Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #161805
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.os.development, alt.folklore.computers, comp.arch |
| Subject | Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] |
| Date | 2016-04-01 21:26 -0400 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <20160401212654.16d3f9f0@_> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <2a274749-c9d5-4091-81d7-a2cb2a298d6d@googlegroups.com> <ndle1l$2s2$2@dont-email.me> <ndllam$utu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ndmq68$jmo$1@dont-email.me> <20160401212231.1c439bc6@_> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400 Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 22:48:32 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 01/04/2016 12:16, wolfgang kern wrote: > > > James Harris wrote: > > > > [Z80 binary compatibility] > The issue of processor pin-compatibility versus > binary-compatibility comes up from time to time > on alt.os.development. > > I decided to post a basic list for reference: > > NEC V20 - pin compatible with 8088 > NEC V30 - pin compatible with 8086 > Cyrix Cx486 series - pin compatible with 80386 > W65C802 - pin compatible with 65C02 > 6501 - pin compatible with 6800 > 68010 - pin compatible with 68010 Correction: 68010 - pin compatible with 68000 > NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186 > Z80 - binary compatible with 8080 > 8008 - binary compatible with 2200 > KL5C8400 - binary compatible with Z80 > Rod Pemberton
Back to alt.folklore.computers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-01 21:22 -0400
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-01 21:26 -0400
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-04-02 08:46 +0000
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve) - 2016-04-03 12:31 +0000
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-04-03 14:44 +0200
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-04-03 18:53 +0000
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve) - 2016-04-03 20:07 +0000
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-04-03 21:18 +0000
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 20:20 -0400
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 20:17 -0400
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-04-04 15:53 +0000
Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] roger.ivie@gmail.com - 2016-04-02 09:48 -0700
Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-04-04 17:24 -0500
Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-04-04 23:08 +0000
Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-05 03:05 +0000
Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Bogus@Embarq.com (Steve) - 2016-04-05 17:43 +0000
Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-04-05 19:15 +0100
Re: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor ISAs] "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-04-17 02:37 -0500
csiph-web