Idiot claims that the NES was 2-bit

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.nintendo (More info?)

The guy's name is Webster Sterling Swenson.

Here's a link to a thread on his message board:

http://forum.captainn.net/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1083683450

Now, here he is coming over to our board and claiming the same thing:

http://s3.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_N_Zone/index.php?showtopic=388&st=0

>From what I've read, this guy refuses to budge on this issue and
routinely deletes posts contradicting him.

Is there any truth to what he says?


Mark

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.nintendo (More info?)

On 15 Aug 2005 11:53:08 -0700, spiritofsupergirl@hotmail.com wrote:

>Is there any truth to what he says?

The only thing 2 bits are that poster. NES have been and always will
be 8 bit system. Nearly every game consoles before NES were also 8
bits with Microvision being 4 and Intellivision having odd setup.
--
When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.nintendo (More info?)

It all sounds like a similar sort of arguement that was held with the Atari
Jaguar. That consisted of 2 32bit processors which Atari marketed as being
64 bit (which it wasnt really). So in a way he is probably right but in
another not. Ignore him, thats probably best lol.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.nintendo (More info?)

I think that he is 2 bit...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.nintendo (More info?)

Criminy. Can't anyone read a friggin' FAQ? There are five processors in
the Jaguar, distributed across three chips (three of the processors are
combined in the "Tom" chip). Two of these processors are 64 bit, two
are 32 bit, and one is 16 bit (the 68000). So if you wanted to add up
the processors, you'd get a 208 bit system.

Thing is, the four RISC processors were specially designed for specific
tasks. Each of them CAN take over the bus and function as the system
CPU, but some of them don't perform certain tasks well. The real
problems creep in when you consider design shortcomings (like the puny
processor caches) and the numerous bugs that were still present in the
hardware in the rush to launch before 3DO.

As for the bozo talking about the NES... to the best of my knowledge,
there never was a commercially released 2-bit processer. And I
seriously doubt anyone bothered to build one just for lab use, either.
Intel did have a 4 bit CPU once upon a time (the 4004, I think).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.nintendo (More info?)

Lorfarius wrote:
> It all sounds like a similar sort of arguement that was held with the Atari
> Jaguar. That consisted of 2 32bit processors which Atari marketed as being
> 64 bit (which it wasnt really). So in a way he is probably right but in
> another not. Ignore him, thats probably best lol.
>
>

Hi. If the Atari Jaguar should be considered a 32 bit system, then all
those new consoles (XB360, PS3 and NRevolt) should be considered 64 bits
systems because they don't use any 128 element, except of the MMX
registers (XB) and the external bus, shouldn't I?.
--------------------
One company wants you to spend all your money on their systems. We are
not that company.
Other company doesn't mind what you do, while you do it on THEIR
operating system. We are not that company.