Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!msp33327
From: msp33327@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael S. Pereckas)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Adam Smith's Hand (Was: The Sixth Generation)
Message-ID: <1990May10.003314.7135@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 10 May 90 00:33:14 GMT
References: <4698@uceng.UC.EDU> <293@cvbnetPrime.COM>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 59

aperez@cvbnet.UUCP (Arturo Perez x6739) writes:
[quote deleted]
>Now, I'm only familiar with VAXen, 680x0 and a little Sparc so please
>understand my bias :-)

>What I never understood about the widespread use of the Intel processors
>(x86) is that it is so widespread due to the "popularity" of 1 (that's right,
>count'em ONE) computer: IBM's PC-DOS machine.

Well... the fact that there are a thousand clone-makers helped.  The
IBM name helped a lot to get things started.  IBM has to a significant
extent become irrelevant now. 

>VAXen are proprietary and yet there ARE quite a few of them out in the market.

>MC680x0 processors are in Suns, Apollos, Macintoshes, Masscomps (maybe
>Concurrent now), BBN's original Butterfly, and I'm sure many more.

>So, I don't think arguments about the popularity of the Intel processor carry
>much weight (although I would be a fool to say that the popularity of DOS
>machines doesn't hold much weight).

So does it cary weight or not?  DOS and the programs that run under it
are married to the Intel 86s.  Ports to other architectures are a lot
harder under DOS than under UNIX.  Even if DOS ran on other chips, the
programs are not easily portable.  The conoptions needed to run with
segments and with an "OS" that is essentially useful only for disk I/O
(for all other I/O you are on your own, if you want tolerable
performance) make portable code difficult.  Sure there are programs
that are available on other platforms, but those are only the biggest
and most popular ones.  

>How many people buy cars based on the exact engine model under the hood?

Most of use don't, but no matter what type of engine a car has
(within reason) it can use the same roads.  The cpu and surrounding
machine determine to a large extent what software you can use in the
world of PCs.  While some major packages are available on multiple
platforms, but a huge number of excellent programs are available only
for IBM PC clones.  The PC compatables are popular with actual users
because of the large software base and the fact that machines are
available at excellent prices, thanks to the clones.  Programmers hate
the 80x86, but they program for it because of the size of the market.
Architecture types (like me) hate it for many of the same reasons, but
I'm using one now, because I can afford it and it does what I need.  

The invisable hand is working, where it can.  You don't see a lot of
UNIX workstations using the Intel 80x86s.  The RISC chips have
tremendous advantages, but that is only because (most) UNIX
workstations are not expected to run any of the thousands of IBM PC
binaries.  For machines that are, the invisable hand has to fight the
invisable boat-anchor of binary compatability with an architecture
rooted in the 8080.

--
Michael Pereckas              * InterNet: m-pereckas@uiuc.edu *
                                NovaNet:  m pereckas / imsa89 / cerl
+     My opinions are mine (no one else wants them, that's for sure).    +
+ I will accept no criticism of my spelling of any words not in the OED2 +