Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site prism.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!prism!matt
From: matt@prism.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: More fuel for the anti-Intel flames
Message-ID: <6800002@prism.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 11-May-85 13:28:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: prism.6800002
Posted: Sat May 11 13:28:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 21:35:14 EDT
References: <10441@brl-tgr.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:brl-tgr:-1044100:prism:6800002:000:1261
Nf-From: prism!matt    May 11 13:28:00 1985


>> 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...
>
> 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?

Because some (unnamed :-) processors are designed around an internal
architecture that makes programming even in high level languages unnecessarily
painful.  (Ever try to write a C program requiring a LOT of data space on an
8088 machine?  The substantial performance penalties notwithstanding, it's
still a pain in the neck.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Matt Landau            {cca, datacube, inmet, mit-eddie, wjh12}...
 Mirror Systems, Inc.                                   ...mirror!prism!matt
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

disclaimer:  I have no connection with anyone at all, other than as a
	     dissatisfied applications hacker for 80x86 based machines.