Re: Sanity breaks out at last

[ntxbow <ntxbow@ntxbow.demon.co.uk>]

In article <1996Jul29.132621.1@corning.com>, "whiting_ms@corning.com
(Matt Whiting)" <whiting_ms@corning.com> writes
>In article <BdceaIANXM+xEwtR@ntxbow.demon.co.uk>, ntxbow 
><ntxbow@ntxbow.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> we're finally thinking of giving Intel processors the heave ho.
>> 
>May I ask why?  We're just beginning to think of using Intel processors given
>the wealth of s/w (OS and application) that runs on them.
>
>Matt

because compared to the 68ks they're painful, hardware design is a pain
in the neck, we have to frequently use assembler which in intel is just
another pain non-orthogonal, too many leap-branch-if-you're-called-fred
instructions that just don't need to be there, I know I dont have to use
the CISC aspects but they bug me anyway, stupid segemented memory
architecture, which no doubt people will say I don't have to use, but
I've worked on various projects dating back 10+ years, I've had to
believe me. I've yet to meet someone who's used the two families and
prefers Intel.  Quantity of tools for the Intel family also does not
imply quality, there's a lot of dross out there.
-- 
jeff farr