RTL for Z8000 series CPU?

In the early 70's there was a company that built an early
microprocessor, and gave it the Data General Nova instruction set
("it's popular, so why burden designers with another architecture?")
Data General sued, I got dragged in as witness, and if I remember
right, DG won.
Too many lawyers, too few good engineers. My opinion. Peter Alfke

Shakespeare wrote in the Second Part of King Henry the Sixth, Act IV
Scene 2:

CADE. 'I thank you, good people- there shall be no money; all shall eat
and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery, that
they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.'
DICK. 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.'

Peter Alfke

But isn't that how Intel was founded? Didn't they reverse engineer
IBM's 8086 and create their own (or was it the 8080). In fact, IBM was
making x86 equivalent CPUs for a while before they went full force with
PPC. And then there's AMD who's still doing it.. etc..etc.

And also, if that were the case, I would also think that guys who write
software emulators that emulate specific processors would also get
hammered.

I'm only mimiking what's already been done:
http://www.systemyde.com/proc_tab.html
http://smaplab.ri.uah.edu/dmsms/damarlas.pdf
http://csdl2.computer.org/persagen/D...UF.1999.801975

ajcrm125

Let me clarify:
Intel developed and designed the 4004, then 8008, which evolved into
the 8080. Then there ws the race to 16 bits: Intel 8086, Motorola
68000, and Zilog Z8000.
Intel also made an economy-version of the 8086, called 8088 (8-bit bus
insted of 16-bit), and IBM picked this intel 8088 for their PC. IBM was
not in the commodity microprocessor business in those days, and IBM
never manufactured 8086-like chips.
And then there is the story how Bill Gates sold them an operating
system that he was about to acquire...Facts can be stranger than
fiction.
Peter Alfke

Peter Alfke

Let me clarify:
Intel developed and designed the 4004, then 8008, which evolved into
the 8080. Then there ws the race to 16 bits: Intel 8086, Motorola
68000, and Zilog Z8000.
Intel also made an economy-version of the 8086, called 8088 (8-bit bus
insted of 16-bit), and IBM picked this intel 8088 for their PC. IBM was
not in the commodity microprocessor business in those days, and IBM
never manufactured 8086-like chips.
And then there is the story how Bill Gates sold them an operating
system that he was about to acquire...Facts can be stranger than
fiction.
Peter Alfke

Peter Alfke

On 2005-12-24, ajcrm125 <> wrote:

> But isn't that how Intel was founded?

What?! Are you on crack?

> Didn't they reverse engineer IBM's 8086 and create their own

No. IBM used the Intel 8088 and later the 8086. Both were
100% Intel designs. IBM also evaluated the Motorola 68K
family, but the 8-bit bus version wasn't going to be available
in time.

> (or was it the 8080). In fact, IBM was making x86 equivalent
> CPUs for a while before they went full force with PPC.

I don't remember hearing about that. Got any references?

> And then there's AMD who's still doing it.. etc..etc.

Several vendors have made Intel-architecture compatible CPUs.
All were either licensed from Intel or reverse engineered from
Intel processors.

--
Grant Edwards

Grant Edwards

http://www.intel.com/museum/online/hist_micro/hof/



"ajcrm125" <> wrote in
news: oups.com:

> But isn't that how Intel was founded? Didn't they reverse
> engineer IBM's 8086 and create their own (or was it the 8080). In
> fact, IBM was making x86 equivalent CPUs for a while before they
> went full force with PPC. And then there's AMD who's still doing
> it.. etc..etc.
>
> And also, if that were the case, I would also think that guys who
> write software emulators that emulate specific processors would
> also get hammered.
>
> I'm only mimiking what's already been done:
> http://www.systemyde.com/proc_tab.html
> http://smaplab.ri.uah.edu/dmsms/damarlas.pdf
> http://csdl2.computer.org/persagen/D...rcePath=/dl/pr
> oceedings/viuf/&toc=comp/proceedings/viuf/1999/0465/00/0465toc.xml&
> DOI=10.1109/VIUF.1999.801975
>
>



--
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"The number of people having any connection with the project must be
restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good
people." -- Kelly Johnson, as quoted in _Skunk Works_

rk

ajcrm125 wrote:
>
> But isn't that how Intel was founded? Didn't they reverse
> engineer IBM's 8086 and create their own (or was it the 8080).
> In fact, IBM was making x86 equivalent CPUs for a while before
> they went full force with PPC. And then there's AMD who's still
> doing it.. etc..etc.

Utter nonsense. Intel developed the 4004, then the 8008, and the
8080 was an outgrowth of that. Intels primary business at the time
was memory, including RAM and ePROMs. Their purpose in developing
uCs was to expand their memory business. The 8086/8 were further
developments of the 8080, and were licensed to AMD.

At that time engineers had a lot more sense than they seem to
today, and wouldn't consider designing in a sole-source part. Thus
the license was a business necessity. The AMD license lasted
through the 286, IIRC, after which AMD designed their own CPUs.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>

Chuck F.

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2005-12-24, ajcrm125 <> wrote:
>
> > But isn't that how Intel was founded?
>
> What?! Are you on crack?
>
> > Didn't they reverse engineer IBM's 8086 and create their own
>
> No. IBM used the Intel 8088 and later the 8086. Both were
> 100% Intel designs. IBM also evaluated the Motorola 68K
> family, but the 8-bit bus version wasn't going to be available
> in time.
>
Someone reversed engineered something back in the day.. I just can't
remember who. I'll do some digging.

> > (or was it the 8080). In fact, IBM was making x86 equivalent
> > CPUs for a while before they went full force with PPC.
>
> I don't remember hearing about that. Got any references?
Yep... me. I work for IBM and back when I joined we were making
486's called "Blue Lightning"

> > And then there's AMD who's still doing it.. etc..etc.
>
> Several vendors have made Intel-architecture compatible CPUs.
> All were either licensed from Intel or reverse engineered from
> Intel processors.
Reverese engineered.. there ya go.

ajcrm125

Interesting reading... this is not the case of reverse engineering I'm
reffering to above, this is just another example:
"While exactly copying a processor's microarchitecture would be
illegal, creating a compatible product through the use of an original
"clean room" design is legally protected. According to Halfhill, Intel
clearly reverse-engineered AMD's products, a tactic AMD and other X86
chip designers have used to quickly catch up to Intel's historical
leadership in the design of new microprocessors."

ajcrm125

>Someone reversed engineered something back in the day.. I just can't
>remember who. I'll do some digging.
Ahhh... I think what I remember was the whole Compaq/IBM episode with
Compaq reverse engineering the IBM BIOS. Although I do remember a TV
show where an engineer was interview and he basically said "We had to
go though every possible opcode and see figure out what it did so we
could create a microprocessor that did the same thing". Man once you
hit 30 your memory just aint what it used to be.....


Anywho.. seing as how I'm using 0% of the originla Z8000
microarchitecture (as non is documented) I should be all set.

ajcrm125