Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mimsy!oddjob!gargoyle!vijit!madsen
From: madsen@vijit.UUCP (Dave Madsen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Intel Microprocessors
Message-ID: <109@vijit.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Aug-87 19:32:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: vijit.109
Posted: Thu Aug 20 19:32:53 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 12:46:15 EDT
References: <1112@lznv.ATT.COM> <399@aucs.UUCP> <3225@cucca.columbia.edu> <4633@iucs.UUCP>
Organization: Wang Labs, Oakbrook, IL
Lines: 64
Summary: Similarity in architectures ??!?

In article <4633@iucs.UUCP>, bobmon@iucs.UUCP (RAMontante [condition that I not be identified]) writes:
| 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
| >	[deleted]
| >	... "braindamaged"(Microsoft's own word) architecture of
| >	the 80286 ...
| 
| [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.  ...
| [deleted]
| RAMontante
| Computer Science Dept.	might be -->	bobmon@iucs.cs.indiana.edu
| Indiana University		or maybe -->	montante@silver.BACS.indiana.edu

I have been working with the IBM 360 style of architecture since the 360/50
and on into today.  However, I'm not painted Blue.  Nevertheless, I happen to
like that particular assembler and instruction set.  It is far more orthogonal
and flexible than the 80x86 stuff, and far more high-level.  
The comparison made above is unfair to the 360.  I have worked on "micro"
architectures as well, including the (now ancient and defunct IBM 1130), 8080,
Z80, etc, and find BY FAR that the most distasteful is the 80x86 stuff.  
They are all "family", but as you go BACKWARDS it becomes easier
to work on.  I think that this is a clear case of "compatibility blues".  
Most of today's problems have simply outgrown that architecture, and trying
to add "features" on top only makes the whole thing more unwieldy.  
I would personally say that much elegance is derived from simplicity (or vice
versa ?).  Would you say that the 80286 is either simple or elegant?
The problem is compounded by the goofiest assembler/linker that I'VE ever 
worked with in my entire life.  I LIKE assembler (please, no religious wars;
I use and like both high & low level languages), and consider myself a
"bit-fiddler".  Nevertheless, I find that I AVOID working in 80x86 assembler 
whenever possible.

I see many people slamming IBM lately.  While I VERY DEFINITELY do not like 
some of IBM's products lately, I think some caution is in order here;
it is not an us-or-them situation.  We need to identify what ACTIONS and
PRODUCTS we feel are more or less in our own / our industry's best interest.
Berating the whole company is useless and doesn't accomplish anything.
(Unless we're paid to do it!)   <-- A joke.

(BTW, I work for an IBM competitor  :-) )

I read somewhere that technology moves ahead in 4 steps:
1)  An original idea or prototype.
2)  Idea developed into a usable product.  Refinements.
3)  Further refinements as the product matures.  There are diminishing 
    returns on each successive refinement.
4)  New idea breakthrough.  The new idea could supplant the old, but there
    is resistance from the people with a interest in the mature 
    technology.  Note that this interest need not be monetary in nature.
Nowhere are these steps being more rapidly seen than in the area of computer
hardware.  Much of the contention in the industry is due to the fact that
hardly does one breakthrough happen before the next.  The topics of debate
change, but the furor does not.

[Now off the soapbox].


Dave Madsen   ---dcm

ihnp4!vijit!madsen    or    gargoyle.uchicago.edu!vijit!madsen

I sure can't help what my employer says; they never ask me first!