3 Jun
2013
3 Jun
'13
7:59 a.m.
On 06/03/2013 08:58 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
I understand that. This is why I pointed it out. I do a lot of
business with one company in particular, right up the road from here
that makes medical equipment that I'm sure a lot of the folks on this
list use. There are 80386EX processors ALL OVER that place.
That said, though...I myself don't think this is a good idea, I
advise against it, and I myself use ARM and mcs51, depending on the
requirements. I'm just letting you know of the reality of the
situation, because you're not necessarily in a position to see this side
of it.
You are apparently one of those people who thinks there are more
desktop computers in the world than embedded computers. ;) I really
can't blame people for being under that (incorrect) impression.
A LOT of companies embed Linux into a lot of devices, and some of
them are on x86.
As one case in point, I flew on a 767 a few years ago, and took these
(bad) pictures of the backs-of-the-seats display systems booting up:
http://www.neurotica.com/misc/767-linux-1.jpg
http://www.neurotica.com/misc/767-linux-2.jpg
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
80386,
oddly, is far from "long dead".
It is in any market I *ever* see. If your
perspective is only for desktoppy-things sold in retail stores,
sure I can see that, but it's as common now as it ever was (which is to say
"moderately so") in the embedded world, and is still currently produced and
sold. (whether that's a good thing or not is another matter entirely)
As I said - there are better choices and this is a marginal, edge-case
area for modern Linux. 
