Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.arch,net.micro.68k,net.micro.16k
Subject: Re: 16k vs 68k vs 432
Message-ID: <3427@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Dec-83 18:38:00 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3427
Posted: Wed Dec 28 18:38:00 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Dec-83 18:38:00 EST
References: <294@mddc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 23

Anyone who thinks Motorola's memory-management chip is superior to
the National one for the 16k has been totally brainwashed.  The
Motorola chip is next to useless, while the 16032 does a full demand
paging environment and does it *right*.  (Or at least, a lot closer
to right than many other versions, e.g. the one on the VAX.)

Note also that the 16032 has a rather fast floating-point chip already
operational, whereas Motorola is still just mumbling about one.  I am
told that a number of people are using the 16032 FPU on 68000 systems,
despite howling and gnashing of teeth from Motorola.

I tend to agree about some of the other Motorola peripheral chips,
with the 68121 a particular win.  But these chips don't have any real
competition from National yet; it will be interesting to see just
what appears.  National did an awful lot of things right on the 16032
and its support chips.  If they can continue this practice and
overcome their slow start, they have a big winner on their hands.

(No, I don't work for National.  But the closer I look at the 16032,
the more impressed I am.)
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry