Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site spanky.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-vax!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!hocda!spanky!ka
From: ka@spanky.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: uP architecture - (nf)
Message-ID: <409@spanky.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Jul-83 17:23:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: spanky.409
Posted: Sat Jul  2 17:23:23 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Jul-83 04:42:19 EDT
References: <189@ucbcad.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, N. J.
Lines: 15

The 8008 architecture was reasonably good as far as it went.  It was
a very primative, for example a memory to memory move required six
instructions.  However, jump to subroutine was one instruction, which
makes the 8008 a definite improvement over DEC's KMC.  Although a large
number of instructions were required to get anything done, the instruc-
tion set was simple and regular.  I don't think that writing a code
generator for it would be very difficult.

The main problem with the 8080 instruction set is that it is a superset of
the 8008 instruction set.  Whether INTEL was right about the importance
of upward compatability I don't know.  They did, however, grab a huge market
share, so they must have done something right.  Probably the fact that they
were selling largely to electrical engineers rather than to programmers
helped.
					Kenneth Almquist