Ancient 8086/80286 unixes?

Liam Proven lproven at gmail.com
Sun Sep 9 10:04:30 CDT 2007


Er. I found this difficult to follow...

On 09/09/2007, dwight elvey <dkelvey at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  I had a chance to ask Faggin why he did finish the math coprocessor

You mean, "didn't"?

> for the Z8000's. He stated that the handwriting was quite clear.

(Z8000s. No apostrophes on plurals. Not even on numbers. None, ever.)

> The 8086 would soon dominate. I wasn't worth the effort to get the

"It wasn't"?

> math coprocessor working.
>  Other than the addressing, the Z8000 had a nice register arangement.

("arrangement")

> It was much closer to a RISC than the 8086 ever was.

>  I still have a couple of NA2000 series boards. This was another National
> start and drop.
>  These has the 800 processor as dies on a PC board with other components.

("These have".)

I don't meant to nitpick - the corrections in parentheses did not
impede my comprehension. The ones outside them, though, *did*. I
suggest taking just a few more seconds over a post?


-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com • MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk • Skype: liamproven • ICQ: 73187508




More information about the cctech mailing list