Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!unmvax!ariel!carina.unm.edu!cs2591aq From: cs2591aq@carina.unm.edu (aNk1ez) Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm Subject: Re: Non-Intel Bashing... Message-ID: <2296@ariel.unm.edu> Date: 12 Apr 90 18:51:06 GMT References: <23000@netnews.upenn.edu> <5307@balu.UUCP> Sender: news@ariel.unm.edu Reply-To: cs2591aq@carina.unm.edu.UUCP (aNk1ez) Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Lines: 51 In article <5307@balu.UUCP> tilmann@cosmo.UUCP (Tilmann Reh) writes: >The Z280 will be released as a 12.5 MHz version this May. True. >But as Zilog says, a 25 MHz version will never appear. Sigh. Phooey. that would be fun. >However, a Z80-CMOS with 20 MHz (5 MIPS) is available NOW! >Needs quite fast Cache-RAMs to operate, I guess... I didn't even know there was one.. time to give Zilog a call and get some info.. BTW: I was going thru the back of Byte Mag. and i noticed in the Z80 section of stuff you could order, a chip dubbed "Z8400HB1 " what the heck is that chip? anyone have some info? would be nice to find out what it does... >This guy from Denmark had the bad luck of buying a CP/M-68K system. Although >quite small and fast, this OS never reached the popularity of CP/M-80 >(2.2/3.x), of which we are talking when saying just 'CP/M', and for which >still new software is available. True...True...But the 68000's are still very nice processors. I'm actually quite surprised that CP/M-68K didn't get as popular as CP/M-Z80.. I hold the 680x0 line in the same regard as the Z80. its a nice, clean powerful porcessor. I wouldn't mind getting a CP/M-68K machine... (None of this Amiga/Macintosh/Atari ST easy-to-use-but-not-any-fun machines that "Corporate America" is getting screwed with..tho, i'd rather have those be the standard than these IBM crap.) >Besides, if you take the PC & clone market away, there will be few who >are using Intel processors. They all use 68K, 32K, Z80/180/8000, TMS9995 etc., >and they all know why! Very bad luck that IBM took these chips for their PC. >But, if you have a look at PC architecture, it isn't even better than that >of Intel processors. Every 10-year-old electronic hobbyist would have made >a better design than IBM's 'high-tech' engineers (and would have taken better >chips, also). Details are much too much to list here. Last but not least, the >architecture and quality of the mostly-used OS on that machines fits CPU and >and computer design. They probably found the worst OS for the worst computer >based on the worst CPU, but that is now called 'industry standard'. Hear Hear! Well, at least we can be proud to say that we're of a group that knows better! I guess i can be content to use my Z80 machine and let "Corporate America" get ****ed up the ***. Actually, the deserve it. (i'm of the old world "Word Processor? Get a typwriter! Spreadsheet? Get a calculator! Drafting? Get a bloody set of pencils!") Techs / cs2591aq@carina.unm.edu aNk1e ByT0rz k1Ub common account. And God said "Let segment:offset be your punishment for your sins..." unfortunatly, the beauraucratic designers liked the idea. pah.