Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!milton!oregon!cs.uoregon.edu!storm!jennifer
From: jennifer@storm.UUCP (Jennifer Ann Hunter)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: motorola/intel
Message-ID: <527@storm.UUCP>
Date: 20 Sep 90 09:28:42 GMT
References: <30140@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <14427@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Reply-To: jennifer@storm.UUCP (Jennifer Ann Hunter)
Organization: storm UUCP, Eugene, Oregon, United States
Lines: 32

In article <14427@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
>The Intel 80x86 architecture isn't appreciated anywhere near the high end of
>any market.  It's used by folks who find 80486 machines a good bang/buck, or
>by folks who find that the installed base of 30-40 million MS-DOS machines
>and growth of another 10 million or so a year tends to make rather esoteric
>programs available on the market.  Or by people who don't know any better.
>But there are few, if any, people who choose 80x86 machines because they
>admire their architecture.  And I'm willing to bet just as many people buy
>Ford Escorts for their styling.

Our symmetry uses 80386's. This machine I am posting from is a 80486 based
machine, and benches faster than a Sun SPARCstation 1+ (well, about the  
same, actually). I don't know much about the actual architecture of the
80386/68030, though I have done some (limited) assembly in SPARC, 80386,
and Motorola 68030 assembly. There are major differences, and I admit that the
80386 is a bit bewildering, but to be fair I started on SPARC, then moved 
to 68030, then tried 80386. The 68030 is easier to program at an assembly
level than an 80386, but that isn't very important to the person who sits
and programs in C. The only time I ever even notice the differences between
the 68030, the 80386, and SPARC is when I have to write a fast routine in
assembly, and that is usually small or simple enough that the difficulty
to program is unimportant. 

Here's a better idea: Just force everyone to use VAX CPU's. (would just
about obliterate the need for a high level language :)

I would be impressed to see a RISC based Amiga, something based off of
a MIPS R3000 or an IBM POWER chip, with the i860 as a graphics processor.
I guess commodore would have to rewrite a lot of stuff... oh, well, just
wishing. I wonder if a POWER or R3000 chip could simulate an Amiga...

--Jennifer