Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rochester!rutgers!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-hermes!iuvax!iucs!bobmon
From: bobmon@iucs.UUCP (RAMontante [condition that I not be identified])
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Intel Microprocessors
Message-ID: <4633@iucs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Aug-87 04:08:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: iucs.4633
Posted: Thu Aug  6 04:08:37 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Aug-87 09:23:38 EDT
References: <1112@lznv.ATT.COM> <399@aucs.UUCP> <3225@cucca.columbia.edu> <880@bdmrrr.bdm.com> <234@etn-rad.UUCP>
Reply-To: bobmon@iucs.UUCP (RAMontante [condition that I not be identified])
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Lines: 34

In article <234@etn-rad.UUCP> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (0000-John Unekis) writes:
>        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?

[flameflameflame]
Braindamaged architectures for braindamaged companies... within the limits
of my knowledge of IBM's S\360 and S\370 architectures (very narrow
limits :-), the 80x86 architectures look strikingly similar -- like
1/25th scale model cars are similar to the real thing.  I think IBM leans
toward this architecture partly because it's familiar/comfortable/the-product-
of-minds-just-as-bent-as-their-own.  The 680x0 family is a lot closer to
the PDP-11 style of architecture, which is probably reason enough to terminate
any IBM designer heretical enough to suggest its use.

And there's always the canard about "compatibility".  The code may not be
directly portable, but at least the use of the 80286/80386 means that all
the 8080/8088 addressing doesn't have to be re-thought-out intelligently,
as it would if it were moved into Flat-Address-Space-Land.

Disclaimer: If I expressed these opinions in comp.arch, people who know what
they're talking about would have me for breakfast.

~-~-~-~-~				"Have you hugged ME today?"
RAMontante
Computer Science Dept.		might be -->	bobmon@iucs.cs.indiana.edu
Indiana University		or maybe -->	montante@silver.BACS.indiana.edu