Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!jpm@bnl44.ARPA
From: jpm@bnl44.ARPA (John McNamee)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: 286 vs 68K
Message-ID: <10282@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 20:49:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.10282
Posted: Mon Apr 29 20:49:59 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-May-85 05:52:44 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 18

Did any of the benchmarks you refered to happen to require more than 64K
of data? Probably not, because you would be ashamed of the results instead
of proud of them if that were the case. 80*86's make nice LSI-11 replacements,
but I wish Intel would stop trying to convince people that are actually useful
for real work. Todays jobs require more than 64K of data space, and the 80*86
is useless for that. Maybe if Intel designs a new chip instead of upgrading
the 4004, you might hit upon something good. Then again, maybe not, the 432
never quite made it. So I guess Intel should stick to doing 4004 upgrades.
You will always have a market full of people more interested in quick delivery
and backwards compatibility, and who don't care at all about performance.

Why am I flaming so hard at Intel? Because I own a 186 based system, and I'm
sick and tired of working around its limitations.
--

			  John McNamee
		..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl44!jpm
			 jpm@BNL44.ARPA