Talk:1-bit computing

To be translated from German WP
To be translated from German WP:

Die Bezeichnung ist primär bezeichnend für die auf dem System eingesetzte Programmiersprache, zum Beispiel Anweisungsliste (AWL), sagt jedoch in aller Regel nichts über die zugrundeliegende Prozessorplattform aus. Diese kann durch Parallelisierung, Optimierung und Wandlung in Hardware zur Lösung der SPS-Programmaufgabe von 1 Bit stark abweichend sein. So kann zum Beispiel ein AWL-Programm mit 1-Bit-Logik mit einem AWL-Compiler in Maschinencode für einen 32-Bit-Architektur übersetzt werden.

Typisches Programm für eine 1-Bit-Architektur:
 * Lade digitalen Eingang 1 in das 1-Bit-Register
 * (ODER-)Verknüpfe den Wert im 1-Bit-Register mit Eingang 2, das Resultat bleibt im Register
 * Schreibe den Wert im 1-Bit-Register auf Ausgang 1

Die Beschränkung des Programmiermodells auf 1 Bit erlaubt, dass eine Steuerungsaufgabe mit der geringstmöglichen Zahl benötigter Prozesselemente in ein Programm umgesetzt wird. Bei Produkten mit niedrigen Stückzahlen wird man auf einen Universalprozessor aus einem anderen Bereich zurückgreifen (etwa aus der 4-Bit- oder 8-Bit-Architektur), bei hohen Stückzahlen ist die Ausführung als Spezialchip (Anwendungsspezifische Integrierte Schaltung) möglich, bei dem jeder Programmschritt einzeln als 1-Bit-orientierte Transistorgruppe mit Leiterbahnen ausgedrückt wird. Die günstiger zu produzierenden FPGAs ermöglichen, dass hochsprachlich geschriebene Programme in eine Konfigurationsdatei umgesetzt werden, mit der die 1 Bit breiten orientierten Funktionselemente auf diesen Chips dynamisch verschaltet werden, die im Betrieb dann einer fest verdrahteten Programmlogik entsprechen.

Google Translate says

The term is primarily indicative of the programming language used on the system, for example, instruction set (IL), says, however, as a rule nothing about the underlying processor platform. This can be from 1 bit differ significantly by parallelization, optimization and conversion hardware for the solution in the PLC program task. For example, an STL program with 1-bit logic with an IL compiler to generate machine code for a 32-bit architecture can be translated.

A typical program for a 1-bit architecture: * Loading digital input 1 in the 1-bit register * ( OR -) Combine the value in the 1-bit register to input 2, the result remains in register * Write the value in 1-bit register to output 1

The limitation of the programming model allows for a bit, that a control task is implemented with the least possible number of required process elements in a program. For products with low volumes, will draw on a general purpose processor from another area (such as from the 4-bit or 8-bit architecture), is at high volumes, the embodiment as a special chip (Application Specific Integrated circuit) is possible, in which each program step to be 1-bit-oriented transistor group expressed with conductor tracks. The more favorable for producing FPGA allow that high linguistic written programs are implemented in a configuration file that can be connected dynamically with the 1-bit-based functional elements on these chips in use then a hard-wired logic. match

The first of those paragraphs doesn't really apply here, as the page really discusses the *processor platform*, not the *programming language*. The third paragraph isn't really describing 1-bit processors, either, it's discussing custom chips or FPGAs that implement the control algorithm.

I've taken the "typical program" part and cleaned it up a bit. The rest of it may better fit into a page about logic controllers. Widefox (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename 1-bit?
Per (almost) all n-bit articles, allowing us to use the n-bit template. (The same goes for the only other odd one - 64-bit). Please comment on both as its about standardising. Widefox (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not comment here, but take this up on the Talk:64-bit computing (where there is debate if 64-bit would be a bad rename).

8031/8051: 1-bit architecture?
There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics related to Tagremover's edits on this page, including a strong dispute of his/her interpretation. I would like to keep the discussion in one place rather than fragmenting it over multiple talk pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Commented there, and am removing the template from this article since no one has explained the need for it. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

1-bit still "sold"?
I did look up dthe data sheet

I find it interesting that a Finnish company still lists 1-bit.. I see the copyright on the datasheet is from 1995. I guess with these controllers (and any) you might keep them for spare parts. I can't imagine that there is anyone using for new work, with it needing extrnal memory and you can get 32-bit (or 8-bit) w/memory. comp.arch (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * More info:
 * http://tinymicros.com/mediawiki/images/e/ec/MC14500B_Handbook.pdf
 * http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US4153942
 * http://www.ganssle.com/articles/quirkychips.html
 * http://www.6502.org/users/dieter/m14500/m14500.htm
 * http://en.wikichip.org/wiki/motorola/mc14500
 * http://en.wikichip.org/wiki/motorola/mc14500/isa
 * http://en.wikichip.org/wiki/File:MC14500B_datasheet.pdf
 * Motorola MC14500B
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Is Motorola^WFreescale^WNXP still fabbing them? Or are these old stock that hasn't been sold yet? Guy Harris (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It isn't a reliable source, but http://en.wikichip.org/wiki/motorola/mc14500 claims "Production continued well into the 1990s". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was pretty sure, they (or any 1-bit) where no longer in production. I'm just intrigued by these 1- and 4-bit tiny chips. Just as the 4-bit (Saturn), they can be emulated if needed. In the handbook, I saw a chapter "Traffic Intersection Controller". I would guess now, some overkill, say 32-bit ARM running Linux runs lights commonly.. Since chips can now include [flash] memory, could they even emulated this/these 1-bit (and 4-bit) and still be pin-compatible? comp.arch (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

serial computer confusing?
In a recent edit to the Datapoint 2200 article, an editor claimed that "serial computer" is confusing in this context and removed all instances of the phrases "bit-serial" and "serial computer" from that article, replacing them with phrases like "1-bit microarchitecture".

I feel that if those terms are confusing because they *could* mean many different things, this "1-bit computing" article should mention those other things and the distinctions between them. Are there less-confusing, less-ambiguous words for those terms? If so, this article should also mention those words.

As far as I can tell, the original Datapoint 2200 hardware meets the definition in our current serial computer article of a "serial computer". Is there a less-confusing, less-ambiguous term for that kind of machine? If so, I feel we should rename that article (currently named "serial computer") to the less-confusing term. --DavidCary (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure in what fashion "serial" or "bit-serial" are confusing here. Not all computers whose instruction set processes data in N-bit chunks process them in parallel; the IBM System/360 Model 30, for example, was an 8-bit serial implementation of a 32-bit instruction set (with 24-bit addressing), and the PDP-8/S was a 1-bit serial implementation of a 12-bit instruction set. The first Datapoint 2200 was a 1-bit serial implementation of an 8-bit instruction set. Guy Harris (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)