Maybe a minimum post or text size on the board? Dunno. Hm.. my favorite?.. I'm inclined to say 8088 as our first family computer was and that led me to all my experiences. A 386 portable laptop was the first computer I bought with my own money though so I have very fond memories of toying, programming, and playing Ultima on that machine late at night. My first taste of my own computer, world, etc that I could take anywhere and with me on trips! I was young but that was awesome.
- VCF South West - June 14 - 16, Davidson-Gundy Alumni Center at University of Texas at Dallas
- VCF West - Aug 2 - 3, Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA
- VCF Midwest - Sept 7 - 8 2024, Schaumburg, IL
- VCF SoCal - Mid February 2025, Location TBD, Southern CA
- VCF East - April 2025, Infoage Museum, Wall NJ
-
Please review our updated Terms and Rules here
What was your Favorite/Most cherished CPU/Processor?
- Thread starter offensive_Jerk
- Start date
It's too hard to choose just one:
The rest becomes a blur .. The early Pentium line is the last of the classic hardwired chips. After that, the Intel chips move to micro-ops and basically become RISC chips masquerading as x86 chips on the outside.
Mike
- The Z80. This powered so many machines back in the day. My Z80 box was my first machine, a Timex Sinclair 1000 (ZX81 clone). My current Z80 machine under restoration is a TRS-80 Model IV. It is also the most popular embedded microprocessor ever sold.
- The Intel 8088 - this CPU powered the original IBM PC 5150, the PC XT, the Jr. and countless clones. It's legacy is impossible to quantify.
- 80286 - A dramatic improvement in implementation over the 8088. An 80286 running at just a slightly faster clock speed than an 8088 is several times faster than it. This CPU introduced a 16 bit bus, extended memory, and memory protection to the family. (Although the memory protection features were rarely used, and were badly designed.)
- 80386 - The first of the modern 32 bit processors in the family. It combines the best of 'real mode' for classic DOS, a flat 32 bit mode for advanced OSes, good memory management, virtual x86 machines, etc. This is the chip that made our current OSes (Windows and Linux) possible.
- 80486 - Finally enough speed to do what the 80386 promised! Caches are good. This chip made Windows tolerable to run ...
The rest becomes a blur .. The early Pentium line is the last of the classic hardwired chips. After that, the Intel chips move to micro-ops and basically become RISC chips masquerading as x86 chips on the outside.
Mike
Vlad
Moderator
Regarding the 386DX issue, the forum software does have a threshold on how much you have to type before it lets you post although I don't know what that threshold is but it is low(ish). I'm pretty sure you have to use letters to meet the threshold too, it won't count numbers. This is suppose to prevent nonsensical posts and such.
My all time favorite processor would be the 80386. I'm not sure why but it was always my processor of choice for running DOS. The 80486 just feels too new if that makes any sense, kind of takes the fun out of it.
I always found the PowerPC G3 interesting too but have very limited to no experience with it.
My all time favorite processor would be the 80386. I'm not sure why but it was always my processor of choice for running DOS. The 80486 just feels too new if that makes any sense, kind of takes the fun out of it.
I always found the PowerPC G3 interesting too but have very limited to no experience with it.
But the issue is the capitilization of the DX. IE a post with "386DX" comes out in lower case but "A 386DX" or "a 386DX" stays in upper case. Through trial and effort I worked out that is will allow the DX to be capitilized only if there is at least 1 letter before it, otherwise it will only post in lower case. It will allow "386dX" and "386Dx" or "386 A b C" or "386 a B c" but not "386 A B C" (comes out "386 a b c")
Very strange.
I think I also really liked the 486DX-2. Nice solid processor.
Last edited:
Andrettigto
Experienced Member
pitlog
Member
Z-80, the first processor where I did significant assembly programming.
Later the 386, first processor that allowed me to run a full UNIX system with adequate performance on an affordable desktop computer.
Tom
Ole Juul
Veteran Member
Interesting concept. I do a dance involving chicken livers and a rattle. That seems to work better for me. YMMV
I think so too. I only said 386 because that's where my favourite style of computing started. I guess for me it is really a matter or several processors that I like for various, quite different, reasons. My list:
8088
386DX
486DX2-66
Pentium "Gold Tops" (P1 or PPro)
tingo
Veteran Member
I always wanted a Transputer, or a few of them. When I had an Amiga, I wanted a Transputer card for that. When Atari came out with a machine with Transputer cpu, I wanted that. I never got one.
Other than that, I have been happy with almost any CPU's I'va had my hands on: 8085, 6502, 68000, 68040, PPC 603, and a few others.
Other than that, I have been happy with almost any CPU's I'va had my hands on: 8085, 6502, 68000, 68040, PPC 603, and a few others.
