On 10/5/2017 4:19 PM, allison via cctalk wrote:
On 10/05/2017 03:46 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 10/05/2017 04:22 AM, allison via cctalk wrote:
Funny the market knew of the 386 in the fall of '85 but it would be
three years before I'd see
one in the field. Disks and CPUs lagged the introductions by years due
to cost.
It was hard to rationalize the extra cost of a 16MHz 80386 when there
was little software or performance gain over a fast 80286 box when
running MS-DOS--the dominant OS of the day.
I recall an Intel engineer opining on the subject. "We give you a
32-bit advanced architecture CPU and you p*ss it away running DOS."
Compatibility is a tough mistress.
--Chuck
Moore's law only worked for hardware, software lagged typically two
years behind.
Of course when we did get something else Venix and winders winders was
the winner
and a poor one at that.
Allison
Did anything ever use *ADVANCED ACHITECTURE(?.
Games don't count here.
Ben.
