Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!turnkey!orchard.la.locus.com!fafnir.la.locus.com!dana
From: dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Just an idea for the gang at Intel.
Summary: They're not as stupid as people say they are
Message-ID: <1991Jun04.031856.2801728@locus.com>
Date: 4 Jun 91 03:18:56 GMT
References: <9105312309.aa03113@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu>
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Inglewood, CA
Lines: 30

In article <9105312309.aa03113@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu> ehohnbau@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU writes:
>That guy from Intel was right.  There are some bashers out there.
>A big reason for this (I believe) is that maintaining compatibility with
>the old stuff forces kludgey design solutions and the purists cringe at
>stuff like that.
>
>How seriously have guys at Intel (or should I say IBM) considered coming up
>with something really cool and un-fettered chip and including an optional
>co-processor like a '386 on a board so that compatibility can be maintained
>with the rest of the PC world?


  Gosh, they've beaten you to it.

  -> They introduced the 80960 family a couple of years ago.
  -> They introduced the 80860 family a couple of years ago.
  -> The 8096 microcontroller, introduced in 1982 or so, is good for
     what it is.
  -> The 386 and 486 actually broke with the past in many ways.
  -> Don't know about the 960 and 860? Call (800) 548-4725 and
     ask for the Intel Product Guide. Then maybe order an 80960
     Programmer's Reference.

  Heck, even I'll say the 8086 architecture is less than optimal. But
all the pseudo-intellectual bigotry that goes on about this is even sillier.

-- 
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ 		| Views expressed here are	*
 * (213) 337-5136 		| mine and do not necessarily	*
 * dana@locus.com		| reflect those of my employer	*