Why Jimmy Might Fail
It is useless to browbeat idiots as they are idiots and never will understand, but this article is the reason Jimmy will fail if he does in fact fail.
Let's start with the obvious, you morons: if in fact 'microcode' is more common than 'microprogram' (which is NEVER used) then why did you name this article 'microprogram', you twits?
Britannica looms brighter for each passing day. At least they wouldn't let drooling nimrods create articles.
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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.138.119.193 (talk • contribs) 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.55.52.1 (talk • contribs) 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?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.10.174.115 (talk • contribs) 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?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.241.212 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
[Do you want a 'how to be a brain surgeon in ten days' correspondence course at no extra charge? What is it with you morons? Here people spend lifetimes learning and inventing and researching and you pathetic morons who still can't tie your own shoelaces come along and seemingly demand everyone explain everything in language you can handle? Get this and get it well: very few people on the planet are as stupid as you. Thankfully.]
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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.150.27.42 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- If someone types in the above and can't even spell 'summary' or 'I' then I recommend you switch off your computer and immediately stop wasting the planet's ecological system.
- Note the above user was ostensibly accessing Wiki from the University of Toronto. Canada must therefore go back to the drawing boards if their students still can't spell or type. Sorry, Canada.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.1.163.85 (talk • contribs) .
- 62.1.163.85, be sure to read WP:NPA.
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)
- The change to the VAX section is wrong. The first VAX, the VAX-11/780, did not use AMD 2901 bit slice components. I don't think any VAX did use those for the main CPU other than possibly the low-end 11/730 (and the electrically identical 11/725). --Brouhaha 06:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Revised VLIW/RISC section. Added some items and removed "RISC as vertical microcode" sentence. This seems like a stretched comparison, not sure it's sufficiently close to warrant using. Discuss if any questions. Joema 18:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thought about it and restored RISC/vertical microcode comparison. Joema 19:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Brouhaha, you're correct -- only Nebula/Low-Cost-Nebula (11/730, 11/725) used the AMD bit-slices. (We also used them in the PDP-11/34 and /44 Floating-Point Processors, but that's not at issue here.)
Modern x86 processors
How does microprogram/microcode, specifically the VLIW/RISC section, compare to modern x86 CPU's? Like modern Pentium processors exposing a CISC instruction set but internally resembling more of a RISC processor? Fuzzbox, 29 June 2006