Critique of the article
ediots, what are you telling about microprograms. you have no idea what the hell it is. i am astonished by your writings. they show lack of concept and poor understanding of he subject. hoping to find a better notes from you. send something worthwhile. don't wate time;it's precious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.119.193 (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2004 (UTC)
I am a computer engineer, as was kind of confused also. This is really not a place for technical info I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.52.1 (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2004 (UTC)
- if you two have sufficient technical know-how to criticize the article, why don't you amend it so that it is accurate? after all, is that not the point of a wikipedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.10.174.115 (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2004 (UTC)
Microcode redirect
I came here to find out what microcode was. Microcode redirects to this article, which present WAY more info than I can follow...oerhaps someone who knows what they are can add an additional article on microcode specifically, so I can learn what it is?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.241.212 (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
PDP-8 "microinstructions"
I disagree with the use of the PDP-8 as an example of vertical microcode. The use of the term "microinstruction" on the PDP-8 has an almost entirely different meaning that conventional microprogramming, but it is more akin to horizontal microprogramming than vertical, because it uses bitfields to control independent (though related) operations.
A better example of vertical vs. horizontal would be the HP 2100 vs. the IBM 360/65. The former has a very narrow (24-bit) microword, and is very vertical, while the latter has a very wide word (105 bits, IIRC) that has almost no encoding - most of the fields directly control individual hardware operations.
The use of the term "microinstruction" on the PDP-8 should perhaps be explained in its own section, with an explanation that the PDP-8 is not microcoded in the normal sense, but is hardwired and has an ISA that includes the "operate" instruction with fields for various operations. --Brouhaha 06:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- I understood that section to mean something different. I think it was trying to use the PDP-8 assembly language as a rough example of what "vertical microcode" is like. (I don't necessarily agree that PDP-8 assembly language is the best example).
- On the other hand, you're correct that what the PDP-8 called "microinstructions" has very little to do with what we're talking about here and we might want to explicitly disclaim much relationship.
Praise
Thanks this is a really good summery about microprogramming....if someone does not understand this and claims to be a computer engineer i recommend to switch your career.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.27.42 (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Grave omission!?
I was quite simply flabbergasted when I noticed that this article does not at all mention the reprogrammability (flexibility, upgradability) reason for using microprogramming vs hardwiring. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this reason as important as the emulation issue? --Wernher 23:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- But the article does mention this! See:
- Microprogramming also reduced the cost of field changes to correct defects (bugs) in the processor; a bug could often be fixed by replacing a portion of the microprogram rather than by changes being made to hardware logic and wiring.
- If you feel it needs more stress, this is Wikipedia so you know what to do: be bold!
Work in progress
I stumbled across this article. As the above comments indicate, it definitely needs some work. I have some experience in this area, so will contribute what I can. Post any issues or questions here. Joema 02:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)