> Why not include the Intel 8080/Datapoint 2200, which introduced the basic instruction set and architecture?
The Intel 8080 used a different instruction set (google it). The basic instruction set was introduced with the Intel 8086 and Intel 8088 and was not binary compatible with the Intel 8080. Though Intel claimed that 8080 software could easily be ported on a source level by search and replace in the assembly code.
The Zilog Z80 extended the instruction set of the Intel 8080 and defined a new assembly language for it. I heard one of the reason that Zilog invented the new assembly language was also because of intellectual property - nevertheless one can rather objectively say that Zilog's assembly language was better than Intel's. For the assembly language for the Intel 8088/8086 Intel took lots of inspirations from Zilog (google and judge for yourself - in particular compare 8080 assembly code (Intel's assembly language), Z80 assembly code and 8088/8086 assembly code).
The Intel 8080 used a different instruction set (google it). The basic instruction set was introduced with the Intel 8086 and Intel 8088 and was not binary compatible with the Intel 8080. Though Intel claimed that 8080 software could easily be ported on a source level by search and replace in the assembly code.
The Zilog Z80 extended the instruction set of the Intel 8080 and defined a new assembly language for it. I heard one of the reason that Zilog invented the new assembly language was also because of intellectual property - nevertheless one can rather objectively say that Zilog's assembly language was better than Intel's. For the assembly language for the Intel 8088/8086 Intel took lots of inspirations from Zilog (google and judge for yourself - in particular compare 8080 assembly code (Intel's assembly language), Z80 assembly code and 8088/8086 assembly code).