Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/13/84; site intelca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!intelca!
clif
From: c...@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <129@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Oct-85 12:44:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: intelca.129
Posted: Wed Oct 23 12:44:40 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 04:40:40 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 81

I think my orginal posting got lost in the net bit bucket in the sky.  
If this material is repeated my apologies.


Wed. Oct 16, Intel announced the 80386 the newest 32-bit microprocessor along 
with an entire family of 386 products.  While the entire list of press releases
and Intel announcements would take too long to enumurate I thought I would
highlight some of the more important portions of the 80386 introduction.


The introduction consisted of speeches by Intel executives and two 
demonstrations of the 80386's incrediable functionality.   An Intel 310 
system was shown running Xenix 286 uith a 386 used in place of the 286.   
This demonstration was followed by Lotus, SideKick, and Flight Simulator 
all running on a PC-AT using an 386 to 286 adaptor board.   Flight Simulator 
proved to be the hit of the show since it is the acid test of 
IBM PC compatibility, and looks great on a 8' x 10' screen.

Additional demos included RMX-286  (Intel's real time OS) running
at 16 MHz on a 386/20 board, and Daisy Systems CAD tools for board and 
system level designs using a real 386. 

In addition to the 80386 the following products were also introduced

	386/20  A 386 based MultiBus I board featuring a 64K byte cache
		and a High Speed 32-bit memory interface supporting up to 
		16 megabytes of dual-port system memory.

	386/100	A MULTIBUS II single board computer with the same memory 
		configurations as the 386/20 with special purpose message
		passing silicon.  

	PSCOPE 386 A ROM based high-level software debugger for the 80386. 

	ICE 386	An In Circuit Emulator which provides full speed emulation of 
		the 80386.  It provides an excellent tool for hardware and 
		software integration.


	Languages The following languages were announced for the 80386
		ASM, C, PLM, FORTRAN, and ADA

	Software Tools	A complete system of software tools including a 
		Builder, Binder,Mapper, Librarian, and numerics 
		support libraries.

All software tools are orginally hosted on Xenix 286 based systems 
(in particular a Xenix 286/310 microcomputer)  Hosting of these tools
on other computers is planned for the near future.

Weitek and Intel also announced an agreement under which both companies will
develop and market a chip that provides an interface between the 80386 and
Weitek's 1164 and 1165 64-bit floating point processors.  The Weitek chip
set provides floating-point performance in excess of 2 MFLOPS.  Systems 
using the 80386 when combined with the Weitek Chip set will offer 
performance of 4 million Whetstones per second.


Finally, AT&T and Intel announced the signing of a contract for porting
of the Unix* System V Operating System to the 80386.  The port is one
of the first agreements for the Networking features of the System V operating
system, and is a continuation of the AT&T-Intel partnership to bring state of 
the art Unix System V technology to Intel microprocessors.

Additional information is available on these products by contacting your
local Intel sales office or by calling toll free

(800) 538-1876, ask for operator 386 and receive a packet of information
about the 80386 (data sheet, product announcements etc).

I am also posting a fairly short description of the 80386 itself.
If you have additional comments you may contact me via e-mail.  If
time allows I will attempt to answer other questions.  However I 
suspect most answers will be to call the above number.

Clif Purkiser
386 Product Marketing
{amd hplaps pur-ee}!intelca
	
Unix is a trademark of AT&T
ICE-386, PSCOPE-386, MULTIBUS, RMX  are all trademarks of Intel

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!l5!gnu
From: g...@l5.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <225@l5.uucp>
Date: Sun, 27-Oct-85 21:05:35 EST
Article-I.D.: l5.225
Posted: Sun Oct 27 21:05:35 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 04:41:50 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP>
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 7

While I think a better place for the long text might have been in mod.newprod,
I definitely think that the capabilities of the 386 are a fit subject for
these forums.  And it's hard to describe the product you've been sweating
over for a year or three without a little hype getting in there -- as I've
demonstrated to you-all before :-}.

Keep up the info flow!

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scirtp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dfh
From: dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <532@scirtp.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 23:05:02 EST
Article-I.D.: scirtp.532
Posted: Wed Oct 30 23:05:02 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 06:16:56 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 37
Xref: watmath net.micro:12544 net.arch:1980

Some marketing guy from Intel writes:
> 
> Wed. Oct 16, Intel announced the 80386 the newest 32-bit microprocessor along 
> with an entire family of 386 products.  While the entire list of press releases
> and Intel announcements would take too long to enumurate I thought I would
> highlight some of the more important portions of the 80386 introduction.
> 
> The introduction consisted of speeches by Intel executives and two 
> demonstrations of the 80386's incrediable functionality.   An Intel 310 
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^

Wow.  Really?  And I supposed this is an unbiased opinion too. 

