Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecn-pc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!mdm
From: mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386/68020 blather
Message-ID: <421@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Nov-85 21:38:17 EST
Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.421
Posted: Sat Nov  9 21:38:17 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Nov-85 06:18:15 EST
References: <533@scirtp.UUCP> <2353@ukma.UUCP> <200@opus.UUCP>
Reply-To: mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy)
Organization: Cybotech Product Development Lab
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.micro:12654 net.arch:2071

In article <200@opus.UUCP> rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) writes:
>So a parochial statement (roughly, 68020 is better) gets a non-response
>(68K processor doesn't run 86 code).  OK, lessee, I can tout the uVAX (for
>example) and get two people to flame because it can't run either 68K or 86
>code.  Then someone pops up with a 32000 and three of us flame 'cause it
>won't run VAX or 68K or 86 code.  Come on, this ain't even a decent reason
>to flame, let alone to post to net.arch...
>-- 
Dick, do you ever get a feeling that we have a net of HW/SW religious
fanatics.  Some of them get so bad (and un-objective) that we 
should put them to work for the various companies marketing departments.
In almost all cases a 68020 or 386 will do the job fairly well in a given
application. What really amazes me is that I NEVER hear any comments about
the development environments.... You know, those things that really count
in the order of the universe and the cost of a development program......

Big Mac

"Not every thing worth doing is worth doing well"  Soul of a New Machine