Computer collecting humor.

From: Philip.Belben_at_powertech.co.uk <(Philip.Belben_at_powertech.co.uk)>
Date: Tue Nov 4 07:42:08 1997

Tim Hotze wrote:

> Also, 88 (8088), 87 (487, 8087, etc.) and many other numbers. With macs,
> there's a whole slew of numbers that I don't want to get into.

Riccardo quoted Tony Duel as having written:

> >Which reminds me. Which word lengths have been used by (binary) computers?
> >Off the top of my head :
> >
> >4 (Intel 4004, etc)
> >8 (Far too many to list)
> >12 (PDP8, PDP12, etc)
> ..omissis...
> >What others?
>
> 9 (Texas 99/4, 990/10, TMS 9900)
> 86 (Intel Docet again)

I think some of you have misinterpreted Tony's question. He was asking
about word lengths. I do not believe that the Texas 99 series had a
word length of 9 bits (16 wasn't it?)

The Intel 8088 was 8 bits, the 8086 16; the 80x87, as I recall, are 80
bits internally (another one for your list, Tony, if coprocessors
count!)

I believe that there are some CPU chips now with 64-bit internal buses.
Any advance on 64?

At the other end, do the processors in the AMT DAP count as 1-bit
machines? Or are they bit-slices of a 32 bit machine? Or a 1024 bit
machine?

Philip.
Received on Tue Nov 04 1997 - 07:42:08 GMT