Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > kelsey hudson wrote: >> gossamer axe wrote: >> yeah, so just like the number of GPRs in the x86 architecture, it's >> CPU interrupt architecture sucks just as bad, being that there were >> really only 3-4 spare IRQs for hardware that wasn't already in the >> box. How this architecture caught on I'll never know. > > Three letters ... > > I ... B ... M > > Nobody bought an "Intel". They bought an "IBM". > > And, in fact, they didn't even really buy an "IBM". > > They bought "that thing that runs Lotus and WordPerfect". > > x86 was simply along for the ride. > > And, to be fair, the x86 isn't that bad an architecture when you have to > draw the schematics by hand and cut rubylith with an xacto knife. > > We judge the x86 architecture by what we know now; not by what they knew > then. >
We can't try another timeline, but it's always fun thinking about it, and I suppose there are some bits of lessons to learn. I have heard that a good part of pc roadmap was predetermined by the initial obsession with using 8080 components (for cost, I guess). If that's true, then, from hindsight, might that have been that right choice? Maybe it was? The initial 8088 did enjoy a market of what, .. 5-6 years? Could IBM have built a successful and marketable pc on a 68000 or Z8000? (or ..?). Any guesses on whether that would have accelerated either software or hardware advances? Did the shortage of IRQs, and DMA channels, and the complications of segmented addressing really amount to any significant hindrance (beyond being a royal annoyance) to development of the art? ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