>  blah blah blah...
>
> Additional information is available on these products by contacting your
> local Intel sales office or by calling toll free
> 
> (800) 538-1876, ask for operator 386 and receive a packet of information
> about the 80386 (data sheet, product announcements etc).
> 
> Clif Purkiser
> 386 Product Marketing
> {amd hplaps pur-ee}!intelca
> 	
> Unix is a trademark of AT&T
> ICE-386, PSCOPE-386, MULTIBUS, RMX  are all trademarks of Intel

Hey dude, gimme a break.  If I wanted marketing propaganda garbage, I'd call
my local Intel office.  This crap doesn't belong here.  Just because you don't
have your own newsgroup doesn't mean you can litter net.micro and net.arch 
with marketing verbage.

-- 
				David Hinnant
				SCI Systems, Inc.
				{decvax, akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dfh

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scirtp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dfh
From: d...@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <533@scirtp.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 23:16:18 EST
Article-I.D.: scirtp.533
Posted: Wed Oct 30 23:16:18 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 06:17:13 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp>
Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 19

> While I think a better place for the long text might have been in mod.newprod,
> I definitely think that the capabilities of the 386 are a fit subject for
> these forums.  And it's hard to describe the product you've been sweating
> over for a year or three without a little hype getting in there -- as I've
> demonstrated to you-all before :-}.
> 
> Keep up the info flow!

I too appreciate information, but I don't want marketing glossies coming out
of my CRT screen too!  I don't understand what all the furor over the 386 is.

I fail to see why anyone would 'sweat' over the 386 unless they knew they
HAD to use it on their next project.  What can it do that the 68020 can't do 
better?	

-- 
				David Hinnant
				SCI Systems, Inc.
				{decvax, akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dfh

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/3/85; site ukma.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!sambo
From: sa...@ukma.UUCP (Father of micro-ln)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <2353@ukma.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 17:23:23 EST
Article-I.D.: ukma.2353
Posted: Fri Nov  1 17:23:23 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 05:18:52 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP>
Reply-To: sa...@ukma.UUCP (Father of micro-ln)
Organization: Univ. of KY Mathematical Sciences
Lines: 18

In article <5...@scirtp.UUCP> d...@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) writes:
>I fail to see why anyone would 'sweat' over the 386 unless they knew they
>HAD to use it on their next project.  What can it do that the 68020 can't do 
>better?	

Run several MS-DOS programs simultaneously with full 8086 compatibility,
with each program in its very own 1 MByte address space.  Or how about
running a program that requires 64 terabytes of memory?  By the way, do I
note a bit of unwillingness to listen to someone (or something) just be-
cause he (it) is black?
--
Samuel A. Figueroa, Dept. of CS, Univ. of KY, Lexington, KY  40506-0027
ARPA: ukma!sambo<@ANL-MCS>, or sambo%ukma.u...@anl-mcs.arpa,
      or even anlams!ukma!sa...@ucbvax.arpa
UUCP: {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!sambo,
      or cbosgd!ukma!sambo

	"Micro-ln is great, if only people would start using it."

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <6112@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 19:24:34 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.6112
Posted: Mon Nov  4 19:24:34 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Nov-85 19:24:34 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP>, 
<2353@ukma.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 33

> >...  What can it [the 386] do that the 68020 can't do better?	
> 
> Run several MS-DOS programs simultaneously with full 8086 compatibility,
> with each program in its very own 1 MByte address space.

Running old software is best done by recompiling portable source.  Or, in
the case of much MSDOS software, throwing it out and reimplementing.  The
parts about "simultaneous" and "very own address space" are nothing special.

If one really wants to make a decent machine [stipulating that the 386 is
such, I haven't got full specs yet] act like a bunch of brain-damaged ones,
consider the awesome inefficiency of emulating things like screen updates
one instruction at a time.  (Or does the 386 have some better hooks for
emulating memory-mapped virtual i/o devices?)  Yes, Virginia, there are
MSDOS programs that do their own screen updates.  Lots of them.

> Or how about running a program that requires 64 terabytes of memory?

