[comp.arch] Just an idea for the gang at Intel.

ehohnbau@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU (06/01/91)

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?

Kind of like the Mac LC/Apple II emulation board.

I would appreciate if replies were also sent by email so that I don't miss
the post by accident. (ehohnbau@bonnie.ics.uci.edu)

dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers) (06/04/91)

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	*