Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!JTW@mit-xx
From: JTW%mit-xx@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.cpm
Subject: Re: Intel 2716 and TI 2716 (TMS2716)
Message-ID: <2385@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Jun-83 04:32:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.2385
Posted: Tue Jun 21 04:32:00 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jun-83 19:57:03 EDT
Lines: 18

From:  John T. Wroclawski 

	Return-path:  
	Received: from BRL by MIT-XX; Mon 20 Jun 83 02:24:59-EDT 
	From: Bob Clements  
	Subject: Re: Intel 2716 and TI 2716 (TMS2716) 

	My advice is to ignore TMS2716's. TI should be shot for using the same
	number (2716) for a three-voltage version of the one-voltage 2716.

Good advice, but you have shot the wrong people. The TI (3 voltage)
2716 was a quite correctly numbered compatible follow-on product to
the (3 voltage) 2708 and 2704 series. It was also available well
before the 1-voltage product. It is Intel that ought to be shot for
giving the same family number to a radically different device.

-john
-------