Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug
From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: More fuel for the anti-Intel flames
Message-ID: <530@terak.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-May-85 11:15:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: terak.530
Posted: Tue May  7 11:15:02 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 10-May-85 20:42:34 EDT
References: <10441@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Terak Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Lines: 21

> Has anybody else noticed that only persons with vested interests (such as
> people from Intel, AMD, and vendors of 80*86 systems) have said anything
> good about the 80*86? On the other hand, people have come out in support of
> the 68000 and 32000 just because they like the chips...

Interesting thought.  But I also wonder to what extent this is the old
"grass is greener on the other side of the fence" syndrome -- most of
us can get our hands on iAPX86-based systems, but how many of the 68000
and 32000 supporters have actually programmed one?

Besides, since most 68000 and 32000 supporters don't intend to program
in assembler language anyway, why should they *care* what the internal
architecture is, as long as the system performs well?

Disclaimer:  the comments above don't even represent my own opinion.
As an assembly hacker with experience with all three chips, I'll take
the 68000 and 32000 over iAPX86 any day.  But I sure wish there was an
assembler for them which is as nice as the Microsoft assembler for the
iAPX86.
-- 
Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug