[CCTALK] RE: transistor counts again"

From: Douglas H. Quebbeman <dougq_at_iglou.com>
Date: Thu May 16 06:24:43 2002

> > I find that hard to believe. The 4004 was part of a chipset containing
> > the 4001 (ROM), 4002 (RAM) and 4003 (I forget exactly what, some kind of
> > I/O?). The 4001 and 4002 parts were used in lots of 4004 or 4040-based
> > designs.
>
> And according to Ted Hoff, it was quite by accident that it ended up with
> part number 4004. Coincidence and all.

Most companies that manufacture stuff just choose a starting number
for what they anticipate might be a series of things. Then they just
add one. Some of you might remeber a YES album from the 80s titled
'90125'... the title wasn't known in advance, as they'd decided the
title would simply be the same as the Atlantic Records serial number
that would end up being assigned to that album once it was finally
scheduled for manufacture. Additionally, that decision came at a
time when the band wasn't called YES< but CINEMA, but that's veering
way OT.

Anyway, eventually, either marketing comes in with their own ideas
about numbers, or the lawyers do: The Intel iAPX286 microprocessor
had the part number 80286, by which it was more colloquially known.
The Intel iAPX386, a chip for which I have the "confidential" pre-
liminary specifications, would have had the part number 80386.

But in a successful effort to wiggle out of the technology-
swapping agreement they had with AMD, they decided not to
produce the iAPX386. Instead, they produced the 80386, which
also "coincidently" had the part number 80386.

FWIW, the iAPX386 specification did not include the virtual 8086
mode that was present in the 80386. I always wonder what amazing
things might have been put on that silicon instead of V8086 mode.
Yes, V8086 mode is very useful for PeeCees, but of little use for
modern, non-DOS-related operating systems.

-dq
Received on Thu May 16 2002 - 06:24:43 BST