On Sep 2, 12:49 pm, Ken Gagne <kga...@gamebits.net> wrote:
I recently found this article on an esoteric topic:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/171171/
The Apple II's 6502 is on page 8 as the fifth most important
microprocessor -- but it's a bit hard to order the importance of such
things. As Tony D. pointed out to me, many processors are built upon
or influenced by others -- so if an underpowered processor led
directly to a revolutionary one, who is to say which is more
"influential"? Perhaps the above list would've been better presented
as a timeline than a ranking.
What do you think of the hardware PC World chose and how they
presented it? Would you have chosen differently?
Ken
(full disclosure: I'm an employee of a sister publication of PC World.
There is no incentive for me to promote their content, though... I
just think this is an interesting topic.)
Ken,
I don't know if I'd have chosen any different list of hardware from
what PC World chose. I do think that it would have been better to just
do it as a timeline of microprocessor development instead of trying to
list them by influence on the industry.