home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.arch
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!smurf.sub.org!incom!orfeo!darkcube!vhs
- From: vhs@darkcube.radig.de (Volker Herminghaus-Shirai)
- Subject: Re: What's in a name?
- Message-ID: <1992Jul25.121952.17315@darkcube.radig.de>
- Sender: vhs@darkcube.radig.de (Volker Herminghaus-Shirai)
- Reply-To: vhs@darkcube.radig.de
- References: <MKAHN.92Jul22092527@hopi.sedona.intel.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 12:19:52 GMT
- Lines: 57
-
- In article <MKAHN.92Jul22092527@hopi.sedona.intel.com>
- mkahn@hopi.sedona.intel.com (Mitch Kahn) writes:
- > mfrank@wilma.cs.wisc.edu (Matt Frank) writes:
- >
- >
- > ] >>>There'll be a 686 all right. It may look like the x86 architecture from
- the
- > ] >>>outside, but on the inside ...
- > ] [Lot's of stuff about whether the P5 is going to be performance competitive
- > ] with RISC chips and whether PC-compatible owners are idiots or just
- ignorant]
- > ]
- > ] Backwards compatability has always been a particular pet peeve of mine, so
- I
- > ] feel the need to add my two cents worth. I have two specific problems.
- > ]
- > ] 1) Backwards compatability is a waste of everyones time.
- >
- > Better tell that to DEC, IBM, MIPs, Motorola etc. as well as all the users
- > in the world who do not want to buy new software every time they get a
- > faster box. What color is the sky in your world?
-
- DEC, MIPS and Motorola started with a cleaner, more future-oriented design
- in the first place. Of Motorola and DEC I know they also abandoned instructions
- that weren't used very much, replacing them with emulation libs. This kind
- of compatibility is OK, it's the 100%-stick-to-fouled-up-design-and-make-
- everyone-believe-this-is-the-only-way-to-go that's not..
-
- > ] 2) Nobody ever uses the backwards compatable features anyway.
- >
- > You're right. I'm getting a new workstation this week and to celebrate
- > I'm going out and buyin $10K worth of new (incompatible) software just
- > because some technogeek decided incompatibility wasn't an issue. NOT
-
- I think what the original poster meant was "Nobody uses the *new* features
- anyway unless they provide a *real huge* advantage". The 286 didn't provide
- any. The *real huge* advantage that's used on the 386 is to make it more
- backwards-compatible (virtual 8086-mode). This would be considered silly
- everywhere outside of commerce-driven PC- or IBM-world.
-
- > ] Intel has done very well for itself making better/faster 8086's for the
- past
- > ] 10+ years because they had a monopoly on chip designs that run MS-DOS. If
- > ] Win/NT is successful they will need to compete against many other chip
- makers.
- > ] If Intel designs an 80686 some day, Microsoft may port Win/NT to t
- >
- > Intel boxes will still be the cheapest MIPs on the planet. Who cares if
- > a Crimson (or a Chartreuse) can run Windows. I'll get my P5 box for
- > $5k which is about $10K cheaper than anyone else.
-
- You get what you pay for. Really.
-
- --
- Volker Herminghaus-Shirai (vhs@darkcube.radig.de)
-
- If I had intel inside(tm), I'd throw up...
-