jshekhel@feds19.prime.com (Jerry Shekhel ) (07/26/90)
In article <6764@vax1.acs.udel.EDU> don@vax1.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) writes: > > Not trying to start a flame war [...] > > DOS machines: ick. Unfortunately, they're cheap and popular, and >will continue to be far into the future (ugh). > I'm not trying to start a flame war either, but why are PC's still called "DOS machines"? Why can't you face the fact that Intel-based PC's are no longer DOS machines, but rather "industry-standard personal computers" capable of running DOS as well as many other operating systems? You applaud Commodore for providing UNIX for the Amiga, so I assume you want to run UNIX on a personal computer. UNIX has been available for Intel (286/386/486) PC's for many years, with many versions available (Xenix, SysVR3, AIX, QNX), and more about to appear (SysVR4, BSD4.4, Mach). And still you loathe PC's. OK, it's true that in their standard configuration, Intel-based PC's have pitiful sound capabilities when compared with Atari's ST/STE/TT and the Commodore Amiga. As far as graphics is concerned, my $92 SuperVGA card provides better graphics than the upcoming TT -- 800x600 w/256 colors, 1024x768 w/16 colors -- with a 256K-color palette. A $200 SuperVGA card will do 1024x768 w/256 colors. Beyond that, of course, there are graphics controllers with dedicated coprocessors for those who feel the need. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. When you buy a PC, you're getting the industry standard. That means you can tailor your PC to use ANY graphics standard, ANY disk interface standard, ANY peripheral interface standard, ANY network standard, etc., and at this point, it costs less to get a PC than a comparable Amiga or a TT. Of course, you just may not like the Intel processor, or it may be something else about the current architecture of industry-standard computers that just doesn't agree with you. That's your opinion, and that's your right. But really, none of your animosity ("ugh", "ick", etc.) makes any sense. Sorry to ramble like this; I'm just trying to understand. -- Jerry
windy@beauty.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Andrew John Stuart Miller) (07/26/90)
Some of us don't take the attitude "Why make life easy when IBM can make it almost imposible for you?" I would rather have an Atari st TT or amiga than the PC compataible I have to suffer at home at the moment (though now with minix). Intel tried to do too much before they new for certain what was usefull and what was not, hence brain dammage such as 64k segments, lack of interrupt requests etc. The 68000 series, amongst other processor series, does not suffer from such handicaps, as Motorola thought before burning a design into silicon. I use 68030 unix at work, minix or os9 at home (on a friends atari 520). If I had the cash I would have a TT (in a more practical box, of course) Andrew Miller -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- email: windy@strange.informatik.rwth-aachen.de snail: Ruetscherstr 165 D-5100 Aachen voice: 0049 (0)241 894-355
hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) (07/27/90)
In article <692@cvbnetPrime.COM> jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel ) writes: >I'm not trying to start a flame war either, but why are PC's still called >"DOS machines"? Why can't you face the fact that Intel-based PC's are no I tend to call 'em DOS machines or 8086 boxes. (Or pieces of *Shit* but that's not important right now... }-) I object to corporations like IBM taking generic language and turning it into trademark status nomenclature. Used to be "PC" meant any personal computer. The IBM PC wasn't even personable, let alone personal, at its introduction, and has only slightly improved since. Nowadays you don't hear people saying "personal computer" very much. I tend to say "micros," "minis," "mainframes," and "supers." If you want to talk about generic microcomputers, you can't say "PC" any more. (Very sharp of IBM's marketing staff, I must say. But just 'cause it was obviously a smart move doesn't mean I have to like it. Just like Sun calling their dreg of a system NFS. How generic-sounding. Bah...) >longer DOS machines, but rather "industry-standard personal computers" They are not personal computers in the sense that I'm used to. They're simply members of a long line of Mediocre Business Machines. Business Machines aren't personal in my book. Industry standard PC is an oxymoron. >capable of running DOS as well as many other operating systems? You applaud >Commodore for providing UNIX for the Amiga, so I assume you want to run >UNIX on a personal computer. UNIX has been available for Intel (286/386/486) >PC's for many years, with many versions available (Xenix, SysVR3, AIX, QNX), >and more about to appear (SysVR4, BSD4.4, Mach). And still you loathe PC's. Pretty much. I personally loathe current Intel chips. I don't care what you can do with one, a different architecture can do it better. >OK, it's true that in their standard configuration, Intel-based PC's have >pitiful sound capabilities when compared with Atari's ST/STE/TT and the >Commodore Amiga. In their standard configuration IBMPCs are useless. In their standard configuration IBMPCs boot up into Cassette BASIC and don't even have cassette ports (any more, recently, you know what I mean.). And no graphics functions at all. In a standard ST or Amiga configuration, you have a complete system right out of the box. With no need for MultiFUnction I/O RAM Expansion cards, monitor adapters with parallel ports, funky disk controller cards, bus adapter cards, etc. etc... The ST loses in that you can't get anything *but* the standard configuration, but the standard is still very useful in its own right. > >As far as graphics is concerned, my $92 SuperVGA card provides better graphics >than the upcoming TT -- 800x600 w/256 colors, 1024x768 w/16 colors -- with a >256K-color palette. A $200 SuperVGA card will do 1024x768 w/256 colors. >Beyond that, of course, there are graphics controllers with dedicated >coprocessors for those who feel the need. I think there's more to the TT than meets the eye. Why do they specify up to 8 megabytes of video memory with the meager selection of graphics modes they're offering? 8 megabytes is enough for a 1024x1024 8 bitplane deep (256 color) image. I bet you could find at least a half dozen VMEbus cards that'll be happy to use that address space for you. And while I've seen wonderful still-images on VGA and Super-VGA systems, I've yet to see a game worth looking at on one. Even games that support EGA, with its 16 color palette, look like they came from a Vic-20. Now while games may not seem all that important to you, they are certainly an important part of a Personal Computer's functions, and there are a lot of companies out there charging lots of $$$ for their so-called graphics games. Business graphics don't need more than EGA resolution. CAD needs resolution, but number of colors is really no big deal. For the kinds of detailed work you tend to see on a CAD system, color gets to be more of a distraction as the level of detail increases. > >That's the whole point I'm trying to make. When you buy a PC, you're getting >the industry standard. That means you can tailor your PC to use ANY graphics >standard, ANY disk interface standard, ANY peripheral interface standard, >ANY network standard, etc., and at this point, it costs less to get a PC >than a comparable Amiga or a TT. Just because it's a standard doesn't mean it has any technical merit. Look at IBM mainframes - they're pretty much the standard in the mainframe market. Look at their price/performance ratio. Look at IBM operating systems. They're the standard in the IBM mainframe world. They haven't evolved more than a few ticks in the technology scale, compared to what's being done with microprocessors and workstations. You still have to allocate physical disk blocks in CMS, there's still no real filesystem. The technology is utterly atrocious, but it's a standard. Of course, in the case of mainframes, you still can't get *ANY* graphics standard, or *ANY* disk interface, or ...... It's too bad it takes so *damn much* iron to make a mainframe, otherwise the clone market there might be a little hotter... }-) But back to the topic... Why would I want to *use* "ANY" standard? I just need to use a couple of the good ones, and I'll be happy. The STs have standard serial and parallel ports, that's good. Atari cut too much of a corner with their CSI, but it's a small matter to get real SCSI. That's good. From SCSI you can get anywhere, and that's enough. SCSI ethernet, no problem. SCSI video, it's been done. SCSI anything - no problem. Don't need IBM's idea of a standard, to be Standards Compatible. > >Of course, you just may not like the Intel processor, or it may be something >else about the current architecture of industry-standard computers that just >doesn't agree with you. That's your opinion, and that's your right. But >really, none of your animosity ("ugh", "ick", etc.) makes any sense. I suppose animosity is a little unreasonable, but it's definitely genuine distaste. And from there, it's easy to get carried away... (LIke I just did, writing this silly article. sigh...) > >Sorry to ramble like this; I'm just trying to understand. > >-- Jerry Well, how's this - there are two kinds of computer users in the world - those who care about 'em and those who don't. You're probably one who doesn't, and I'm one who does. Not caring about 'em doesn't mean you don't like them, just that they're not a major factor in your world view... And obviously people like me, who write huge responses to simple questions, well... you get the idea. -- -- Howard Chu @ University of Michigan one million data bits stored on a chip, one million bits per chip if one of those data bits happens to flip, one million data bits stored on the chip...
