Gizmos Freeware Reviews  

Go Back   Gizmo's Freeware Forum > Debating Chamber > ChitChat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04. Sep 2013, 03:56 AM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 110
Default If Intel had kept the old numbering system

Intel version numbers:
386 = 386
486 = 486
586 = Pentium
686 = Pentium II/III
786 = Pentium 4
886 = Core 2
986 = Intel i3/i5/i7

Bonus:
Windows version numbers:
v3 = Windows 3.x
v4 = Windows 9x
v5 = XP
v6 = Vista/7/8
(these are the version numbers reported at the command prompt)
Doobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05. Sep 2013, 03:38 AM   #2 (permalink)
Editor
 
George.J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,939
Default

I'd have to memorize them all
__________________
If you seek for attention, do common things in life in an uncommon way!
George.J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06. Sep 2013, 07:21 AM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
joeguru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 311
Default

The first 16 bit process or the 8086 and the last 16 bit processor the 286.
__________________
To err is human, to blame it on a computer is even more so.

Last edited by joeguru; 06. Sep 2013 at 07:22 AM. Reason: additional detail
joeguru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06. Sep 2013, 07:54 AM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,741
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doobie View Post
Intel version numbers:
386 = 386
486 = 486
586 = Pentium
686 = Pentium II/III
786 = Pentium 4
886 = Core 2
986 = Intel i3/i5/i7
Whenever I see this, it reminds me that for several years from 2003 to 2009 Intel didn't have the leading CPUs because their transition to 64-bit was initially a flop.

AMD had the first successful 64-bit processors with x86 compatibility. They started in 2003 with the K8 CPU and called their architecture AMD64. Intel was forced to follow AMD to remain competitive and eventually followed the AMD nomenclature in calling their architecture I64.
__________________
Better to light a candle ... than to curse the darkness.
Remah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06. Sep 2013, 08:22 AM   #5 (permalink)
J_L
Co-Author, Best Free Security List
 
J_L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,003
Default

Do you mean IA-64 or Intel 64? Never heard of I64.
J_L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06. Sep 2013, 05:11 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,741
Default

As regularly happens, I often show my age because tend to use the terms that I was originally introduced to. Like remembering Digital Video Disk for DVD rather than the later term Digital Versatile Disc.

IA64 was the earlier Intel Architecture (IA) or Itanium. When Intel followed AMD's 64-bit solution they eventually named it Intel 64 which was shortened to I64. But the abbreviation had a short life because of confusion with other uses of that term including Integer 64. So it largely died out within a year and is not usually found after 2004.
__________________
Better to light a candle ... than to curse the darkness.

Last edited by Remah; 06. Sep 2013 at 05:11 PM. Reason: Added lost word.
Remah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06. Sep 2013, 09:05 PM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Remah View Post
Whenever I see this, it reminds me that for several years from 2003 to 2009 Intel didn't have the leading CPUs because their transition to 64-bit was initially a flop.
Up until Core 2, AMD was always my choice in processors. Until then, AMD always had competitive mainstream performance at a better price. Even more so when Intel stumbled in the 64-bit transition. But, since Core 2, it has been Intel all the way (on the desktop).

Intel was too ambitious for their own good when when they started going 64-bit.
Doobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06. Sep 2013, 09:12 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Remah View Post
As regularly happens, I often show my age because tend to use the terms that I was originally introduced to. Like remembering Digital Video Disk for DVD rather than the later term Digital Versatile Disc.
Remember the Atari VCS rather than the later name Atari 2600? Remember the Counting Board rather than the later term Abacus?
Doobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07. Sep 2013, 02:35 AM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
joeguru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 311
Default

Remember swapping out the Intel 8088 with the NEC V20 because it was faster?
__________________
To err is human, to blame it on a computer is even more so.
joeguru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07. Sep 2013, 03:47 AM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,741
Default

I remember the V20 and NEC PCs which were popular for a few years.

I remember the IBM PC-XT when introduced in New Zealand cost the annual average wage. But that was souped up with a small Epson dot-matrix printer, a CGA monitor, RAM doubled to 128KB and Lotus 123. Currently, average PCs cost about 5% of the average wage here.
__________________
Better to light a candle ... than to curse the darkness.
Remah is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.