Curious--your favorite architecture?

Most people here use the S/360+ architecture for their
assembly language programming.  I was curious what people
think of other common architectures, both previous and
subsequent to S/360.

For instance...

AS/400 LIC (whatever that is)?
1401/1410 Autocoder/SPS?
709/7090 (word oriented)
x86 (all variants through Pentium)
1130
S/360+ supervisory state
CDC 6xxx series
Univac 1100 series


(S/360 includes all subsequent models)

There were some real differences between the 90 and 94.  I also
think there was a 7094-II.  The big difference is the 94 had 7
index regs, rather than the 3 on a 90.  I'm sure there were
other differences, but I don't really remember since I was a
7040 person.

In article <1113402119.887039.9040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, hancock4
@bbs.cpcn.com says...
>
>
>Mike Andrews wrote:
> 
>clunky, as 
>solution, as 
>
>I thought the 7094 was the same as a 7090 (which was the same as
>the 709); that the 7094 just was a little faster.  So, I thought
>the machine language would be all the same.
>

Steve Myers <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

> In article <1113402119.887039.9040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, hancock4
> @bbs.cpcn.com says... 

> There were some real differences between the 90 and 94.  I also
> think there was a 7094-II.  The big difference is the 94 had 7
> index regs, rather than the 3 on a 90.  I'm sure there were
> other differences, but I don't really remember since I was a
> 7040 person.

There was indeed a 7094-II; it was a 7094 on steroids. And yes, ISTR
that the 7040 and 709* had other differences, but I've recycled those
neurons; @PANTHEON is merciful.

The strangest architecture for which I ever wrote would have to be
either ILLIAC IV or the Rice Machine. No; it was ILLIAC IV; the Rice
Machine only had one instruction stream, though it _did_ have the
little console switch labeled "J. K. Iliffe mode" in Dymo tape. That
switch turned on DAT. Paging in "J. K. Iliffe mode" was done, IIRC,
to/from a Potter tape drive with long buffer arms. The Rice Machine is
a whole different story.

--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mikea@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old symin

Steve Myers <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

> In article <1113402119.887039.9040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, hancock4
> @bbs.cpcn.com says... 

> There were some real differences between the 90 and 94.  I also
> think there was a 7094-II.  The big difference is the 94 had 7
> index regs, rather than the 3 on a 90.  I'm sure there were
> other differences, but I don't really remember since I was a
> 7040 person.

There was indeed a 7094-II; it was a 7094 on steroids. And yes, ISTR
that the 7040 and 709* had other differences, but I've recycled those
neurons; @PANTHEON is merciful.

The strangest architecture for which I ever wrote would have to be
either ILLIAC IV or the Rice Machine. No; it was ILLIAC IV; the Rice
Machine only had one instruction stream, though it _did_ have the
little console switch labeled "J. K. Iliffe mode" in Dymo tape. That
switch turned on DAT. Paging in "J. K. Iliffe mode" was done, IIRC,
to/from a Potter tape drive with long buffer arms. The Rice Machine is
a whole different story.

--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mikea@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old symin