🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec18.232001.2952@pencom.com> ricardo@pencom.com (Ricardo  
Parada) writes:
>>In article <1go1j6INN2dq@gap.caltech.edu> madler@cco.caltech.edu (Mark Adler)  
>>writes:
>>> 
>>> >> But which chip they choose is very important and not an easy decision!
>>> 
>>> Is it all that important?  Especially considering the ease with which
>>> applications are being ported to NeXTstep 486?  And considering their
>>> insanely-great production line that can be reprogrammed in no time?
>>> There's no problem with coming out with a different processor every
>>> year.  Your distributed executables might start to get a little large,
>>> but there would be some utility to keep only the part for your machine
>>> so it wouldn't clog up your hard disk.
>>> 
>>> Mark Adler
>>> madler@cco.caltech.edu
>>
>>But if they choose a dead end microprocessor they'll have to support it  
>>forever.  I guess as long as it is not the 88110.  I can't believe what  
>>happened with the 88110, after getting all these rave reviews and technical  
>>excellence awards.  I wonder if the Power chip will be as good!
>>
>>--
>>+ Ricardo J. Parada

I hear it will be pin-for-pin compatible with the 88110.  Which
tells me it will be (as good).
--
Ronald Pomeroy		[Objective-Cruntime: [Smalltalk runtime]];
Advanced Micro Devices	[self dream-on];
CAM Applications Group
rpomeroy@aunext1.amd.com (NeXTmail preferred)