JSHIN@HAMPVMS.BITNET ("No, me?") (04/10/90)
No, I would not buy much from a company whose logo is falling apart...
No, I do not think "DXC B" makes any more sense than "DEC BC," regardless
of how old it is, and how used to it you are.
No, I do not care how "inherently" memory efficient the processor is. The
fact that most useful PC programs are way-way beyond 64K (i.e., the "segment"
size) totally boggles my mind. What do they have to do to make that happen?
You get a processor that is approximately 30% more efficient and blow the
code up quadruple!? Fine; be like that. After a while, memory efficiency
just has to give way to the programmer efficiency and execution rate.
And, finally, NO WAY is the 8086 easier to deal with hardware-wise than, say
Z8000 or 32000 or 68000. Maybe my problem is that it takes me a while
to remember what exactly /BHE, /RQand A16/S3 stand for. But, then
again, what exactly they do generally escape the conventional wisdom...
unless your conventional wisdom is confined to Intel architecture.
I know Intel is getting better at it every day, but the problem is, they
need to get better. (80186 is an successful effort in clearing up a lot
of the hardware peculiarities...)
Whatever. Hear from you!
-John S.