jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) (10/15/88)
In article <10019@cup.portal.com> BobR@cup.portal.com writes: >The "Under $5000" workstation will now cost $8500 (U.S.) with one transputer, >with optional cards of four more transputers available. The operating >system on the "AWS" will be Helios... Speaking of the AWS, what are peoples' feelings about how it will stand up to the competition of the new NeXT machine (see comp.misc for all the hullaballoo)? At $6500 US, it represents a serious threat, especially given their advertising budget (and the media's love affair with Steve Jobs). Granted, the AWS offers multiprocessing AND an OS written for multiprocessing; it also offers better graphics capabilities. However, the NeXT machine offers some really nice things that the AWS doesn't, and I'm inclined to feel that, feature-for-feature, the NeXT machine comes out on top. -- -Jonathan Fischer
caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) (10/16/88)
In article <9087@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) writes: >In article <10019@cup.portal.com> BobR@cup.portal.com writes: >>The "Under $5000" workstation will now cost $8500 (U.S.) with one transputer. >> The operating system on the "AWS" will be Helios... > Speaking of the AWS, what are peoples' feelings about how it will >stand up to the competition of the new NeXT machine (see comp.misc for all >the hullaballoo)? At $6500 US, it represents a serious threat... > Granted, the AWS offers multiprocessing AND an OS written for >multiprocessing; Well, Mach is a Unix descendant designed to handle multiprocessing, and to be compatible with (I think) BSD 4.3. I also have this impression-- and I could be wrong on this-- that it's designed to allow handling heterogeneous processors-- i.e. a 68030 and, say, a transputer simultaneously, not just a bunch of 68030's running together. Helios would be restricted to Transputer farms, and wouldn't really be Unix compatible, although I don't think the transition would be too tough. Anyone know more about either operating system and care to comment? > it also offers better graphics capabilities. I keep hearing this rumor that Pixar is putting together some sort of add-on for the NeXT... But then again this may be just a bad dream on my part. Also, even if they do, it won't be cheap... I figure that the AWS will probably wind up as sort of a vertical-market machine for people who for some reason need Transputers, not just high-speed, parallel processing, etc. I think it will have a definite niche in the marketplace, but would never make it as a general-purpose workstation-- not because it's not as "good" a machine, but because it's running an exotic OS on a pretty exotic chip. The machine I'm more worried about is Atari's 68030 box and how it would stand up to NeXT... Maybe they can throw in some of the same frills, like the optical drive, and make it competitive... but only time will tell. -Antonio Romero romero@confidence.princeton.edu
acm@valhalla.cs.ucla.edu (Association for Computing Machinery) (10/16/88)
In article <9087@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) writes: >In article <10019@cup.portal.com> BobR@cup.portal.com writes: >>The "Under $5000" workstation will now cost $8500 (U.S.) with one transputer, >>with optional cards of four more transputers available. The operating >>system on the "AWS" will be Helios... > > Speaking of the AWS, what are peoples' feelings about how it will >stand up to the competition of the new NeXT machine Basically, we are going to need more information. How fast is the optical disk, how bug-free is the OS, how jittery the monitor, loud the fan, etc. Then, what market will this product try to penetrate (besides the educational/research market). >the hullaballoo)? At $6500 US, it represents a serious threat, especially Especially since it comes with so much nice software and development tools. However, remember $6500 is the *educational* price. Just how big a discount this is remains to be seen. >given their advertising budget (and the media's love affair with Steve >Jobs). >Granted, the AWS offers multiprocessing AND an OS written for >multiprocessing; it also offers better graphics capabilities. However, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So does the NeXT machine. There's a good description somewhere in alt.next about Mach. It also has slots so you can add additional processors, a custom VLSI chip to handle the 16 channel bus, and a lot of other goodies. It should be interesting to see just how much better a group of Transputers performs over a group of 68030's. >the NeXT machine offers some really nice things that the AWS doesn't, and >I'm inclined to feel that, feature-for-feature, the NeXT machine comes >out on top. This is my gut feeling also, but we also need to find out exactly what will be included in the AWS's price and what their problems will be (there always are). > -Jonathan Fischer Plinio Barbeito UCLA Student Chapter of the ACM UUCP: ...!{...}!ucla-cs!acm 3514, 4801 Boelter Hall ARPA: acm@CS.UCLA.EDU Los Angeles, CA 90024 VOICE: (213) 825-5879, 825-7597
