Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 16:49:35 07/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2003 at 17:50:21, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 06, 2003 at 17:31:29, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On July 06, 2003 at 09:07:24, Bo Persson wrote: >> >>>The argument was about Tom insisting that the 8080 couldn't have influenced the >>>x86 instruction set, because its name didn't end in 86. It's not all in the >>>name! >> >>No, no, no, no, no. Of COURSE the 8080 influenced the x86 instruction set. >> >>I'm just saying that the 8080 is not an x86. >> >>This is like saying the BMW 2002 was the first BMW 3-series. The BMW 2002 was >>the predecessor to the 3-series, it influenced the design of the 3-series, it >>was similar to the first 3-series in many ways, but it WAS NOT A 3-SERIES >>because its model number DID NOT START WITH 3. >> >>Bob is hiding behind linguistic sloppyness to avoid admitting that he was wrong. > >Apart from quoting 80s truth. > >Where he is on Alzheimer drugs with respect to processors, in parallel search Well, the funny thing is that all of the stuff we've been talking about happened around 1980, so you'd think he'd know more about it than I do. I mean, he was actively using these computers, and I was 2 years old at the time. Props to my embedded systems class... I bet they'll still be using 8088s 10 years from now. -Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.