They are, no question.
Different strokes, I suppose.
I consider their business model to _be_ substance. And their micros are good besides -- ignoring the instruction set, of course. I think the _only_ complaint I've heard about them here is the instruction set. I'd add that their older compiler tools are problematic and not as good as they should have been, but I don't want to undermine my own points. ;)
All in the eye. The 80386 target (short-stepped with the
80286, and not so well) was actually drawn out of considering the old 1960's Multix project. Quite a tour-de-force. So much so, in fact, that no one could consider building the thing in a practical way until much, much later. But the ideas are sweeping, from a theoretical perspective. I'm amazed they tried to bite it off, frankly.The world of software wasn't in any way ready for it and the bridging through a DOS world was a bit of a disaster, too. Windows was useless until it got to the Win386 edition and even then wasn't all that good -- many reasons. And we all suffered from poor implementation on top.
Yeah. I liked the 68HC11 and used a few. (Loved the 88k. But that's a different world.) I liked the TMS9900 instruction set, too. Motorola was expensive for me at the time and they also set up some highish barriers, in various ways including toolset costs and parts costs, so they didn't get used as much as they might have. One instrument, only.
Well, I'm very glad for the variety. There is no "one size fits all" as your own testimony shows. And it is very good to have multi-players out there so that each of us can find a better fit to our circumstances.
Jon