Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site homxb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!homxb!gemini
From: gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: What if IBM Had chosen the 68000? Not what you think Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <930@homxb.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Nov-85 19:58:58 EST
Article-I.D.: homxb.930
Posted: Tue Nov 19 19:58:58 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Nov-85 08:31:12 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp>
Organization: PC Research, Inc.
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.micro:12756 net.arch:2119

>
>>As an aside, I won't argue that it's time for the 8086 to go.  64K Segments
>>are getting me down.  But I am sure it was the right chip to choose in
>>1980, when IBM-PC design decisions were made.  
>
>     Then how about presenting some real arguments to support your argument?
>     Arguments like, the ibm 68000 probably would not have had Unix support, 
>     or false arguments like the 68000 uses more memory to achieve the same
>     task, do little to support what you are trying to say.
>
>>-- 
>>Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

I didn't really want to get dragged into this, but a comparison of the sizes
of executables (using size(1), and only adding up .text) of the stuff in
/bin and /usr/bin on a 68k UNIX (Sun-2) versus a 286 UNIX SYS V shows that the
286 binaries are only 65% of the size of the 68k binaries.  I think Brad's
argument *is* valid.

Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc., ihnp4!castor!rer (201) 834-1378