Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim
From: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 80286 vs. 432
Message-ID: <6300@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-May-87 16:56:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780c.6300
Posted: Wed May 13 16:56:31 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 16-May-87 08:19:15 EDT
References: <5981@shemp.UCLA.EDU>
Reply-To: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Distribution: world
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica CA
Lines: 19
Keywords: 432, 80286

<	the object model), but it has severe ovehead for object access. As we 
<	know, the 432 suffers from the slow performance problems which is a 
<	direct consequence of this "safest" object model. As a matter of fact, 
<	every object based systems has this kind of problems. So, what should 
<	be our choice ? a conventional architecture whose performance is
<	acceptable but sometimes has protection problems, or a object based 
<	system which has less protection problems but an (unacceptable ?) poor 
<	performance ?

Just because everyone in the past who has built object based systems has
produced a slow system is no reason to assume that all object based
systems must be this way.  Try posting your questions to comp.arch.
There are people working on fast object oriented machines who read
that group ( Hi Fritz! ).
-- 
Tim Smith			"Froh wie seine Sonnen fliegen
sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim		 Durch des Himmels praecht'gen Plan,
				 Laufet, Brueder, eure Bahn,
				 Freudig wie ein Held zum Siegen"