|
|
Posted by Roy L. Fuchs on 06/15/06 04:07
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:57:53 -0500, "Jay G." <Jay@tmbg.org> Gave us:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 05:20:51 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:55:34 -0500, "Jay G." <Jay@tmbg.org> Gave us:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:00:46 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:11:55 -0500, "Jay G." <Jay@tmbg.org> Gave us:
>>>>
>>>>>Think of it, Intel selling their PC chips for *more* than PCs! I bet
>>>>>you'll try to claim that 80386 and 80486 chips weren't PC microprocessors
>>>>>either.
>>>>
>>>> Very few ended up in embedded applications. Not like the 186 did.
>>>
>>>Let's see:
>>>
>>>91,700 hits for "80486 embedded"
>>>
>>>128,000 hits for "80386 embedded"
>>>
>>>71,100 hits for "80286 embedded"
>>>
>>>48,000 hits for "80186 embedded"
>>>
>>>Looks like all the later Intel microprocessors won out over the 80186 in
>>>terms of embedded applications.
>>>
>> I'd be willing to bet that 99% of those are SBCs ...
>
>Okay, I take that bet. Prove it.
>
>And since when do SBCs not count as embedded?
>
>1,750,000 hits for "SBC embedded"
A "Single Board Computer" is, by definition, not an embedded device,
and IS by definition a computer.
You retarded fuck!
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|