<agree on what your goals are? Some of these suggestions indicate that <certain people like certain things, but there's really been no discussion o <why one might want to use one or another. In the absence of <goals/requirements, there can be no analysis or design. < <Does anybody know where this is supposed to lead? To yet another iteration of the last 30 years of computer and bus design. To me it's mostly an exercise, few are into construction of their own design and fewer still actually have the resources to do it. Those that can aren't going to let a committe design their box (they do that at work). so whats left... A discussion of buses and what was good or bad about each one. FYI: the greatest common problem of most buses is they tend to be somewhat processor centric. To wit. Multibus 8080, 8085, 808x, z80 mostly STD Z80 VME 68K Qbus PDP-11 or VAX Unibus PDP-11 or VAX SS50 6800 and 6809 The ugly exception! This doesn't make it good, only the odd exception for unexplainable reasons despite being primarily a 8080 bus! S100 8080, 8085, 808x, 80x86, z80, z180, LSI-11, AM100, TI9900, 6502, 6800, 6809, 6800x How is it that one of the ugly busses stands out like this in history? My cut is that the very flavor of an experimentors "hobby" bus was the draw. Allison