3 ms·

Why not include the Intel 8080/Datapoint 2200, which introduced the basic instruction set and architecture? This is 57 this year! (The first Datapoint 2200 pro

Why not include the Intel 8080/Datapoint 2200, which introduced the basic instruction set and architecture? This is 57 this year! (The first Datapoint 2200 prototypes were shipped in April 1970, official introduction in Nov 1970, Pat. 224,415 filed Nov. 27, 1970. The Texas Instruments microchip implementation was announced in June 1971 and delivered during the summer. The Intel version was filed for patent in Aug 1971 and the chip presented to Datapoint/CTC in fall 1971. Intel's first assignments to the 1201 chip, which eventually became the 8008, were apparently in spring 1970 with the project temporary stopped in July. [Source: Wood, Lamont, Datapoint; Hugo House Publishers, Ltd.; Austin, TX, 2012] — So for the architecture in general it's 1970, for the microprocessor implementation 1971.)

wolfgke 9y ago
> Why not include the Intel 8080/Datapoint 2200, which introduced the basic instruction set and architecture? The Intel 8080 used a different instruction set (google it). The basic instruction set was introduced with the Intel 8086 and Intel 8088 and was not binary compatible with the Intel 8080. Though Intel claimed that 8080 software could easily be ported on a source level by search and replace in the assembly code. The Zilog Z80 extended the instruction set of the Intel 8080 and defined a new assembly language for it. I heard one of the reason that Zilog invented the new assembly language was also because of intellectual property - nevertheless one can rather objectively say that Zilog's assembly language was better than Intel's. For the assembly language for the Intel 8088/8086 Intel took lots of inspirations from Zilog (google and judge for yourself - in particular compare 8080 assembly code (Intel's assembly language), Z80 assembly code and 8088/8086 assembly code).
dredmorbius 9y ago
That's 47 years ago, not 57. F00F bug? ;-)
- wolfgke 9y ago
  > That's 47 years ago, not 57. > F00F bug? ;-) For those who are out of the loop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_F00F_bug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_F00F_bug Though since your parent was talking about the Intel 8086/8088 and 0x0F: There is an incompatibility 8086/8088 and newer x86 processors: On Intel 8086/8088 the opcode 0x0F was "pop cs". From 80186/80188 on, 0x0F is instead an opcode expansion prefix (cf. https://stackoverflow.com/a/12264515/497193 https://stackoverflow.com/a/12264515/497193).
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    HN delivers! Thanks ;-)

wolfgke 9y ago

> Why not include the Intel 8080/Datapoint 2200, which introduced the basic instruction set and architecture? The Intel 8080 used a different instruction set (google it). The basic instruction set was introduced with the Intel 8086 and Intel 8088 and was not binary compatible with the Intel 8080. Though Intel claimed that 8080 software could easily be ported on a source level by search and replace in the assembly code. The Zilog Z80 extended the instruction set of the Intel 8080 and defined a new assembly language for it. I heard one of the reason that Zilog invented the new assembly language was also because of intellectual property - nevertheless one can rather objectively say that Zilog's assembly language was better than Intel's. For the assembly language for the Intel 8088/8086 Intel took lots of inspirations from Zilog (google and judge for yourself - in particular compare 8080 assembly code (Intel's assembly language), Z80 assembly code and 8088/8086 assembly code).

dredmorbius 9y ago

That's 47 years ago, not 57. F00F bug? ;-)

wolfgke 9y ago
> That's 47 years ago, not 57. > F00F bug? ;-) For those who are out of the loop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_F00F_bug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_F00F_bug Though since your parent was talking about the Intel 8086/8088 and 0x0F: There is an incompatibility 8086/8088 and newer x86 processors: On Intel 8086/8088 the opcode 0x0F was "pop cs". From 80186/80188 on, 0x0F is instead an opcode expansion prefix (cf. https://stackoverflow.com/a/12264515/497193 https://stackoverflow.com/a/12264515/497193).
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  HN delivers! Thanks ;-)