🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <136@mipos3.UUCP>, kds@mipos3.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker ~) writes:
> And my last word, my firm belief is that any processor designed without
> any (or a very small) consideration to either the software that the
> thing is going to run, OR the hardware implementation that is required
> to execute the instructions is doomed to failure.  And this includes
> processors that are designed by compiler writers living in a vacuum.
> -- 
> The above views are personal.
> 
> I've seen the future, I can't afford it...
> 
> Ken Shoemaker, Microprocessor Design, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, California


First a tongue-in-cheek remark to Ken on the above paragraph:
Where the heck were you when they were designing the 8088/86/186/286, hmmm?
Of course it was not doomed to failure.  But one can hardly say they are
compiler friendly 8-) !!   It must have been a perfectly airless
environment back in those days, aye?  8^)

Second a completely different topic:
Ken, with the success of the PC's, how much outside influence (if any) did
certain large(!) computer makers have on the design of the 386.  Even if
you were not directly involved, you must have some idea.  Further, did
your employer work with outside SOFTWARE developer's to find out what they
wanted and did it influence the design.

To everyone:
Does anyone know of a successful or failed CPU design that was
significantly changed or built from scratch, because of outside influence?


-- 
Jeff Gortatowsky       {allegra,seismo}!rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg
Eastman Kodak Company  
<Kodak won't be responsible for the above comments, only those below>