Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard
From: howard@cpocd2.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Microprocessors
Message-ID: <984@cpocd2.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Nov-87 12:35:29 EST
Article-I.D.: cpocd2.984
Posted: Thu Nov 19 12:35:29 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Nov-87 05:42:29 EST
References: <2175@tekig5.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman)
Followup-To: comp.arch
Organization: Intel Corp. ASIC Systems Organization, Chandler AZ
Lines: 18
Keywords: Intel, Motorola
Xref: utgpu comp.sys.mac:8817 comp.sys.ibm.pc:8839 comp.arch:2761
Summary: discuss this in comp.arch

In article <2175@tekig5.TEK.COM> danm@tekig5.TEK.COM (Daniel Milliron) writes:
>I have had experience programming early Intel processors, but am not real
>familiar with the 80x86 or 680x0.  Everything I have heard says "Motorola is
>better" but no one ever says why.  Could someone who knows why (or why not)
>please email me an explanation?  I will summarize for the net.  I should be
>reachable via "danm@tektronix".  Thanks,

This topic is more appropriate for comp.arch, where it has been beat senseless
(but not, alas, to death) for several months.  In particular, many major flaws
in the Byte "benchmark" of the 80386 versus the 68030 were dissected there in
detail.  There's really no need to rehash this topic in newsgroups where more
heat and less light are likely to prevail.

-- 
	Howard A. Landman
	{oliveb,hplabs}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard
	howard%cpocd2.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET
	80386: A half-decent architecture.  Guess which half!