Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bnrgate!bnr-fos!bmers58!atreus!keithh
From: keithh@atreus.uucp (Keith Hanlan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: 68040 vs 80246 (Was Re: Xerox sues Apple!!!)
Message-ID: <668@bmers58.UUCP>
Date: 22 Dec 89 00:50:42 GMT
References: <824@mindlink.UUCP> <1617@bnr-rsc.UUCP>
Sender: news@bmers58.UUCP
Reply-To: keithh@atreus.UUCP (Keith Hanlan)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 33

In article <1617@bnr-rsc.UUCP> bcarh185!schow@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes:
>In article <824@mindlink.UUCP> a218@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs) writes:
>>
>>Does anyone have any more horror stories?
>>
>
>How about the inconsistancy between 68000 & 68010? (Specifically the MOVESR
>problem).
>
>For myself, I prefer the Intel approach - that is, make the successors
>have exactly the same bugs as well. That way, a pin-compatible '010 will
>really be pin-compatible.

Come now Stanley, you're going to get roasted for this one so let me
start :-) Remember that this philosophy is what has given rise to our
IBM mainframes with their 30 year old architecture complete with punch
cards... Heck - they aren't even bugs so much as anachronisms and
deficiencies. Bugs are even worse.

No, I think it's smarter the bite the bullet as many times as necessary
to keep the bites small and manageable. This is the only way to permit
progress.
>
>How about the '020 MMU being a subset of the '851 MMU? Not a bug, but
                ^^^ - do you mean the '030? See Dave Haynie's earlier
comments on this. If you really need it - which most will contend you
don't - add the '851 anyways.

Best of the season to everybody...
Keith
Keith Hanlan
Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada 613-765-4645
uunet!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bmers58!atreus!keithh or keithh@bnr.ca