Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: processor for graphics terminal [was: PC/AT clones with RISC cpu]
Message-ID: <2PX6KJ@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 6 Nov 90 14:04:58 GMT
References: <2081@aber-cs.UUCP> <0093F0E4.0B02A980@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> <1990Nov3.235115.21250@zoo.toronto.edu> <5530@labtam.labtam.oz> <1990Nov6.101902.9683@canterbury.ac.nz>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 18

In article <1990Nov6.101902.9683@canterbury.ac.nz> phys169@canterbury.ac.nz writes:
> now, there are becoming less and less buyers that actually need
> that extra technology (although everyone will say it's nice). The "bread and
> butter" for computer manufacturers will remanin with the majority of users in
> offices and the like, where something like a PC is good enough.

I've got news for you... this has been the case since 1980 at least. Most
users of IBM-PCs would be perfectly well served by a 64K Z-80-based machine
running CP/M. The "gee whiz" technology really does sell machines.

> All this, of course, has a motive behind it; I've been wanting to buy some
> workstations which will run X-windows, with good speed, and yet not loose
> anything we had with 286-based PC's.

I personally can't think of anything off the top of my head that a 286
based PC offers that I want. What are you talking about here? For running
MS-DOS software, an 8088 based PC is fine. For anything else, a 68000
based PC is much better.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
peter@ferranti.com