Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ames!elroy!jplgodo!wlbr!etn-rad!jru
From: jru@etn-rad.UUCP (John Unekis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Intel Microprocessors
Message-ID: <234@etn-rad.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Aug-87 12:37:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: etn-rad.234
Posted: Tue Aug  4 12:37:05 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Aug-87 01:16:13 EDT
References: <1112@lznv.ATT.COM> <399@aucs.UUCP> <3225@cucca.columbia.edu> <880@bdmrrr.bdm.com>
Reply-To: jru@etn-rad.UUCP (0000-John Unekis)
Organization: Eaton Inc. IMSD, Westlake Village, CA
Lines: 26

In article <880@bdmrrr.bdm.com> davis@bdmrrr.bdm.com (Arthur Davis x4675) writes:
>
>
>If you have moved your code to a large model, I hope you have changed
>your malloc calls to _fmalloc (and free to _ffree).  You can get some
>strange results using malloc in a far environment.  One result you won't
>get is the compiler message "Oh gosh, you really shouldn't use malloc in
>a large model".  Not to start an argument with anyone, but it is for
>reasons such as these that I love 68000-family architectures.  Good luck.

        Let`s face it, If IBM hadn`t made the mistake of using an Intel
	processor in the PC, Intel wouldn`t be in the Microprocessor
	business today. The one thing that I don`t understand is why,
	given the internal errors in the 80386 chip mask and the fact
	that the "braindamaged"(Microsoft's own word) architecture of
	the 80286 is forcing IBM to create a non-MSDOS-compatible 
	operating system (that's right, OS/2 will not run MSDOS
	applications in protected mode) , why, why, why, didn't IBM
	make use of their opportunity to escape from the Intel tar pit
	and use the MC68020 to make the PS/2 into a REAL computer?

	Oh, well. I suppose that as long as I`m making a wish list
	I might as well include peace on earth and an end to world hunger.
	But it sure would be nice to have a home computer that wasn't
	constantly tripping over it's own segments. Maybe I should have
	bought a Macintosh.