On Monday 08 October 2007 09:52:08 Stewart Stremler wrote: > begin quoting Bob La Quey as of Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 10:48:23PM -0700: > > On 10/7/07, Tracy R Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Gus Wirth wrote: > > > > They also happily run 16-bit code, aka DOS. Backward compatibility > > > > has been remarkably preserved across the entire x86 line. > > > > > > At tremendous expense in chip real-estate and power consumption. I > > > recall Andrew Lentvorski telling us all about it at Denny's one > > > evening. > > > > Hmm ... I wonder why that would be so? Whay could the older > > designs not be simply emulated in a layer of software? Andy? > > They can... but then there's no reason to stick with the x86 line. One > could -- and some do, or did when it was a reasonably-priced option -- > switch to an entirely different processor.
Intel did that on Itanium. Performed like a dead nun in a closet filled with concrete. Dex -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a- C++++ UL++ P+>++ L+++>++++ E-- W++ N o? K- w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y++ PGP t++(---)@ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--(+)@ b++(+++) DI+++ D- G++ e* h>++ r* y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ http://www.stop1984.com http://www.againsttcpa.com -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
