Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!elroy!jplgodo!wlbr!etn-rad!jru From: jru@etn-rad.UUCP (John Unekis) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: 386 rumors, questions, and comments Message-ID: <249@etn-rad.UUCP> Date: Thu, 13-Aug-87 12:47:22 EDT Article-I.D.: etn-rad.249 Posted: Thu Aug 13 12:47:22 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Aug-87 11:47:19 EDT References: <1014@vi.ri.cmu.edu> Reply-To: jru@etn-rad.UUCP (0000-John Unekis) Organization: Eaton Inc. IMSD, Westlake Village, CA Lines: 26 Keywords: protection sun machine In article <1014@vi.ri.cmu.edu> jfb@vi.ri.cmu.edu (John Brennen) writes: > >Second, I have heard that Sun is planning a 386-based machine. If this >is true, it says something interesting: that someone with no financial >interest in Intel and a considerable investment in Motorola has chosen >an Intel part. Sun certainly isn't turning its back on Motorola, but >broadening one's horizons never hurt anyone. > As far as I know, SUN has no plans to implement an intel based machine. This sounds like a self-serving rumor started by Intel. The next SUN machine out will be the SUN 4, which will be based on a very high speed RISC processor(10+MIPS). The only rumor that I have ever heard about SUN and Intel is that SUN was able to emulate the instruction set of the 8088 in a software routine on the SUN3, and still beat out the PC in performance. They intended to offer this software emulation as their answer to IBM PC compatibility since, as far as I know, SUN would rather die than dirty their hands with an intel chip. >I've written multitaskers for both the 80xxx family and the 68xxx family, >and I'll admit that the 68xxx program was cleaner and easier to write. >The problem is that a UN*X primitive like fork() is difficult to implement .... >"solution" (a 68020 with MMU) was unacceptable at the time, and restricts .... This is a little like saying 'I bought a ford without wheels and I couldn't drive it, so now I only buy chevrolets.'