Need 286 "C" benchmark

[gus at Shasta.ARPA]

> Hmmm, once again Dave has submitted a benchmark that requires more than 64K
> of data.  This continued harping on the issue seems to indicate to me that
> maybe Dave realizes that for programs that require less than 64K of data
> that a 12MHz 286 actually keeps pace with the 16.67 MHz 68020.  Of course,
> he might not be saying this at all, and far be it for ME to try to read
> between his lines of code.....I would like to see the 680{00,10,20} 
> performance numbers and system configurations for these benchmarks, though,
> just for internal curiousity.
> -- 

I think the issue is valid, since most production programs use more than
64K of code and/or data space. Unfortunately, it is only small programs that
lend themselves readily to benchmarking.

Seriously, folks. This quibling over machine speeds gets you nowhere. The
68K and i86 architectures will continue to evolve. One month one will
reign as fastest, and the next month the other will. Unfortunately, companies
must choose early on, what processor they will put in their machines, and
once this decision is made, it is not easy to switch. You would not
expect to see IBM switching over to Motarola and ditching the thausands of
MS-DOS dependent programs any more than Apple would switch over to Intel.

The bottom line is which machine offers the best SOLUTION. The processor
inside should not matter to the end-user. After all, usability is usually
more dependent on software than on hardware.