Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!lodman
From: lodman@ncr-sd.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Recent Motorola ad seen in Byte
Message-ID: <1466@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: Thu, 26-Mar-87 16:07:41 EST
Article-I.D.: ncr-sd.1466
Posted: Thu Mar 26 16:07:41 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Mar-87 07:05:14 EST
References: <362@sbcs.UUCP>
Reply-To: lodman@ncr-sd.UUCP (Mike Lodman)
Distribution: comp
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Lines: 26
Xref: utgpu comp.sys.m68k:283 comp.sys.intel:119

In article <362@sbcs.UUCP> root@sbcs.UUCP (Root) writes:
>What did you, fellow Usenetters, think of the recent Motorola advertisement
>(April '87 Byte) about 68020 -vs- 80386?  Used to be that Intel dispensed
>copious amounts of smoke when comparing their processors vs those from
>Motorola.  It seems now that Intel has a somewhat serious machine, the shoe 
>is on the other foot and Motorola seems to be running the smear campaign.

I have seen some ads from Motorola (the apples and oranges ad)
and I thought what they said was fairly interesting. We had heard
that they cheated on their dhrystone etc. benchmarking long before
Motorola claimed this was so. I haven't seen the ad in question yet.

If Intel at last has a serious machine, it would seem that they have
a credibility gap to close, which was opened after years of 8088,8086
etc. garbage that they sold and people bought. I will believe it
when I have a '386 in my hot little hand. Until then, I'm a little
skeptical.

Personally, I find Motorola's claims much more believable.


-- 
Michael Lodman
Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego
mike.lodman@SanDiego.NCR.COM 
{sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!lodman