Name one.  Name one disk with enough space to serve as backing store, too.
Note that you can't exploit that space without resorting to the disastrously
inefficient "large model" code, either.  Practically all real 386 programs
are going to run "small model", which fortunately isn't much of a problem
when that means 32-bit addresses.

> By the way, do I note a bit of unwillingness to listen to someone (or
> something) just because he (it) is black?

No, you detect a strong note of skepticism about Intel processors, after
four (five if you count the 432) botches in a row.  Maybe the skepticism
is unjustified in this case; I reserve judgement until I see spec sheets.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/3/85; site ukma.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!sambo
From: sa...@ukma.UUCP (Father of micro-ln)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <2361@ukma.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 00:03:58 EST
Article-I.D.: ukma.2361
Posted: Wed Nov  6 00:03:58 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Nov-85 05:24:43 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP> 
<2353@ukma.UUCP> <6112@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: sa...@ukma.UUCP (Father of micro-ln)
Organization: Univ. of KY Mathematical Sciences
Lines: 22

In article <6...@utzoo.UUCP> he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>consider the awesome inefficiency of emulating things like screen updates
>one instruction at a time.  (Or does the 386 have some better hooks for
>emulating memory-mapped virtual i/o devices?)  Yes, Virginia, there are
>MSDOS programs that do their own screen updates.

I am talking about something outside my expertise (all areas are outside
my expertise), but if I understand the Intel literature correctly, you
can do paging on top of emulating the 8086 in "virtual 86 mode."  Then
you can set the page(s) where the screen is to "not present," and then do
a trap every time it is accessed.  Alternatively, you could set that page
as "read-only," so that you would do a trap only on writes.  According to
Intel, this is not as fast as one might like, but when running both 8086
code and 80386 code, the 80386 is quite fast.
--
Samuel A. Figueroa, Dept. of CS, Univ. of KY, Lexington, KY  40506-0027
ARPA: ukma!sambo<@ANL-MCS>, or sambo%ukma.u...@anl-mcs.arpa,
      or even anlams!ukma!sa...@ucbvax.arpa
UUCP: {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!sambo,
      or cbosgd!ukma!sambo

	"Micro-ln is great, if only people would start using it."

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <6129@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Nov-85 19:37:17 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.6129
Posted: Sat Nov  9 19:37:17 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 19:37:17 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 17

> ... if I understand the Intel literature correctly, you
> can do paging on top of emulating the 8086 in "virtual 86 mode."  Then
> you can set the page(s) where the screen is to "not present," and then do
> a trap every time it is accessed.  Alternatively, you could set that page
> as "read-only," so that you would do a trap only on writes.  According to
> Intel, this is not as fast as one might like...

"not as fast as one might like" is the understatement of the century,
actually.  This is a serious performance problem in virtual-machine work
when the machine has memory-mapped i/o devices.  For the screen, you might
be able to live with a scheme in which the system scanned the page table
every 60th of a second to identify "screen" pages which had been modified,
and then did something appropriate with them.  Trapping every screen-update
write is a performance disaster.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecn-pc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!mdm
From: m...@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <420@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Nov-85 21:25:41 EST
Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.420
Posted: Sat Nov  9 21:25:41 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Nov-85 06:18:00 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP> 
<2353@ukma.UUCP> <6112@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: m...@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy)
Organization: Cybotech Product Development Lab
Lines: 19

In article <6...@utzoo.UUCP> he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> By the way, do I note a bit of unwillingness to listen to someone (or
>> something) just because he (it) is black?
>No, you detect a strong note of skepticism about Intel processors, after
>four (five if you count the 432) botches in a row.  Maybe the skepticism
>is unjustified in this case; I reserve judgement until I see spec sheets.

AW, COME ON HENRY! Although the the 8080/8088/8086/80186/80286 doesn't have a 
sensuous organization like the 68000/68020, only a twit would say INTEL
botched it considering the 10 to 1 ratio between Intel and Motorola shipped
units. (and I know your not a twit) Having designed with both companies 
products and SUPPORT services, I must admit that INTEL does do a few things 
right.... Even MOTOROLA would admit that.  Now Henry, be nice to those poor
INTEL people who indirectly brought us the PC, PC-AT,.........

Big Mac

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <6139@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Nov-85 19:22:20 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.6139
Posted: Wed Nov 13 19:22:20 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Nov-85 19:22:20 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 18

> ... only a twit would say INTEL botched it considering the 10 to 1 ratio
> between Intel and Motorola shipped units.

