Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site daisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!nsc!daisy!david
From: david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.micro,net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: Standard, What standard???
Message-ID: <56@daisy.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 23:19:22 EST
Article-I.D.: daisy.56
Posted: Wed Feb 20 23:19:22 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 09:19:59 EST
References: <143@idmi-cc.UUCP> <810@sjuvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter)
Distribution: net
Organization: Daisy Systems Corp., Mountain View, Ca
Lines: 30
Xref: utcs net.flame:8170 net.micro:9086 net.micro.pc:3298
Summary: 


Mr. Shapiro writes that IBM doesn't use new technology innovatively or
efficiently.  He closes with "Segmented Architecture... AAAAARRRRRRRRRR-
GGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!"  I beg to differ.

The circuitry coupling the PC-AT bus to the PC-XT bus (to remain compatible)
is neither simple nor brilliant.  But it does accomplish the presumed design
goal: get the job done cheaply.  In this case, efficiency with respect to
cost.  The base concept, that of connecting the old and new busses to remain
compatible, is innovative, at least mildly.  Most companies would simply
say "sorry folks but this is a new generation.  Throw out your old hardware."
IBM didn't.  (They did the same thing with the IBM 360/370/30xy mainframes.
DEC did the same with the VAX.  Intel did the same with the 80x86.)  Note
that I am referring to hardware compatibility: the hardware interface to the
outside world is retained even though the hardware guts are radically dif-
ferent.  Compared with the rest of the micro-world, IBM's approach is
innovative.

Finally, although I am not a fan of segmentation a la Intel, I am compelled
to point out that my company has done quite a lot within the Intel archi-
tecture.  Our experience in writing complex Computer-Aided-Engineering
programs is that if you need segments > 64kB, you probably don't know
what you are doing: there exists a better algorithm to do what you want to
do.  This is not always true but it is true often enough that the Intel
architecture doesn't cause us much pain.  In summary, while segmentation
looks bad, it really doesn't hurt too much.

(I have no connection with Intel or its competitors.  Nobody likes me.
The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of my company or its
employees.)  {Perfection is temporary.}