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. WroclawskiReturn-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 -------