Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!broehl
From: broehl@watdcsu.UUCP (Bernie Roehl)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: What if IBM Had chosen the 68000? Not what you think Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <1901@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Nov-85 12:20:35 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1901
Posted: Wed Nov 20 12:20:35 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Nov-85 03:14:42 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp>
Reply-To: broehl@watdcsu.UUCP (Bernie Roehl)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.micro:12759 net.arch:2121

In article <428@ecn-pc.UUCP> wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) writes:

>>3) 68000 programs are a lot larger than 8086 programs.
>    If you mean there are alot of large 68k application programs out there,
>    then I agree.  If you mean that a program for a given task is larger on
>    the 68k than on the 808/8/6 then I disagree totally.

You can disagree all you like; the fact remains that 68k programs are
a lot larger than 808(6,8) programs.

Code for the 8086 tends to run about 30% to 40% smaller than the same
code for the 68000 (at least for compiled code; hand-assembled stuff is
almost impossible to compare).

Note that I am *not* defending the 8086 architecture (though it isn't *that*
bad), nor am I saying it's better than the 68000.  I'm just saying that code
for the 68000 tends to be a lot bulkier than code for the 8086.