Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #51031
| Path | csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] |
| Organization | nocrew |
| References | <454f3f29-cfc9-4f00-9003-d44bc5595dd9@googlegroups.com> <BKudnWFihPi6YyTKnZ2dnUU7-N_NnZ2d@supernews.com> <f14aebd4-a311-4d91-b84e-225054af6583@googlegroups.com> <b63706c1-c0dc-4a12-9a51-775655350437@googlegroups.com> <22d8f492-500f-4648-99e6-9950ddca99e4@googlegroups.com> <nrg732$nht$1@dont-email.me> <2016Sep16.103757@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| Date | Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <86twdgi1zz.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org> (permalink) |
| User-Agent | Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:nzQi25nE3acgvBfesxeqlDTxCsA= |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain |
| Lines | 34 |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 178.18.91.250 |
| X-Trace | news.sunsite.dk DXC=5EYEZkCaXSkbJlfT[;@_ShYSB=nbEKnkkU]VG0RD772inY:6X7^ZBNgI57e>YZ9SOk1HBfORCSCccD5J_h8H;EFc3jI9:ncSEgh |
| X-Complaints-To | staff@sunsite.dk |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.forth:51031 |
Show key headers only | View raw
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
> Intel was first to market in the beyond-8-bit area, which got them the
> IBM PC design win, so in a way their decisions were right.
There are a few different versions of that story. Maturity and time to
market seems to have been one concern, but also cost:
68000 was carefully considered. "An excellent architecture chip, it
has proven to be a worthy competitor to the Intel-based
architecture." There were four major concerns:
1) 16 bit data path would require more bus buffers, therefore a more
expensive system board.
2) more memory chips for a minimum configuration.
3) while it had a performance advantage, the 68000 was not as memory
efficient.
4) Companion and support chips not as well covered as Intel.
He also felt the the 68000 didn't have as good software and support
tools, and the similar register model allowed the porting of 8080
tools to the 8086/8088.
"In summary the 8088 was selected because it allowed the lowest cost
implementation of an architecture that provided a migration path to
a larger address space and higher performance implementations.
Because it was a unique choice relative to competitive system
implementations, IBM could be viewed as a leader, rather than a
follower. It had a feasible software migration path that allowed
access to the large base of existing 8080 software.
http://yarchive.net/comp/ibm_pc_8088.html
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:04 -0700
Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:12 -0700
Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:17 -0700
Re: Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:54 -0700
Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 07:26 -0700
Re: Hard Forth Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:07 +0200
Re: Hard Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:37 -0400
Re: Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 14:51 -0700
Re: Hard Forth lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:43 -0700
Re: Hard Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:16 -0700
Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:20 -0700
Re: Hard Forth julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2016-08-21 01:36 -0700
Re: Hard Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:41 -0700
Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-21 14:16 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 13:50 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 19:46 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-21 22:29 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 07:03 +0300
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-21 23:13 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 07:18 +0300
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 22:08 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-22 00:55 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 23:27 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 06:00 -0400
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 23:30 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:04 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-23 16:11 +1000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 23:45 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-08-21 21:42 -1000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:57 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 03:30 -0400
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 08:37 +0000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-09-16 12:16 +0200
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 12:56 +0000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 09:39 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 02:13 -0400
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 23:46 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-17 02:02 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 00:41 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:51 -0400
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 17:24 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-18 15:44 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-13 00:49 +0000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-13 03:32 +0200
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 23:34 -0400
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-10-13 04:02 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-13 15:04 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 00:04 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] mhx@iae.nl - 2016-09-17 01:28 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 02:04 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-17 15:38 +0000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-17 10:20 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:52 -0400
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-17 14:18 +0000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 17:22 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-08-29 15:33 +0200
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bruce Axtens <bruce.axtens@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:16 +0800
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-16 10:29 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:54 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 03:03 -0500
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 01:19 -0700
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 08:32 +0000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-09-16 13:15 +0200
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-13 01:05 +0000
Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 09:45 -0500
csiph-web