wolf@pyr.gatech.EDU ( Thomas Wolf) (10/16/88)
... and the NeXT machine is out already in contrast to the Atari machine...:-)
trb@stag.UUCP ( Todd Burkey ) (10/16/88)
In article <9087@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) writes: > > Speaking of the AWS, what are peoples' feelings about how it will >stand up to the competition of the new NeXT machine (see comp.misc for all >the hullaballoo)? At $6500 US, it represents a serious threat, especially It will really be interesting to see what each of the final products really costs. The NeXT machine sounds great, but the $10K price ($6.5K if you are an accredited educational institution...does that mean only the Universities can buy them for internal use?) is a little too steep. If the 300MB optical disk is fast enough to really use as a primary drive, and if they get the 9600 Baud modem hack to work, then you really do get a full system for the $10K price. And one which should wipe away any of the Sun or Apollo systems we use at work (excepting some of the high end ones with the graphic processor options). Unfortunately, it sounds like we are still about a year away on the NeXT in mass quantities...course the same probably holds true for the AWS. Most of us, however, simply won't need the extra complexity that the 'high end' graphics will provide. I find that for hacking, the Atari ST graphics are much easier to 'get at' and use than say X11 on the Suns or GPR graphics on the Apollos. I've moved several small graphics programs over from the ST to the Suns' and Apollos and find it incredibly frustrating to see all the extra contortions you have to go through. For example, a program I wrote on Friday over lunch hour to display .neo and .tny pictures on the Apollo (DN4000, SR9.7) ended up being 5 times as big as on the Atari and much more complicated to write. I was quite interested to hear that several people at work who had been holding off on buying a computer until the NeXT came out are now planning on buying an ST after hearing the prices... -Todd Burkey trb@stag.UUCP
kline@arizona.edu (Nick Kline) (10/16/88)
I am sorry to say this but the NeXT machine will only be available to us college types. They are really not supposed to be avaliable to non-college students or non-college affiliated groups. This means that you can't get one if you are not with a college. Nick
walkerb@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Brian Walker) (10/18/88)
In article <9087@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) writes: > Speaking of the AWS, what are peoples' feelings about how it will >stand up to the competition of the new NeXT machine (see comp.misc for all >the hullaballoo)? At $6500 US, it represents a serious threat, especially >given their advertising budget (and the media's love affair with Steve >Jobs). I remember a rumor floating around some time ago about a business relation between NeXT and Atari regarding the production of a 68030 based UNIX machine. The rumor (unconfirmed) stated that Atari and NeXT would work together on the new machine and share the design details and Atari would produce the machines for the fledgling company by Steven Jobs. The rumormill continues... Brian Walker, University of Colorado at Boulder|| printf("Say please:] \n"); walkerb@tramp.colorado.edu=======|| if (say_please(user)) {ncar,nbires,sunybcs}!boulder!tramp!walkerb====|| be_nice(random());
ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (10/20/88)
In article <6585@pyr.gatech.EDU> wolf@pyr.UUCP ( Thomas Wolf) writes: >... and the NeXT machine is out already in contrast to the Atari machine...:-) This is incorrect. The first machines ship to developers next month. Machines for general consumption will not be availible until June. Yes, I am buying one... ken seefried iii ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs, ken@gatech.edu masscomp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax, ccastks@gitvm1.bitnet ut-ngp, ut-sally}!gatech!ken
ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (10/20/88)
