Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ius2.cs.cmu.edu
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius2.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw
From: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: What if IBM Had chosen the 68000? N
Message-ID: <240@ius2.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 26-Nov-85 15:14:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ius2.240
Posted: Tue Nov 26 15:14:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 21:31:00 EST
References: <456@looking.UUCP> <4400129@uiucdcsb>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 17

In article <4400129@uiucdcsb> jabusch@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
>
>
>	Yes, IBM does make the CS-9000, which is 68k-based.  I hate it!
>I've used it for classwork, with Xenix.  It's incredibly slow.  We have
...
>	The AT runs several times faster under Xenix, and is far more
...
Much of this is probably due to the fact that the CS-9000 has not gone through
2 1/2 generations of products as is the case with the AT, as it would have a
68010 (or 68020) by now.  As a 'lab' machine, IBM probably does not consider
the CS-9000 to be as important as the PC family.  Had the Lisa been more
competitively priced (and perhaps had an MacCharlie option in 1983), the
68000 might have 'won'.

					- Ralph