Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!srcsip!falcon!rogers
From: rogers@falcon.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Brynn Rogers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Macintosh and IBM systems
Message-ID: <23681@srcsip.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jun 89 13:34:14 GMT
References: <4063@merlin.usc.edu> <8YYSCqy00XcLM29HtU@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@src.honeywell.COM
Reply-To: rogers@falcon.UUCP (Brynn Rogers)
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN
Lines: 27

In article <8YYSCqy00XcLM29HtU@andrew.cmu.edu> jb28+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Joseph Barbose) writes:
>AND...
>
>That article fails to point out that the '386 (IBM) and the 68030 (IIx)
>are NOT in the same league, processing-wise.  The '486 may be on par
>with the 68030, but it isn't out yet.  When it is, Motorola will have
>the '040.
>IBM--yuck.
>Jeff

Prove it.   I haven't seen that much performance difference between the
386 and the 68030, and have seen the 387 performing better than the 68882.

I would put both these machines on par with each other.
The problem you see is that 90% of all software (or more) running on a 386
is just using 16 bit instructions.

I prefer assembly language on a 680x0 to a 80x86 (I know both).
I prefer a IBM clone to a Mac. (cheaper, more software, cheaper software,
more hardware, cheaper hardware, unlimited different system configurations)

Life is a trade off, use what works best for you and ingore anyone who
says X is better than Y without exception.


 Brynn Rogers    Honeywell S&RC        rogers@src.honeywell.com
                                       nic.MR.net!srcsip!rogers