Xref: utzoo comp.misc:5682 comp.sys.ibm.pc:26830
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!bingvaxu!sunybcs!rutgers!att!cbnews!cbema!las
From: cbema!las@cbnews.ATT.COM (cbema!las)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: N-10 chip and UNIX/BS-2 considerations
Message-ID: <5260@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 30 Mar 89 18:54:11 GMT
References: <229@imspw6.UUCP>
Reply-To: cbema!las@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, OH (actually an AGS consultant)
Lines: 19

In article <229@imspw6.UUCP> bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) writes:
[Somewhat ugly snarling on peripheral political issues, comments on absurdity
of using Intel N-10 as graphic co-processor for 386, and interesting (and
probably true) observation about "UNIX-envy-driven" efforts "to avoid open
systems", including the observation that:]

>I, personally, would
>rather have a desktop machine with an N-10 chip running UNIX and a 386
>as an interrupt processor.

The 386 is a poor choice as an interrupt processor (long interrupt latency).
Use something nice-and-simple for interrupt processing.  Z-80's maybe (Hey
you in the back row!!  Stop that gagging!).

regards, Larry
-- 
Signed: Larry A. Shurr (att!cbnews!cbema!las or osu-cis!apr!las)
Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave
(With apologies to the real thing.  The above represents my views only.)