Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content=3D"text/html; charset=3DISO-8859-15"
http-equiv=3D"Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" text=3D"#000000">
On 3/21/2011 23:34, R. C. White wrote:
<blockquote
cite=3D"mid:
[email protected]"
type=3D"cite">Hi, Richard.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">Not exactly correct. The first home
computers had what IBM called a 386.
<br>
Then went to a=A0 486.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You're starting a generation or two late.=A0 :^{
<br>
<br>
Depends on your definition of "home computers".
<br>
<br>
My first computer was the original TRS-80, in 1977, with the Z80
chip from Zilog, which was an improvement on Intel's 8080.=A0 IBM's=
first PC (Personal Computer) used the Intel 8088 CPU, which was
16-bit internally but communicated over an 8-bit bus, requiring
each 16-bit word to be divided into two 8-bit bytes, transmitted,
then reassembled at the receiving end. The 8086 (in the AT, for
Advanced Technology) was the first true 16-bit chip used by IBM,
as I recall.=A0 And that was still long before the 32-bit 80386, or=
even the 80286.
<br>
<br>
Most people overlook the 80186, which was a true 16-bit CPU with
16-bit data path.=A0 That's what is in the Tandy 2000, which I
bought in 1983 (and still have in the "museum" in my closet).=A0
This was from Tandy, not IBM, of course, and used TRS-DOS, not
MS-DOS, and was not bothered by the 64-KB limit on usable RAM.=A0 M=
y
machine eventually was upgraded to 768 KB RAM, which was rare in
those days.=A0 The Tandy 2000 was featured in ads in Creative
Computing and other magazines of the day with Bill Gates saying it
would be the perfect machine for his forthcoming new "Windows",
which would be released Real Soon Now.=A0 And, yes, I did run
Windows (1.0) on it - but not long - before Windows 2.0 and, at
last, Windows 3.1, the first really productive version.
<br>
<br>
This is from 30+ year-old memory, so there may be some slight
slippage, but I'm sure it's mostly correct.
<br>
<br>
But Microsoft still should have called it "x32" instead of "x86".
<br>
<br>
RC
<br>
</blockquote>
<font size=3D"+2">Pretty much on the ball park, but the 8086 was not
used on the 'AT' it was used on the 'XT' and in most other clones,
plus several mainframe terminals (smart ones). The advanced clones
used the 80186, a great CPU, but too expensive for the times.<br>
The 'AT' used the 286 and was able to break the 640K barrier since
it implemented 'protect mode', later perfected on the 386 series,
Motorola chips never had such problems since their design was way
ahead of the Intel ones, but were harder to program, at that time
there were not too many 'good, experienced' programmers available,
so Intel took over.<br>
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>
Still the asshole I see.
