Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site nmtvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unm-la!unmvax!nmtvax!kenyon
From: kenyon@nmtvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products (8086 sucks debate)
Message-ID: <898@nmtvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Dec-85 12:33:33 EST
Article-I.D.: nmtvax.898
Posted: Tue Dec 10 12:33:33 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Dec-85 00:39:58 EST
References: <7687@watrose.UUCP> <552@scirtp.UUCP> <>
Reply-To: kenyon@nmtvax.UUCP (Rob Kenyon -A stranger in a stranger land)
Organization: New Mexico Tech (You call that an Organization?)
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.micro:13058 net.arch:2272

In article <> david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) writes:
>By preserving backward compatibility, Intel allows old software to run
>while new software is written.  For Daisy's customers, this means they

But why write new software when the old works so well?  By this reason we
should just port everything to CP/M and work on designing *FAST* Z80s.

There have been some rumors about a 75 Meg version of the 8080 coming out. 
If this is true, we won't have to worry about backward compatibility.  And
an address will be an address like God intended...  :-)

Why should I disclaim this?  I didn't write it.
-- 

Robert Kenyon                                p /
...ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!kenyon                /
kenyon@nmt                                   / g

Your father was a mother and your hamster smells of elderberries!