Article View: comp.sys.intel
Article #19Re: Why not INTEL586?
From: Samuel A. Fineberg
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 00:24
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 00:24
17 lines
1245 bytes
1245 bytes
In article <1992Oct28.230413.28960@umr.edu>, mcastle@mcs213d.cs.umr.edu (Michael R Castle) writes: |> In article <1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (Tan Jin Meng) writes: |> >I can understand why INTEL would want a name for their next generation |> >processor to be trademarkable. Then why not simply use the name |> >INTEL586. Surely this has to be trademarkable. |> > |> >jin meng |> |> |> Because then we would have Cyrix586 and Am586 and we would be back where we |> started. |> |> Btw, is Motorola having this problem? ;-> |> mrc Who would want to copy their processors? Besides, 68k's aren't as overpriced. Sam
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Oct29.002433.21109@nas.nasa.gov>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!data.nas.nasa.gov!win31.nas.nasa.gov!finebergReferences:
<1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> <1992Oct28.230413.28960@umr.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!data.nas.nasa.gov!win31.nas.nasa.gov!fineberg From: fineberg@win31.nas.nasa.gov (Samuel A. Fineberg) Subject: Re: Why not INTEL586? References: <1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> <1992Oct28.230413.28960@umr.edu> Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov (News Administrator) Organization: CSC, NASA Ames Research Center, NAS Division Date: Thu, 29 Oct 92 00:24:33 GMT Message-ID: <1992Oct29.002433.21109@nas.nasa.gov> Reply-To: fineberg@nas.nasa.gov Lines: 17