Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm!ndsuvm1!mtus5!splite From: SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: "DOS machines" (Was: TT (Who has one?)) Message-ID: <90214.132311SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET> Date: 2 Aug 90 18:23:10 GMT References: <1990Jul19.135115.2032@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Jul19.160526.2215@arcsun.arc.ab.ca> <6764@vax1.acs.udel.EDU> <692@c <1960@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM> Organization: Computing Technology Services, Michigan Technological Univ. Lines: 37 In article <1960@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM>, mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM (mreiss) says: > >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 think a lot of people are misled by the Intel vs. Motorola numbering schemes. Just because the 80386 and 68030 have '3s' in their names, people automatically think them comparable. In terms of actual capabilities, the 68000 and 80286 _are_ comparable. The 8086 is only a little above the 6800 and 6502 in the evolutionary sense. The 68020 and 80386 are also about on par. With the 80486, the Intel family reached parity with the 68030 in terms of CPU power; but, the onboard FPU and cache (and MMU? I don't remember) give it more oomph than the Motorola chip. Of course, talking in terms of "capabilities" automatically makes this subjective. However, I've seen the '386 vs. '030 argument crop up a few times before. > >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. > Amen, brother. :-) >-- >Michael A. Reiss | > | mike >USENET = Mike.Reiss@Cambridge.NCR.COM | Steven Plite