Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!nbires!ico!ism780c!tim
From: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Mac C Compilers, Benchmarks, Stupidity
Message-ID: <7130@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Aug-87 17:35:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780c.7130
Posted: Wed Aug 12 17:35:39 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Aug-87 05:14:52 EDT
References: <3560@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Reply-To: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Distribution: world
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica CA
Lines: 20

In article <3560@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> newton@cit-vax.UUCP (Mike Newton) writes:
< Probably like a lot of Mac II buyers, when I saw the latest issue of Byte,
< I was very disappointed.  The article causing this disapointment was the
< one comparing the Mac II vs. the 80386 based PS2/80. First I was
				   ^^^^^
< disappointed in the article -- I could not tell which compilers were being
< used (I may have just not read the article carefully).  From a lot of
< experience programming the 8086 and the 68020, I was shocked.  The 68020
			     ^^^^         ^^^^^
< __should__ be a faster system, and like a lot of these tests, this seemed
< to be more of a comparison of compilers than machines.  (I can provide a
< couple of references (some good, some bad) on this.  One of them is an IEEE
< article.)

A 68020 system *IS* usually faster than an 8086 system.  As you note
above, the PS2/80 is an 80386, not an 8086.  The fact that an 8086 is
slow has no bearing whatsoever on what an 80386 can do.
-- 
Tim Smith, Knowledgian		{sdcrdcf,uunet}!ism780c!tim
				tim@ism780c.isc.com