Still OT: Pentium / M$ drivel... (fairly long)

<>> If MIPS was so good it would ahve pushed out x86. Alpha is a 64bit cpu <>> targetted at high end systems and the MicroVAX (32bit) was already well <>> established and faster than 386/486. < <I have to disagree with this, Allison, one of my points being: The value / <speed / whatever of a Microprocessor means little versus the *marketing* o <a processor / computer. to a point that is true. <The lowly Motorola 6809 at 2 Mhz outperforms a <10Mhz 80286... by far. It also *smokes* the 6502. And other than Xenix 286 <(super-expensive), OS-9 is the most powerful OS available for these <processors, and at a reasonable cost (When I bought my copy - $139.)... the 6809 was pretty neat and close to PDP-11. It was however, slow! Smoking a 6502 is not a contest, 16bit math and a few other things the 6502 has trouble with impair it. Comparing it to a 286/10mhz, sorry, no way. The 286 wasn't great but it was faster. Is OS-9 better than DOS yes, Xenix, no. Is OS-9 better developed than most intel/ms OSs, very likely. are there OSs for intel parts that show them better, yes. The 6809 was still a mile behind the PDP-11 (either the T-11 chip or the F11 cip pair and way behind the J11 chip). Like you said marketing... who outside of us remembers OS-9 and the 6809? Was the coco a better machine... no. It was good for it's time but the system was still a grafted together set of pods and cables typical of many of the trs-xx products. People noticed the PCs and the like when they started to look competent, complete and somewhat stable in operation. The contents of the box cpu wise was more determined by the software development community than the chip makers. IE: the guy in the lead for that time generally had the most and best software widely available at low or no cost. That's why AppleIIs, TRS-80s and PC are like house files for their respective times. No matter how good or bad software to make them do useful work often drove them forward. Allison