Talk:Opcode

could some one change the title from "Opcode" to Op-Codes/Op-code please

Op-Code=Operation-Code Opcode=Operationcode??? Op-Codes whould would be better because of the implied plurality.

even with one bit you would have two op-codes 0/1 ;p thank.........

Um, no, because the proper abbreviation is "opcode". Btw, this article is horrible at this point. One might suggest looking at the format of other wiki articles to start with.

¨As an example let's design a crude 4-bit microprocessor¨ This is a terrible bad example. Mess all the article. A real one x86 should be used instead. Zzzzzzus 15:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)zzzzzzus

Re-wrote the whole thing.

Pointed to here by User:Kosebamse's recently-posted lists of 20 random articles, I was shocked by how bad this was, so I rewrote it.

I removed the example, since I felt it would not be helpful to anyone - it would not make sense to anyone who didn't already know this kind of thing well enough not to need the explanation. Perhaps someone can create a better one in future.

I disagree with making the example x86, though. The x86 instruction set is horribly irregular and is a bad teaching tool, even if common. Most RISC architectures have a much simpler to understand instruction format. —Morven 20:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)