In article <9087@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) writes: > Granted, the AWS offers multiprocessing AND an OS written for >multiprocessing; The NeXT machine offers both of these. The Mach OS on the NeXT box was designed at CMU to support distributed heterogenious multiprocessing in a relatively transparent mannner. Technically, it is possible to have NeXT, IBM-PC/RT, VAX and Suns running and a network (running Mach) and have a unified environment. By the same token, it is possible to put more NeXT cpus, Transputer arrays, RISC processor boards, an 80386 processor or any combination in the three expansion slots and have all of them comuping away... Wether or not this functionality will be capitalized on is a matter of conjecture. However, since many universities are very interested in distributed enviroments, I suspect that it will be. Multiprocessing is inherent.. > it also offers better graphics capabilities. Perhaps...I would not know. > However, >the NeXT machine offers some really nice things that the AWS doesn't, and >I'm inclined to feel that, feature-for-feature, the NeXT machine comes >out on top. >-- > -Jonathan Fischer I would tend to agree. For the price, the amount and power of hardware, coupled with the software bundled with the machine, the price-performace-value ratio leaves everyone an order of magnatude behind. ken seefried iii ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs, ken@gatech.edu masscomp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax, ccastks@gitvm1.bitnet ut-ngp, ut-sally}!gatech!ken
rjung@sal45.usc.edu (Robert allen Jung) (10/20/88)
In article <17516@gatech.edu> ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >In article <9087@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) writes: >> it also offers better graphics capabilities. >Perhaps...I would not know. Does Postscript == "Better graphics"? The NeXT is still in B&W only, if I remember right. >> However, >>the NeXT machine offers some really nice things that the AWS doesn't, and >>I'm inclined to feel that, feature-for-feature, the NeXT machine comes >>out on top. Just to drop in a related note: I saw a quick glance of a rumor that the Atari 68030 box will use the same "50000"(?) chip that's in the NeXT -- Anyone know (ha!) if this is true, or what the heck a 50000 chip is in the first place? Throwing more gas on the flames of speculation, --R.J. B-) P.S. If I can't buy it for my own use, what good does it do me? B-) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: These are my views, and mine alone. # ## # Mailing address: Beats me, just reply to this message # ## # (rjung@nunki.usc.edu?) ## ## ## #### ## ####
ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried III) (10/21/88)
In article <1693@nunki.usc.edu> rjung@sal45.usc.edu (Robert allen Jung) writes: >In article <17516@gatech.edu> ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes: > > Does Postscript == "Better graphics"? The NeXT is still in B&W only, if I >remember right. > No...PostScript == Better Text and printer support. Anything presented on the screen can be sent to the printer in the same form. Perfect WYSIWYG. Only difference is that the screen is 94 dpi and the printer is 400 (300 draft) dpi. Postcript can do very good graphics, but I am not qualified to compare it to the Atari machine. > > Just to drop in a related note: I saw a quick glance of a rumor that the >Atari 68030 box will use the same "50000"(?) chip that's in the NeXT -- Anyone >know (ha!) if this is true, or what the heck a 50000 chip is in the first >place? > The 56001 is a digital signal processor from Motorola. Essentially, that means it is a VERY fast floating point chip. NeXT intends to use the chip for a modem, voice input and output, and music synthesis. I do not know what Ataris intentions are, though they would likely be the same. > >P.S. If I can't buy it for my own use, what good does it do me? B-) > Hopefully your school will get some. Unfortunately, this is the kind of question that, if you have to ask, it probably won't do you any good. The NeXT machine was concieved to fire the imagination and spark creativity in all academic discaplines (not just CS/EE). It wasn't built to be a terminal. > Mailing address: Beats me, just reply to this message # ## # > (rjung@nunki.usc.edu?) ## ## ## > #### ## #### ken seefried iii ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs, ken@gatech.edu masscomp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax, ccastks@gitvm1.bitnet ut-ngp, ut-sally}!gatech!ken
jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) (10/21/88)
In article <1693@nunki.usc.edu> rjung@sal45.usc.edu (Robert allen Jung) writes: >In article <17516@gatech.edu> ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >>In article <9087@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) writes: >>> it also offers better graphics capabilities. >>Perhaps...I would not know. > > Does Postscript == "Better graphics"? The NeXT is still in B&W only, if I >remember right. Just for the record, you got it backwards there; the "Better graphics" I was referring to were on the ATW, not the NeXT. It (the ATW) supposedly has this blindingly fast blitter / graphics coprocessor / whatever. Since no such thing was mentioned in the NeXT press release, I'm assuming that the graphics load is handled by the '030. A big lose. > Just to drop in a related note: I saw a quick glance of a rumor that the >Atari 68030 box will use the same "50000"(?) chip that's in the NeXT -- Anyone >know (ha!) if this is true, or what the heck a 50000 chip is in the first >place? This is the DSP (Digital Signal Processor) chip, a CPU in its own right. I'm not sure that 50000 is the correct number. Wasn't it 56000? No idea. Anyway, this thing has been discussed quite a bit in comp.misc and alt.next (the NeXT discussions there have made for quite interesting reading, and I'd recommend subscribing). I'd only reveal my relative ignorance in the area of hardware by attempting to fully describe what this chip can do, so I'll leave that to others. I think it's a fair guess that this thing would blow away, say, the infamous Amy chip. On a related note: if the Atari 68030 rumour that was posted a couple of days ago is true, [pause for hysterical laughter to die down] then shee-oot, it sounds like there's hope for Atari after all. The $2,000 list price sounds too unbelievable, alas. From what I've gathered about the columnist from whom the rumour was quoted, this guy probably dreams up these rumours for filler. -- -Jonathan Fischer
R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com (10/22/88)
In article <1693@nunki.usc.edu> rjung@sal45.usc.edu (Robert allen Jung) Writes: >In article <17516@gatech.edu> ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >>In article <9087@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) writes: [some text deleted] >>> However, >>>the NeXT machine offers some really nice things that the AWS doesn't, and >>>I'm inclined to feel that, feature-for-feature, the NeXT machine comes >>>out on top. > > Just to drop in a related note: I saw a quick glance of a rumor that the >Atari 68030 box will use the same "50000"(?) chip that's in the NeXT -- Anyone >know (ha!) if this is true, or what the heck a 50000 chip is in the first >place? > > Throwing more gas on the flames of speculation, > The chip is the Motorola DSP56000. It is a high speed 96 bit Floating Point processor optimized for Digital Signal Processing applications (ie. FFT's, Digital Filters, Waveform Generation, etc.) R. Tim Coslet Usenet: R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com BIX: r.tim_coslet
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/23/88)
In article <9236@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) writes: > It (the ATW) > supposedly has this blindingly fast blitter / graphics coprocessor / > whatever. Since no such thing was mentioned in the NeXT press release, I'm > assuming that the graphics load is handled by the '030. A big lose. Not necessarily. According to Henry Spencer the 68030 can run a BitBlt in cache fast enough that there's one useful memory reference every clock cycle. This is also the maximum speed a DMA device can be expected to support. Thus, a 68030 cannot be speeded up by a Blitter. See the blitter wars in comp.arch for more details. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today? Disclaimer: I accept full responsibility for my own typos.
acm@valhalla.cs.ucla.edu (Association for Computing Machinery) (10/24/88)
In article <2893@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <9236@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) writes: >> assuming that the graphics load is handled by the '030. A big lose. > >Not necessarily. According to Henry Spencer the 68030 can run a BitBlt in >cache fast enough that there's one useful memory reference every clock cycle. >This is also the maximum speed a DMA device can be expected to support. Thus, >a 68030 cannot be speeded up by a Blitter. See the blitter wars in comp.arch It depends. If they would have implemented screen memory separate from main memory (as on the ATW, I believe), then, theoretically, the processor could be using main memory's bandwidth how it wants at the same time that the blitter is working at full bandwidth. In reality, there should be some conflict as data is passed between the two, but the blitter should result in a net speed-up. Also, you're assuming a 32-bit bus. Just think if the bus was wider than the 68030 could chew at once. Then you could again share bus cycles with DMA devices. Plinio Barbeito --- UUCP: ...!{...}!ucla-cs!acm ARPA: acm@cs.ucla.edu
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (10/24/88)
Anyone who thinks Atari can produce a UNIX workstation even remotely
equivalent to the NeXT machine does not have a very good appreciation
for either Atari or NeXT. Maybe you have to live up here to understand,
maybe you just have to talk to NeXT on the phone and then Atari, the
difference is comparable to the difference between a cave painting of
of a fisherman and a japanese whaling vessel. About all you can say is
that they both end up with fish in their boat.
