Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!amdahl!JUTS!duts!kls30
From: kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: processor for graphics terminal [was: PC/AT clones with RISC cpu]
Message-ID: <5csB02Vz03gV01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Date: 9 Nov 90 14:52:54 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> <2PX6KJ@xds13.ferranti.com>
Sender: netnews@ccc.amdahl.com
Reply-To: kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 24

-STUFF DELETED-
>> 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.
That's why more Intel based (286 & 386) machines run UNIX than any other.
68000 may be comprable but not better INMO.  Not wanting a flame war but
just wanted the facts straight.

>-- 
>Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
>+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
>peter@ferranti.com
                              Kent.

--
/*  -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers.    */
/*      For I can only express my own opinions.              */
/*                                                           */
/*   Kent L. Shephard  : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com   */