Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:06:06 07/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
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. Nope, I'll say it once more. The lineage went like this: 8080 -> 8085 -> 8086/8088 -> 80186 -> 80286 -> 80386 -> 80486 -> 80586 (AKA pentium) -> 80686 (AKA pentium-pro) and there the "86" was dropped totally. Which, according to your twisted logic, means that the PIV is _not_ a member of the 80x86 product line since there is _no_ 86 in the name. That's ridiculous reasoning. So they change the numbering or naming over time. So what? The 8080 was the _first_ in that long lineage. The 8008 and 4004 were earlier, but not similar enough to consider "part of the group" except in the loosest sense. However, our "good friends" ah, al, etc all existed in the 8080. Just as they still exist today. > >-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.