Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!well!farren
From: farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Benchmarks (was: Re: A2620)
Message-ID: <12201@well.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jun 89 08:44:46 GMT
References: <780@corpane.UUCP> <7084@cbmvax.UUCP> <25428@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <6607@dayton.UUCP>
Reply-To: farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren)
Distribution: na
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 26

In article <6607@dayton.UUCP> joe@dayton.UUCP (Joseph P. Larson) writes:
>
>Intel might make fast or reliable chips.  But they weren't designed by
>anyone with experience with real assembly languages.  (Designers were probably
>ex Z-80 or 6502 programmers.)

Just to keep things straight: the Z80 was designed by ex-8080 programmers,
not the other way around.  The 8086 was designed by ex-8080 programmers, too.
And since it was (by at least a year, and I believe two) the only 16-bit
processor in town, except for TI's weird chip, it didn't seem all that bad
then.  Still doesn't, once you consider the tradeoffs involved, including
maximum 8080 compatibility, ease of implementation of certain types of
HLLs (the thing was designed to run Pascal as efficiently as the other
tradeoffs would allow), and the general state of MOS design in 1978.  It
may be too bad that Intel got locked in so early - the 68000 design is
a lot cleaner, and Motorola's decision to scrap the 6800 pretty much
entirely was a good one, IMHO.  Intel's decisions weren't horrible,
though, and did give them the very strong upper hand in the market.  And,
like it or not, they still have that upper hand.

The 6502, on the other hand, doesn't compare to much of ANYTHING other
than the 6502 :-)


-- 
Mike Farren 					 uucp: well!farren