From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Mac & IBM Info Repost
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:41:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Oct4.170138.17582@nmsu.edu> bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:

>Here is a repost of -Mac & IBM Info- with the info provided by some of 
>you.

>The CPU
>IBM     ALU  Registers  External  External  Total  Features/
>CPU                      bus      address           Notes

> 8088   16      16        8?        20       52  {A dieing CPU}
                 ^^

Yes, but how many of those are true general-purpose registers?
(This goes for all Intel chips.)

>8088/8086 ~ 68000 {a 16-bit vs a 16/24/32-bit chip (data path/address 
>lines/data and address registers.  The ALU is what determines the bit
>classification chip so the 68000 is 16-bit despite the higher bits
>of the External Address(24) and the Registers(32)}

The 68000 did not have a 16-bit ALU.  It was a complete 32-bit
chip internally.


>286        ~ 68020 {This is the poorest comparison since the MMU in the 
>286 pulls it past the 68020 and to the 68030 class 

Why?  The 286 machines never used the MMU chip for anything.  No
virtual memory, no memory protection.  However, the 286 was still
a 16/32-bit chip, like the 68000, while the 68020 was a full 32-bit
chip, both internally and externally.


>386sx     ~ 68030 {The MMUs and 32-bit nature of these chips puts
>them roughly together with protected memory in the 386 an added feature.

Nonsense.  The 386sx is another 16/32-bit chip, like the 68000
or 80286.  And the MMU built into the 68030 makes it just as capable
of memory protection as the 386sx (or any other chip).


>486       ~ 68040 {two 32-bit microprocessors with built-in FPU, MMU, 8K
>internal cache.  The cache is implemented as two 4K caches in the 68040
>and one in the 486.  This fits as far as that goes.}

Finally got one right.  (Although the 68040 is slightly faster, 
especially for floating point.)

>PowerPC   = PowerPC{This is the only CPU to be used by both IBM and
>Apple and is planned to run DOS, Windows 3.x, OS/2, Mac OS, and PowerOpen 
>(AU/X 4.0)

Nope.  It will run a new operating system with Macintosh and OS2
compatibility layers.  (Although the VP of IBM in charge of PowerPC
at IBM now says that the OS2 compatibility layer will not be included
in the first release.)  DOS and Windows apps will be supported under
the OS2 compatibility layer.  

>Mac
>6.0.7: Requires 2 MB and HD floppy and features a GUI, sudo-multitasking
>       (MultiFinder) and standard program interface.

Nope.  True multitasking.  Nothing "sudo" (or even pseudo) about it.
Although some bigots will tell you different because they can't
believe that a multitasking system that wasn't described in their
college textbooks could actually work.

>7.0.1: Requires 4 MB, a 40 MB Hard Drive and a 68030 to run WELL. It has
>       6.0.7  features and AIC(between computers) 

It has *IAC*, between machines and between programs on the same machine.

>	built in network support,
>       Virtual Memory in machines with MMU{1.6 times real RAM for least 
>       noticeable speed degradation on a IIsi}, and drag and drop.

No, the virtual memory setting for least speed degradation is 1.0x times 
the real RAM -- on *any* machine.


>Window 3.1: runs on top of DOS.  breaks 640K barrier 

Or rather, claims to.

>	but still has to deal 
>       with DOS file structure and runs well on 386sx.

You've got be kidding.  I wouldn't say it runs *well* even on
a real 386.

>Windows NT:  Rumor mill is that the FINAL version and ALL programming 
>       information not to be available before Oct 1993

The programming docs, at least, are already in the book stores.