| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 75726 | 2007-01-08 07:23:00 | why they say | rawkus1020 (9720) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 513924 | 2007-01-08 09:56:00 | well no one given a better answer why do they they put x86 any1 :thumbs: Cheers dude. :) I think I spend too much time reading too much stuff online.:rolleyes: |
winmacguy (3367) | ||
| 513925 | 2007-01-09 02:28:00 | The "X" is not a "multiply" symbol . It is the "X=unknown" , or "doesn't matter" . Many early personal computers used the Intel 8080 (or the Zilog Z80, which was an improved version of that 8 bit processor) . The CP/M disk operating system was written with 8080 code . Intel then produced a 16 bit processor, the 8086, which was a bit more useful when arithmetic was needed . The original IBM PC used the Intel 8088 which was a cheaper version of the 8086 processor, with an 8 bit data bus . IBM bought their disk operating system from some guy called Gates, who just bought one and put the name of his company on it . Later versions of the 16 bit 8086 processor have been the 80186 and the 80286 (used in the PC-AT) . Then came the 32 bit 386 and 486, all backwards compatible with the 8086 . Other manufacturers used the "86" part of the name so Intel tried to dump it, using the Pentium name for the later types, but the name has stuck . Most code which runs on the 8086 family is labeled with the "x86" tag . It doesn't necessarily indicate a word length; it means it will run on the 8086 family (though there are some restrictions: there aren't many releases of Linux which will run on the 8086 16 bit processor) . 64 bit code won't run on any of the 32 bit or 16 bit processors, so the "x64" tag is used, probably in the assumption that everyone will know what it means . :D Of course Intel haven't always been trustworthy in their use of multiplication: a 486DX33 is a 33 MHz processor with 33 MHz bus, a 486DX2-66 was a 66 MHz processor (2 x 33), but a 486DX4-100 was actually 99MHz -- 3 x 33) . :( |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 513926 | 2007-01-09 04:29:00 | Thanks Graham, that was even clearer than my original explanation. :) | winmacguy (3367) | ||
| 513927 | 2007-01-10 03:47:00 | thanks mate now i now thanks to you two that answered my question big thumbs up:thumbs: | rawkus1020 (9720) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||