Chuck(G)
25k Member
Golly, if you want to limit the discussion to microprocessors, there have been so many really notable choices that haven't been covered. For example, the MicroNova or Fairchild 9440, The Moto 88000, Intel 432, the WD chipset that was used to implement the LSI-11 and the Pascal Microengine. I'm fond of the NS320xx chips, myself. Really remarable design and lightyears ahead of anything of the same vintage.
If you want the discussion to extend to processors of any stripe, then the list becomes very long indeed.
If you want the discussion to extend to processors of any stripe, then the list becomes very long indeed.
Chuck(G)
25k Member
You can only have one favorite / most cherished.
...and I stated my favorite was the IBM 1620 (decimal, uniform instruction format, lots of blinkenlights, could be programmed from the console typewriter). But I saw signs of tunnel vision in other posts--just trying to get folks to open their horizons.
You can only have one favorite / most cherished.
You have to love all of your children ... even the ugly ones.
Dwight Elvey
Veteran Member
...and I stated my favorite was the IBM 1620 (decimal, uniform instruction format, lots of blinkenlights, could be programmed from the console typewriter). But I saw signs of tunnel vision in other posts--just trying to get folks to open their horizons.
Hi Chuck
You have to remember that most on this group think of a 486 and
being classic.
When making such choises, one should consider actually writing programs
for and not just a machine that one ran applications on. What features
of that processor were interesting to use, as Chuck has stated for his
1620 ( a waste of memory space in my eyes ).
Dwight
carlsson
Veteran Member
I would have to go with the 6502 as well, since it is the only CPU I have really programmed for directly. Sure I have used compilers on other platforms, but then I really don't bother about how the processor is designed. It is like asking which is your favorite ingredient in the kitchen. You may know several dishes that taste good, but have no idea how they are made or exactly what ingredients they contain.
Ditto for computers in general really. We can all have our favorites, but until one has really tried to get creative, I find it hard to decide if it is for me or not.
Ditto for computers in general really. We can all have our favorites, but until one has really tried to get creative, I find it hard to decide if it is for me or not.
The best feature of the 6502 would have to be that it was roughly 1/6 the price of its competitors. This fact alone is what made it so prevalent in so many key systems in computer history. It is also one of the few chips still in production, and one they still use to this day to teach assembly language on.
creepingnet
Veteran Member
My primary #1 fave CPU is the 486, that to me is where the fine line between modern and vintage begins. I can still do EVERY basic thing I need on a 486, plus some modern multimedia, but can go all the way back to a lot of 8088 era stuff on one with minimal fuss. If I did not like playing modern games so much, or did not like watching youtube, that is probably what I would still be using.
Chuck(G)
25k Member
Dijkstra didn't much care for it, either. But it was by far the friendliest machine I've ever used. Much friendlier than the 1401 or even 1130 or any of the 7xxx or Univac 110x series.
I did a lot of programming on the CDC 6000 series and STAR-100 and some on System/360 before moving to microprocessors. While I wrote a lot of code, I can't consider any of those to be very "friendly" (the 6000 series, while very fast, could drive you crazy obsessing about the best ordering for instructions and their timings; the STAR was a vector machine and forced you into obsessing about how to vectorize a problem with those thousands (yes!) of instruction variations; the 360 was a decent enough CPU, but was burdened by the weight of IBM orthodoxy).
But the lowly CADET wasn't fast, had to be told how to add and multiply, and didn't even know where fields and records began and ended unless you told it (word? whats a word?). Like an old VW Bug, how could you hate a machine with no pretensions? (I can still recall many 1620 numeric opcodes).
offensive_Jerk
Veteran Member
Is this the computer in question?
Wow, I cannot even imagine trying to work on one of those. Of course i'm alot younger than most of you on here (27).
I'm just curious what kind of tasks people would do on something like that.
Chuck(G)
25k Member
The system could be hooked to card readers/punches, paper tape, line printers and even a disk drive (the 1311). It could run Monitor, an operating system with its own job control language. FORTRAN was popular as was the assembly language (SPS). A modified version of this machine with interrupts, clock and ADC facilities, the 1710, was used in industrial control. If you've ever seen the old movie "The Forbin Project", you know where the control panels of Colossus came from.
An interesting aspect of the system is that it used flag bits to demarcate the high-order digit and sign (low-order digit) of numbers. You could have numbers that were thousands of digits in length. There was another combination of bits, called a record mark, that operated with other instructions that allowed you to group numbers into arbitrarily-sized records. A side effect was that there were several ways to zero memory with one instruction--sometimes unintentionally....
During the early-to-mid 60's, I'd venture that the 1620 was probably one of the most popular computer used by schools fortunate enough to be able to afford one.
Anonymous Coward
Veteran Member
Favourite x86 CPU: IBM Blue Lightning (486DLC)
Favourite non x86 CPU: 68k
Favourite non x86 CPU: 68k