Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site looking.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: PCs, ATs, DOS, Intel chips etc./ Reasons for unhappiness?
Message-ID: <580@looking.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Jun-86 02:42:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: looking.580
Posted: Sat Jun 14 02:42:12 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Jun-86 19:00:31 EDT
References: <563@imsvax.UUCP> <3921@sun.uucp> <567@looking.UUCP> <472@ccird1.UUCP>
Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 51
Summary: 

In article <472@ccird1.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes:
>
>Quick question:  It seems that there are much fewer problems producing
>a 100% AT compatible than a 100% PC compatible.  Did IBM change 3.0
>that much?  Is "basic in rom" still included on the AT?  Are graphics
>routines centrally vectored or something?

No, it's just that the world had more experience with making PC clones
when the AT came out.  It took a few years for PC clones to settle down.
When the AT come out, clone makers knew exactly what to do, and had their
clones ready to go right away.

Odd as it may seem, other companies will probably beat IBM to the punch
with 386 based AT compatibles!  The clones will come out before the real
machine.  When IBM releases its 386 box, the clone makers will quickly
make the appropriate changes and be in production within months before
any serious 386 using software is ready.  The fact that the 386 runs 286
programs faster is reason enough to make an AT clone using it.
>
>
>I don't like to make preditions about specific companies.  I would
>say that the first company to come out with 1280x800 (mono) graphics,
>1 meg memory, 1 MIPS, Virtual memory, and non-proprietary
>multi-tasking in a complete system for under $1000 will shake the
>market so badly, that the rest will have to follow.

The Commodore 900 had all this for about $3K 2 years ago.  They cancelled.
>
>The 68K market hasn't matured, and may never do so, if the 6502
>market is any indicator.  On the other hand, some National, Intel,
>or even Inmos chip may "pull the rug" from under the 386 before
>the "fat lady sings".
>
>Right now, I like the looks of the 68070, but success depends
>on what is done with it, not the chip itself.

Actually, the 68000 family signs its own death warrant, not through its
faults, but through its good points!  The 68000 is such that almost nobody
writes assembler for it.  All major code is done in C or some other HLL.

Programs done in HLLs have very little chip loyalty.  They'll move to whatever
computer sells well in a flash.

Processers that are bad, and thus demand lots of assembler, gain loyalty.
If you write for this chip, you must remain loyal to it.  This is the
cause of the long life of the Apple ][ and 6502.

What might have happened if the 6502 had been expanded instead of the 6800?
The same guy (Chuck Peddle) did both chips, and he did the 6502 second.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473