Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #51816
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] |
| Date | 2016-10-13 00:49 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <ntmlnn$qa9$3@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <nrg732$nht$1@dont-email.me> <2016Sep16.103757@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <nrimtg$5no$1@dont-email.me> <60434f3e-5146-4d31-a7d5-0f9b969c9518@googlegroups.com> <nrkabh$7vi$1@dont-email.me> |
Am Sat, 17 Sep 2016 16:51:03 -0400 schrieb rickman: > That's your opinion. The x86 was the design the world wanted at the > time. You mean IBM. IBM choose the 8088 over the 68000 due to time to market pressure. At that time, the 68000 was just being debugged, and the 8088 was ready. It was Microsoft which convinced IBM to actually use a 16 bit processor; they had planned to use an 8 bit processor originally. It was supposed to be a home computer, nothing serious, as they feared cannibalizing their workstation market (which it eventually did, but first, it cannibalized the typewriter market, something IBM could live with). > In other words, it best met the needs of users. Only gear heads argue > about which CPU *should* have won the race. Of course we argue about what should have won from a technical point of merit. Mundane marketing issues like availability on the market at a specific point in time doesn't count. For several years to come after the initial PC, the 68k competitors like Atari ST, Mac, Amiga, where all better offerings than the original IBM PC, and those machines had found a lot of customers, too. That changed when the clones came and pushed the price down. And at that point in time, the 386 was already there; the clone makers were the first to introduce the 386 (Compaq, IIRC), just with ISA, when IBM wanted to transition people to Microchannel, a failed attempt of gaining back control. Later, PCI replaced ISA, it came from Intel and was open. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
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