cottrell%nbs-vms@sri-unix.ARPA (08/08/85)
From: "COTTRELL, JAMES" <cottrell@nbs-vms> > The bottom line is which machine offers the best SOLUTION. The processor > inside should not matter to the end-user. After all, usability is usually > more dependent on software than on hardware. I absolutely agree. But it makes me wonder the application programs that AREN'T developed because of a messy or impossible architecture. No, you DONT need a benchmark to tell you what a piece of trash it is! Intel has been carrying the weight of its 4004/8080 evolution for too long now. The chip is now usable, but I find the concept of small model/ large model code repulsive. I mean nobody seriously suggests a dual model for the pdp-11/70 (16 bits for small model/22 bits for large )-: THERE IS NO ROOM IN THE C STANDARD FOR MEMORY MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS! If you want stuff in another segment call a magic subroutine to get it for you by passing it two separate pointers explicitly like everyone else. Went to seek a micro Strangest one I could find Laid my proposition down Laid it on the line I won't slave for beggar's pay Likewise gold & jewels But I would slave to learn the way To sink your CHIP OF FOOLS rm intel The National Bureau of Standards neither endorses nor condemns any specific product or vendor, so don't blame them. jim cottrell@nbs */ ------