From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9274a920d35ff1f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ntxbow Subject: Re: Sanity breaks out at last Date: 1996/08/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 172444044 distribution: world x-nntp-posting-host: ntxbow.demon.co.uk references: organization: Cogent mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <1996Jul29.132621.1@corning.com>, "whiting_ms@corning.com (Matt Whiting)" writes >In article , ntxbow > 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