TMURPHY@WPI.BITNET (12/05/88)
> using processors I have never heard of. Thus, one can not say that IBM uses > only 8080 microprocessors. Also, I don't think that 8088 and the 80286 are > completely the same chip. IBM uses the 8086 family, not the 8080. Big difference, the 8080 is a fairly primitive 8-bit processor, the 8086 family are all at least 16-bits internally. (The 8088 is 8-bits externally). Tom ________________________________________________________________ Thomas C. Murphy Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab Mechanical Engineering Dept. BITNET: TMURPHY@WPI Arpanet: tmurphy%wpi.bitnet@talcott.harvard.edu
jmj@mhuxu.UUCP (J. M. Johnson) (12/06/88)
In article <8812051327.AA03000@wpiee.local>, TMURPHY@WPI.BITNET writes:
= IBM uses the 8086 family, not the 8080. Big difference, the 8080 is a fairly
= primitive 8-bit processor, the 8086 family are all at least 16-bits internally
= (The 8088 is 8-bits externally).
The 8086 is an 8 bit processor inside and out. The 8088 has a 16 bit internal
data bus, but only an 8 bit external bus connection.
--
Life's just a game, you fly a paper plane, there is no end. - TBA
J. M. Johnson, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Reading, PA ...!att!mhuxu!jmjjockc@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Jock Cooper) (12/07/88)
In article <8796@mhuxu.UUCP> jmj@mhuxu.UUCP (J. M. Johnson) writes: >In article <8812051327.AA03000@wpiee.local>, TMURPHY@WPI.BITNET writes: >>IBM uses the 8086 family, not the 8080. Big difference, the 8080 is a fairly >>primitive 8-bit processor,the 8086 family are all at least 16-bits internally >>(The 8088 is 8-bits externally). > >The 8086 is an 8 bit processor inside and out. The 8088 has a 16 bit internal >data bus, but only an 8 bit external bus connection. > Perhaps you meant to say "8080 is an 8 bit processor inside and out". The 8086 is 16 bits in and out, and the 8088 is, as you said, 16 bits inside, 8 bits (data) out.
paul@athertn.Atherton.COM (Paul Sander) (12/07/88)
In article <8796@mhuxu.UUCP>, jmj@mhuxu.UUCP (J. M. Johnson) writes: > In article <8812051327.AA03000@wpiee.local>, TMURPHY@WPI.BITNET writes: > = IBM uses the 8086 family, not the 8080. Big difference, the 8080 is a fairly > = primitive 8-bit processor, the 8086 family are all at least 16-bits internally > = (The 8088 is 8-bits externally). > > The 8086 is an 8 bit processor inside and out. The 8088 has a 16 bit internal > data bus, but only an 8 bit external bus connection. > > -- > Life's just a game, you fly a paper plane, there is no end. - TBA > > J. M. Johnson, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Reading, PA ...!att!mhuxu!jmj Actually, the 8080 was the first microprocessor that Intel made that was widely available in a personal computer. (It was the successor to the 8008, which was used in a few homebrew systems, but was used a lot for embedded controllers.) I remember the Altair 8800 (manufactured by MITS in Arizona) covered in a two-part article in Popular Electronics in January and February of 1975. This was even before the 8224 and 8228 and all of those nice support and peripheral chips were available. The successor of the 8080 was the 8085, which became available in early 1977. It had a new buss interface, and a few new instructions. This was also used in a number of personal systems, for example, Godbout comes to mind. The 8086 was announced around 1977 or 1978, and became available around 1978. It is a sixteen bit processor, in and out. About a year and a half later, the 8088 came out, intended to be used as an interim device while system manufacturers phased over to 16 bit architectures. The 8088 has the same execution unit as the 8086 (i.e. it executes the same instruction set), but it had an 8085 buss interface. IBM opted for the 8088 (presumably because they wanted a personal computer FAST, and designers were more experienced with the 8085 hardware). Some of the early clones used the 8086 instead, as it was about 12% faster at the same processor clock speed. The 8086 and 8088 were succeeded by the 80186 and 80188, respectively, but they did not catch on in the personal computer market. Instead, they found their niche in the embedded controller market. Again, both processors had the same (16-bit) execution unit, but the 80186 had a 16-bit buss interface, and the 80188 had an 8-bit buss interface. A few IBM clones used these processors also, as they were slightly faster than the 8086 and 8088. The 80186 was succeeded by the 80286 that everyone knows and has a love/hate relationship with nowadays. To my knowledge, there is no 80288. Hope this clears up the confusion. But I thought this was an Apple (6502 et al, and 68000) newsgroup. -- Paul Sander (408) 734-9822 | Do YOU get nervous when a paul@athertn.Atherton.COM | sys{op,adm,prg,engr} says {decwrl,sun,hplabs!hpda}!athertn!paul | "oops..." ?