From: 5692330@mcimail.com  (Robert Gammon)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Organization: Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 12:22:45 GMT

In article <Bxzypp.A8x@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:

 >> In article <BxzwF6.As0@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
 >> rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar) writes:
 >> >clements@abq.bdm.com (Eric Clements) writes:
 >> >
 >> >>In article <BxMG8q.LFD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
 >> >>(Ravikuma Venkateswar) wrote:
 >> >
 >> >>>    Of course, there are also many problems with them, price being
 >> >>>one of them.  If you were to buy a Mac and an IBM compat, and spend
 >> >>>the same amount of money on both of them, you could get a lot more
 >> >>>computer for the money (or a lot more peripherals) if you chose the
 >> >>>IBM compatible.  And, you could have the same abilities as a Mac
 >> >>>(multimedia, GUI,etc.).
 >> >>
 >> >>Actually, I've done tests with my Quadra 700 - 25 MHz 68040 against a 50
 >> >>MHz
 >> >>486 DX.  I wrote a simple program in C that did 2 sin calls and 2 cos
 >> >>calls,
 >> >>1 million times.  The 486 was only 25% faster than my Quadra.  Even though
 >> >>it should be at least twice as fast.  So that shows how Motorola is ahead
 >> >>of
 >> >>Intel.  (Note: don't forget IBM went to Motorola to fabricate their RS/6000
 >> >>chips for the new PowerPCs.  Why would they drop Intel? )
 >> >
 >> >Not quite an accurate comparison. Clock speeds are irrelevant on chips
 >> >with totally different instruction sets. And the execution time with
 >> >the C program depends a lot on the compiler. Especially with the 486, you
 >> >can't compare a program that uses an 8086 instruction set running in Dos
 >> >with the Quadra. And you didn't mention whether the Quadra has a coprocessor
 >> >(which would mean that if it wasn't there, the speed difference would
 >> >be even less). Incidentally, what was the price comparison on the two
 >> >computers?
 >> >
 >> 
 >>      I'll jump in here (since the first quote is actually me).  The
 >> Quadra does have a built-in coprocessor (much like the 486's which
 >> were out long before the 040), and a built-in cache, which is larger
 >> than the one on the 486.
 >>      On the subject of clock speed, you're absolutely right.  The
 >> chips are very different inside.  Why doesn't Motorola just make
 >> their chips faster?  Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against
 >> Motorola, I just don't think Macs are worth the money.
 >>      I think Motorola and IBM are working together on the RISC chips
 >> because Motorola was going to be the easiest company to work with.
 >> I've heard that some bad blood was going on between IBM and Intel,
 >> much like with IBM and MS.  And, Intel seems to want to stay with
 >> the CISC architecture, and show that it can work just as well as a
 >> RISC processor (although it takes a little magic with the
 >> superscaler technology).
 >> 
 >> 
 >> Timothy Miller

Another factor may have been which U.S. semiconductor company with
experience in producing microcomputers and microprocessors did NOT
appear to have a successful RISC strategy AND was interested in
pursueing a relationship with IBM.  The 88000 was headed for the
toilet fast, and TI had a major relationship with SUN, IBM's major
competitor on the RS/6000.

--
Regards,
Robert Gammon
(713)-274-3299       (voice)
(713)-274-2324       (fax)

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy