Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:4449 comp.sys.intel:1520
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.sys.intel
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!mentor.gandalf.ca!dcarr
From: dcarr@mentor.gandalf.ca (Dave Carr)
Subject: Re: When will the 8088 die?
Message-ID: <1990Dec7.145839.2703@mentor.gandalf.ca>
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd., Nepean, Ontario, Canada
References: <2842@polari.UUCP> <1990Dec5.184958.26371@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <853@pdxgate.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 14:58:39 GMT

In article <853@pdxgate.UUCP> berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) writes:
>cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee) writes:
>
>refridgerator uses a 186 for control (one of those fancy kind). The reason
>that's so cheap, is because the chip was so flawed for any PC system.
>

Talk about people unclear on the concept.  The 80186(8) were intended for the EMBEDDED
market.  We use the 80186 extensively in our comm products.  

To design in a 680x0 + DMA + Chip Select logic + Timer/Counters + Clock controller + ...
would add about $20+ dollars to each application.  Let see, 800 muxes a month * 20 dollars
= $16,000 profit (minus if 680x0).

The only vendor I know that tried one in a PC was Tandy !  For the job it was designed for,
I stand behind the 80186 any day !

I haven't seen any workstation vendor jumping on the 68302, but again, this is also a
machine intended for IMBEDDED control.