Re: Why not INTEL586?

Article View: comp.sys.intel

Article #55

#55

From: John Abt
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1992 16:48

10 lines
807 bytes

>Heh.  And what would happen is that everyone would refere to the INTEL586 as 
>"586".  Which given previous legislation is not a trademark.  So people would
>see INTEL586 and CYRIX586 as "586" and therefore somehow equivalent.


how about the AmP5  ??



john

Technical Details

Message-ID: <5490@gold.gvg.tek.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ogicse!zephyr.ens.tek.com!newz.ens.tek.com!gvgpsa!gold.gvg.tek.com!psdcae1!johna

References:

<1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> <1992Oct28.232419.26035@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> <1992Oct31.172830.28625@ultb.isc.rit.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ogicse!zephyr.ens.tek.com!newz.ens.tek.com!gvgpsa!gold.gvg.tek.com!psdcae1!johna
From: johna@psdcae1.gvg.tek.com (John Abt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Why not INTEL586?
Message-ID: <5490@gold.gvg.tek.com>
Date: 2 Nov 92 16:48:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: gold.5490
References: <1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> <1992Oct28.232419.26035@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> <1992Oct31.172830.28625@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
Sender: news@gold.gvg.tek.com
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 10

Reply to Parent Message