Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!mintaka!ogicse!decwrl!shelby!portia!underdog
From: underdog@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Next computer (Re: CISC Silent Spring)
Message-ID: <8934@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 7 Feb 90 21:12:43 GMT
References: <8905@portia.Stanford.EDU> <160@zds-ux.UUCP>
Sender: Dwight Joe <underdog@portia.stanford.edu>
Reply-To: underdog@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Organization: Gigantor Institute of Applied Science
Lines: 20

In article <160@zds-ux.UUCP> gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) writes:
|In article <8905@portia.Stanford.EDU> underdog@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
||In article <7341@pdn.paradyne.com> alan@oz.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy) writes:
|||Well, he has lots of choices here.
||
||Agreed.  But Sparc now has a huge software base that could
||easily be modified to fit the I/O of the NEXT, which BADLY
||needs software, if NEXT were to incorporate the SPARC chipset.
|
|uh?  SPARC has a larger software base than 680x0?  Where have you
|been?

I meant that SPARC, compared to the other RISCs, is the best
choice in terms of having the largest software base.

|IMHO, software is NEXT's main problem.

Agreed.  That's the problem of any new machine.  If JOBS does
indeed upgrade the NEXT to a RISC machine, then SPARC is a good
choice software-wise.