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
Subject: Re: Re: 386 Family Products (8086 sucks
Message-ID: <441@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Dec-85 10:48:08 EST
Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.441
Posted: Wed Dec 11 10:48:08 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 05:50:38 EST
References: <133@daisy.UUCP> <97800013@ima.UUCP> <464@looking.UUCP> <154@utastro.UUCP>
Reply-To: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex)
Organization: Cybotech Product Development Lab
Lines: 27

In article <154@utastro.UUCP> nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes:
>> In article <97800013@ima.UUCP> johnl@ima.UUCP writes:
>> >I really wish that it were true that a good compiler existed that could 
>In article <464@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>> I'll correct you, because you are wrong.  Our product  [...]
>> required almost no segment funnies to compile and run in large model.
>           ^^^^^^ ^^
                                                            ^^^^^

>> Funny code to deal with segmentation is only required in dealing with
>> the operating system or special hardware, and it isn't all that hard to write
>"Transparent ..." (your phrase, Brad) does NOT mean "almost no ...",
>it means NONE.  Not a few.  Not easy to do.  NONE.
>-- 
>Ed Nather

    I had to throw in one more thing - LARGE model also costs you around
    10-30% in execution speed and is ALOT larger.  Of course I guess you 
    could drop in one of the NEC chips and gain it back.  Doesn't the NEC
    chip gain alot of speed due to the fact that it has an adder in the BIU
    which is necessary due to the segementation scheme?  

    If I am wrong about the NEC chip, sorry.  I know I'm not wrong about
    the LARGE model, though.  

    Ciao.