Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 80486 vs. 68040 code size
Message-ID: <4152@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 11 May 89 13:16:50 GMT
References: <922@aber-cs.UUCP>
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 31

In article <922@aber-cs.UUCP>, pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
> No, I did not realize that. Maybe I was wrong -- but what I see around me,
> avaiable for purchase, is 68020/386 workstations, for roughly the same price.

And if it wasn't for the sea of dollars you refer to the 386es would cost
as much, if not more than, the 030s. By the way, the first 030 implementation
I know of was the CSA 68030 card for the Amiga.

> If I were going to compare the Intel/Motorola families, I would couple
> them as 6809/8088, 68010/80286, 68020/386.

6809-8088? I love it. However, the 6809 really fell into the cracks... the
68000 was very close to beating it out and was contemporary with the 8086.

68000 -- 8086
68010 -- 80186	# Neither really took off, both just fixed some flaws
		  in the original, at the cost of some compatibility.
68020 -- 80286
68030 -- 80386
68040 -- 80486	# Both announced but not available.

> Also, the 68020 was introduced not much before the 386, and certainly the
> 386 has been around far longer than the 68030. Or I am goofing?

My memory is that the 68020 has been out nearly as long as the 286, and that
the 68030 has been around nearly as long as the 68030.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.