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (07/27/90)
In article <692@cvbnetPrime.COM> jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel ) writes: >That's the whole point I'm trying to make. When you buy a PC, you're getting >the industry standard. That means you can tailor your PC to use ANY graphics >standard, ANY disk interface standard, ANY peripheral interface standard, >ANY network standard, etc., and at this point, it costs less to get a PC >than a comparable Amiga or a TT. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Just as a curiosity, this very night I challenged comp.sys.amiga to defend this widely held view by finding a '386 PC that's roughly equivalent to the A3000 for any price. I'm certain that the PC I specified, or something close to it, can be had. I'm not certain it can be had for less than an A3000. Commodore doesn't make any EISA machines, and I don't know much about any other PCs, so I'm really in the dark on this one. But anyone here who wants to take up the challenge, check out the "Comparable Systems" thread in c.s.a. Perhaps someone who knows the TT better could attempt a similar experiment here.... >-- Jerry -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy The Dave Haynie branch of the New Zealand Fan Club
wolf@cbnewsh.att.com (thomas.wolf) (07/27/90)
*** Flame On. Get that fire extinguisher out of my way :-) *** In article <1990Jul27.022748.29262@math.lsa.umich.edu> hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes: > >I tend to call 'em DOS machines or 8086 boxes. (Or pieces of *Shit* but that's >not important right now... }-) > >I object to corporations like IBM taking generic language and turning it into >trademark status nomenclature. Used to be "PC" meant any personal computer. >The IBM PC wasn't even personable, let alone personal, at its introduction, >and has only slightly improved since. Nowadays you don't hear people saying >"personal computer" very much. I tend to say "micros," "minis," "mainframes," >and "supers." If you want to talk about generic microcomputers, you can't say >"PC" any more. (Very sharp of IBM's marketing staff, I must say. But just >'cause it was obviously a smart move doesn't mean I have to like it. Just like >Sun calling their dreg of a system NFS. How generic-sounding. Bah...) I totally disagree with everything said so far. First of all, I don't recall anyone using the word "personal computer" before the IBM PC came out. Back then, people used the words "micro". Now, when people (at least the ones I know) talk about PCs they mean personal computers. Hardly anyone uses the words "micro", "mini", "mainframe", etc. anymore since these terms are becoming virtually useless in a world where more and more personal computers have the power of what used to be mainframes (my long-winded way of saying that the boundry lines between categories are becoming fuzzy, whereas personal computer still means exactly what it did 10 years ago)...I'm saying that exactly the opposite of what the author claims is actually the case. Furthermore, when you call Suns "system" a "dreg", what exactly do you base your statement on? First off, their _system_ is called "SunOS". Their Network-based FILE System, NFS (taken in context, it doesn't sound so "generic"), is a fairly advanced system, considering that it was available on Suns when others were still having problems getting a simple non-networked file system to work (I'm not saying it is perfect, but it is definitely not the "dreg" the author claims.) > >Pretty much. I personally loathe current Intel chips. I don't care what you >can do with one, a different architecture can do it better. Is this statement made out of intimate knowledge or out of ignorance? If it is the former, you must certainly have worked much with the line of Intel chips to form this opinion - how do you reconcile your working on machines with these chips when you loathe them so much? If it's the latter, you're you're just filling the net with useless chatter. Your statement "I don't care what you can do with one, a different architecture can do it better" is about as useless a statement as "I don't care what number you name, I can name one that is larger". [deleted text] > >I think there's more to the TT than meets the eye. That's just the point! So far, nothing meets the eye (at least not in mass production :-) Again, "the computer I plan to release probably is better than the one you currently have on your desk." [deleted text] >Look at their price/performance ratio. Look at IBM operating systems. They're >the standard in the IBM mainframe world... How ingenious a statement. Like saying UNIX is the standard on UNIX machines. [...other statements deleted....] [at the end, some apologetic statements about getting carried away] "Sorry, officer, I didn't mean to commit murder. I just tend to get carried away!" *** Flame off *** Tom -- +-------------------------------------+ "Stupid" questions are better than | Tom Wolf | (201) 949-2079 | no questions at all. No answer is | Bell Labs, NJ | wolf@spanky.att.com | better than a stupid one. +-------------------------------------+
jshekhel@feds19.prime.com (Jerry Shekhel ) (07/27/90)
In article <3160@rwthinf.UUCP> windy@beauty.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Andrew John Stuart Miller) writes: > >Some of us don't take the attitude "Why make life easy when IBM can make it >almost imposible for you?" I would rather have an Atari st TT or amiga than the >PC compataible I have to suffer at home at the moment (though now with minix). > I run UNIX on my 386SX-based PC, and I have yet to deal with IBM. Setting everything up has been extremely easy. I really wish I knew what you are talking about, how you've had to "suffer", and how IBM has made life "almost impossible" for you. I really wish I knew, so that I could understand. > >Intel tried to do too much before they new for certain what was usefull and >what was not, hence brain dammage such as 64k segments, lack of interrupt requests etc. >The 68000 series, amongst other processor series, does not suffer from such handicaps, >as Motorola thought before burning a design into silicon. > Oh yeah. And I suppose Motorola thought about virtual memory management and UNIX when they burned the original 68000 into silicon? Why is it, then, that the 286 can run a real OS with virtual memory and protected address spaces for each process (UNIX System V), and the 68000 can't? Am I missing something here? > >Andrew Miller > -- Jerry Shekhel
chu@acsu.buffalo.edu (john c chu) (07/27/90)
Now, normally I don't reply to flames via netnews, but it's important to be accurate, even during a flame. In article <1990Jul27.140916.3387@cbnewsh.att.com> wolf@cbnewsh.att.com (thomas.wolf) writes: > >*** Flame On. Get that fire extinguisher out of my way :-) *** >I totally disagree with everything said so far. First of all, I don't recall >anyone using the word "personal computer" before the IBM PC came out. I do. The magazine "Personal Computing" started in the mid-1970s. The "Mechanix Illustrated Home Service Series" vol.2 was called "Personal Computers" and was published in October 1980. (It had articles about how to use your PET as a business machine and an article called "What is a Personal Computer" (which was most definitely NOT about the IBM PC). The glossary starts off with "The following is a collection of worlds commonly used to describe the components and functions of personal computers" and the examples go on in this and other magazines) Both Sinclair and Apple have used the term "personal computer" before IBM came into that market. john chu@autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu
hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) (07/28/90)
