Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!yale!mintaka!ogicse!intelhf!int13!tim
From: tim@int13.hf.intel.com (Timothy E. Forsyth)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Intel Processors
Keywords: i486
Message-ID: <833@int13.hf.intel.com>
Date: 7 Aug 90 17:31:34 GMT
References: <1990Jul30.143353.25913@usenet@kadsma> <56214@microsoft.UUCP> <4005@rtifs1.UUCP> <56340@microsoft.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Intel Corp., Oregon MicroComputer Division, Hillsboro, OR
Lines: 34


Someone writes:
>>> to do with the million + chips: that when an intel had in i before its
>>> number, that meant that it had a million transistors, or whatever it is

>In article <4005@rtifs1.UUCP> bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes:
>>It's certainly not transistors 
...
>>I suspect that it is short for iAPX, a term they use on more
>>than just the 80x86 line (like the i860), and seems to designate
>>a processor architecture.

t-dona@microsoft.UUCP (Don AINGWORTH) writes:
>No, actually we were talking about the i486, which does indeed have
>>1,000,000 transistors in it.  Intel even made a big deal of that 
>particular fact.  You seem to be looking at the wrong chip.  Read
>mor carefully next time.  dork

Sorry Don, but Bruce is closer to the mark that anyone else has been.

I don't speak for Intel, and I work in the systems side of the company,
not the components side.

The "i" (little i) found on many of Intels' chips and products (like ix86,
iC86/286, iRMX, iAPX, etc) simply stands for what should be the most
obvious ... "INTEL" ... look at how we write our logo, with a "little i".

'nuf said

Tim Forsyth

-- 
Tim Forsyth, tim@int13.hf.intel.com or forsytim@ccm.hf.intel.com
Intel Corp., Oregon MicroComputer Division, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA