At 12:03 AM 2/21/2008, Chuck Harris wrote... >I'm not arguing anything at all. Assembler in the form of >mov x,3000 meaning x=3000 has been around from the very beginning.
One could equally say "move 3000,x meaning x=3000." What's your point? >Intel didn't need an excuse, they were the inventors, and Pascal is >why they created the CS, DS, ES, SS architecture. Repeating something doesn't make it so. Authoritative citations, please (preferably contemporaneous with the release of the architecture, and not current rationalizations). >It would have been impossible for intel to put a 32 bit bus and >register set on a processor like the 8086 back in 1978. Yet only a year later, in 1979, Motorola introduced the 68000 with a full 32 bit architecture. > It would have been impossible for any foundry at that > time. Motorola had the benefit of being a few years later on the > design curve. mov one,few >Motorola's architecture may have been more elegant, but they lost on >price vs. performance. They lost for one reason, and one reason only. IBM chose to base the PC architecture on Intel. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