Which would you say is better musically:  Beethoven or the Rolling Stones?
Now, which sells better?  Have you looked at sales figures for the RK07 or
the RL01?  Intel has made a lot of money, at everyone else's expense:  they
have probably succeeded in setting the industry back ten years.

I agree that Intel does some things right, but I almost wish they didn't.
Their support gets them customers their trashy processors don't deserve.

> ...  Now Henry, be nice to those poor
> INTEL people who indirectly brought us the PC, PC-AT,.........

Sounds like a hanging offence to me!
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecn-pc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!mdm
From: m...@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <426@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Nov-85 12:21:11 EST
Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.426
Posted: Fri Nov 15 12:21:11 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Nov-85 09:44:12 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP> 
<6139@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: m...@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy)
Organization: Cybotech Product Development Lab
Lines: 49

In article <6...@utzoo.UUCP> he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Intel has made a lot of money, at everyone else's expense:  they
>have probably succeeded in setting the industry back ten years.

Let's see, 10 years ago....   Ah yes, the 8080 was just introduced...
I believe a company called MITS introduced the Altair 8800.... The machine
which really started the PC revolution....

Seems to me, this may qualify INTEL as the company that set the industry
ahead 10 years. Last I checked Henry, the free world revolved around one
person making money at anothers expense....  If you are arguing against 
capitalism, I think you are on the wrong net.  

Going back further, if I remember correctly, INTEL introduced the first 
"general purpose" micro, the 4004.  They are not just one of the large chip 
companies, they had alot to do with the industry starting in the first place.
 
>I agree that Intel does some things right, but I almost wish they didn't.
>Their support gets them customers their trashy processors don't deserve.
>
>> Now Henry, be nice to those poor
>> INTEL people who indirectly brought us the PC, PC-AT,.........
>
>Sounds like a hanging offence to me!

In the free market system, those who prduce trashy processors that are a
waste of good sand do one thing.... lose the stockholders a great deal of
money and upset a few fools that design the product in anyway..  The only
product that INTEL produced that fulfilled this was the 432. That's one of
the best track records around in this industry.

I'm not in love with their chip architecture myself, but one should give 
the devil his due.  INTEL has succeded in producing more successful micro
products than anyone else and has provided the customers with the tools
to get the product to market as well as an upgrade path from their earlier
devices (8080-8086) to the next generation technology.   This is fact...
This is also what keeps them a broad base of loyal customers....
They must have one hell of alot of stupid customers......
Who have alot of stupid customers .....
that buy alot of products with .....
trashy processors in them....
That work.....

Big Mac

317-497-0509

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Flame Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <6145@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Nov-85 22:22:07 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.6145
Posted: Sat Nov 16 22:22:07 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Nov-85 22:22:07 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 48

> >Intel has made a lot of money, at everyone else's expense:  they
> >have probably succeeded in setting the industry back ten years.
> 
> Let's see, 10 years ago....   Ah yes, the 8080 was just introduced...
> I believe a company called MITS introduced the Altair 8800.... The machine
> which really started the PC revolution....
> 
> Seems to me, this may qualify INTEL as the company that set the industry
> ahead 10 years.

The relevant question is not "did Intel make major contributions?" but
"would we be a lot further ahead if Intel had had the sense to make their
16-bit processor design incompatible with the 8080?".  I stand by my
contention that the brain-damage of the 8086 has had a huge negative impact
on the industry, much of which is only starting to be felt.

> Last I checked Henry, the free world revolved around one
> person making money at anothers expense....  If you are arguing against 
> capitalism, I think you are on the wrong net.  

The idea behind capitalism, which I fully subscribe to, is that *both*
parties to the transaction benefit from it.  Here we have Intel making a
bundle of money while locking their customers into a backward architecture
that will cause them untold grief in the long run.

Selling soft drinks that taste good but give people cancer is not kosher,
capitalism or not.

> Going back further, if I remember correctly, INTEL introduced the first 
> "general purpose" micro, the 4004...

I remember reading the 4004 manual.  The 8086 manual is sort of familiar
in spots as a result.  That is precisely the problem.

> In the free market system, those who prduce trashy processors that are a
> waste of good sand do one thing.... lose the stockholders a great deal of
> money and upset a few fools that design the product in anyway..

Surely you are not contending that quality == sales?!?  The counterexamples
of this are too numerous to list.  If you want non-Intel examples, consider
the RL01 and the VT100 (better have your barf bag ready when you get to
the TS11...).

Incidentally, too many people to count have already cursed the fools who
designed in the 8086/8088/...
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/