bradd@gssc.UUCP (Brad Davis) (06/25/88)
The 8088 (and the 80188) is "the poor man's 8086 (80186)," and it's reason for being was to get 16 bit power into cheaper boxes that could use all the existing 8-bit peripherals. Intel developed the P9 to fill exactly this role in the next transition - from 16 to 32 bits. But when the 80388 was ready, some marketing type (who probably used to work for an automobile manufacturer) thought "386SX" had a nice, aggressive sound to it. Try this: Find someone familiar with the guts of PCs, but who hasn't heard of the announcement yet. Ask him what a "386SX" is, and you will probably get a blank stare. Then ask what an "80388" would be, and he will describe what Intel announced. Brad Davis 888 000 333 888 888 US MAIL: 9590 SW Gemini Dr. 8 8 0 0 3 8 8 8 8 Beaverton, OR 97005 888 0 0 33 888 888 PHONE: (503) 641-2200 8 8 0 0 3 8 8 8 8 UUCP: uunet!tektronix!sequent!gssc!bradd 888 000 333 888 888 Disclaimer: I'm a mushroom. "Practice safe computing. "Better living through 32/16 bits" Wear a write-protect tab."
neals@tekigm2.TEK.COM (Neal Sedell) (06/28/88)
In article <5729@gssc.UUCP> bradd@gssc.UUCP (Brad Davis) writes: > > ... deleted ... > > Try this: Find someone familiar with the guts of PCs, but who hasn't >heard of the announcement yet. Ask him what a "386SX" is, and you will >probably get a blank stare. Then ask what an "80388" would be, and he will >describe what Intel announced. probably true, but if you realllllly think about it, the present 80386 SHOULD be a 80382, and the 80386SX should be a 80386, using the last digit of the data bus width. Right???????? What can I say. It's Monday morning (again!) Waiting for the 80584, ;-) -- Neal