Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecn-pc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm From: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch Subject: Re: 386 Family Products Message-ID: <427@ecn-pc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 17-Nov-85 11:08:17 EST Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.427 Posted: Sun Nov 17 11:08:17 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 19-Nov-85 03:21:07 EST References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP> <6139@utzoo.UUCP> <426@ecn-pc.UUCP> Reply-To: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) Organization: Cybotech Product Development Lab Lines: 83 Xref: watmath net.micro:12732 net.arch:2104 In article <426@ecn-pc.UUCP> mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy) writes: >In article <6139@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>Intel has made a lot of money, at everyone else's expense: they >>have probably succeeded in setting the industry back ten years. > >Let's see, 10 years ago.... Ah yes, the 8080 was just introduced... >I believe a company called MITS introduced the Altair 8800.... The machine >which really started the PC revolution.... Ok, Intel did make one good (for the time) processor, the 8080. But that was more than ten years ago. They really haven't changed their architecture since then. While the rest of the micro world was learning the joys of modern architecture, Intel was busily trying to figure out how to stuff 8-bit performance into a 16-bit micro. > >Last I checked Henry, the free world revolved around one >person making money at anothers expense.... If you are arguing against >capitalism, I think you are on the wrong net. This is a very interesting definition of capitalism, but I especially like how you come up with a lousy definition of capitalism and then use it to bash Henry. > >>I agree that Intel does some things right, but I almost wish they didn't. >>Their support gets them customers their trashy processors don't deserve. >> >>> Now Henry, be nice to those poor >>> INTEL people who indirectly brought us the PC, PC-AT,......... >> >>Sounds like a hanging offence to me! Think what the world would be like now if IBM had decided to go with the Motorola family of chips for the PC series. WOW!! We would really have some systems out there. IBM chose Intel for business, not technical, reasons. I don't think Motorola would have sold IBM twelve percent of their stock. Besides, IBM and Motorola compete (or will be shortly) in a number of areas. > >In the free market system, those who prduce trashy processors that are a >waste of good sand do one thing.... lose the stockholders a great deal of >money and upset a few fools that design the product in anyway.. > >I'm not in love with their chip architecture myself, but one should give >the devil his due. INTEL has succeded in producing more successful micro >products than anyone else and has provided the customers with the tools >to get the product to market as well as an upgrade path from their earlier >devices (8080-8086) to the next generation technology. Of course, from a computer architecture point of view the 8080 and the 8086 are the SAME generattion of technology. I would also be interested in how you define successful. Is it just the one that makes alot of money? If you want to say that the 808X family is the most successful, the credit has to go to IBM, not Intel. >This is fact... >This is also what keeps them a broad base of loyal customers.... >They must have one hell of alot of stupid customers...... >Who have alot of stupid customers ..... >that buy alot of products with ..... >trashy processors in them.... >That work..... Nobody said they didn't work. They're just clumsy and make life difficult for the people that must use them. If you want upward compatiblity, write everything in a portable language, and recompile (I know it is not so simple, but porting properly written code is not that tough). I for one am glad that DEC didn't decide to build PDP-8 compatibility in to the VAX, but I guess if they did they would have set the industry ahead ten years. Or something like that. > >Big Mac > >317-497-0509 > >