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