Re: Intel

On Sat, 03 Aug 2024 15:34:26 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 23:24:00 +0100, TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 03/08/2024 23:18, Don Y wrote:

On 8/3/2024 2:18 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:

And hung onto the Intel '86 architecture a tad too tightly, for far
too long.

 
Intel's folly was abandoning their more diverse offerings and focusing
solely on the x86.  Yeah, they tinkered with SA and Xscale but deluded
themselves into thinking that the "PC" would roll on, forever.  They
completely missed out on the larger embedded market in favor of more pricey
PC "CPUs".
 
OTOH, many of the original "big names" made similarly narrow-minded
decisions.
 
Remember SC/MP?  2650?  2A03?  8x300?  1802?  T11/F11?  9900?
Z280/Z800/Z8000/Z80000?  16032?  RGP?  29K?
 
What's truly amusing is how GI managed to survive and, to some extent,
thrive -- despite their dog of a "CPU"!
 
Sad that we have so few "choices", now.  And, such brain damaged I/Os!
 

My fave was the NSC800...I usd it in the first (?) all cmos hand held
terminal...and the Z80 could do io mapped DRAM, albeit slowly but it
worked as a printer buffer!

>
68K was a thing of beauty. Moto even did a risc (not microcoded)
version.

Many decades ago, I met the Instruction Set Architect of the M68000
family of processor chips.  He said that it was inspired by the DEC
PDP11 instruction set.

Joe Gwinn