Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!mipos2!rajeevc
From: rajeevc@mipos2.intel.com (Rajeev Chandrasekhar)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 80386 vs. 68030
Message-ID: <3283@mipos3.intel.com>
Date: 5 Dec 88 01:58:35 GMT
References: <18266@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: news@mipos3.intel.com
Reply-To: rajeevc@mipos2.UUCP (Rajeev Chandrasekhar)
Organization: Microprocessor Component Group, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 24

In article <18266@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> kirkaas@cs.ucla.edu (paul kirkaas) writes:
>
>
>
>So, as regards the 80386/68030 -- Which is better? Which is faster?
The 80386 is better ... :-)
>
>I'm really thinking about the NeXT vs. an 80386 based Unix machine.
NeXT runs MACH which is more 4.xlike, with the 386 you can run
the sysV/386 which is one of "Products of the year" (courtesy Unix World)
I am not sure how compatible Mach is with Sys V, so you probably want to
find that out ..

#include 

>
>
>Paul Kirkaas


Rajeev Chandrasekhar
Intel Corp            >> theres someone in my head, and its not me << 
2625, Walsh Ave MS SC4-59                      (408) 765-4632
Santa Clara, CA 95051  {hplabs,oliveb}!intelca!mipos2!rajeevc