Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!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: <1967@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM> Date: 2 Aug 90 11:48:21 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> <1960@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM> <712@cvbnetPrime.COM> Reply-To: mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM () Organization: NCR, E&M Cambridge, Ohio Lines: 168 Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Accessory program Summary: Expires: Sender: Reply-To: mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM () Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: NCR, E&M Cambridge, Ohio Keywords: Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: "DOS machines" (Was: TT (Who has one?)) Summary: Expires: 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> Sender: Reply-To: mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM () Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: NCR, E&M Cambridge, Ohio Keywords: long 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? 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. > >> >>Andrew Miller >> > >-- Jerry Shekhel mike Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: "DOS machines" (Was: TT (Who has one?)) Summary: Expires: 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> Sender: Reply-To: mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM () Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: NCR, E&M Cambridge, Ohio Keywords: long Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: "DOS machines" (Was: TT (Who has one?)) Summary: Expires: 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> <1960@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM> <712@cvbnetPrime.COM> Sender: Reply-To: mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM () Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: NCR, E&M Cambridge, Ohio Keywords: long In article <712@cvbnetPrime.COM> jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel ) writes: >In article <1960@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM> mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM () writes: >> >>In article <701@cvbnetPrime.COM> jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel ) writes: > >First of all, the 80186 was not the "successor" to the 8086 -- it was The 68010 was a hastily made version put together to fix a bug that made it impossible to do multitasking correctly. It is the successor only in that it was the next in the series. To use your logic, it should have been the first in the series. >just a different version of it, more suited towards microcontroller >applications. The 80286 is the second chip in the 86 series. There are >at least 3 vendors of UNIX System V for 286 machines. > >> >>68000, then 68010 can run full Unix. Not bad, only the second version of the >>architecture. >> > >The 68010 runs UNIX? Are you referring to the long-gone Sun-2 line? Didn't >Sun use proprietary memory management hardware for all their worksation >lines all the way through Sun-3/68020? The 68010 is the second version of >the architecture? What about the 68008? 68008 is a version of the 68000 family that has an 8 bit external bus. It is used for inexpensive systems that want the power of the 68000 instruction set, linear addressing space, multiple general purpose registers, numerous addressinig modes ... You know the kind of stuff the 80x86 processors dream of. The 68008 is not the "next in line" processor. > >WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT VERSION of the architecture can run UNIX? Does it THAT WAS YOUR ARGUMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE ... rememeber !!! >make sense FOR YOU to choose a 68000-based machine over a cheaper and much >more powerful 386-based machine just because you think it took MOTOROLA fewer >tries to make their chips capable of running UNIX? > Sorry, that was not my argument at all. I was just trying to tell you that this argument that you were making was using incorrect facts. I was only correcting you facts. Not arguing. >> >>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. >> > >You still haven't told me WHERE it falls "far short" -- at what stage. Granted, that was rather childish of me. ("My daddy is stronger that your daddy") The rest of what I said stands. >There are too many ways to compare the processors. One could ask, "At >what stage in each chip line could the chip run UNIX without any additional >memory management hardware?" The answer there would be "80286 and 68030". I don't know enough to refudiate this with facts, but I have been under the impression that this was not the case. Can someone else give use facts to support/refute this claim. >The chip lines are too different to be compared feature for feature. What Agreed. >difference does it make anyway, since by the time the 386 and the 68030 >became available, the two lines converged in terms of capabilities. > >Your argument is like saying that the Lexus is superior to the BMW because >the first version of the Lexus is comparable to the umpteenth version of the >BMW. I suppose that makes the BMW line "so limited"? Again, this was YOUR ARGUMENT. I just corrected your facts. > >-- Jerry Shekhel -- Michael A. Reiss | | mike USENET = Mike.Reiss@Cambridge.NCR.COM |