What is wrong with it? If i386, 486, 586 and 686 are valid names,
why should not 786 (or rather 1586... since someone thought it
would be cool to jump the number^1) be?
[^1 Which also is interesting because the original number had an 80
prepended, i.e. 80286, 80586,... and you'd guess what number 1586
would map to.]
--