Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!uunet!sco!seanf
From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: When will the 8088 die?
Message-ID: <9188@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: 12 Dec 90 21:47:12 GMT
References: <90335.202651F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> <1990Dec3.024326.22956@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> <9917@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Sender: news@sco.COM
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 34


In article <9917@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> rspangle@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Froot Loop) writes:
>     I think it would make much more sense to make the 686 backwards 
>compatible only as far back as the 386.  The 286 does not allow full
>multitasking, etc.

Uhm... since when?  You are aware that lots of people are running '286-based
*nices (such as SCO XENIX for the AT).  Multiuser, multitasking.  The whole
shebang.

>2)	Modernization: Admittedly, any new chip which doesn't support 
>	programs written for the 8086 or 80286 will break a LOT of programs.

Intel has one major market:  DOS.  '386 based machines are as cheap as they
are because of the demand for DOS.  Most people running a '386 are actually
running DOS.  A major factor for people to get a '386-based *nix instead of
a RISC-based *nix (some of the MIPS machines are cheap, for example) is that
they get to run DOS programs.

If you take away that compatibility, then people will probably not buy it.
Look at how much demand there is for the 80376, or even the i860 (which is
somewhat popular, although I don't know why).

Neither of those can run DOS programs, and neither of those is exactly taking
over the market.

Try thinking before you want to dictate Intel's policy.

-- 
-----------------+
Sean Eric Fagan  | "*Never* knock on Death's door:  ring the bell and 
seanf@sco.COM    |   run away!  Death hates that!"
uunet!sco!seanf  |     -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor")
(408) 458-1422   | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.