9 Sep
2007
9 Sep
'07
8:04 a.m.
Er. I found this difficult to follow...
On 09/09/2007, dwight elvey <dkelvey at hotmail.com> wrote:
I had a chance to ask Faggin why he did finish the
math coprocessor
You mean, "didn't"?
for the Z8000's. He stated that the handwriting
was quite clear.
(Z8000s. No apostrophes on plurals. Not even on numbers. None, ever.)
The 8086 would soon dominate. I wasn't worth the
effort to get the
"It wasn't"?
math coprocessor working.
Other than the addressing, the Z8000 had a nice register arangement.
("arrangement")
It was much closer to a RISC than the 8086 ever was.
I still have a couple of NA2000 series boards. This
was another National
start and drop.
These has the 800 processor as dies on a PC board with other components.
("These have".)
I don't meant to nitpick - the corrections in parentheses did not
impede my comprehension. The ones outside them, though, *did*. I
suggest taking just a few more seconds over a post?
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com ? MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk ? Skype: liamproven ? ICQ: 73187508