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!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!vecpyr!amd!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!decvax!cca!ima!johnl
From: johnl@ima.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: 386/68020 blather
Message-ID: <100000002@ima.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Nov-85 22:34:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ima.100000002
Posted: Tue Nov 12 22:34:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Nov-85 01:06:21 EST
References: <200@opus.UUCP>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:opus:-20000:ima:100000002:000:1232
Nf-From: ima!johnl    Nov 12 22:34:00 1985


I think the 80386 is the answer to a maiden's prayer.  Why?  Because it
will let me escape from MS-DOS.  There is a whole bunch of DOS software that
I need to use, and until now the only way to do that until now has been to
run it standalone on a DOS box.  Or perhaps under the Locus OS-MERGE thing,
perhaps.  But the 386 should let me run DOS binaries under genuine virtual
memory Unix, which would be just great.  The 68020 and 32X32 have their
advantages, to be sure, but not being able to run all of that DOS stuff
puts them at a real disadvantage.

John Levine, ima!johnl

PS:  Before you tell me that all of my programs should be written in nice
portable C requiring only recompilation to port them, don't bother.  All of
my programs used to be like that.  Then I met MS-DOS, and had to do all sorts
of ghastly stuff to deal with the memory architecture and to get acceptable
performance.  Unfortunate but true.  If you look at the software out in the
microcomputer world, you'll find that the best and most successful programs
are almost invariably the least portable.  Take 1-2-3, for example, which is
renowned for being fast and small, and is also so PC specific that it has
become the standard test for PC compatibility.