In article <1990Jul27.140916.3387@cbnewsh.att.com> wolf@cbnewsh.att.com (thomas.wolf) writes: >*** Flame On. Get that fire extinguisher out of my way :-) *** Good thing I have a bag of marshmallows handy... }-) >In article <1990Jul27.022748.29262@math.lsa.umich.edu> hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes: >> >>I tend to call 'em DOS machines or 8086 boxes. (Or pieces of *Shit* but that's >>not important right now... }-) >> >>I object to corporations like IBM taking generic language and turning it into >>trademark status nomenclature. Used to be "PC" meant any personal computer. >>The IBM PC wasn't even personable, let alone personal, at its introduction, >>and has only slightly improved since. Nowadays you don't hear people saying >>"personal computer" very much. I tend to say "micros," "minis," "mainframes," >>and "supers." If you want to talk about generic microcomputers, you can't say >>"PC" any more. (Very sharp of IBM's marketing staff, I must say. But just >>'cause it was obviously a smart move doesn't mean I have to like it. Just like >>Sun calling their dreg of a system NFS. How generic-sounding. Bah...) > >I totally disagree with everything said so far. First of all, I don't recall That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You're even entitled to voicing your own. No prob... >anyone using the word "personal computer" before the IBM PC came out. Back ...And you're entitled to advertising either a faulty memory or naievete, tho I don't see why you'd want to... >then, people used the words "micro". Now, when people (at least the ones >I know) talk about PCs they mean personal computers. Hardly anyone Ok, I should have said "*I* don't hear" instead of "*You* don't hear." For this you're gonna roast me? >uses the words "micro", "mini", "mainframe", etc. anymore since these terms >are becoming virtually useless in a world where more and more personal >computers have the power of what used to be mainframes (my long-winded way >of saying that the boundry lines between categories are becoming fuzzy, whereas >personal computer still means exactly what it did 10 years ago)...I'm saying >that exactly the opposite of what the author claims is actually the case. Fair 'nuff. I was just relating my own usage re: micro, mini, mainframe. While I agree that by mere numbers the boundaries have blurred, by actual use the distinctions are just as sharp as they've ever been. Note - the boundary may not be in the exact same place as it was 10 years ago, but that's to be expected. For the most part, capacities have increased. Micros have aspired to minis have aspired to mainframes (which have gone nowhere. Thanks, IBM! }-) But no class of computers has completely subsumed any other, it's merely like a sliding scale, (with dinosaurs being edged out at one end.) At least here at UM, the distinctions are still sharp. PCs and Macs are "micros" - they do a helluva lot more than micros of 10 years ago, and a lot that minis did, but they're not comparable to contemporary minis/workstations. (And vice versa - workstations aren't a superset of micros, by any sense.) The only class that hasn't changed appreciably is the mainframe, whose stomping ground is quickly being devoured by the smaller class machines. (Consider, the classic IBM 370 mainframe again. 24 bit addressing, 12 bit segments, 16 32 bit data registers. That was where they were up till ... 1986? And the Motorola 68000 had a linear 24 bit address space and 16 registers since ... 1982? Micros with 32 bit architectures rivaled the 370/XA... Now 370/ESA is here, which I suppose puts a gap between it and micros again.) I won't debate the "personal computing" issue with you, since my argument has already been corroborated. >Furthermore, when you call Suns "system" a "dreg", what exactly do you base >your statement on? First off, their _system_ is called "SunOS". Their >Network-based FILE System, NFS (taken in context, it doesn't sound so >"generic"), is a fairly advanced system, considering that >it was available on Suns when others were still having problems getting a >simple non-networked file system to work (I'm not saying it is perfect, but >it is definitely not the "dreg" the author claims.) Sure, the full name is Sun NFS, but you know and I know that everyone calls it "NFS," and the industry marketing folks clamor for "NFS." Sun gave it a generic name and tries to market it as a generic system, but we all know that it's really just a poor abstraction of a Unix file system, with even worse consistency characteristics. You seem to forget not only that Sun isn't the best, but also wasn't the first. Apollo beats them on both counts, and the Apollo filesystem was giving high performance with reliable consistency long before even SunOS2. I have to live with NFS now, because it's a Wonderful Standard, but again, that doesn't make it good. (Of course, Apollo had a serious problem, since even tho their system was very good, it could never be a standard. So it goes...) > >>Pretty much. I personally loathe current Intel chips. I don't care what you >>can do with one, a different architecture can do it better. > >Is this statement made out of intimate knowledge or out of ignorance? >If it is the former, you must certainly have worked much with the line of Intel >chips to form this opinion - how do you reconcile your working on machines >with these chips when you loathe them so much? >If it's the latter, you're you're just filling the net with useless chatter. Not even the benefit of the doubt, eh? So, if I say "I hate Macs" you're also going to accuse me of useless chattering? I've got intimate knowledge of both, because at one time or another, they were new to me, and I set out to learn what I could of them. I like hacking, and back then I didn't have a system of my own, so I hacked on whatever was available around me. The engin college here was big on IBM PCs for a while; so I hacked on them for a couple years. Lisas came in, but they didn't stay long. Macs came in, and they haven't left yet. They were there, and I made a living working on them. >Your statement "I don't care what you can do with one, a different >architecture can do it better" is about as useless a statement as "I don't >care what number you name, I can name one that is larger". Well, let's be reasonable, eh? I'm not gonna invent and describe an architectur out of thin air. But I'd stand by the statement that any number of other existing architectures are better than Intel 80x8x. 680x0, TMS9900, Z80, Z8000 to name a few. Of course, this, again, is my opinion only. > >[deleted text] >> >>I think there's more to the TT than meets the eye. > >That's just the point! So far, nothing meets the eye (at least not in >mass production :-) Again, "the computer I plan to release probably is better >than the one you currently have on your desk." > >[deleted text] > >>Look at their price/performance ratio. Look at IBM operating systems. They're >>the standard in the IBM mainframe world... >How ingenious a statement. Like saying UNIX is the standard on UNIX machines. How obtuse a statement. Do you run IRMX on all of your Intel-based hardware? (If you've got any...) No? Why not? Don't you believe in the term "general purpose computer" ? There are myriad operating systems available for IBM mainframes, just as there are multiple operating systems for 8086s, 68000s, and 'most any other architecture you can name. While IBM doesn't like to admit it, just because they dictate the hardware specs doesn't mean they dictate the software architecture for the hardware. >[at the end, some apologetic statements about getting carried away] >"Sorry, officer, I didn't mean to commit murder. I just tend to get >carried away!" Whoa, running on at the keyboard is akin to murder, huh? Such wonderfully applicable metaphors you choose. It's not even like I yelled "fire" in a crowded theater. I'm not even yelling... >*** Flame off *** sputter sputter put put putttt.... > >Tom > >-- >+-------------------------------------+ "Stupid" questions are better than >| Tom Wolf | (201) 949-2079 | no questions at all. No answer is >| Bell Labs, NJ | wolf@spanky.att.com | better than a stupid one. >+-------------------------------------+ What an unusually open-minded signature quote for such a typically narrow- minded flame. -- -- Howard Chu @ University of Michigan one million data bits stored on a chip, one million bits per chip if one of those data bits happens to flip, one million data bits stored on the chip...
