Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!dalcs!aucs!paul
From: paul@aucs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Intel Microprocessors
Message-ID: <403@aucs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Aug-87 07:31:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: aucs.403
Posted: Tue Aug 11 07:31:28 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Aug-87 06:25:01 EDT
References: <1112@lznv.ATT.COM> <399@aucs.UUCP> <3225@cucca.columbia.edu> <789@unccvax.UUCP> <1221@leo.UUCP>
Reply-To: paul@aucs.UUCP (Paul Steele)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Acadia Univ., Nova Scotia
Lines: 22

In article <1221@leo.UUCP> dave@leo.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes:
>In article <789@unccvax.UUCP>, cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes:
>> Just ask computer engineers which chip set they'd rather design a
>> computer with. 
>
>   The 68020 anytime anywhere.  Just thought you'd like to know.
>
Just thought I'd add my two cents worth.  I've been programming in assembly
language on and off now since 1976.  In fact, I even enjoyed it.  When it
comes to the 808x chip, there are several useful features for the assembly
language programmer.  However, the hassles that segments cause outweigh
any other feature considerably.  In my opinion, the 808x chips were designed
the way they were to make porting of 8080 software easier.  From a marketing
standpoint, it was certainly the right move.  But if Intel had asked enough
programmers about the design, I'm pretty sure I know what the answer would be.
No doubt about it...  Give me a linear address space any day.


Paul H. Steele      UUCP:      {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Paul
Acadia University   BITNET:    Paul@Acadia
Wolfville, NS       Internet:  Paul%Acadia.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
CANADA  B0P 1X0     PHONEnet:  (902) 542-2201x587