Talk:Intel 80186

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later.

Reference[edit]

Here is a reference showing that the original Gateway Handbook never used an Intel 80186, direct form their web site: [1] Samboy 19:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Objection: "UD2 Generate invalid opcode exception"[edit]

Here is a reference that 80186 did not introduce UD2 instruction:

Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual, Volume 2: Instruction Set Reference Manual (Order# 243191, Rev 001, year 1997)

Direct link: http://developer.intel.com/design/pentium/manuals/24319101.pdf ( Found here: http://www.x86.org/intel.doc/186manuals.htm

Link above is dead now. below closest match. https://web.archive.org/web/20070722172514/http://x86.ddj.com/intel.doc/186manuals.htm User:EdAr713 ) page 3-9 (page #39)

says: 1. The UD2 instruction was introduced in the Pentium Pro processor.

My guess is that 80186 introduced the exception, not instruction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Listic (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the 186 added the exception, they did not reserve the ud2 opcode for anything until the Pentium Pro. Still, ud2 wasn't used for anything before the Pentium Pro and generated a #UD exception since the 186. Basically, ud2 always generated an invalid opcode, but before the Pentium Pro, it was just another reserved opcode that future processors may use for something. After the Pentium Pro, ud2 was reserved for the purpose of generating a #UD exception and will do that on all future processors. System86 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article?[edit]

I don't think "Intel 80186 (microarchitecture)" is a good title for this article since it is assymetrical with the articles on other Intel chips, and more importantly, the article isn't (just) about "microarchtecture". --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Intel introduced a separation between brand name and chip designation only with the Pentium (P5/P54/P55/...), adding "microarchitecture" to the title has no significance for anything before that because the marketing name is the same as the name of the microarchitecture and of the specific chip. Similarly, I think we should also revert the split of the "Westmere" article out of "Nehalem". There is very little that makes sense to be described for all Westmere CPUs (Gulftown, Arrandale, Westmere-EX, ...) that is not already covered in the article about the microarchitecture or the chip models. Arndbergmann (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you are at it, can you take care that the other renamed articles (Intel 80286, 80386, 80486) get renamed back as well? Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though I haven't checked the whole Intel phylum yet. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Does anyone have any source for these assertions? In my experience it is invariably referred to digit by digit ("eight oh one eight six"). "Eighty one eighty six" in particular is confusing since it naturally suggest 8186, ie. the zero goes missing. Including those specific expansions suggest they are the only correct one and anything else is wrong. That seems a hell of stretch without a source. I suggest removing them it their entirety. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indifference[edit]

I got one of these. It's alright, very quick. It's just not very different, just very different than yours. I suppose people will get the wrong idea about next-gen computers, these aren't them. I just wish there was more material out there when dealing with the Intel Core issues. It's been a long time since the release of windows 1.0 2.0 3.0 & 3.11 etc. I currently run windows ten professional. I'm all about modem speed to tell you the truth, staying away from isdn and all that. I hope that brings up some current topic as to where all the 'real' stuff is. As for all those things, they are pretty much on your disc, but that is a copyright infringement. I wonder how it got this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:2D0:B4CA:BAAA:AD4E:39CA (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Intel 80188[edit]

This variant can be covered in a subsection of this article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no I think they are distinct enough to be 2 articles. The 8086 and 8088 are 2406:2D40:441E:5600:5D5C:44C0:9F63:E21 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - virtually identical chips. As for the counterpoint listed above, the 8088 would have been a mostly unnotable variant of the 8086 except for IBM oddly picking the slower variant for their first PC. If someone wanted to merge those two, I'd support that too. KelleyCook (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]