Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #161916
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.os.development, alt.folklore.computers, comp.arch |
| Subject | Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor |
| Date | 2016-04-03 18:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dmd755Fs66uU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <nd19lt$3h5$1@dont-email.me> <dm9f78FflomU36@mid.individual.net> <c1.2b8.3qdDy3$05p@NOVOSAD3.EMBARQ.COM> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:31:39 +0000, Steve wrote: > Hi, > > Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes: >>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:22:31 -0400, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> >>> NEC V20 - binary compatible with 80186 >> >>That sort of depends on whether you limit yourself to the instruction >>set. The 80186 had a very different software interface to (e.g.) the >>interrupt controller. > > According to "The Undocumented PC", the V20 did not support > undocumented 80186 opcodes. It also had a mode where it supported 8080 > binary code. > > Regards, > > Steve N. I actually had some V30s on a few PCs (the V30 was to the 8086 what the V20 was to the 8088). The V3x was significantly faster than the 808x on multiply and divide, etc. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
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