOS Technology 6502 and Motorola 68000 considered better for real time systems applications than modern x86 based CPUs?

Reading the Wikipedia article about real-time computing, I found written that:

Once when the MOS Technology 6502 (used in the Commodore 64 and Apple II), and later when the Motorola 68000 (used in the Macintosh, Atari ST, and Commodore Amiga) were popular, anybody could use their home computer as a real-time system.

The next sentence elaborates a little on that claim:

The possibility to deactivate other interrupts allowed for hard-coded loops with defined timing and the low interrupt latency allowed the implementation of a real-time operating system, giving the user interface and the disk drives lower priority than the real-time thread.

After this they are contrasted with the modern CPUs and operating systems depending on them:

Compared to these the programmable interrupt controller of the Intel CPUs (8086..80586) generates a very large latency and the Windows operating system is neither a real-time operating system nor does it allow a program to take over the CPU completely and use its own scheduler, without using native machine language and thus surpassing all interrupting Windows code.

Could someone elaborate a bit more on this information and give some examples for "deactivating other interupts" and "hard-coded loops with defined timing" to clear what it exactly means and to give some additional reasons with appropriate examples, if any?

Became Hot Network Question
Source Link
bobeff
bobeff
  • 563
  • 5
  • 9

Why old CPUs like MOS Technology 6502 and Motorola 68000 are considered better for real time systems applications than modern x86 based CPUs?

Reading the Wikipedia article about real-time computing I found written that:

Once when the MOS Technology 6502 (used in the Commodore 64 and Apple II), and later when the Motorola 68000 (used in the Macintosh, Atari ST, and Commodore Amiga) were popular, anybody could use their home computer as a real-time system.

The next sentence elaborates a little on that claim:

The possibility to deactivate other interrupts allowed for hard-coded loops with defined timing and the low interrupt latency allowed the implementation of a real-time operating system, giving the user interface and the disk drives lower priority than the real-time thread.

After this they are contrasted with the modern CPUs and operting systems depending on them:

Compared to these the programmable interrupt controller of the Intel CPUs (8086..80586) generates a very large latency and the Windows operating system is neither a real-time operating system nor does it allow a program to take over the CPU completely and use its own scheduler, without using native machine language and thus surpassing all interrupting Windows code.

Could someone elaborate a bit more on this information and give some examples for "deactivating other interupts" and "hard-coded loops with defined timing" to clear what it exactly means and to give some additional reasons with appropriate examples if any?