Timeline for What are tacts in the context of ZX Spectrum systems?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2, 2023 at 16:00 | comment | added | dave | I don't think there was an intent to distinguish a clock tick from a processor tick; rather, I read it as 'what the processor does on a clock tick'. But at this point I'm merely guessing as to what someone else meant. | |
| Jan 2, 2023 at 15:00 | comment | added | Steve | @another-dave, agreed, "beat" is a reasonable enough word, just not as reasonable a translation as "tick". But your explanation for "as seen..." I don't think is very clear. A processor design defines a set of resting states - states that are held whilst the driving pulse is not supplied. A design also specifies how every state transitions to the next when a pulse is supplied. A tick is a transition from one to the next (caused by supplying that driving pulse). The clock, itself, can tick, but I don't see what distinction exists between a clock-tick, processor-tick, and a processor-beat. | |
| Jan 2, 2023 at 13:23 | comment | added | dave | In the case of 'beat' it's not just a translation or an ahistorical metaphor - the original design documents for some British computers use that exact term to describe the operation of the thing they're building. With respect to the "as seen..." part: the clock is in principle generated somewhere and is conveyed to the processor logic. The beat (or tact) is what the processor does during each clock interval; the distinction seems reasonable to make. | |
| Jan 2, 2023 at 11:56 | history | answered | Steve | CC BY-SA 4.0 |