Intel 32-bit manuals

Anyone know how I can obtain the Intel 32-bit manuals in PDF form?  I obtained them a few years ago but I don't have that harddrive anymore, and their website only has the newer ones that have extra 64-bit garbage in them.

I know that they still contain the old information but I really preferred reading the older versions.  I am only interested in 16-bit information anyways.  The Intel website and Googlez will only show me the newer PDF's that contain the 64-bit crap.

^{NO EXCEPTIONS}

>>1
Seeing as how the latest 64-bit processors are still compatible with 16-bit instructions (in the right mode, at least), can't you just skip the 64-bit "crap" and read what you care about?

>>3
he's obviously some vintage hipster-doofus faggot

The 64bit manuals they provide are fully compatible, read them more carefully.

>>5
The 64bit manuals they provide have extra crap in them, read >>1 more carefully.

preferred reading the older versions
I'm not confused about whether they contain all the information I need.  I just want to read the old shit.

Screw PDF, go back in time and get the dead tree version.

I found it.  Please activate your auto-sage.

After looking at the latest, I prefer the older versions I already have as well. The font was nicer and the introductory chapter didn't have 5 mistakes on the first page.

>>10
I agree.  I managed to find them by Googling for site:rapidlibrary.com Intel IA-32 or something similar to that, in case you don't have them still.

This is one of the most constructive /prog/ threads in weeks.

A+++++ WOULD BUY AGAIN

>>12
sage god damnit

>>13
Back to the imageboards, please

linkz plz. i would like to read an ia-32 manual after i've finished my sicp

I got them with BigTop.

>>15
http://rapidlibrary.com/download_file_i.php?file=750495&desc=INTEL+MANUAL+VOL+2+++INSTRUCTION+SET+REFERENCE+.PDF

Now stop bumping the thread!

>>17
I can appreciate you wanting this thread to run off the from page as quickly as possible since the longer it remains on the front page the more people will see it, thus giving visitors a false sense that /prog/ actually has content worth reading, and we wouldn't want to disappoint them.

>>18
content
If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all means say you are “content,” but using the word as a noun to describe written and other works of authorship adopts an attitude you might rather avoid. It regards these works as a commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it disparages the works themselves.

Those who use this term are often the publishers that push for increased copyright power in the name of the authors (“creators,” as they say) of the works. The term “content” reveals their real attitude towards these works and their authors. (See Courtney Love's open letter to Steve Case and search for “content provider” in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term “intellectual property” is also biased and confusing.)

However, as long as other people use the term “content provider”, political dissidents can well call themselves “malcontent providers”.

The term “content management” takes the prize for vacuity. “Content” means “some sort of information,” and “management” in this context means “doing something with it.” So a “content management system” is a system for doing something to some sort of information. Nearly all programs fit that description.

In most cases, that term really refers to a system for updating pages on a Web site. For that, we recommend the term “Web site revision system” (WRS).

>>1
I requested a free CD containing those manuals, which I obtained by mail not more than 2 months ago.

Don't remember the link though.

>>20
And they included the old manuals too?  Not just the new jazzed-up bullshit versions?

It's Intel 64 and IA-32 both on CD "254342-030US"

Don't change these.

Name:		Email:
Entire Thread Thread List