wolf@cbnewsh.att.com (thomas.wolf) (07/28/90)
In article <1990Jul27.210647.6581@math.lsa.umich.edu> hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes: >In article <1990Jul27.140916.3387@cbnewsh.att.com> wolf@cbnewsh.att.com (thomas.wolf) writes: [...lots of flaming on both sides deleted...] Reading through my flame (and the counter-attack :-), I realize that I might have gone overboard on my use of "colorful metaphors". Sorry. But sometimes it isn't easy to resist the urge to add ones own 'voice' to that of all the other flamers. Tom -- +-------------------------------------+ "Stupid" questions are better than | Tom Wolf | (201) 949-2079 | no questions at all. No answer is | Bell Labs, NJ | wolf@spanky.att.com | better than a stupid one. +-------------------------------------+
jshekhel@feds19.prime.com (Jerry Shekhel ) (07/28/90)
hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes: > >The IBM PC wasn't even personable, let alone personal, at its introduction, >and has only slightly improved since. > "Only slightly improved?" I'll admit, the original PC was junk by today's standards, but let's look at this objectively: Then Now ------------------------------------------- Processor 8088 16bit/8bit i386/i486 32bit/32bit Memory 1MB limit 4GB limit Speed 4.77MHz 16-33MHz Diskette 5.25" 360K 5.25" 1.2MB, 3.5" 1.44MB Graphics None 1024x768 w/16 or 256 colors Hard Disk None Everything up to multi-gigabyte disks OS DOS DOS, OS/2, UNIX, others Expansion 8-bit ISA 32-bit EISA, 32-bit MicroChannel I could go on. EVERYTHING about the original PC has been improved in a big way. How much has the ST improved since 1984? Well, there have been two upgrades of the OS (basically a 68000 version of MS-DOS). A few memory expansion hacks that require the owner to solder little circuit boards into his/her machine. Well, let's see, there were rumors of a blitter upgrade, no? Perhaps one which would work in some machines, but not in others, for lack of a blitter socket on the motherboard? > >I personally loathe current Intel chips. I don't care what you >can do with one, a different architecture can do it better. > Hmmm. This is exactly what I'm trying to figure out -- what makes you hate the Intel processor so much? I really see no logic to this unless you've had to spend half your life coding machine language. Once you run an OS like UNIX on your machine, you don't even have to think about the processor. How can something deep inside the machine bother you so much? What's so bad about the i386/i486? > >In their standard configuration IBMPCs are useless. In their standard >configuration IBMPCs boot up into Cassette BASIC and don't even have >cassette ports (any more, recently, you know what I mean.). And no >graphics functions at all. In a standard ST or Amiga configuration, you >have a complete system right out of the box. > What? This is horsesh*t. How do you explain the Dell machine on my friend's desk, which came "right out of the box" with 8MB RAM, SuperVGA graphics, 100+ MB of disk, 2 floppy drives, parallel/serial ports, and UNIX SysVR3 pre- loaded on the hard disk? > >With no need for MultiFUnction >I/O RAM Expansion cards, monitor adapters with parallel ports, funky >disk controller cards, bus adapter cards, etc. etc... The ST loses in that >you can't get anything *but* the standard configuration, but the standard >is still very useful in its own right. > I wouldn't even comment on the ST's standard configuration, but since I have an interest in graphics, I must say that the ST's graphics capabilities are totally useless except for games. Let's face it. The ST is totally incapable of providing reasonable color resolution for a graphical user interface. > >I think there's more to the TT than meets the eye. Why do they specify up >to 8 megabytes of video memory with the meager selection of graphics modes >they're offering? 8 megabytes is enough for a 1024x1024 8 bitplane deep >(256 color) image. I bet you could find at least a half dozen VMEbus cards >that'll be happy to use that address space for you. > Ah, but I thought you said that the whole advantage to these systems was that you don't have to buy any extra adapters to make them useful. > >And while I've seen wonderful still-images on VGA and Super-VGA systems, I've >yet to see a game worth looking at on one. Even games that support EGA, with >its 16 color palette, look like they came from a Vic-20. Now while games may >not seem all that important to you, they are certainly an important part of >a Personal Computer's functions, and there are a lot of companies out there >charging lots of $$$ for their so-called graphics games. > You're right here. It is unfortunate that most games are still made for the lowest-end IBM-compatible systems. That means CGA-EGA graphics. You're right, I won't deny it. ST/Amiga games are still superior. When I had my ST, Airball, Time Bandits, and Leatherneck were the software I ran most, and I hated to part with those games. > >Business graphics >don't need more than EGA resolution. CAD needs resolution, but number of >colors is really no big deal. For the kinds of detailed work you tend to >see on a CAD system, color gets to be more of a distraction as the level of >detail increases. > Are you trying to justify the ST/TT's pitiful graphics capabilities? :-) Presentation graphics do require high resolution, and you're wrong about CAD. CAD involves 3D shaded model rendering, which requires LOTS and LOTS of colors. Things like desktop publishing and graphic arts also require high resolution and lots of color. > >Well, how's this - there are two kinds of computer users in the world - those >who care about 'em and those who don't. You're probably one who doesn't, and >I'm one who does. Not caring about 'em doesn't mean you don't like them, just >that they're not a major factor in your world view... And obviously people >like me, who write huge responses to simple questions, well... > Well, I'm a software developer; I do care about computers. I want a decent development environment -- GUI and all. Yes, I believe a GUI is necessary for software development. Software development requires a multitasking OS, and to me, a multitasking OS requires a window system to be useful on a single-user machine, and vice versa. I'm still talking about SOFTWARE. Unless you're a hardware engineer and you buy your machine only to rip it apart and modify it, or you're a machine-language programmer, I still don't understand why the damn microprocessor bothers you so much. > > -- Howard Chu @ University of Michigan > -- Jerry Shekhel
mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM (mreiss) (07/30/90)
In article <701@cvbnetPrime.COM> jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel ) writes: >In article <3160@rwthinf.UUCP> windy@beauty.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Andrew John Stuart Miller) writes: >> >>Intel tried to do too much before they new for certain what was usefull and >>what was not, hence brain dammage such as 64k segments, lack of interrupt requests etc. >>The 68000 series, amongst other processor series, does not suffer from such handicaps, >>as Motorola thought before burning a design into silicon. >> > >Oh yeah. And I suppose Motorola thought about virtual memory management >and UNIX when they burned the original 68000 into silicon? Why is it, then, >that the 286 can run a real OS with virtual memory and protected address >spaces for each process (UNIX System V), and the 68000 can't? Am I missing >something here? Yes --- you definately are !!! 8086, then 80186, then 80286 --- Three versions to run full Unix. Personally, I have never seen a 286 run full Unix. I was under the impression that it took a 386 to do it right. I have seen a 286 run Xenix though. 68000, then 68010 can run full Unix. Not bad, only the second version of the architecture. Why not compare apples and oranges. The 68000 was the first member of the series ... the 8086 was the first member of the Intel series. Neither could run Unix. I don't understand why people insist on comparing the 80286, or the 80386 to a 68000. The 80386 should be compared to the 68030, shouldn't it. Now do you see why the Intel architecture is so limited. When compared to THE CORRESPONDING member of the Motorola family, the Intel family falls far short. I still believe that if IBM had not developed their PC using the INTEL processors, that the 80x86 family would not be in existence today. But that is just my opinion. The Motorola family is strong and has been independently chosen by a number of different companies to base their systems on. For the most part, companies that have Intel based systems have IBM clones. > >> >>Andrew Miller >> > >-- Jerry Shekhel mike -- Michael A. Reiss | | mike USENET = Mike.Reiss@Cambridge.NCR.COM |