The rumors of the '030 box are amusing, but unless they bought out
SCO or something they will have a darn difficult time supporting it.
Contemplating NeXT and Atari competing is downright humorous. But to
be completely serious, Steve Jobs has no intention of selling his machines
to university *students* which is what Atari would like to do, rather he
sells them to the faculty.
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (10/25/88)
In article <10019@cup.portal.com> BobR@cup.portal.com writes: > The "Under $5000" workstation will now cost $8500 (U.S.) with one transputer, > with optional cards of four more transputers available. The operating > system on the "AWS" will be Helios... In article <9087@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) replies: | Speaking of the AWS, what are peoples' feelings about how it will | stand up to the competition of the new NeXT machine [....] ? | [...] Granted, the AWS offers multiprocessing AND an OS written for | multiprocessing; it also offers better graphics capabilities. Whoa, wait a minute here! Who said anything about the "Atari WorkStation" or "AWS" being a transputer machine? In last week's _InfoWorld_, Cringely lists it as having a 25 Mhz 68030 for the main processor, along with the Motorola 56000 DSP chip, 1 Meg system RAM, 1 Meg Video Ram, 44 Meg removable hard disk, mondo graphics, a 4-slot passive backplane with CPU occupying one slot, etc... for (ta da!) $1995. I guess we'll all just have to wait 'til Comdex to find out, huh? See you at the show! -- "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell "How come he didn't put `I think' at the end of it?" - James P. Hogan
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (10/26/88)
in article <2893@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) says: > In article <9236@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) writes: >> It (the ATW) >> supposedly has this blindingly fast blitter / graphics coprocessor / >> whatever. Since no such thing was mentioned in the NeXT press release, I'm >> assuming that the graphics load is handled by the '030. A big lose. > Not necessarily. True, but... > According to Henry Spencer the 68030 can run a BitBlt in cache fast enough that > there's one useful memory reference every clock cycle. The 68030 can't run a memory cycle every clock cycle under any conditions. It CAN run a memory cycle every 2 clock cycles, and it can burst fill 4 longwords into the cache in 5 clock cycles, which will probably be as fast as any reasonable memory system will go. Just figured I'd clear that up. > This is also the maximum speed a DMA device can be expected to support. Thus, > a 68030 cannot be speeded up by a Blitter. Certainly a blitter isn't going to do many things faster than a 68030 would, on the same bus. So put a high level blitter on a separate bus from the 68030. Especially if all your output is in terms of a relatively high level language like PostScript. So instead of having the 68030 draw a particular scaled and filled character, you send the blitter the position and character code. It does the filling, scaling, and rendering while your '030s off doing other stuff. This isn't the blitter we use in 16 bit systems today. Then again, the 68030 isn't a 68000. This blitter COULD be another 68030, or a 34020, or an 8500 system. If done right, it wouldn't matter, either, you just get a faster display with a faster rendering engine. See the blitter wars in comp.arch > for more details. > -- > Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net > Have you hugged U your wolf today? > > Disclaimer: I accept full responsibility for my own typos. -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession
covertr@gtephx.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (10/26/88)
> The rumors of the '030 box are amusing, but unless they bought out > SCO or something they will have a darn difficult time supporting it. > Contemplating NeXT and Atari competing is downright humorous. But to > be completely serious, Steve Jobs has no intention of selling his machines > to university *students* which is what Atari would like to do, rather he > sells them to the faculty. > > --Chuck McManis I second Chuck's comments!! I worked at AT&T and helped design the AT&T 3B2 and 3B5 computers (running UNIX of course). and the man power that went into those two computers is totally beyond any thing that Atari is capable of. In fact, those 5 year old computers still have more horsepower then anything Atari is likely to produce. I worked for a year on the hardware and software of the 3B2 and can't believe that Atari will be better then Jobs. Oh well, maybe I will be wrong, because an Atari computer might be cheaper (in all meanings of that word) then the NeXT computer. richard (Long Live the 3B2) covert
gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (10/27/88)
In article <3f4a3cf4.14e07@gtephx.UUCP> covertr@gtephx.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: [stuff deleted] > >I second Chuck's comments!! I worked at AT&T and helped design the AT&T 3B2 and >3B5 computers (running UNIX of course). and the man power that went into those >two computers is totally beyond any thing that Atari is capable of.[...] Please, if you're going to post, say SOMETHING FACTUAL. from what atari has said (and I don't really think we should be talking about a computer which doesn't exist yet), the Atari '030 box will run System V unix, i.e. REAL AT&T Unix. Happy? Binary compatible Unix? Let's talk about the Atari ST in this group. Atari's '030 box is NOT targeted at the same market as the ST, from what they've said. This isn't the place for rumors about non-ST hardware. -- greg ---------- Greg Lindahl internet: gl8f@virginia.edu University of Virginia Department of Astronomy bitnet: gl8f@virginia.bitnet "Doesn't Quayle know that the FBI handles domestic assassinations?"
