Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372046
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. |
| Date | 2015-12-15 00:09 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <8a24kc-cvf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <n4msb7$1hn$2@speranza.aioe.org> <o2i3kc-rce.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <n4n9sm$2i2$1@speranza.aioe.org> <ibp3kc-34f.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <n4ng45$gbf$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
In sci.physics Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote: > ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote: > >>> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context, >>> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the >>> 16 bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not >>> instruction-set, but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may >>> relates to anything, 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc. >> >> No, I said the 8086 instruction set, which is what legacy Windows was >> coded for, and I meant 8086 instruction set, idiot. >> The 8086 was 16 bit only. > > I know better than you what an i8086 stands for (remark the difference, > stoopid). But you still appear severely uneducated. I must repeat, the > instruction set for a 16b i8086 CISC (complex) may be larger OR smaller > than 16b. (ie 8b, 16b, 24b, 32b etc) That's why is called CISC and not a > RISC. Hopefully you just got a lesson you never forget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086 Read it an learn what an idiot you are. -- Jim Pennino
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 20:47 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 21:36 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 22:33 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 00:09 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-14 21:57 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jürgen Großenbuch <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-15 15:02 +0000
csiph-web