chad@norge.enet.dec.com (Chad Leigh) (07/30/90)
Chad chad@norge.enet.dec.com Vi elsker dette landet! -------------------------------------------------------------- DEC has its opinions, I have mine. --------------------------------------------------------------
onders@picasso.ipl.rpi.edu (Timothy E. Onders) (07/30/90)
In article <701@cvbnetPrime.COM> jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel ) writes: >Oh yeah. And I suppose Motorola thought about virtual memory management >and UNIX when they burned the original 68000 into silicon? Why is it, then, >that the 286 can run a real OS with virtual memory and protected address >spaces for each process (UNIX System V), and the 68000 can't? Am I missing >something here? Think about the claims you're making. Note the fact that you are comparing the 80286, Intel's second generation of the 80x86 line, to the 68000, Motorola's first generation of the 680x0 line. If you compare it to the 68010, you'll find full vm support, and a lot of nice features, such as linear address space, normal data format, a stack that grows in the right direction, &c. If you're going to compare Blueberries to Oranges, you're not going to be accurate. And, anyway, the 68000 can, but the ST's MMU, since you seem to be basing your experience on the ST, can't. With a proper MMU, the 68000 had "protected(supervisor)" mode long before the 80x86 architecture. Tim Onders Systems Engineer Grumman Aerospace Corp.
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (07/31/90)
Jerry Shekhel asks: >hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes: >>The IBM PC wasn't even personable, let alone personal, at its introduction, >>and has only slightly improved since. >>I personally loathe current Intel chips. I don't care what you >>can do with one, a different architecture can do it better. >Hmmm. This is exactly what I'm trying to figure out -- what makes >you hate the Intel processor so much? This is something that in other circles would be politely called "chauvinism" or more impolitely, "bigotry".. It doesn't really matter in the bigger sense of the world, since the company which uses Intel chips to make computers (IBM) seems to have a good idea of where they're going, and how to get there, while the company which uses Motorola chips (Atari,Corp) is run by amateurs, interested only in the shortest term profit possible. In the long run, it's not going to matter which CPU chip is more capable, as it is which company knows what it's doing... BobR
jfbruno@rodan.acs.syr.edu (John Bruno) (07/31/90)
In article <32281@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >Jerry Shekhel asks: >>Hmmm. This is exactly what I'm trying to figure out -- what makes >>you hate the Intel processor so much? > >This is something that in other circles would be politely called "chauvinism" >or more impolitely, "bigotry".. The newer Intel CPUs aren't too bad, the problem is that over 99% of the software available doesn't use the 80x86 to its fullest. Virtually all software still has the limitations of the 8086 so that it will run on those dinosaurs. This is why you hear people saying that Intel chips suck, because all of that segmented register garbage and the 640K "barrier" are still there. Yeah, I know, "but you can run Unix or, or or (whine whine)..." you're talking about less than 1% of the IBMmers out there, everyone still runs DOS. Maybe Windows will change that, we'll see. I won't even talk about Extended memory Expanded memory, CGA, EGA, HGC, MDA, VGA, Super VGA, MCGA, etc. Software houses have to address a lot of these different "standards" if they want their software to sell. It's a pain, it makes the software more expensive, etc. Are you starting to get the picture yet? >It doesn't really matter in the bigger sense of the world, since the company >which uses Intel chips to make computers (IBM) Gee, I thought other companies used these too?! But there is only one prevailing architecture for them all, IBM's. IBM could have released dog shit with an attached keyboard and monitor back in (1981 was it??) and all of the same people would now be screaming about how great the "standard" is. There are people that buy things from them just because they are big, no matter what the product is. >seems to have a good idea of >where they're going, and how to get there, Yeah, SURE they do. >while the company which uses >Motorola chips (Atari,Corp) is run by amateurs, interested only in the >shortest term profit possible. Commodore, Atari, and Apple all use 680x0 chips. Just what is your point here, though? Are you saying that IBM isn't interested in a short term profit? If there's anyone showing "bigotry" here....... >In the long run, it's not going to matter which CPU chip is more capable, >as it is which company knows what it's doing... Exactly. It's attitudes like that that keep "Big Blue" in the "Big Black". > >BobR ---jb PS - The main reason I posted this is to re-direct follow-ups to comp.misc. "I was unprepared for his attack. I instinctively used the Vulcan Death Grip" -- Spock
jshekhel@feds19.prime.com (Jerry Shekhel ) (07/31/90)
In article <1960@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM> mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM () writes: > >In article <701@cvbnetPrime.COM> jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel ) writes: >> >>Oh yeah. And I suppose Motorola thought about virtual memory management >>and UNIX when they burned the original 68000 into silicon? Why is it, then, >>that the 286 can run a real OS with virtual memory and protected address >>spaces for each process (UNIX System V), and the 68000 can't? Am I missing >>something here? > >Yes --- you definately are !!! > >8086, then 80186, then 80286 --- Three versions to run full Unix. >Personally, I have never seen a 286 run full Unix. I was under the >impression that it took a 386 to do it right. I have seen a 286 run >Xenix though. > First of all, the 80186 was not the "successor" to the 8086 -- it was just a different version of it, more suited towards microcontroller applications. The 80286 is the second chip in the 86 series. There are at least 3 vendors of UNIX System V for 286 machines. > >68000, then 68010 can run full Unix. Not bad, only the second version of the >architecture. > The 68010 runs UNIX? Are you referring to the long-gone Sun-2 line? Didn't Sun use proprietary memory management hardware for all their worksation lines all the way through Sun-3/68020? The 68010 is the second version of the architecture? What about the 68008? WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT VERSION of the architecture can run UNIX? Does it make sense FOR YOU to choose a 68000-based machine over a cheaper and much more powerful 386-based machine just because you think it took MOTOROLA fewer tries to make their chips capable of running UNIX? > >The 80386 should be compared to the 68030, shouldn't it. Now do you >see why the Intel architecture is so limited. When compared to THE >CORRESPONDING member of the Motorola family, the Intel family falls >far short. > You still haven't told me WHERE it falls "far short" -- at what stage. There are too many ways to compare the processors. One could ask, "At what stage in each chip line could the chip run UNIX without any additional memory management hardware?" The answer there would be "80286 and 68030". The chip lines are too different to be compared feature for feature. What difference does it make anyway, since by the time the 386 and the 68030 became available, the two lines converged in terms of capabilities. Your argument is like saying that the Lexus is superior to the BMW because the first version of the Lexus is comparable to the umpteenth version of the BMW. I suppose that makes the BMW line "so limited"? > >Michael A. Reiss | > | mike -- Jerry Shekhel