jbone@ut-emx.UUCP (Jeff G. Bone) (10/27/88)
In article <234@obie.UUCP>, wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: > Whoa, wait a minute here! Who said anything about the "Atari > WorkStation" or "AWS" being a transputer machine? In last week's... Looks like somebody hasn't been following the recent discussion here. Just for the record: There are two different machines. One is (apparently) a 68030-based machine running System V UNIX. The other is (apparently) what they were at one time calling the ABAQ, which they are now (apparently) calling the ATW, for Atari transputer workstation. Interesting note: The 68030-based machine is purportedly priced at about $2000, while the transputer-based machine is priced near $9000. Do they want to kill all interest in the transputer machine, or what? It was at one time being hyped as a sort of semi-low cost high performance add-on for STs! Surely they could have made the ATW more competitively priced... Just a thought. -jgb (jbone@emx.utexas.edu) ---------- "Everyone's head is a cheap movie show."
rchampe@hubcap.UUCP (Richard Champeaux) (10/28/88)
In article <234@obie.UUCP>, wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: > > Whoa, wait a minute here! Who said anything about the "Atari > WorkStation" or "AWS" being a transputer machine? In last week's > _InfoWorld_, Cringely lists it as having a 25 Mhz 68030 for the main > processor, along with the Motorola 56000 DSP chip, 1 Meg system RAM, 1 > Meg Video Ram, 44 Meg removable hard disk, mondo graphics, a 4-slot > passive backplane with CPU occupying one slot, etc... for (ta da!) > $1995. > > "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so > certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell Isn't the 25MHz 68030 still in the $400-$600 range? The 56000 probably isn't cheap yet either, and the 2 Meg of memory is going to cost a couple of hundred. That's already a sizeable chunk of $1995 and doesn't leave much for development and profit. Of course, I haven't heard anything mentioned about a cache or virtual memory. If that's the case, I suppose you could slap something together rather cheaply, but it certainly wouldn't be a high powered workstation. I'm not sure I'd call it anything more than a high powered personal computer. Rich Champeaux Clemson University
jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) (10/28/88)
In article <234@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: >Whoa, wait a minute here! Who said anything about the "Atari >WorkStation" or "ATW" being a transputer machine? Atari did. The ATW is the new name for the Abaq (apparently some European company owned rights to the name). > In last week's >_InfoWorld_, Cringely lists it as having a 25 Mhz 68030 for the main >processor, along with the Motorola 56000 DSP chip, 1 Meg system RAM, 1 >Meg Video Ram, 44 Meg removable hard disk, mondo graphics, a 4-slot >passive backplane with CPU occupying one slot, etc... for (ta da!) >$1995. This is a separate entity from the ATW. It's essentially the descendant of the TT, which never made it past prototype. And, as has already been remarked upon, this Cringely fellow's comments must be taken with liberally-applied grains of salt. Let's wait and see what Atari really announces. And then let's wait and see what they actually _release_, which is often quite a different matter. -- -Jonathan Fischer Mr. Walkman
BobR@cup.portal.com (Bob BobR Retelle) (10/28/88)
Barnacle Wes asks: >Whoa, wait a minute here! Who said anything about the "Atari >WorkStation" or "AWS" being a transputer machine? Actually, it was Atari President, Sam Tramiel who referred to the former "ABAQ", as now being called the Atari WorkStation (ATW, not AWS as I reported earlier). I dunno *what* they may call the 68030 machine...! BobR
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (10/30/88)
In article <234@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: >I guess we'll all just have to wait 'til Comdex to find out, huh? See >you at the show! We'll have to wait 'til COMDEX to find out what they *show*. But who knows how long we'll wait to see what they actually sell. And by that time I'd expect we can all give a cheer of "ho hum". -- David Beckemeyer (david@bdt.UUCP) | "Lester Moore - Four slugs from a .44 Beckemeyer Development Tools | no Les, no more." 478 Santa Clara Ave. Oakland, CA 94610 | - Headstone at Boot Hill UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax}!unisoft!bdt!david | Tombstone, AZ
