Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site amdcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!amdcad!phil
From: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <7481@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Dec-85 02:36:37 EST
Article-I.D.: amdcad.7481
Posted: Sun Dec 15 02:36:37 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Dec-85 03:42:05 EST
References: <129@intelca> <4400130@uiucdcsb> <6185@utzoo.UUCP> <6228@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Organization: AMD, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 19
Keywords: 8080, 64k

In article <6228@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> If you guys keep comparing the 8086 to the 68000, a chip which came
>> out a few years later, then I'll [make an equally silly comparison]
>
>Why shouldn't we compare them?  Intel advertising does it all the time.
>In grossly misleading ways, too.

I would have to say that I am often ashamed by some of the claims I have
seen made for the 8086 family. However I hope we don't have to sink to 
the level of the liberal arts educated marketing slime who push 8086s.

Am I the only one who sees neither the 8086 or the 80286 are 32-bit
microprocessors?
-- 
 Even lefties have rights!

 Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com