Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!umich!samsung!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!dkuug!freja.diku.dk!gere.diku.dk!torbenm
From: torbenm@gere.diku.dk (Torben [gidius Mogensen)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 386 and ugliness
Message-ID: <1990May30.132909.2355@diku.dk>
Date: 30 May 90 13:29:09 GMT
References: <639@sibyl.eleceng.ua.OZ> <1990May30.063658.11595@ico.isc.com>
Sender: news@diku.dk (The Netnews System)
Organization: Department Of Computer Science, University Of Copenhagen
Lines: 22

rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:


> Sure...all else being equal (which it never is).  If I can buy a little
> elegance with a little more money, I'll buy it.  Who knows; things might
> even work better in the long run.  But if the 386 is so inelegant (which I
> don't question, BTW) and clumsy to work with, why is it so cost-effective?
> Why can't there be systems based on other processors that have something
> comparable to offer at the low end? 

There ARE systems based on vastly more elegant processors that offer
much power at low cost. Acorns Archimedes range uses Acorns own RISC
processor ARM, which was designed with cost-effectiveness as one of the
major considerations. The instruction set is very elegant and as the
processor was designed to work fast with slow memory, systems are very
cheap. A system with speed comparable to 24MHZ 386 based systems can
be bought for about 700 pounds.

	Torben Mogensen (torbenm@diku.dk)

Disclaimer: I have no connection with Acorn, except being owner of an
Acorn machine.