Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcam!mreiss
From: mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM (mreiss)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: "DOS machines" (Was: TT (Who has one?))
Keywords: long
Message-ID: <1960@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM>
Date: 30 Jul 90 12:56:29 GMT
References: <1990Jul19.135115.2032@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Jul19.160526.2215@arcsun.arc.ab.ca> <6764@vax1.acs.udel.EDU> <692@cvbnetPrime.COM> <3160@rwthinf.UUCP> <701@cvbnetPrime.COM>
Reply-To: mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM ()
Organization: NCR, E&M Cambridge, Ohio
Lines: 55


In article <701@cvbnetPrime.COM> jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel ) writes:
>In article <3160@rwthinf.UUCP> windy@beauty.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Andrew John Stuart Miller) writes:
>>
>>Intel tried to do too much before they new for certain what was usefull and
>>what was not, hence brain dammage such as 64k segments, lack of interrupt requests etc.
>>The 68000 series, amongst other processor series, does not suffer from such handicaps, 
>>as Motorola thought before burning a design into silicon.
>>
>
>Oh yeah.  And I suppose Motorola thought about virtual memory management
>and UNIX when they burned the original 68000 into silicon?  Why is it, then,
>that the 286 can run a real OS with virtual memory and protected address
>spaces for each process (UNIX System V), and the 68000 can't?  Am I missing
>something here?

Yes --- you definately are !!!

8086, then 80186, then 80286 --- Three versions to run full Unix.  
Personally, I have never seen a 286 run full Unix.  I was under the
impression that it took a 386 to do it right.  I have seen a 286 run
Xenix though.

68000, then 68010 can run full Unix.  Not bad, only the second version of the 
architecture.  Why not compare apples and oranges.  The 68000 was the first
member of the series ... the 8086 was the first member of the Intel series.
Neither could run Unix.

I don't understand why people insist on comparing the 80286, or the 80386
to a 68000.

The 80386 should be compared to the 68030, shouldn't it.  Now do you
see why the Intel architecture is so limited.  When compared to THE
CORRESPONDING member of the Motorola family, the Intel family falls
far short.

I still believe that if IBM had not developed their PC using the INTEL 
processors, that the 80x86 family would not be in existence today.  But
that is just my opinion.  The Motorola family is strong and has been 
independently chosen by a number of different companies to base their
systems on.  For the most part, companies that have Intel based systems
have IBM clones.

>
>>
>>Andrew Miller
>>
>
>-- Jerry Shekhel

mike
-- 
Michael A. Reiss				|
						|	mike
USENET = Mike.Reiss@Cambridge.NCR.COM		|