If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:00:03 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:06:51 -0400, keith wrote: On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:12:39 +0200, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote: It is well publized that IBM chose a lower-end CPU for the PC in order not to compete with other business divisions. Not really. The reason the 8088 was chosen was for cost. A 16b bus would have doubled the cost of the bus and the minimum memory configuration. Remember, memory was *expensive*. ...as was SSI/MSI TTL and packaging. Hmmm... Cost played a part in ti, but the 80xx architecture was chosen because that's the only micro architecture the developers were familiar with and they wanted to get it out fast. It was just a matter of months before someone came out with a real 16 bit cpu, the 8086, and it wasn't IBM. First of all, the question was "why the 8088". The IBM originally was going to go with the 8085 (which is not in any way the same architecture as the 8086/8), which an entirely different group in IBM used at about the same time for the "DataMaster". IBM had no real experience with either, since up until then they generally used their own microprocessors. As the story goes, Bill Gates convinced IBM ESD that 16bits was the way to go. Once that decision was made, Intel was chosen primarily because it "wasn't Motorola" and the 8088 was chosen because an 8088 system was much cheaper than one using the 8086. Second, the 8088 is by any reasonable definition a "real" 16-bit processor. It has *exactly* the same architecture as the 8086, so if you consider the 8086 a "real" 16b processor, then you must also admit that the 8088 is. It was more than a few months before the 8086 clones started. Q had their clone out by summer though. -- Keith |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:53:53 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:58:21 +0100, Daniel James wrote: Compare that with the Z80 (8+16[1]+16+16=14 bits) the 6502 beloved of Apple II and PET user (8+8+8+16=10 bits) and the 68000 (32+32+32+24=30 bits). Considering that these chips were all available when the PC was designed: I know which chip *I'd* have used! Me too, but the 68000 only had a 16 bit data bus. And at the time, cpu's were rated rated by the data bus width. Nonsense. At the time bitness was a measure of the accumulator width. The data bus had no bearing on it. Bus width is an implementation detail. DO you consider the Pentium a 64bit processor? Then 68000 which was defined by Motorola as a 16 bit cpu is now define as a 32bit cpu.:-) 8088 (8/16) was defined by Intel as an 8 bit cpu. No it was not. The 8088 was always defined as a 16 bit processor. It was marketed as a cost-reduced (at the system level) 8086. Today it's defined as a 16bit CPU. One can no longer take anything for granted as the companys have started fudging and cludging numbers for marketing hype. Here's the best BS I've ever seen. NEC compares their NEAX 2000 pbx to Toshiba's (forgot the name) calling their processor a powerful 32bit bit compared to Toshibas 16bit. NEC was using a 486SLC (8 bit data bus) while Toshiba used a 68000 (16 bit data bues).:-) Now if you have ever used the 2, you know what I mean. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:40:23 +0000, borolad wrote:
*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ΈτΆσ - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'* Somebody want the fun of tracing this jerk and getting his ISP to yank his connection? -- Keith |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:16:59 +0200, "jack" wrote:
George Macdonald wrote: : On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:58:07 +0200, "jack" wrote: : :: gaffo wrote: :: snip all :: :: Dude, your sig is a bummer, man. As much as I agree with your :: political views and frustrations entirely, your sig as it stands :: simply has no place on Usenet...it's very unpolite (meaning WAY too :: large). : : What's new - another left-wing windbag! Well, Vswm No. 1 steps up to the podium... Thank you... thank you.... thank you. I'm honored to have such an award from the likes of you. :: Also, at least in this NG (.chips) your political :: statements are falling more or less on deaf ears as this group is :: populated with a large number of SWM (stupid white men) and even a :: few VSWM (V = very). Get my drift? : : One of those days, Jack (gaffo I dunno), you're going to waken up to : discover that all your liberal politicians are really just : right-wingers pretending to err, take care of you... as they umm, : liberally dip their : hand in your pocket.:-) C.F. New Jersey McGreevey - another : corrupt little "liberal" **** gets caught err, dipping.guffaw FOAD you right-wing POS. In fact, why don't you stick your 9mm and your bible right up your ass and do us ALL a favor, asshole. Hey listen for the sound of jack-boots really carefully Jack. That car you drive is a certain target for confiscation when your party of choice gets its ducks in a row and cons everyone into getting it into power. But hey, didn't they just get elected where you live? Oh dear, I wonder how long it'll take??.... better keep your eye out for EC directives on the subject... probably how they'll start. It certainly doesn't have a "pedestrian friendly" front end either... a double whammy that, on top of being such a conspicuous consumer of "valuable world resources".:-( Of course before then, there's always the chance that some frenzied environut will take matters into his own righteous hands - probably better to hide it. Yer a bloody living paradox my son. Oh BTW, I don't own any 9mm or any other weapon and I'm a a born-again pagan - not a bible in the house... sorry about that. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
