kiki@uhunix2.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Jack W. Wine) (04/18/91)
+vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) writes: +From an article in April Datamation, I see that Sparc International is only +half-open: Their "shrink-wrap" API requires Sun-OS. The article was about +the 88000. 88Open doesn't require a certain OS to be compliant... SunOS can be licensed from either Sun or Interactive Systems. Wouldn't a stringent OS compliance policy for the 88Open be better for developers and users, in the long run? +The article praised the 88000 and 88Open on technical grounds, but mentioned +that Motorola's marketing was "methodical at best." It also mentioned that +Motorola has cut the 88000 price by 2/3, and that the 88010 will be out "soon" +Top-of-the-line 88000 is about as fast for non-floating-point as the fastest +Sparc or MIPS, but has better support for multiprocessor architectures +(according to Harris, who build a multiprocessor server from it).... I won't argue about the technical superiority of the 88000, but the first ques- tion I would have is whether Motorola would allow it to be second-sourced. Apple and NeXT are supposedly planning systems around the 88010, but I think they are keeping their fingers crossed too. Hopefully Motorola, MIPS and others will provide effective competition, because we would all end up winning. Al- though the number of applications might be about equal for the 88000 and SPARC, Sun has reached a critical mass by selling over a million SPARC-based systems. With the expected flood of SPARC clones, application development would become increasingly accelerated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #plinio@turing.seas.ucla.edu (Plinio Barbeito) writes [about PgC7600]: #Sounds good, but does this mean that standard RAM chips will be #incompatible with the bipolar version of the PgC? I hope this is not #true of the other version, at least. There probably is level translation, but don't know for sure. >I think Atari might be in a better position to deliver and support a marketable >product based on the PgC chips, because of their experience with the Inmos >transputer and Helios OS, which culminated in the ATW computer. #I'm confident of Atari's ability to create excellent hardware, and #even software, but seeking them out for the strength of their marketing #of the ATW sounds funny somewhere :-). It wasn't because of their (past) marketing strength, that I thought a PgC- based system from Atari was plausible. Their development (in conjunction with Perihelion Hardware and Software) of the ATW, resulted in a system with awesome capabilities. Unfortunately, it was based on chips from a manufacturer who was financially unstable and incapable of producing the chips in volume. The complexity and pricing of a transputer limited the ATW to research insti- tutions, but the explicit design goal for the PgC 7600 was its basis in very inexpensive workstations ($500-$2000?), which coincides with Atari's arena. There are enough similarities between the Inmos transputers w/ Helios OS and a PgC 7600 w/ Taos, so that Atari will be able to translate their experience as well as any other firm. They have marketing capabilities that are superior to Sinclair's and it will be a lot easier to sell a $1000 80 Mips PgC-based computer capable of running MS-DOS/MAC/GEM programs than a $8000 12.5 Mips transputer-based system. #...($20 for 160MIPS still sounds a bit off the far end, though). I have to agree, the proof is in the Cambridge pudding. As a wild guess, if it takes an average of 8-10 Pgc7600 instructions to emulate an 68000 instruc- tion, then at 160 Mips it would be equivalent to a 20-16 Mips 68000 cpu. Since the PgC7600 is only capable of 80 Mips when coupled with cheaper 80ns DRAM, then the performance would be equivalent to a 10-8 Mips 68000 and a 20-16 Mips 8086, assuming 4-8 Pgc7600 instructions to emulate it. The prices for the equivalent systems would be in the $3000+ range. Jack P.S. For anyone interested in the Inmos transputers, Computer Systems Archi- tects (CSA) is offering the Transputer Education Kit. The kit is comprised of a IBM PC add-in board with a 20 Mhz 32-bit T425 processor, two compilers (Occam and C), an assembler and 1500 pages of docs for an introductory price of $236. Options include 4MB of local DRAM, faster processors and upgraded software. Contact CSA, 950 N. University Ave, Provo, UT 84604 (801) 374-2300, FAX: (801) 374-2306.
vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) (04/19/91)
In article <12536@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> kiki@uhunix2.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Jack W. Wine) writes: > >+vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) writes: > >+From an article in April Datamation, I see that Sparc International is only >+half-open: Their "shrink-wrap" API requires Sun-OS. The article was about >+the 88000. 88Open doesn't require a certain OS to be compliant... > >SunOS can be licensed from either Sun or Interactive Systems. Wouldn't >a stringent OS compliance policy for the 88Open be better for developers >and users, in the long run? 88Open requires just as stringent compliance as Sparc International. The difference is that 88Open depends on the _external_ behaviour of the OS, while Sparc International depends on the _internal_ behaviour of the OS. Even in 1972, Parnas told us this was _bad_ software engineering. >+The article praised the 88000 and 88Open on technical grounds, but mentioned >+that Motorola's marketing was "methodical at best." It also mentioned that >+Motorola has cut the 88000 price by 2/3, and that the 88010 will be out "soon" >+Top-of-the-line 88000 is about as fast for non-floating-point as the fastest >+Sparc or MIPS, but has better support for multiprocessor architectures >+(according to Harris, who build a multiprocessor server from it).... > >I won't argue about the technical superiority of the 88000, but the first ques- >tion I would have is whether Motorola would allow it to be second-sourced... Probably not. Motorola has good engineers. That's all. >It wasn't because of their (past) marketing strength, that I thought a PgC- >based system from Atari was plausible. Their development (in conjunction >with Perihelion Hardware and Software) of the ATW, resulted in a system with >awesome capabilities. Unfortunately, it was based on chips from a manufacturer >who was financially unstable and incapable of producing the chips in volume... It's my understanding that part of Inmos' problem was in getting screwed by US DoD: They set up a factory in Colorado Springs, from which Atari hoped to get Transputers. Then US DoD wouldn't let Inmos re-export Transputers to UK!. Not wanting to keep two Transputer production lines going, Inmos shut down the Colorado Springs operation, and got hurt in the overall deal. >Jack -- vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder vsnyder@jato.uucp
bcasper@taco.cc (BRIAN CASPER) (04/19/91)
Harry, you fucker. -- Brian Casper bcasper@eos.ncsu.edu NCSU - Project EOS (witty .sig pending)