Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!zu
From: zu@ethz.UUCP (Urs Zurbuchen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 80x86 numbering (was: 80486)
Message-ID: <715@ethz.UUCP>
Date: 13 Dec 88 13:00:48 GMT
References: <15374@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <45900175@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <10254@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <2618@rti.UUCP>
Reply-To: zu@bernina.UUCP (Urs Zurbuchen)
Organization: ETH Zuerich, Switzerland
Lines: 23

In article <2618@rti.UUCP> bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes:
>What do you do with the architecture after the 80386 - outside of speedups
>like more on-chip cache and higher MHz?  The architecture has pretty much
>reached its limit ... look at '386 native mode:  a complete revamping of
>the instruction set!  Seems to me that after '386 native mode there's no
>good place to take the architecture, it's already pretty much maxed out.
>So you either make it faster or you go to a new chip design.  Why then is 
>there all this hype about a '486?  It'll probably only be a fast '386
>(like the 80186 to an 8086).

The 80486 is rumored to have a virtual 80286 mode as the 80386 has a
virtual 8086 mode. That's all we waited for, isn't it. So we can run
multiple OS/2's on one computer :-) (If you run two OS/2's does this
make it a complete Operating System ?)

By the way, this virtual 80286 mode caused Intel a lot of problems. It
seems to be the main reason why the chip is that late.

		...urs



uucp: ...!seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!zu