palarson@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Paul Larson) (01/22/88)
I'm having some trouble cutting through al the hype surrounding the Intel 80386 and the Motorola 68020. Conflicting claims are flying back and forth like hornets. Could someone tell me how these two chips differ, and what, if aything, one can do better than the other? IBM is sticking with the Intel line, so the 80386 will probalbly be more than the 68020. Disclaimer: I am not trying to start a my-computer-can-beat-your-computer war. Please e-mail any resonses, I'll summarize is nececessary. Johan Larson
sipples@husc2.UUCP (sipples) (01/24/88)
>IBM is sticking with the Intel line, so the 80386 will probalbly be more >than the 68020. Whoa! Not to diminish IBM's proven wisdom :-), but other manufacturers think very differently. Ever heard of Apple? Sun? Not to mention the brains behind Postscript laser printers, including, I believe, IBM's. Also keep in mind the Atart ST/Mega series and the Commodore Amiga 500/1000/2000. Would it make much sense, anyway, for IBM to abandon a large installed base of 80xx(x) machines, even if a better chip comes along? Anyway, the Motorola 68030 is now state-of-the-art, with the 68040 announced. If you are inquiring about benchmark results, I don't know of any direct com- parisons between the 68030 and the 80386. However, according to Byte and other sources, the Motorola family now outpaces the Intel family in most tests. The microprocessor wars continue, however, with Intel supposedly working on an 80486. [Caveat: benchmarks are sometimes misleading.] Instruction sets: the 68xxx is a little more RISC-like than the 80xx(x); I've heard arguments on both sides over which is superior. Support chips: the 68xxx's math coprocessors apparently handle transcendentals better than the 80xx(x)'s counterparts. Apple's move in making the math coprocessor standard on the Macintosh II will provide developers with a nice incentive to take advantage of the extra mathematical capabilities. Timothy Sipples | sipples%husc2@husc6.harvard.edu | ...ihnp4!seismo!harvard!husc6!husc2!sipples
tjhorton@utai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) (01/25/88)
>IBM is sticking with the Intel line, so the 80386 will (probably be >better) than the 68020. IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel. Considering that they owned the company, and the 802xx stuff was coming out around then, you think they would have looked at the specs and built the PC to move in a forward direction. Instead they just pushed a machine out the door, sold 15 million of them, and forced everyone into many and several revisions (perhaps for the money in it). Deadbeats. There's little reason to expect better of them now, I should think. Anyway, what would motivate them to move away from Intel at this point? They're not adverse to selling junk, based not on inherent quality but how well it will be supported. They made deadbeat decisions long ago, and at IBM, history sticks around for a LONG time.
alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy) (01/26/88)
In article <1430@husc2.UUCP> sipples@husc2.UUCP (Timothy Sipples) writes: >>IBM is sticking with the Intel line, so the 80386 will probalbly be more >>than the 68020. > >Whoa! Not to diminish IBM's proven wisdom :-), but other manufacturers think >very differently. Ever heard of Apple? Sun? Not to mention the brains >behind Postscript laser printers, including, I believe, IBM's. Also keep in IBM also uses a modified 680x0 (I forget which) and a stock 680x0 together in the AT/370 to emulate the S/370 instruction set. And in the infamous RT, the 68881 FPU is the standard floating point co-processor. IBM's GX graphics accelerator is based on multiple 68020's. The 68020 outsold the 80386 in 1984 (the '386 didn't exist), in 1985 ('386 only in sampling beginning late summer), in 1986 ('386 in full production by late summer) and even in 1987 (thanks to the Mac II and to the '020's wide use as a controller in industrial/commercial devices (such as laser printers)). The '386 is PROJECTED to outsell the '020 in '88, but then, that was the projection for '87. If Apple releases an "SE" type Mac with a '020 in it (say at 12 MHz costing $3000 for the complete system), then the projection may turn out wrong again. Even so, the installed base of '020's is now in the millions and its software base completely dwarfs 32-bit '386 software. 32-bit software for the 386 is not expected to be available in quantity until 1990 AT THE EARLIEST!! There's hardly even any '286 protected-mode (16 Meg address space) software yet! All those benchmarks you've seen showing how fast the '386 is on the Dhrystone (3500-5500 Ddhrystones/second for 16MHz CPUs) suffer from two flaws: 1) Those numbers come from code produced by highly optimizing compilers generating '386 native mode (32-bit) code (most CURRENTLY AVAILABLE application code is for the 8086); 2) the Dhrystone spends most of its time doing string comparison, which the Intel CPU's have special instructions for and the Motorola CPU's don't: and the string comparison operation is assumed to be a primitive whose algorithm is not specified by the benchmark!!!. On a graphics benchmark (requiring bit-field manipulation), the Motorola CPU's