rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (11/04/85)
> >I fail to see why anyone would 'sweat' over the 386 unless they knew they > >HAD to use it on their next project. What can it do that the 68020 can't do > >better? > > Run several MS-DOS programs simultaneously with full 8086 compatibility,... So a parochial statement (roughly, 68020 is better) gets a non-response (68K processor doesn't run 86 code). OK, lessee, I can tout the uVAX (for example) and get two people to flame because it can't run either 68K or 86 code. Then someone pops up with a 32000 and three of us flame 'cause it won't run VAX or 68K or 86 code. Come on, this ain't even a decent reason to flame, let alone to post to net.arch... -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy) (11/10/85)
In article <200@opus.UUCP> rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) writes: >So a parochial statement (roughly, 68020 is better) gets a non-response >(68K processor doesn't run 86 code). OK, lessee, I can tout the uVAX (for >example) and get two people to flame because it can't run either 68K or 86 >code. Then someone pops up with a 32000 and three of us flame 'cause it >won't run VAX or 68K or 86 code. Come on, this ain't even a decent reason >to flame, let alone to post to net.arch... >-- Dick, do you ever get a feeling that we have a net of HW/SW religious fanatics. Some of them get so bad (and un-objective) that we should put them to work for the various companies marketing departments. In almost all cases a 68020 or 386 will do the job fairly well in a given application. What really amazes me is that I NEVER hear any comments about the development environments.... You know, those things that really count in the order of the universe and the cost of a development program...... Big Mac "Not every thing worth doing is worth doing well" Soul of a New Machine
johnl@ima.UUCP (11/13/85)
I think the 80386 is the answer to a maiden's prayer. Why? Because it will let me escape from MS-DOS. There is a whole bunch of DOS software that I need to use, and until now the only way to do that until now has been to run it standalone on a DOS box. Or perhaps under the Locus OS-MERGE thing, perhaps. But the 386 should let me run DOS binaries under genuine virtual memory Unix, which would be just great. The 68020 and 32X32 have their advantages, to be sure, but not being able to run all of that DOS stuff puts them at a real disadvantage. John Levine, ima!johnl PS: Before you tell me that all of my programs should be written in nice portable C requiring only recompilation to port them, don't bother. All of my programs used to be like that. Then I met MS-DOS, and had to do all sorts of ghastly stuff to deal with the memory architecture and to get acceptable performance. Unfortunate but true. If you look at the software out in the microcomputer world, you'll find that the best and most successful programs are almost invariably the least portable. Take 1-2-3, for example, which is renowned for being fast and small, and is also so PC specific that it has become the standard test for PC compatibility.
tuba@ur-tut.UUCP (Jon Krueger) (11/18/85)
>In almost all cases a 68020 or 386 will do the job fairly well in a given >application. What really amazes me is that I NEVER hear any comments about >the development environments.... You know, those things that really count >in the order of the universe and the cost of a development program...... Well said, and it needed saying, too! Although I read net.arch to get ideas on architectures and hardware that implements them, when it's time to generate code I want tools, not marketing hype. Of course, if the architecture lasts a while, it will gradually attract tools. If the tools are good and available and cheap, I can enjoy all the features of a truly superior architecture.