Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pro-generic.cts.com!sysop
From: sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Apple's committment to the // line
Message-ID: <8910202319.AA14029@trout.nosc.mil>
Date: 20 Oct 89 05:57:12 GMT
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 21

Network Comment: to #6380 by gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn@apple.com


Your right on the part of the 386 offering virtual 8086 modes. Still MS-DOS is
an operating system which still shows it's CP/M heritage like humans show
their monkey heritage under the influence. 

Nothing to be said of UNIX, every implementation of UNIX on a 386 is something
to behold and is a proper use of 386 machines. Although the barrier/boundry
between MS-DOSed 386's and UNIX based 386 boxes is dissappearing quickly, it
is still there and in my mind there is no comparison. A 386 is an almost
perfect architecture to run UNIX off of, but MS-DOS? WHY? UNIX is also an
operating system that was originally designed for mini computers, and when you
produce a machine (386 box) that is basically what a mini was a few years ago,
it makes sense that UNIX runs on it handidly. GS/OS have grown from the
opposite end of the spectrum... remember that.


UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sysop
ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sysop@nosc.mil
INET: sysop@pro-generic.cts.com