Xref: utzoo comp.misc:1768 comp.sys.m68k:698 comp.sys.mac:11631 comp.sys.ibm.pc:11104
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!enea!tut!santra!hsu
From: hsu@santra.UUCP (Heikki Suonsivu)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: The New Chips
Keywords: 386
Message-ID: <10064@santra.UUCP>
Date: 30 Jan 88 03:20:46 GMT
References: <4746@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1430@husc2.UUCP> <2101@pdn.UUCP>
Reply-To: hsu@santra.UUCP (Heikki Suonsivu)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Lines: 68

In article <2101@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
>projection for '87.  If Apple releases an "SE" type Mac with a '020 in it 
>(say at 12 MHz costing $3000 for the complete system), then the projection may
>turn out wrong again.  Even so, the installed base of '020's is now in

Right now can 386-based AT-clones with 2 meg ram and reasonable hard
disk be bought for less than $3000, with 16 MHz zero waits. Maybe not
much but it is certainly faster than 12 MHz 68020. To get something
reasonable done, you have to add MMU also, but using 68030 would be
more sensible anyway, maybe they choose it.

>software.  32-bit software for the 386 is not expected to be available
>in quantity until 1990 AT THE EARLIEST!!   There's hardly even any '286
>protected-mode (16 Meg address space) software yet!

There's already unix available from 3 sources (counted xenix in also),
and I guess that alone gives quite a bunch of software available, gnu
emacs has already been ported, and there is lots of other goodies,
lots of it avaiable free.  Who would want 286 protected mode software?
Or 286 at all? Not me. Others?

>[lots of numbers from dhrystone benchmark]

I'm running 8 MHz 286 and 10 MHz 68010, no waits for both, Unix on
both. Dhrystone tells me that 8 MHz 286 is faster than 10MHz 68010.
That's bullshit, tells my eyes and watch. Referring to dhrystone
is like comparing dos machines with Norton's SI.

>By the time the Intel/MS-DOS/OS2 world is getting a reasonable supply of
>'386 code on 30MHz machines (1990; 12,000 Dhrystones/second), the

OS2 is 286 operating system. Doesn't make sense to wait when they get
it bugfree and look like operating system, specially when it's made
for obsolete processor (286 is't high-tech, is it?). I would rather
run unix.

>Motorola world will have a larger supply of 68040 software on 40 MHz
>machines doing 70,000 Dhrystones/second.  Really.  No kidding.  The

I would love to get such a thing, but right now, I have to select
between $3000 taiwanese 386 clone and $6000 68020 unix box. I would
rather take $3000 in cash and $3000 taiwanese clone. Though, right now
I couldn't afford either... :-(

>Intel likes to talk about compatibility.  But it's Motorola who have
>actually delivered it from the 68000 to the 68040, without needing 
>special compatibility modes.  The fact that the 80386 executes three

Only upward compatibility. Intel has modes, but their previous
processors are pure shit. Though, it's not a good argument either way,
operating systems should make it possible for me to forget about what
chip there is in the machine (YARUU = Yet Another Reason to Use Unix).

>different instruction sets (8086, 80286, 80386) is sugar coating on
>a fundamentally poison pill.  As time goes on, this will become more
>apparent.

Mostly I use 8086 compatibility to be able to run Flight simulator and
other nice games. And sometimes, to compile programs developed under
unix for customers too stupid, poor or tied-with-ibm-because-their-
boss-doesn't-understand-anything-about-computers to get anything but a
mess dos.

I would love to see IBM, Intel and Microsoft to collapse, development
of computers would speed up a lot. Meanwhile, I try to find best
alternatives available, and as I'm using unix most of time, I don't
pay much attention to the processor, price is more important, what I
get for my bucks. :-)