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (11/02/88)
In some posting, Chuck McManis said: > The rumors of the '030 box are amusing, but unless they bought out > SCO or something they will have a darn difficult time supporting it. > Contemplating NeXT and Atari competing is downright humorous. But to > be completely serious, Steve Jobs has no intention of selling his machines > to university *students* which is what Atari would like to do, rather he > sells them to the faculty. In article <3f4a3cf4.14e07@gtephx.UUCP>, covertr@gtephx.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: | I second Chuck's comments!! I worked at AT&T and helped design the AT&T 3B2 | and 3B5 computers (running UNIX of course). and the man power that went into | those two computers is totally beyond any thing that Atari is capable of. Well, now, don't sell old Uncle Jack and gang short. If you read Cringely's column closely, you will immediately determine that the specs he quotes for the '030 (AWS??) have two serious flaws: not enough memory, and not enough disk space. These SHOULD both be easy to remedy if the computer is designed intelligently, which is possible. SIMM sockets for RAM and a useable SCSI port on the back of the machine aren't that hard to stick in the box. It just takes money to make it run. Think of the difference in cost if the NeXT came with 1 Mb RAM instead of 8, and without the optical disk. You've just bagged $3,500 to $4,000 of the system cost right there! Then you take off Steve Job's name, and you're down to >>> $2000 <<< right? | In fact, those 5 year old computers still have more horsepower then anything | Atari is likely to produce. I worked for a year on the hardware and software | of the 3B2 and can't believe that Atari will be better then Jobs. A 3B2? Get real! A MicroVAX II (w/Ultrix) blows the 3B2 out of the water, and the MV2 ain't no speed demon. AT&T should stick to building phone switching equipment, but then of course, they have GTE do that for them now, don't they :-) (BTW, I'm a fellow GTE* employee!) | Oh well, maybe I will be wrong, because an Atari computer might be cheaper (in | all meanings of that word) then the NeXT computer. Yup, I'm sure it will. But then again, how many of us have $6,500 to go plunk down on a computer today? On the other hand, how many of us can scrape up $2,000, realizing we will need to add more memory, more disk space, etc to be really pleased with the performance. It makes decisions for Christmas, birthdays, etc. real easy. "My birthday? Buy however many 256K SIMMs you can afford!" or "Gee, a 100 Mb SCSI disk would sure look nice under the tree this year!" or "Pop, I'm taking operating systems and software engineering both this quarter! I REALLY need a tape drive to back up all this stuff!" :-) :-) * GTE = Good Time Electronics, of course! -- "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell "How come he didn't put `I think' at the end of it?" - James P. Hogan
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (11/03/88)
In article <234@obie.UUCP>, I wrote: > [...] In last week's > _InfoWorld_, Cringely lists it as having a 25 Mhz 68030 for the main > processor, [...] for (ta da!) $1995. In article <3364@hubcap.UUCP>, rchampe@hubcap.UUCP (Richard Champeaux) writes: | Isn't the 25MHz 68030 still in the $400-$600 range? The 56000 probably | isn't cheap yet either, and the 2 Meg of memory is going to cost a couple of | hundred. That's already a sizeable chunk of $1995 and doesn't leave much | for development and profit. Of course, I haven't heard anything mentioned | about a cache or virtual memory. The 68030 has an on-chip instruction cache (external cache, ala the intel cache controller chip, etc, not needed). The MMU, supporting demand-paged virtual, is also on the chip. You get all this for free, merely for the price of a 68030. The prices you mention are, of course, quantity one prices. Imagine HOW MANY of them Atari would be buying, and think BIG DISCOUNT. | If that's the case, I suppose you could | slap something together rather cheaply, but it certainly wouldn't be a | high powered workstation. I'm not sure I'd call it anything more than a | high powered personal computer. Opened up your ST lately? Did you realize that not counting RAM chips on either machine, the 520ST has fewer chips than a C64? Yah, I think Atari MIGHT be able to stick something like this together for around 2K. Of course, it will need a LOT more memory, and a fair amount of disk space, to be truly usable. Can you imagine System V.3 running from a floppy? Most floppies don't have enough room to fit the V.3 kernel! -- "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell "How come he didn't put `I think' at the end of it?" - James P. Hogan
