jpm@BNL44.ARPA (John McNamee) (05/06/85)
Has anybody else noticed that only persons with vested interests (such as people from Intel, AMD, and vendors of 80*86 systems) have said anything good about the 80*86? On the other hand, people have come out in support of the 68000 and 32000 just because they like the chips, not because they have a financial stake in them. Another thing I noticed is that there are a lot of people in positions similar to mine: I hate the 80*86, but I still use it (I even have a 186 based system of my own at home). We all seem to agree that the 80*86 sucks, but that is what a lot of us use, that is what the general public is buying the most of (which is the reason a lot of us are forced into using them), and the situation isn't likely to change soon. The best we can hope for is that Intel doesn't mung the 386 too badly, and that it quickly gets designed into mass-market machines. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. -- John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl44!jpm jpm@BNL44.ARPA
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (05/07/85)
> Has anybody else noticed that only persons with vested interests (such as > people from Intel, AMD, and vendors of 80*86 systems) have said anything > good about the 80*86? On the other hand, people have come out in support of > the 68000 and 32000 just because they like the chips... Interesting thought. But I also wonder to what extent this is the old "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" syndrome -- most of us can get our hands on iAPX86-based systems, but how many of the 68000 and 32000 supporters have actually programmed one? Besides, since most 68000 and 32000 supporters don't intend to program in assembler language anyway, why should they *care* what the internal architecture is, as long as the system performs well? Disclaimer: the comments above don't even represent my own opinion. As an assembly hacker with experience with all three chips, I'll take the 68000 and 32000 over iAPX86 any day. But I sure wish there was an assembler for them which is as nice as the Microsoft assembler for the iAPX86. -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug
bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) (05/08/85)
In article <10441@brl-tgr.ARPA> jpm@BNL44.ARPA (John McNamee) writes: >Has anybody else noticed that only persons with vested interests (such as >people from Intel, AMD, and vendors of 80*86 systems) have said anything >good about the 80*86? On the other hand, people have come out in support of >the 68000 and 32000 just because they like the chips, not because they have >a financial stake in them. Another thing I noticed is that there are a lot >of people in positions similar to mine: I hate the 80*86, but I still use >it (I even have a 186 based system of my own at home). I disagree on one major point. The 8086 is a great machine to write compilers for, as its complexity and non-orthogonality make it a lot of fun to try and generate good code for. It's easy (and boring) to write code generators for machines like the 32032. The 32032 will almost run your compiler's intermediate code. By the way, for all you 68000 fans, the 68000 is not very orthogonal either, ask someone who's tried to write a code generator for it. The 32032 comes a lot closer. I speak from experience, I have written a C compiler for the 8086 and worked on one for the 68000.
jbn@wdl1.UUCP (05/11/85)
Anyone who thinks the flaming here is bad should see AMD's three page fold out ad on the inside front cover of Electronic Products for 1 MAY 85. I quote: ``Ready for Motorola's latest big Idea? [Turn page.] Ta-Da. [picture of a giant red tricycle with "68020" on the front]. They've just added The Granddaddy to their microprocessor family. It promises to give you twice what the 68000 gave you. Twice the headaches. It's MMU is every bit as good as the 68000's. Of course, you may have to wait to get it, but it comes with a special guarantee: You'll have to rewrite the operating system. "Even if you want to run a portable operating system? Like UNIX?" Yep. You'll still have to rewrite a substantial part of the OS. Oh, and don't forget to design in a wait state or two. No amount of cache can band-aid an off-chip MMU performance degradation. "What about peripherals?" Good question. Next question. "Is there any support for multi-user/multi-tasking?" Not really. The 68020 can use big, fat 32 bit words. But it's a bear to make it multi-task. (Which is sort of a pity, because the whole idea for the next generation of high-level processors is multi-tasking.)'' The ad then goes on to tout the iAPX286 and AMD's agreement with Intel that lets them manufacture it. The ad is from Advanced Micro Devices, 901 Thompson Place, Sunnyvale, CA, 94086, (408)-732-2400 The text in quotes above is extracted without ommission or change from the ad, except that the notes in square brackets are mine. Any commentary would be superfluous. John Nagle
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/11/85)
>> Has anybody else noticed that only persons with vested interests (such as >> people from Intel, AMD, and vendors of 80*86 systems) have said anything >> good about the 80*86? On the other hand, people have come out in support of >> the 68000 and 32000 just because they like the chips... > >Interesting thought. But I also wonder to what extent this is the old >"grass is greener on the other side of the fence" syndrome -- most of >us can get our hands on iAPX86-based systems, but how many of the 68000 >and 32000 supporters have actually programmed one? I have (and am). >Besides, since most 68000 and 32000 supporters don't intend to program >in assembler language anyway, why should they *care* what the internal >architecture is, as long as the system performs well? Regardless whether or not I'm going to use assembler, the fact that I've had a good look at them tells me something about potential performance, even when using high level languages. >Disclaimer: the comments above don't even represent my own opinion. >As an assembly hacker with experience with all three chips, I'll take >the 68000 and 32000 over iAPX86 any day. But I sure wish there was an >assembler for them which is as nice as the Microsoft assembler for the >iAPX86. >Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug I've been using the Quelo macro assembler on the 68000, and I'm very pleased. I have the CP/M-80 version, and although it's not lightning fast, its quite full-featured, and compatible with Motorola std. They have versions for various machines including PC's (sigh) for about $600 and you can get the complete 'C' source for about $750 and port it to whatever you want. I haven't used the Microsoft assembler for the iAPX86, so maybe I don't know what I'm missing though. (except a kludgy machine architecture). You can contact them at: Quelo 3826 29th Ave West Seattle, WA. 98199 Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
matt@prism.UUCP (05/11/85)
>> Has anybody else noticed that only persons with vested interests (such as >> people from Intel, AMD, and vendors of 80*86 systems) have said anything >> good about the 80*86? On the other hand, people have come out in support of >> the 68000 and 32000 just because they like the chips... > > Besides, since most 68000 and 32000 supporters don't intend to program > in assembler language anyway, why should they *care* what the internal > architecture is, as long as the system performs well? Because some (unnamed :-) processors are designed around an internal architecture that makes programming even in high level languages unnecessarily painful. (Ever try to write a C program requiring a LOT of data space on an 8088 machine? The substantial performance penalties notwithstanding, it's still a pain in the neck.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Landau {cca, datacube, inmet, mit-eddie, wjh12}... Mirror Systems, Inc. ...mirror!prism!matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- disclaimer: I have no connection with anyone at all, other than as a dissatisfied applications hacker for 80x86 based machines.
zrm@prism.UUCP (05/12/85)
I write programs in C, for the most part, but I care what the instruction set of a machine is like because I often dubug with a debugger that only knows how to disassemble and can't refer back to source code automatically. I find 8086 code a real chore to follow, whereas 68000 code and PDP11 code is quite easy.
KSPROUL@RUTGERS.ARPA (05/13/85)
> Besides, since most 68000 and 32000 supporters don't intend to program > in assembler language anyway, why should they *care* what the internal > architecture is, as long as the system performs well? I am an AVID 68000 supporter, in fact I have 3 different 68000 at home, A Macintosh, a DTACK grounded 68000 board for an Apple, and an MTU computer which is an obscure computer from a small company in North Carolina.. I program these things almost exclusively in assembler and LOVE the 68000.. And I have done an extensive amount of assembler programing both on the 68K and other processors (most of the rest 8-bit though)... Keith Sproul Ksproul@Rutgers.arpa -------