jshekhel@feds19.prime.com (Jerry Shekhel ) (07/31/90)
In article <WH5$NS%@rpi.edu> onders@picasso.ipl.rpi.edu (Timothy E. Onders) writes: > >Think about the claims you're making. Note the fact that you are comparing >the 80286, Intel's second generation of the 80x86 line, to the 68000, >Motorola's first generation of the 680x0 line. If you compare it to the >68010, you'll find full vm support, and a lot of nice features, such as >linear address space, normal data format, a stack that grows in the right >direction, &c. > Excuse me, but even the 68020 does not have full VM support. That's why it requires a 68551 MMU to run UNIX. Sun's 68020 machines, I believe, used a proprietary MMU. "Normal data format"? "Stack that grows in the RIGHT direction"? Who determines these things? Programmers don't have to worry about these things even at the machine language level! > >If you're going to compare Blueberries to Oranges, you're >not going to be accurate. And, anyway, the 68000 can, but the ST's MMU, >since you seem to be basing your experience on the ST, can't. With a >proper MMU, the 68000 had "protected(supervisor)" mode long before the >80x86 architecture. > I wasn't talking about supervisor mode. I was talking about hardware support for multitasking with an isolated memory space for each process. And besides, certainly, we can always throw more hardware at the problem. We could use a real MMU on the ST, just like we could put a 386 processor board into an 8086 machine. But I still haven't come closer to under- standing why people on this newsgroup hate the Intel processor, when the Intel/Motorola lines are so similar in terms of performance. > > Tim Onders > -- Jerry Shekhel
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (08/01/90)
Replying to John Bruno's points... Commodore has been doing OK using 680XX chips... Apple has released some pretty impressive, if pricey, 680XX machines... Atari has just about vaporized us all with their 680XX pipedreams... The point is that it really doesn't MATTER what CPU a product runs, if it's a success commercially... IBM and all of its clones have sold MANY times more units than ALLLLLLLL the 680XX machines combined... That doesn't mean the 80X86 chip is any better than a 680XX chip.. it just means that the company that sells the computers seems to have a better handle on how to sell computers... "Big Blue" is in the "Big Black" while Atari Corp is in the "Big Toilet",. not because of any choice of microprocessor CPU... BobR
grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Graham Thomas) (08/01/90)
From article <704@cvbnetPrime.COM>, by jshekhel@feds19.prime.com (Jerry Shekhel ): > Hmmm. This is exactly what I'm trying to figure out -- what makes > you hate the Intel processor so much? The question wasn't asked of me personally, and I don't think I actually HATE Intel processors, but I can think of two things that might prejudice some people against them. 1. The 'low byte - high byte' ordering of numbers, which is the opposite of Motorola chips (other chips, like those from DEC & IBM, divide along similar lines). Very much a matter of taste. 2. The 'segment+offset' way of addressing memory locations. This is probably the most crucial difference for people who care about these things. I remember that Neil Harris, when he worked for Atari, used to sign messages with the declaration: "Segments are for worms." There again, I don't do any low-level programming, so I'm not the most knowledgeable person to comment. There may be all sorts of other amazingly important differences! Graham -- Graham Thomas, SPRU, Mantell Building, U of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RF, UK JANET: grahamt@uk.ac.sussex.syma BITNET: grahamt%syma.sussex.ac.uk@UKACRL INTERNET: grahamt%syma.sussex.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk UUCP: grahamt%syma.sussex@ukc.uucp PHONE: +44 273 686758 FAX: [..] 685865
chad@norge.enet.dec.com (Chad Leigh) (08/01/90)
In response to BobR. Just to clarify. There are a lot more machines than just Apple, Commodore, and Atari using 68XXX. Sun and Apollo have/had workstations using 68XXX. The Next machine uses it. DEC had a machine using it (though not popular -- VAXstation 100), even IBM had a machine (some PC looking thing). And I've probably missed a lot of them. There are also MIDI keyboards that have 68000 in them. It is a widespread machine. And it isn't PCs that keep IBM in the "Big Black", it is "Big Mainframes". Chad chad@norge.enet.dec.com Vi elsker dette landet! -------------------------------------------------------------- DEC has its opinions, I have mine. --------------------------------------------------------------
chuck@umbc5.umbc.edu (Chuck Rickard; (PC)) (08/01/90)
In article <14128@shlump.nac.dec.com> chad@norge.enet.dec.com (Chad Leigh) writes: >There are a lot more machines than just Apple, Commodore, and Atari >using 68XXX. Sun and Apollo have/had workstations using 68XXX. The >Next machine uses it. DEC had a machine using it (though not popular -- >VAXstation 100), even IBM had a machine (some PC looking thing). And >I've probably missed a lot of them. There are also MIDI keyboards that >have 68000 in them. It is a widespread machine. And it isn't PCs that >keep IBM in the "Big Black", it is "Big Mainframes". Just for laugh, the TRS-80 Model 16 was also 68000 based. Chuck Rickard (chuck@umbc5.umbc.edu)
bwhite@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bill White) (08/02/90)
In article <32327@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >Replying to John Bruno's points... > >Commodore has been doing OK using 680XX chips... > >Apple has released some pretty impressive, if pricey, 680XX machines... > >Atari has just about vaporized us all with their 680XX pipedreams... > >The point is that it really doesn't MATTER what CPU a product runs, if >it's a success commercially... Incidentally, I think I heard somewhere that some SUN computers use 680XX chips. Is this correct? If so, I think this would be a definite example of a 680XX being used "correctly". Keep in mind there's a big difference between the 680XX series and the 80X86 series; one of them is that the 680XX chips design went towards generalized operations, microcode, etc., while the 80X86 (at least the early ones) used primarily non-microcode, more specific operations. I've done limited assembly for the 68020 and the 80286, and more extensive work on 68000 and 8086 (so I can't really say about the 386 or 486). But I do know I found the 680XX environment much more coherent and easier to work in. Furthermore, it struck me how improvements in the 680XX series were primarily enhancements of existing microcode, plus addition of protected mode operations and that sort of thing, while it seems like the 80X86 series has undergone more radical changes. Which is a problem when you lock yourself into a hardware-specific series of operations, rather than using a more generalized microcode system. Sure, the latter takes more design in order to gain the same speed, but frankly I'd bet that development on a 68040 (is that the newest one?) would be a lot more familiar and a lot easier to me than development on a 80486. Mind you, I'm not saying anything about the machines. I bought an Atari ST because it fit my needs (still does). If I'd needed an IBM, I would have bought one. One of my requirements for buying was a Motorola microprocessor. At the time, I was very disappointed with the Intel series, but I had consistently seen quality from Motorola (even though it often went unimplemented; take the 6809 for example, which was several registers and years ahead of the current standard 6502). Take all this with a grain of salt. I just program on them, I don't make them, so I'm probably wrong on a few points here. >"Big Blue" is in the "Big Black" while Atari Corp is in the "Big Toilet",. >not because of any choice of microprocessor CPU... Have to agree there; but then again, Atari has done quite well in the European market. > >BobR
mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM (mreiss) (08/02/90)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Accessory program Summary: Expires: Sender: Reply-To: mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM () Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: NCR, E&M Cambridge, Ohio Keywords: Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: "DOS machines" (Was: TT (Who has one?)) Summary: Expires: References: <1990Jul19.135115.2032@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Jul19.160526.2215@arcsun.arc.ab.ca> <6764@vax1.acs.udel.EDU> <692@cvbnetPrime.COM> <3160@rwthinf.UUCP> <701@cvbnetPrime.COM> Sender: Reply-To: mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM () Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: NCR, E&M Cambridge, Ohio Keywords: long In article <701@cvbnetPrime.COM> jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel ) writes: >In article <3160@rwthinf.UUCP> windy@beauty.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Andrew John Stuart Miller) writes: >> >>Intel tried to do too much before they new for certain what was usefull and >>what was not, hence brain dammage such as 64k segments, lack of interrupt requests etc. >>The 68000 series, amongst other processor series, does not suffer from such handicaps, >>as Motorola thought before burning a design into silicon. >> > >Oh yeah. And I suppose Motorola thought about virtual memory management >and UNIX when they burned the original 68000 into silicon? Why is it, then, >that the 286 can run a real OS with virtual memory and protected address >spaces for each process (UNIX System V), and the 68000 can't? Am I missing >something here? 8086, then 80186, then 80286 --- Three versions to run full Unix. Personally, I have never seen a 286 run full Unix. I was under the impression that it took a 386 to do it right. I have seen a 286 run Xenix though. 68000, then 68010 can run full Unix. Not bad, only the second version of the architecture. Why not compare apples and oranges. The 68000 was the first member of the series ... the 8086 was the first member of the Intel series. Neither could run Unix. > >> >>Andrew Miller >> > >-- Jerry Shekhel mike Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: "DOS machines" (Was: TT (Who has one?)) Summary: Expires: References: <1990Jul19.135115.2032@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Jul19.160526.2215@arcsun.arc.ab.ca> <6764@vax1.acs.udel.EDU> <692@cvbnetPrime.COM> <3160@rwthinf.UUCP> <701@cvbnetPrime.COM> Sender: Reply-To: mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM () Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: NCR, E&M Cambridge, Ohio Keywords: long Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: "DOS machines" (Was: TT (Who has one?)) Summary: Expires: References: <1990Jul19.135115.2032@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Jul19.160526.2215@arcsun.arc.ab.ca> <6764@vax1.acs.udel.EDU> <692@cvbnetPrime.COM> <3160@rwthinf.UUCP> <701@cvbnetPrime.COM> <1960@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM> <712@cvbnetPrime.COM> Sender: Reply-To: mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM () Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: NCR, E&M Cambridge, Ohio Keywords: long In article <712@cvbnetPrime.COM> jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel ) writes: >In article <1960@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM> mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM () writes: >> >>In article <701@cvbnetPrime.COM> jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel ) writes: > >First of all, the 80186 was not the "successor" to the 8086 -- it was The 68010 was a hastily made version put together to fix a bug that made it impossible to do multitasking correctly. It is the successor only in that it was the next in the series. To use your logic, it should have been the first in the series. >just a different version of it, more suited towards microcontroller >applications. The 80286 is the second chip in the 86 series. There are >at least 3 vendors of UNIX System V for 286 machines. > >> >>68000, then 68010 can run full Unix. Not bad, only the second version of the >>architecture. >> > >The 68010 runs UNIX? Are you referring to the long-gone Sun-2 line? Didn't >Sun use proprietary memory management hardware for all their worksation >lines all the way through Sun-3/68020? The 68010 is the second version of >the architecture? What about the 68008? 68008 is a version of the 68000 family that has an 8 bit external bus. It is used for inexpensive systems that want the power of the 68000 instruction set, linear addressing space, multiple general purpose registers, numerous addressinig modes ... You know the kind of stuff the 80x86 processors dream of. The 68008 is not the "next in line" processor. > >WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT VERSION of the architecture can run UNIX? Does it THAT WAS YOUR ARGUMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE ... rememeber !!! >make sense FOR YOU to choose a 68000-based machine over a cheaper and much >more powerful 386-based machine just because you think it took MOTOROLA fewer >tries to make their chips capable of running UNIX? > Sorry, that was not my argument at all. I was just trying to tell you that this argument that you were making was using incorrect facts. I was only correcting you facts. Not arguing. >> >>The 80386 should be compared to the 68030, shouldn't it. Now do you >>see why the Intel architecture is so limited. When compared to THE >>CORRESPONDING member of the Motorola family, the Intel family falls >>far short. >> > >You still haven't told me WHERE it falls "far short" -- at what stage. Granted, that was rather childish of me. ("My daddy is stronger that your daddy") The rest of what I said stands. >There are too many ways to compare the processors. One could ask, "At >what stage in each chip line could the chip run UNIX without any additional >memory management hardware?" The answer there would be "80286 and 68030". I don't know enough to refudiate this with facts, but I have been under the impression that this was not the case. Can someone else give use facts to support/refute this claim. >The chip lines are too different to be compared feature for feature. What Agreed. >difference does it make anyway, since by the time the 386 and the 68030 >became available, the two lines converged in terms of capabilities. > >Your argument is like saying that the Lexus is superior to the BMW because >the first version of the Lexus is comparable to the umpteenth version of the >BMW. I suppose that makes the BMW line "so limited"? Again, this was YOUR ARGUMENT. I just corrected your facts. > >-- Jerry Shekhel -- Michael A. Reiss | | mike USENET = Mike.Reiss@Cambridge.NCR.COM |
SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET (08/03/90)
