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