NASCAR from EAsports is asome with 3 montiors
"Dave" wrote in message ... Snip 8 I can't imagine AGP entirely disappearing within a year or two. There will still be a big market for AGP upgrade cards in the near future. Heck, you can still buy a GeForce 5200 or Radeon 9200 in PCI. Yes, very handy for adding extra monitors to the computer. Too bad very few games make use of extra monitors. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:18:34 +0200, jack wrote: And so Vswm No. 2 steps up to spew his usual rhetoric. You're even a bigger right-wing asshole than Vswm No. 1.....plonk! See? The looney-left cannot stand anyone who disagrees with them. Their heads are going to pop on Nov 3. I can only value someone's opinion if they can debate both sides of a question with approximately equal vigor. Contentious decisions always boil down to personal values, not logic nor facts. -- Robert |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:33:28 -0400, keith wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:53:53 +0000, Wes Newell wrote: Me too, but the 68000 only had a 16 bit data bus. And at the time, cpu's were rated rated by the data bus width. Nonsense. At the time bitness was a measure of the accumulator width. It's obvious that you've never seen data sheets from the 1979 time period. I've got a complete set. and it's called a 16bit cpu by Motorola and Signetics (second source). The data bus had no bearing on it. Bus width is an implementation detail. So tell me, just how old were you in '79? Were you even born yet? Did you know what a microprocessor was at the time? DO you consider the Pentium a 64bit processor? Times have changed. I think i made that clear by refering to the time period. Then 68000 which was defined by Motorola as a 16 bit cpu is now define as a 32bit cpu.:-) 8088 (8/16) was defined by Intel as an 8 bit cpu. No it was not. Check data sheets fom the time period and you'll change your mind.:-) The 8088 was always defined as a 16 bit processor. It was marketed as a cost-reduced (at the system level) 8086. At least you're half right here. Today it's defined as a 16bit CPU. Did you even read this? Now if you would like to make a small wager of say $100,000.00. Let me know. Bring the cash and I'll show you the data sheets. I like easy money.:-) -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:29:44 -0400, keith wrote:
Second, the 8088 is by any reasonable definition a "real" 16-bit processor. It has *exactly* the same architecture as the 8086, so if you consider the 8086 a "real" 16b processor, then you must also admit that the 8088 is. No one cares how you define, just as no one cares how I define, but the fact is that Intel itself defined it as an 8 bit CPU when it first came out. I had this same arguement a couple of years ago. Someone with a scanner finally proved me right. I'm still willing to bet though.:-) It was more than a few months before the 8086 clones started. Q had their clone out by summer though. I consider 3-6 to be a few. Now I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure 8086 clones showed up within that time period. And if it were 8 months, so what. -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Dave wrote:
"gaffo" wrote in message m... Wes Newell wrote: On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:03:11 +0000, gaffo wrote: Feel free to *plonk* me it my sign offends. Doesn't offend me. thats good. It just shows your stupidity and lack of consideration for others. My civic duty to my Nation as a citizen is more important then my civility - Liberty is on the line. How about the rest of the world? Do you actually think everybody else on the whole planet actually cares about your particular political belief? Why don't you target Bush's electorate with your views instead of the rest of the world (those of us that have NG/internet access, anyway)? Dave good point Dave..............sadly I still must follow what I feel is my duty, even if it offends non-US folks. peace. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:17:42 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith wrote: On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:18:34 +0200, jack wrote: And so Vswm No. 2 steps up to spew his usual rhetoric. You're even a bigger right-wing asshole than Vswm No. 1.....plonk! See? The looney-left cannot stand anyone who disagrees with them. Their heads are going to pop on Nov 3. I can only value someone's opinion if they can debate both sides of a question with approximately equal vigor. Oh, I'm not on the high school debate team. I don't take both sides (usually). I've formed my opinions (and have changed them 180 degrees perhaps a couple of times) over my soon-to-be 34 years. ;-) Contentious decisions always boil down to personal values, not logic nor facts. I'm not sure that's true. Ask anyone why they hate 'W'. ...or better yet, John Ashcroft. You will not likely get a cogent answer. Hate is an ugly emotion, that will consume all. We're seeing this today. THere isn't even a "personal value" that can be stuck to this issue. -- Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Advice/Suggestion/Info CPU comparison Athlon64 v P4 | Bruce M. Whealton | General | 1 | August 27th 04 05:15 PM |
Worth getting Barton 2500 now that Athlon64 is here? | Steve Wolfe | General | 22 | August 23rd 04 11:30 PM |
CPU barton v thoroughbred | chris | General | 2 | July 13th 04 10:49 PM |
Overclocked 2500 Barton to 3200 using my old Crucial 2100 DDR | [email protected] | General | 5 | January 18th 04 09:01 AM |
XP2500 Barton or XP2600 Barton? | As mellow as a horse | General | 1 | December 11th 03 09:25 PM |