In article <1960@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM>, mreiss@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM (mreiss) says: > >I don't understand why people insist on comparing the 80286, or the 80386 >to a 68000. > >The 80386 should be compared to the 68030, shouldn't it. Now do you >see why the Intel architecture is so limited. When compared to THE >CORRESPONDING member of the Motorola family, the Intel family falls >far short. > I think a lot of people are misled by the Intel vs. Motorola numbering schemes. Just because the 80386 and 68030 have '3s' in their names, people automatically think them comparable. In terms of actual capabilities, the 68000 and 80286 _are_ comparable. The 8086 is only a little above the 6800 and 6502 in the evolutionary sense. The 68020 and 80386 are also about on par. With the 80486, the Intel family reached parity with the 68030 in terms of CPU power; but, the onboard FPU and cache (and MMU? I don't remember) give it more oomph than the Motorola chip. Of course, talking in terms of "capabilities" automatically makes this subjective. However, I've seen the '386 vs. '030 argument crop up a few times before. > >I still believe that if IBM had not developed their PC using the INTEL >processors, that the 80x86 family would not be in existence today. But >that is just my opinion. The Motorola family is strong and has been >independently chosen by a number of different companies to base their >systems on. For the most part, companies that have Intel based systems >have IBM clones. > Amen, brother. :-) >-- >Michael A. Reiss | > | mike >USENET = Mike.Reiss@Cambridge.NCR.COM | Steven Plite <SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET>
SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET (08/03/90)
In article <90214.132311SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET>, <SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET> says:
... a lot of things that didn't need to be said here. I should have
caught up with the rest of the followup on this topic before posting.
Sigh. This definitely belongs in comp.misc. Getting hard to see any-
thing resembling an ST through all the MS-DOS and Amiga, ahem, talk.
(And _please_ don't repost the spec sheet on the A3000 again...)
Steven Plite <SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET>besst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian E. Schwadron) (08/03/90)
The Data General 10 (and its successor, the 20) both use 8086s (I think:
it might be 8088s). They are closer to minis then micros, since the standard
setup is a CPU unit containing hard + floppy + tape drives hooked up to various
devices, including terminals. I use them as instrument controllers, where 1
DG 10 can run 2 terminals, acquire data from 2 instruments (a GC and a Mass
Spec) and quanitate the GC run at the same time -- pretty impressive for an
obsolete CPU, eh? There is also a 80186 in the Mass Spec.
The low-level OS is something called IDOS, but I doubt that this is the
standard OS for the DG 10 -- does anyone else know more about it?
Briandaveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (08/08/90)
In article <713@cvbnetPrime.COM> jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel ) writes: >Excuse me, but even the 68020 does not have full VM support. That's why >it requires a 68551 MMU to run UNIX. A Microprocessor's VM support has nothing to do with whether or not it's MMU is internal or external. A Microprocessor supports VM simply if it can fully recover from a page fault during an instruction. Some micros, such as the 68010-30, handle this by taking an exception when a page fault is detected, with the internal state of the CPU stored. The page is brought into memory, and the instruction continued right where it left off. Others, such as the 68040, take an exception with less context information available and actually restart the complete instruction after the page is brought into memory. An internal MMU does three things for you: 1) Usually improves translation times, since on-chip delays are always considerably less than delays between chips. 2) Simplifies system design. 3) Standardizes the MMU along with the CPU. Point #2 is perhaps the most important for Personal Computers in general, and point #3 is important if you're trying to be a clone of something, such as "IBM Compatible", but it makes little difference to Sun, Commodore, or anyone else making their own OS releases. Point #1 can be minimized in other ways, such as by employing external logical cache. Note that both 68020-based Sun 3's and SPARC based Sun 4s (eg, SparcStations) use external MMUs. Motorola 88100s and some other RISC chips also use external MMUs. They are not a big deal, and certainly have nothing to do with the ability to run UNIX. In fact the first Apollos, which did support virtual memory, used a second 68000 as an exception processor to handle the problem of no virtual exception context inherent in the 68000. >Programmers don't have to worry about these things even at the machine >language level! Unless you're writing the OS, you as programmer don't worry about how the MMU is implemented, either. >I wasn't talking about supervisor mode. I was talking about hardware >support for multitasking with an isolated memory space for each process. Multitasking, separate process spaces, and virtual memory are all separate issues. UNIX-like things such as OS/9 have been used for years without translating MMUs. And a very simple MMU hooked up to a 68000 could run a UNIX-like OS with separate process contexts as long as virtual memory isn't an issue. >But I still haven't come closer to understanding why people on this newsgroup >hate the Intel processor, when the Intel/Motorola lines are so similar in terms >of performance. Perhaps it's the same reason one might choose a Porsche 944 over a Ford Mustang even though they can go at the same speeds. The Motorola architecture has been very clean all along. The Intel architecture has had ugliness grafted on top of ugliness. Although the modern Intel chips, the '386 and '486, are much closer to their Motorola counterparts in terms of native mode features, there are penalties based on the architectural baggage they're required to carry around. The '386 has 1/2 the machine registers of the '030, and they're less general purpose, and they didn't have room on-chip for any cache memory or split I/D buses. The '486, in order to support the way MS-DOS programs actually run, wasn't free to change any supervisor mode constructs, and it had to settle for a unified cache instead of separate I and D caches to support the self-modifying code used heavily under MS-DOS (the obvious advantage of separate I and D caches is that I and D fetches can occur in parallel, as they do for cache hits on the '030 and '040. Etc.). The Motorola MMU, not having to carry around all the segmentation stuff from previous generations, is a much better match to UNIX than the '386/'486 MMU, even though the Intel MMUs do have a minimal paging mechanism. Most of this doesn't amount to much in reality, right now. C programmers on Motorola machines get more register variables, and UNIX runs a tad more efficiently on an '030 than a '386. On the other hand, in the PC world at least, most of the Intel machines sport external cache, whereas the 680x0 machine at best offer it as an option (out of NeXT, Amiga, Atari, and Apple, only the Apple IIfx comes with external cache). As a follower of this for quite some time, I think the 68040/80486 generation is where the clean architecture of the Motorola line is going to make a very obvious difference in performance, rather than the rather insignificant differences in the '030/'386 generation. >> Tim Onders >-- Jerry Shekhel -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Get that coffee outta my face, put a Margarita in its place!