Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!petunia!news
From: rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Falconer)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: ACE (Was Re: Will NeXT survive?  Grow with the times?)
Message-ID: <281f3e99.2f35@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 1 May 91 22:18:01 GMT
References: <1991Apr30.191117.4373@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> <32459@usc> <1991May01.024228.9685@kithrup.COM>
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407
Lines: 27



In article <1991May01.024228.9685@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>
>I *believe* that the goal is to support the same OS on both '386s (and
>'486s, of course) and on the MIPS-based machine.



	Well, yes, that _is_ the stated goal. However, it was this
particular sticking point which essentially convinced the Wall Street
analysts who turned out in droves for the ACE announcement that the
whole thing was a bad joke. If Compaq and Microsoft, which between
them ought to be able to do so, had had the balls to defy Intel and 
make a geniunely clear, unambiguous commitment to Mips and the R4000
architecture, the picture would have been clearer. Instead they chose
to muddy the waters for the sake of mollifying Intel - and, I would
note, their stocks have all fallen in the wake of the announcement,
while Sun's has risen. The smart money's betting ACE is, as Scott
McNealy said, "Big hat. No cattle."



-- 
||||||   Russ Teasdale -- rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU  --  (Falconer)  |||||||
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gentlemen, if we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure." - D. Quayle