Article View: comp.sys.intel
Article #84Re: Why not INTEL586?
From: Andrew Klossner
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1992 22:12
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1992 22:12
12 lines
1066 bytes
1066 bytes
[]
"The problem is that any manufacturer can make thier own 586
name the same way. I.e., AMD586, or Cyrix586 would be legal.
Of course one could do the same with the Pentium. I.e., Cyrix
could make the Cyrpentium or AMD could make the PentAMDium."
No they can't, any more than a detergent company could make "SuperTide"
without permission from the makers of Tide.
-=- Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
(uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<2091@shaman.wv.tek.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ogicse!news.u.washington.edu!uw-beaver!news.tek.com!shaman!frip!andrewReferences:
<1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> <1992Oct28.232419.26035@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> <1992Oct29.000158.20378@nas.nasa.gov>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ogicse!news.u.washington.edu!uw-beaver!news.tek.com!shaman!frip!andrew From: andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel Subject: Re: Why not INTEL586? Message-ID: <2091@shaman.wv.tek.com> Date: 4 Nov 92 22:12:36 GMT Article-I.D.: shaman.2091 References: <1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> <1992Oct28.232419.26035@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> <1992Oct29.000158.20378@nas.nasa.gov> Sender: news@shaman.wv.tek.com Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon Lines: 12