Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!seismo!dalcs!iisat!kevin From: kevin@iisat.UUCP (Kevin Davies) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Intel Microprocessors Message-ID: <282@iisat.UUCP> Date: Tue, 11-Aug-87 21:46:14 EDT Article-I.D.: iisat.282 Posted: Tue Aug 11 21:46:14 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Aug-87 07:15:28 EDT References: <1112@lznv.ATT.COM| <399@aucs.UUCP| <3225@cucca.columbia.edu| <1166@csib.UUCP> Organization: International Information Service, Dart., NS Lines: 55 Summary: applications of CPU In article <1166@csib.UUCP>, jwhitnel@csib.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) writes: > In article <789@unccvax.UUCP| cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes: > |It has the wonderous > |68000 microprocessor. Awww guess what? it can't manage its own memory. > |Segmentation allows the Intel chips to manage their memory. I suggest > |you put a MAC with 4 meg next to an AT with 4 meg of memory running > |Microport system V or SCO Xenix and place your bets as to which machine > |can start compiling 4 different programs simultaneously. > > But how fast does it compile? The whole point of computers is not just > what they can do, but do they help you get your job done faster? I'd give > up multitasking in an instance for a very fast compiler. Because I spend > most of my time waiting for the compile to complete so I can test the latest > bugs I put in my program (:-)). And the compiler on my Mac is far faster then > anything I've seen on an AT class machine (including Turbo C). The main point here is what you've said.. "...get your job done...". For some instances, it's not good having the latest & fastest compiler on machine X if you're designing something which is to be used in a multi-user environment. Like a database where you have 2 people entering information and you have another searching the database. Here, neither Turbo C or the Mac will give you much head way.. especially when it comes to locking files, and file security. The machine you use and the software you run on it will be decided by what applications are to be done and the surrounding circumstances. I agree, a Mac compiler probably is faster... depending on what you want it for. > > | ... > |What size segmentation would you like? > I don't like segments at all. Segments mean segment registers which means > extra code to keep track of the registers and extra bugs caused by not > setting segment registers correctly. That's why you have compilers, to help speed software development etc. People don't go 'round producing their own compilers etc. (at least I don't think so). This is why the compilers have options so that it can deal with the type of program you will be compiling. The headache with the segment registers is done _once_. After that, you get on with the task at hand (save for bugs in the compiler itself :-). > > | > |/Carl > |...decvax!mcnc!unccvax!cbenda One thing to remember to multi-user environments (i.e., Unix/Xenix), they like to see PLENTY of memory. And for the record, I have worked on 68000 series and DEC-Vax assembly... (but not Intel...) -- Kevin Davies International Information Service (IIS) UUCP: {mnetor,seismo,utai,watmath}!dalcs!iisat!kevin ----------------------------------------