Doper Dan, you have your parts mixed up.
<<
(quoting an article)
The iAPX432 appeared as the X86 architecture was coming to an apparent end with the 80286, as far as desktop computing was concerned. Even the numbering schemes for the chips changed as Intel devised the iAPX (Intel's Advanced Performance Architecture) moniker for its entire line of processors. The iAPX 432 was to be the flagship, with all other chips renamed accordingly
zdnet.com;
The 8800/432 was begun in the mid-70s, _before_ the instruction set and design of the 8086 was begun.
Your claim was that it failed because it was not "IBM PC-compatible," when the IBM PC and clones appeared after the introduction (and beginnings of failure in the market) of the 432.
The quote above does not support your chronology in any way.
<<Re: The 860 and 960 are completely different chips
Sorry, but that wasn't what Intel originally intended:
The Intel i860 microprocessor delivers supercomputer performance in a single VLSI component. The 64-bit design of the i860 balances integer, floating point, and graphic performance, and its architecture makes it suitable for many applications including engineering workstations, scientific computing, 3-D graphics workstations, and multi-user systems.
alacron.com
When the 860 proved a total failure as a CPU it was respun as an embedded processor - where it has proved to be a fine part for that task. >>
No, the 860 saw very little use as an embedded processor. In fact, it saw very little use at all. You are apparently confusing it with the 960. See my other post. And see the articles here a few months ago by Dave Budde.
Get off the crack, Dan.
--Tim May |
