Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On 1/13/25 1:17 AM, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 00:21:26 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
 

On 1/12/25 7:07 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2025-01-12, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>

     The 8086 would have been better, but the extra wiring apparently
     would have pushed up the price too much according to some old
     interview with an IBM guy.
     They didn't KNOW it would be super-successful, so they kinda
     hedged their bets, split the diff. 640k banks were a hell of a lot
     better than 64k banks.

>
The 64K barrier was alive and well on the 8086/8.
I wrote a lot of horrible code to deal with large arrays. Then there
were all the memory models: tiny, small, large,
huge... yuck.
>

     The instructions for the 8088 were "familiar" to anyone who did
     the 8008/8080 and not TOO far from Z-80 sensibility - so I think
     that cinched Intel as the maker. WISH they'd used the 68000s. Ever
     see the Sage boxes ... gone alas before I could afford one .......

>
I got into the Amiga and enjoyed the 68000 that way.

>
    Alas I spent big $$$ and bought the very first Amiga model. NOTHING
    but "Guru Meditation" errors ... dumped the thing and bought a PC
    clone.

 I didn't have anything that sophisticated; I bought a 68000 evaluation
board. I also have my Captain Zilog t-shirt from a Z8000 seminar but I
never had one in my hands. I don't know how much Exxon had to do with it
but it quickly became apparent the Z8000 was an 'also ran' and the Z80000
never hit the streets. I loved the Z80 but Zilog did a lot better dropping
zeroes than adding them. The Z8 lives on but a $200 development kit isn't
very attractive.

   There's a big tree of successes - and bigger tree of
   serious FAILS - in the chip histories.
   SO many Great Ideas - but SO few managed to Carry On.
   The reasons weren't always logical, performance or
   capability based. Often it was something as stupid
   as a factory that couldn't build enough fast/cheap
   enough.
   The Z8000 was a good chip. The Z8's are good chips.
   But Intel/AMD/ARM can build chips in much higher
   volume for much less - so ......
   MAYbe if there'd been a Z80000 64 bitter ???
   Forget 'merit' ... doesn't count for much. ECONOMICS
   counts a LOT more.
   Always loved the TI-9900 chips - hardware multi-user
   and multi-tasking. But, couldn't carry on. No Future.
   'Transputers' kinda the same. Yer cheapo i9 just
   slays 'em all.