Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 10 Feb 2007 17:35 Ken Smith wrote: > IMO The best processor line Intel introduced was the 8051. It is too bad > that they didn't think to extend it in the obvious ways. Others have now > taken up the lead on that. The 8051's been going for 25 years now. Is there any other processor whose original core has lasted as long as is still in widespread volume use ? Graham
From: Ken Smith on 10 Feb 2007 19:27 In article <MPG.2037d8dcaeddd806989f8e(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <eqkv5i$2v2$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >says... > ><snip> > >> Intel tried to sell the 432 at just about the same time as they tried >> to sell the 286. It didn't take a genius to notice that N 286s with some >> overhead would out perform N 432s. > >The iAPX432 came out in '81, a tad before the 80286. I don't think >Intel actually tried to sell it. It was a real turkey, performance >wise. Too much hardware falling all over itself. They were already trying to sell at the time they were trying to sell the 432. You couldn't get either chip(s). The 432 required two chips and they ran too hot to be shipped. > >> The 432 was supposed to do >> multiprocessor systems efficiently but it failed badly. > >The 432 had nothing to do with multi-processor. It was actually >quite like IBM's FS in the early '70s (which was killed before >implementation) and the AS400. The advertising they did to me touted the multiprocessor application of the device. >> I think there must have been a group of people at Intel working on the 432 >> and that this was seen as the future. > >Sure. the 432 group was in Oregon. The x86 people were in CA. > >> The X86 series was supposed to just >> keep the market from running away while they designed it. > >Nope. 432 <> Itanic. ;-) The 432 was supposed to be a "micro- >mainframe". It had nothing to do with x86, architecturally or >market-wise. I suggest that it did. Mot was working on a 16 bit machine. Intel only had a 8 bit machine. If the market went for 16 bit and swung over to the 68K, it would cut into the cash flow into Intel until the 432 got to market. >> The X86 ended >> up with so many bad ideas in it because the real brains were being wasted >> on the 432 project. > >Wrong. x86 was extended because they could. Backwards >compatibility is key, much like the history behind the IBM 360->z9. >Break backwards compatibility and the competition is on an even >playing field. I disagree. The 8086 processor had a huge collection of bad ideas in it. Needed 32 bits worth of register to access 20 bits worth of address space was only one of many. The fact that a trip through the ALU was needed for a jump instruction was another. The x86 had to keep the 8086 instruction set because Intel knew that they couldn't strand the code and expect to sell many processors. > >> IMO The best processor line Intel introduced was the 8051. It is too bad >> that they didn't think to extend it in the obvious ways. Others have now >> taken up the lead on that. > >Best processor? You think the x86 is kludgey and like the '51? >I've used the 8051 several times and wouldn't shy away again, but >the ISA is a mess. I think the x86 is kludgy in a more extreme way than the 51. The silly fools put in stuff like "ascii adjust for divide" but no 32 bit add instruction. The REP prefix and the LOOP instruction both imply the CX register. > >-- > Keith -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 10 Feb 2007 19:29 In article <45CE48B4.74950CB4(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Ken Smith wrote: > >> IMO The best processor line Intel introduced was the 8051. It is too bad >> that they didn't think to extend it in the obvious ways. Others have now >> taken up the lead on that. > >The 8051's been going for 25 years now. > >Is there any other processor whose original core has lasted as long as is still >in widespread volume use ? Perhaps the PDP-8 would beat it. The CDP1802 has been made for a lot of years but it never had huge volume. It just could be low power and rad hard. > >Graham > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 10 Feb 2007 19:59 MassiveProng wrote: > On Sat, 10 Feb 07 12:29:39 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > >And all this was done before you shat in your first diaper. > > Nope. I was born in the year of the laser. Another date that a > twit like you will have to look up to know or even come close to > remembering. The first working laser was made by Theodore H. Maiman in 1960 at Hughes Research Laboratories in Malibu, California Later in 1960 the Iranian physicist Ali Javan, working with William Bennet and Donald Herriot, made the first gas laser using helium and neon. Javan later received the Albert Einstein Award in 1993. I wonder if Javan is a jihadist ? Graham
From: MassiveProng on 10 Feb 2007 21:30
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:35:06 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >You don't have a clue what you're talking about. THey had the >source code, but no license to sell it. Not true. The source code is what never got delivered, dumbass. They DID have the agreement to use it. Billy just never came across with the goods. The only source they had was the win 3.11 code, at best. DesqViewX suffered the same defeat, but the difference is that they never had an agreement with Billy to get full win32 compatability. IBM DID. |