mikel@bmcg.UUCP (09/22/84)
Please take note that the 32032 is now the 32132 with the numbers 32232, 32332 and 32432 reserved for future parts. I don't know what the 32016 (16016) or the 32008 (16008) are called. These changes in the numbers is as of 9/21/84 at 4pm and comes from a National person. (I'm so confused! |-} ) Old New New and improved 16008 32008 ? 16016 32016 ? 16032 32032 32123 - - 32232 - - 32332 - - 32432 Look forward to a change in the 32432 because of a conflict with Intel's iAPX432 numbering.
chongo@nsc.UUCP (Landon C. Noll) (09/23/84)
> Old New New and improved > 16008 32008 ? > 16016 32016 ? > 16032 32032 32123 > - - 32232 > - - 32332 > - - 32432 16008? 16016? i think you were given some wrong information there. here is a better list: old new 08032 32008 16032 32016 32032 32032 <tricky> The NS32132 was to be the next generation 32000 chip. The NEW system has several more stanges in it so you will see: NS32132, NS32232, and so on... chongo <> /\../\ -- "If they do distribute it, it is not part of UN*X (*)" J. Alton `84 (*)UN*X is a trade secret known by only a few people. ;-)
mason@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Mason) (09/27/84)
Someone from nsc claimed there was never any 16008 chip number.
I have a manual #DA-B30M013, Preliminary January 1983, titled
"NS16008S-6, NS16008S-4 High performance 8-bit Microprocessors"
(c)1983 National Smiconductor Corp.
....but then, it's probably a figment of my imagination.
.......or maybe it only existed in Canada
--
Usenet: {dalcs dciem garfield musocs qucis sask titan trigraph ubc-vision
utzoo watmath allegra cornell decvax decwrl ihnp4 uw-beaver}
!utcsrgv!mason Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRG
CSNET: mason@Toronto
ARPA: mason%Toronto@CSNet-Relaysrm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (10/08/84)
Yes, there was a 16008, subsequently known as the 08032 and now known as
the 32008. If anyone is really concerned to know the whole grisly story
of Series 32000 part numbering history (going back to the 8090!) send me
mail, and I'll try to unconfuse things.
--
Richard Mateosian
{amd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPAchongo@nsc.UUCP (Landon C. Noll) (10/08/84)
> > Old New New and improved > > 16008 32008 ? > > 16016 32016 ? > > 16032 32032 32123 > > - - 32232 > > - - 32332 > > - - 32432 > > 16008? 16016? i think you were given some wrong information there. here is > a better list: > > old new > 08032 32008 > 16032 32016 > 32032 32032 <tricky> I never said that the chips didnt exist! I suggested that some wrong information was obtained because the 16016 is quite a bit different from the 32016; and the 16032 was connected with the 32016, not the 32032 as was suggested! Yes, the 16008 and 16016 chips were considered ... chongo <"There you go again... :-)"> /\../\
crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) (10/11/84)
If I recall correctly, the current 32008 is not quite the same as the
16008 of yore, which NSC people seem reluctant to talk about (possibly
because it never worked). The 16008 (and also, I think, the 16016)
was to have a mode in which it emulated the 8080. I suppose some
muckamuck went into a tizzy when he found that his architects hadn't
followed Intel's illustrious example [:-)] and he feared for the
marketability of a product for which there was no ostensible software
base already in place. Amazingly, sanity apparently won.
--
Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin
{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell