Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k
Subject: Was Re: Recent Motorola ad seen in Byte
Message-ID: <8704050506.AA25220@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Sun, 5-Apr-87 00:06:55 EST
Article-I.D.: cory.8704050506.AA25220
Posted: Sun Apr  5 00:06:55 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Apr-87 21:56:20 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 22


>The neat thing about the '386 is that it can run UNIX, unlike the 68020.
>With the 68020 you have to put an MMU in your system.  However, hardware
>guys at companies that make affordable computers seem to have this thing
>against putting MMUs in.  With the '386, no silly hardware person can
>leave out the MMU.

	An MMU a UNIX system doesn't make.  It takes a lot more than a mere
MMU to make a *real* UNIX system smooth.  When your talking 'real' systems,
your talking enough complexity that having the MMU internal or external
doesn't really make a difference.  Don't get me wrong... I'm all for having
the MMU on chip, but frankly I think it will only make a difference in
smaller systems.

	In terms of the dreaded 68020/80386 wars, and if I took a 
neutral stance on the speed issue, it all comes down to a preference
of which instruction set one likes best.  I personally (and this is why
I'm on this newsgroup) like Motorola.  Not just for their 680X0 series,
but for their single chip microcomputers as well.  The 68705 for instance.
And as far as quality goes, Motorola is right up there with HP.

					-Matt