Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!lamaster
From: lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC v. CISC (was The NeXT problem)
Message-ID: <17260@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: 28 Oct 88 16:15:23 GMT
References: <156@gloom.UUCP> <310@lynx.zyx.SE> <332@pvab.UUCP> <15964@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <23367@amdcad.AMD.COM> <16003@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <17208@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Hugh LaMaster)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 15

In article <17208@ames.arc.nasa.gov> lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
>Correct.  Register windows seem to be a bad idea, but not because of

I seem to have overstated my case.  I should have said, that I consider
that it is unproven that register windows are a good idea relative to 
other equivalent uses of the same real estate.  The only "problem"
that I have with register windows is that, like "RISC" (whatever that is),
some people make extraordinary unsubstantiated claims.


-- 
  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center  ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035     
  Phone:  (415)694-6117