Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/13/84; site intelca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!intelca!clif
From: clif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Re: ANOTHER 32-BIT MACHINE???
Message-ID: <563@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Apr-85 17:02:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: intelca.563
Posted: Tue Apr 30 17:02:56 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 3-May-85 03:49:40 EDT
References: <9254@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1549@watcgl.UUCP> <5355@utzoo.UUCP> <5371@utzoo.UUCP>, <103@daisy.UUCP> <5546@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 30


	It's good to see that somethings never change, like the almost religious
architecture wars which are a fixture in net.micro.  

	Since, I'm a product marketing engineer for the 386, I won't bother to
inject my obviously baised :) views on the iAPX vs 68K architecture.  However, I
 would like to state for the record that the 386 is not an announced part. 
Therefore, Mr Spencer's statements about it are generally SPECULATION and not
facts.   I find it unfortunate that he blasts a new CPU before he even knows
the facts about, just because it is from Intel.   
(I couldn't find any record of Mr Spencer signing a non-disclosure agreement
on the 386.)

	Obviously, Henry is within in his rights to flame about the 8086 and
80286, but I think he is premature to nail Intel on the 386. 

	As a Mac owner, and largely an Apple fan, I found it interesting that
the Mac is really a segmented machine, except that they restrict segments
to 32K!!.  So, I really don't think segmentation is bad, just the fact that
aren't as large as you want.

	Clif Purkiser

-- 
Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSORS
{pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!clif
	
{standard disclaimer about how these views are mine and may not reflect
the views of Intel, my boss , or USNET goes here. }