Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!hankd
From: hankd@pur-ee.UUCP (Hank Dietz)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Slandering Intel
Message-ID: <11878@pur-ee.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jun 89 15:45:46 GMT
References: <182@mipos3.intel.com> <1989Jun2.163144.5197@utzoo.uucp> <4392@ficc.uu.net> <20993@winchester.mips.COM>
Reply-To: hankd@pur-ee.UUCP (Hank Dietz)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 20

In article <20993@winchester.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes:
>OK, it's really time for this one to stop cold; in my opinion, this is
>a new low for comp.arch.  Although I often agree with Henry, the negative
>comments on the Intel designers were: a) uncalled-for (OPINION), and
>b) untrue (DATA to support this follows)
...

Absolutely correct.  I *HATE* the '86 family machines -- as do the majority
of my fellow compiler writers/researchers -- but I certainly appreciate that
they do what they do very well indeed.  Intel is darn good at designing and
fabricating chips... although we could argue about what they chose to design.

Certainly, there are other processors out there that are commonly used and
are far worse than the '86 line, but people are not so offended by them.
Why?  I think that "Intel bashing" is a direct consequence of the
aggressive, and perhaps overly creative ;-), marketing approach that Intel
has taken -- especially in the early days of the '86 family.  This
recognition may be the only profitable thing to come from this discussion.

						-hankd@ee.ecn.purdue.edu