🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8283@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>Also, consider
>that very few individual users are able to keep even a '386 machine
>busy all the time.

Gee, from my experience, X windows can keep any processor saturated without any
action whatsoever on the part of the individual user. :-)

Two serious observations:

1. Many NeXT users have said that the performance of the 68K is the main thing
  standing between them and nirvana.

2. It is an illusion that the 80x86 PC world has fewer compatibility problems
  than the RISC world. 80x86 PC software vendors expend enormous effort to
  preserve this illusion for the benefit of their users: they support multiple
  graphics options, multiple mice, 80386 real-versus-protected mode, various
  add-on memory managers, Microsoft Windows versus straight DOS versus OS/2
  versus 32-bit DPMI, various 80x86 subroutine calling conventions, tiny
  versus small versus huge memory models (and on and on). Graphics, network,
  and mouse differences are often exposed to the application program rather
  than being hidden behind an operating system. QA compatibility testing is a
  big expense in the PC software world.

  This effort, if redirected, would be more than sufficient to port the
  applications to a single operating system on a RISC processor in short order.
  Before redirecting the effort, however, the prudent vendor must judge it
  profitable based on sales volume and market risks.