🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <56340@microsoft.UUCP>, t-dona@microsoft.UUCP (Don AINGWORTH) writes:
> In article <4005@rtifs1.UUCP> bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes:
> >> to do with the million + chips: that when an intel had in i before its
>  number, that meant that it had a million transistors, or whatever it is
> 
> >It's certainly not transistors - the 386 only has about 275k
> >transistors, and the earlier 80x86 chips obviously have fewer.
> >I suspect that it is short for iAPX, a term they use on more
> >than just the 80x86 line (like the i860), and seems to designate
> >a processor architecture.
> 
> No, actually we were talking about the i486, which does indeed have
> >1,000,000 transistors in it.  Intel even made a big deal of that 
> particular fact.  You seem to be looking at the wrong chip.  Read
> mor carefully next time.  dork

Reviewing the article it appears _clear_ that the subject was the
"i" as in "i286", "i386", and "i486".  If that was not the intent
of the article it was remarkably poorly written.  I'm not disputing
that the _486_ has over a million transistors - but the "i" has
been around for a _lot_ longer than the 486 (my Intel book from
when the 286 first came out certainly uses it).

The "i" can't possibly indicate that the processor has over a
million transistors - the 286 and 386 chips have always had 
alternate names as i286 and i386 chips, and neither of them
has over a million transistors, or anywhere close to it.  If it
is an indicator of a million "somethings" I'm not sure what it
would be offhand.

As I said before, I suspect it is short for "iAPX", which is an
acronym of some sort that Intel seems to use for processor chips.
My guess is that it stands for something on the order of "Intel
Application Processor Architecture" (or something like that).

Suggest that you take the time to actually try to find an Intel
book from before the days of the 486, and maybe even (horrors)
_read_ it.  I've got quite a collection and can FAX you some 
relevant pages showing the use of the "i" for the 286 and 386 
quite a while ago.

						Bruce C. Wright