Sujet : Re: Intel
De : blockedofcourse (at) *nospam* foo.invalid (Don Y)
Groupes : sci.electronics.designDate : 03. Aug 2024, 23:18:41
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v8macd$3lerk$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2
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!
Intel
Re: Intel