3 ms·
Probably "against the wishes of assembly language programmers who were familiar with microprocessors like the 8080 and Z-80 - and those who would have preferred
by musicale 4y ago
Probably "against the wishes of assembly language programmers who were familiar with microprocessors like the 8080 and Z-80 - and those who would have preferred to standardize on the official intel syntax rather than deal with two different and incompatible assembly language syntaxes."
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoSo, reading the comments here I got the impression that the 8086/8088 order was backwards from everything else before it. Did the 8080 and Z-80 have the same order as the 8086? But even then, you have worlds converging. The 8086 was (barely) capable of running Unix, whereas the Z-80 definitely was not. Was the 8086 a part of the PDP-11 minicomputer world, or was it part of the 8080/Z-80 world? Well, it was both. Complaining that one world produced an assembler before the other did is... a bit exclusivist. Also whiny.
- userbinator 4y agoThe 8086 was (barely) capable of running Unix, whereas the Z-80 definitely was not. https://github.com/chettrick/uzics https://github.com/chettrick/uzics You're wrong ;-) Neither the 8086 nor the Z80 have virtual memory. The x86 has a larger instruction set and address space (1MB) but as it turns out, early Unix kernels didn't need that much RAM either.