Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #161929

Re: OT: processor binary- or pin-compatibility, was [Re: Processor

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 20:07:53 +0000, Steve wrote:

> Hi Bob,
> 
> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes:
>>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.
> 
>    Yes I had a Zenith Z-100 and swapped out the 8088 for a while with
> a V20.  It seemed to run 10 to 15 percent faster, on average .  It did
> not like the 8087 I put in, so I went back to the 8088.

I couldn't afford an 8087, so I stuck with the V30!



-- 
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

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