> The 4004 is not the ancestor of the 8008; it was a completely different processor family with different antecedents. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the 4

> The 4004 is not the ancestor of the 8008; it was a completely different processor family with different antecedents. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the 4004 was really an ancestor of the 8008, which is why I wrote: > Overall, it bears little to no resemblance to its successor in name, the Intel 8008 (except for the internal stack, which both had--I will cover that in another posting). I am pretty sure that the 8008 has its name because of the 4004, at least that is what Wikipedia told me (not a reliable source, I know). I will fix the article to make that more clear. I have no experience with CPU-design, though, so I wrote the article from a ("modern") assembler developer's perspective. Thanks for your comment, really interesting tidbits!