Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmum.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watmum!cdshaw
From: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Need 286 "C" benchmark
Message-ID: <136@watmum.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-May-85 22:40:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmum.136
Posted: Tue May 28 22:40:20 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 02:14:41 EDT
References: <426@oakhill.UUCP> <8745@microsoft.UUCP> <583@intelca.UUCP> <433@oakhill.UUCP> <588@intelca.UUCP> <5704@Shasta.ARPA>
Reply-To: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.micro:10541 net.micro.68k:812

The bottom line is which machine offers the best SOLUTION. The processor
>inside should not matter to the end-user. After all, usability is usually
>more dependent on software than on hardware.

This, of course,is the point. The 8086, because of segments and all that crap,
forces all but the most trivial users of the machine to put up with artificial
and highly visible restrictions. 

If the machine has only 64K of ram, it's not important. If you want the machine
to have more, then you will run into problems, assuming that you run programs
with large amounts of data.

The bottom line is that the SOLUTION offered by Intel is obsolete, since micro
computing has gone well beyond the 64K limit.


Chris Shaw         watmath!watmum!cdshaw  or  cdshaw@watmath
University    of   Waterloo
In doubt?  Eat hot high-speed death -- the experts' choice in gastric vileness !