Chuck Guzis wrote: > Scarcely innovative. 64 bit architectures predated the 64-bit x86 by > decades. Call it a natural evolution.
I'm kinda surprised that nobody has mentioned this ... But.. even less innovative than that! - the subject mentions "8086" and 46 years - the 8086 was only a 16 bit CPU and came out close to the time suggested. The x86 architecture didn't get 32 bits till the 386 which was IIRC around 1986 or 7 - so word length was not AT ALL architecturally significant - and Chuck is quite right that there were MANY bigger/better machines when the 8086 made it's debut. I think the 86 came at a good time/place because the 8080 series had become quite popular in microcomputers and designers were feeling the limits of a 8-bit architecture - the 86 provided a fairly powerful (for the time) and easy upgrade which was enough like the 8080 that most developers didn't have a tough time "figuring it out". (and it didn't hurt that minicomputer pricing wasn't involved) Dave My own entry into the "microprocessor" design fray was something I called the: C-FLEA A very tiny/simple 16 bit CPU that was very optimal as a target for my C compiler. Never did see it to silicon, but did quite a few "virtual machines" - this let me efficiently put C code into little cpus that were not reasonable candidates for higher level languages.