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (11/04/88)
In article <234@obie.UUCP> I DID NOT write: > Whoa, wait a minute here! Who said anything about the "Atari > WorkStation" or "ATW" being a transputer machine? ^^^ In article <9345@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, jafischer@spurge.waterloo.edu (Jonathan A. Fischer) writes: | Atari did. The ATW is the new name for the Abaq (apparently | some European company owned rights to the name). Why did you change "AWS" in my original posting to "ATW"? Why are you mis-quoting me? Don't do this!!!!!!! > And, as has already been remarked upon, this Cringely fellow's > comments must be taken with liberally-applied grains of salt. Let's > wait and see what Atari really announces. And then let's wait and see > what they actually _release_, which is often quite a different matter. Yah, a 10-pound grain of salt, usually. It is obvious to anyone who knows much about Unix that V.3 on a 1-meg machine is going to be pathetic (even if they do manage to get it out). Have you looked at the price of RAM chips lately? If you buy the machine for 2K, you'll need another 3 meg of memory (about $1000) and 60-80 meg of disk space ($1000-$1500, for reasonable speeds) to make it useful. Still, $4500 wouldn't be a bad price for a nice little '030 machine. Like you say, wait and see if it materializes. -- "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell "How come he didn't put `I think' at the end of it?" - James P. Hogan
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (11/08/88)
in article <249@obie.UUCP>, wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) says: > Summary: Yep, yer sure right! > Opened up your ST lately? Did you realize that not counting RAM chips > on either machine, the 520ST has fewer chips than a C64? You obviously haven't opened up a recent C64 lately. -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession
dragon@lfl.uucp (Give me a quarter or I'll touch you) (11/09/88)
From article <5190@cbmvax.UUCP>, by daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie): > in article <249@obie.UUCP>, wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) says: >> Opened up your ST lately? Did you realize that not counting RAM chips >> on either machine, the 520ST has fewer chips than a C64? > You obviously haven't opened up a recent C64 lately. > > -- > Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy > Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession I believe Dave made a typo about opening up the C64... A recent C64 is still a C64, which they haven't made in quite a while. But has anyone opened up a C64c? --Dean (such picking of nits, I know, but one good pick deserves another) ---- Dragon Technologies, Ltd. sun!pixar!r2d2!dragon
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (11/16/88)
in article <458@lfl.uucp>, dragon@lfl.uucp (Give me a quarter or I'll touch you) says: > From article <5190@cbmvax.UUCP>, by daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie): >> in article <249@obie.UUCP>, wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) says: >>> Opened up your ST lately? Did you realize that not counting RAM chips >>> on either machine, the 520ST has fewer chips than a C64? >> You obviously haven't opened up a recent C64 lately. >> Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" > I believe Dave made a typo about opening up the C64... > A recent C64 is still a C64, which they haven't made in quite a while. > But has anyone opened up a C64c? Well, to me, a C64 is a C64. "Recent" means the "E" board. There have been several revisions of the internal C64, and two revisions of the external C64 (the old plain C64, and the C64C, which is the one styled like the C128). It is, however, true that the E board I'm referring to will only be found in C64C cases; it doesn't fit in the older case. Along with a small number of system chips, it also has only 3 RAM and 2 ROM chips. But enough on C64s.... > --Dean > Dragon Technologies, Ltd. > sun!pixar!r2d2!dragon -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession