Article View: comp.sys.mac
Article #98Re: Macintosh and IBM systems
From: Brynn Rogers
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1989 13:34
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1989 13:34
27 lines
1661 bytes
1661 bytes
In article <8YYSCqy00XcLM29HtU@andrew.cmu.edu> jb28+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Joseph Barbose) writes:
>AND...
>
>That article fails to point out that the '386 (IBM) and the 68030 (IIx)
>are NOT in the same league, processing-wise. The '486 may be on par
>with the 68030, but it isn't out yet. When it is, Motorola will have
>the '040.
>IBM--yuck.
>Jeff
Prove it. I haven't seen that much performance difference between the
386 and the 68030, and have seen the 387 performing better than the 68882.
I would put both these machines on par with each other.
The problem you see is that 90% of all software (or more) running on a 386
is just using 16 bit instructions.
I prefer assembly language on a 680x0 to a 80x86 (I know both).
I prefer a IBM clone to a Mac. (cheaper, more software, cheaper software,
more hardware, cheaper hardware, unlimited different system configurations)
Life is a trade off, use what works best for you and ingore anyone who
says X is better than Y without exception.
Brynn Rogers Honeywell S&RC rogers@src.honeywell.com
nic.MR.net!srcsip!rogers
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<23681@srcsip.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!srcsip!falcon!rogersReferences:
<4063@merlin.usc.edu> <8YYSCqy00XcLM29HtU@andrew.cmu.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!srcsip!falcon!rogers From: rogers@falcon.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Brynn Rogers) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Macintosh and IBM systems Message-ID: <23681@srcsip.UUCP> Date: 13 Jun 89 13:34:14 GMT References: <4063@merlin.usc.edu> <8YYSCqy00XcLM29HtU@andrew.cmu.edu> Sender: news@src.honeywell.COM Reply-To: rogers@falcon.UUCP (Brynn Rogers) Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN Lines: 27