Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!ingoldsby
From: ingoldsby@calgary.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.amiga,net.micro.atari16,net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: The Motorola 68030
Message-ID: <427@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 17:20:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: vaxb.427
Posted: Mon Oct  6 17:20:55 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Oct-86 07:58:21 EDT
References: <2270@gitpyr.UUCP> <262@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> <877@Shasta.STANFORD.ED <306@husc6.HARVARD.EDU>
Organization: U. of Calgary, Calgary, Ab.
Lines: 18
Summary: Two great processors
Xref: mnetor net.micro.68k:1362 net.micro.amiga:5145 net.micro.atari16:2373 net.micro.mac:7468

The continuing debate on the relative merits of the MC68030 / 80386 seems to
be a bit pointless.  The computer industry is famous for the speed at which
equipment is designed, introduced, used and falls obsolete.  Of course
Motorola's product is superior to the 80386 because there is an almost
1.5 year difference in technology.  Doubtless the 80486 (which is probably
under development right now) will be superior to the MC68030.  What most
people seem to forget is that processors are chosen for a particular
product for a variety of reasons, only one of which is their programming
characteristics.  Interfacing requirements, # of support chips, price, 
etc. are all important characteristics for a manufacturer.  I'm sure that
for given applications either Motorola or Intel win.  Instead of these
pointless `A is > B because B is built by 3 toed sloths' arguments, why
not try to restrict postings to actual specific comparisons between the
two or information which may not yet be generally known.

				Terry Ingoldsby

...ihnp4!alberta!calgary!ingoldsby