Article View: comp.os.linux.hardware
Article #837Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?
From: B. Joshua Rosen
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 02:33
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 02:33
11 lines
2027 bytes
2027 bytes
In <95mvgukpc993tcite11gntmdrcndi8iiio@4ax.com>, Bitey wrote: > didn't the 8080/8086 had a shared data/memory bus, now thats a wondeful > design decsion...it would be fine for some embedded application....but > not as the CPU in a PC > All microprocessors of that time had shared memory/data buses. A really big package had 64 pins, there might have been some 80 pin packages (my memory is a bt fuzzy) but that was it.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<pan.2002.06.19.02.33.36.943472.20068@polybus.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!130.133.1.3!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!65.200.172.65!not-for-mailReferences:
<3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$pw3.4355@sccrnsc03> <MPG.1776a491ca74b5bf989edd@powernews.libero.it> <1fdyury.16lgkkf1d22zw9N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> <x5it4h2d58.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz> <1fdyxzl.1eky32lcx38cvN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> <x58z5c3oop.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz> <95mvgukpc993tcite11gntmdrcndi8iiio@4ax.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f9e16,ea3300a83f1f851c X-Google-Attributes: gidf9e16,public X-Google-Thread: 102b32,ea3300a83f1f851c X-Google-Attributes: gid102b32,public X-Google-Thread: f65d0,ea3300a83f1f851c X-Google-Attributes: gidf65d0,public X-Google-Thread: 1045b9,ea3300a83f1f851c X-Google-Attributes: gid1045b9,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-18 19:33:28 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!130.133.1.3!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!65.200.172.65!not-for-mail From: "B. Joshua Rosen" <bjrosen@polybus.com> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware,gnu.gcc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.text.tex Subject: Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible? Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:33:42 -0400 Organization: Polybus Systems Corp Lines: 11 Message-ID: <pan.2002.06.19.02.33.36.943472.20068@polybus.com> References: <3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$pw3.4355@sccrnsc03> <MPG.1776a491ca74b5bf989edd@powernews.libero.it> <1fdyury.16lgkkf1d22zw9N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> <x5it4h2d58.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz> <1fdyxzl.1eky32lcx38cvN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> <x58z5c3oop.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz> <95mvgukpc993tcite11gntmdrcndi8iiio@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.200.172.65 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1024454007 9253578 65.200.172.65 (16 [78650]) X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail User-Agent: Pan/0.11.3 (Unix) X-Comment-To: "Bitey" <no@spamless.com>