Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ima.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!johnl
From: johnl@ima.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: 386
Message-ID: <38800002@ima.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Apr-85 21:52:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ima.38800002
Posted: Tue Apr 30 21:52:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 01:12:28 EDT
References: <2140@seismo.UUCP>
Lines: 24
Nf-ID: #R:seismo:-214000:ima:38800002:000:1351
Nf-From: ima!johnl    Apr 30 21:52:00 1985


I will be much more impressed by how swell the 386 is (and I agree, having
32 bit segment offsets sounds pretty swell) when I can hold one in my hand.
Seems to me that if the 386 can do everything a 286 can do, and also has a
complete 32-plus bit CPU, it is going to need a piece of silicon about three
feet across.  Rumor has it that Intel had a lot of trouble getting the 286
to work and still can't make them as fast as they'd like; the 386 can only
be worse.

So are there any credible estimates as to when 386 samples will start
appearing?  Any incredible estimates?

John Levine, Javelin Software, Cambridge MA 617-494-1400
{ decvax!cca | think | ihnp4 | cbosgd }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.ARPA

PS: I spend my time these days writing software that has to bob and weave 
around the 8086's and 286's segmentation and I am increasingly sure that the 
8086's addressing is my punishment for unspeakable sin in a previous life.  I 
really sincerely hope that Intel gets the 386 to work soon, and that IBM 
instantly puts it into a desktop computer that is so wildly successful that 
nobody ever thinks about running code on a 286 or 8088 again, and that small 
and energetic businesses build machines based thereon for under $1000, 
including a 100MB disk drive and 16MB or RAM, and give me one for free for 
suggesting it.  But somehow, I doubt it.