In article <2297@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell) writes:
|>
|> No, I don't see anything wrong with using the 80x86 name- V20s and
|> V30s are a little out of date, besides everybody knows they're Intel
|> 80x86 clones. And, as someone else has already noted, people will keep
|> on calling Intel's Pentium the "586", and when Pentium clones come
|> out, the Pentium will be called the "Intels version of the 586". You may
|> see Intel switch back before too long!
Wrong. I've been following a couple of Pentium threads in various newgroups over the past weeks and as far as I can remember nobody ever refered to it as a 586.
And personally I think it's good that Intel did choose such a name, after all it keeps stupid companys to call their enhanced versions of the 486 a 586, as some did with their 386, thus warping the processor name confusion to a whole new dimension.
Do you think that people are gonna call the Motorola 68060 a 68050 just because Motorola left that number out?
BTW, I wouldn't except to see Pentium clones to soon (if ever). It's complexity may be well out of reach for some of the other companys. Remember, not only do they have to build it, they actually have to reverse engineer it. Time comsumption for reverse engineering grows over-proportionally to the complexity of the target. Some companys already put their future on the line with the development of 486 clones (which I still haven't seen one yet). And now that Intel is aware of the problem they may as well ha
ve thougt of some silicon equivalent of Adobe's Postsript font hints.