leave the '386 in the dust. The Mac II executes the Dhrystone about 4 times faster than the Mac Plus. The '386 machines execute the Dhrystone about twice as fast as the '286 machines. Using the best optimizing compiler available, the Mac II does about 3300 Dhrystones/second. A SUN 3/260 (25MHz 68020) or an Apollo DN/4000 do about 7000 Dhrystones/second using optimizing compilers and static ram caches. The NS32532 reportedly does 16,000 Dhrystones/second (at 30 MHz). The 68030 should produce similar numbers. SUN's 4/260 (SPARC "RISC" CPU) does about 20,000 Dhrystones/second. By the time the Intel/MS-DOS/OS2 world is getting a reasonable supply of '386 code on 30MHz machines (1990; 12,000 Dhrystones/second), the Motorola world will have a larger supply of 68040 software on 40 MHz machines doing 70,000 Dhrystones/second. Really. No kidding. The 68040 will implement most of its instructions using combinatorial logic instead of microcode, and will thus reduce the average number of cycles per instruction from 5 or 6 (on the '030) to almost 1. That's a speed increase of 500% just from that (larger on chip caches, faster clock rates, 3-operand instructions and other changes may mean additional speed ups). Intel likes to talk about compatibility. But it's Motorola who have actually delivered it from the 68000 to the 68040, without needing special compatibility modes. The fact that the 80386 executes three different instruction sets (8086, 80286, 80386) is sugar coating on a fundamentally poison pill. As time goes on, this will become more apparent. --alan@pdn
koko@uthub.toronto.edu (M. Kokodyniak) (01/26/88)
In article <1430@husc2.UUCP>, sipples@husc2.UUCP (sipples) writes: > Instruction sets: the 68xxx is a little more RISC-like than the 80xx(x); Either a CPU is RISC or it isn't. The 68xxx has an instruction set which is more orthogonal than that of 80xx(x).
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) (01/26/88)
In article <1430@husc2.UUCP> sipples@husc2.UUCP (Timothy Sipples) writes: ... | Anyway, the Motorola 68030 is now state-of-the-art, with the | 68040 announced. If you are inquiring about benchmark results, | I don't know of any direct comparisons between the 68030 and the | 80386. However, according to Byte and other sources, the | Motorola family now outpaces the Intel family in most tests. | The microprocessor wars continue, however, with Intel supposedly | working on an 80486. [Caveat: benchmarks are sometimes | misleading.] I ran some benchmarks of my own on a 16MHz 80386 (1ws) and a Sun 3/280S (25MHz 68020, ?ws). I would have to say that the results were inconclusive, at best. The 68881 was better at transendental functions, but inferior in simple floating arithmetic. 32 bit int was better on the Sun, even after correction for the clock speeds. The 80386 machine did not have cache, the Sun (I'm told) does. On another 80386 I measured 25% improvement with cache on. Cache is not quite as good as 0ws memory, but it does halp a lot. I concluded that the 80386 machines were available in a useful configuration at a much lower price than the 68020 machines I have seen. This doesn't claim that the 80386 is *inherently* cheaper, although that may be true due to less stringent memory requirements. Current price for a small 80386 UNIX system is about $4k for 2MB memory, UNIX runtime and C, 40MB hard drive, mono display. I was unable to find a 68020 based system with a similar configuration which is available for less than ~$5600 to the end user. I didn't count discounts on either type of machine. The 80386 allows running MS-DOS programs under UNIX. No matter what your opinion of MS-DOS, there is a lot of good, cheap, software available for it, and many people would rather have the option than not. Witness that there are DOS cards for the Amiga, ATT 7300, Sun, etc. The 68030 has a modified Harvard archetecture, and splits the data and code internally, using a separate cache for each and multiplexing bus to the outside world. I'm not qualified to say that this is/isn't better than having one big external cache on an 80386. Any detailed discussion of details belongs in comp.arch. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
gp@picuxa.UUCP (Greg Pasquariello X1190) (01/26/88)
In article <4227@utai.UUCP>, tjhorton@utai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes: > >IBM is sticking with the Intel line, so the 80386 will (probably be > >better) than the 68020. > > IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Where do you people come from. IBM did _not_ own Intel. It was simply that Intel provided a complete chipset for a personal computer whereas most other companies only supplied individual chips (i.e. CPU). Greg Pasquariello ihnp4!picuxa!Tinman!gpasq
rapin@bnrmtv.UUCP (Eric Rapin) (01/27/88)
In article <883@xn.LL.MIT.EDU>, delaney@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (John Delaney) writes: > > Those discussing IBM's commitment to the 80x86 family should keep in > mind IBm's purchase of a nontivial share of Intel (~10%) a few years > back. That may tend to mix cause and effect. > > John If you read recent newspapers, IBM just recently sold off the last of their Intel stock (which at one time was about 19%). It has something to do with pleasing European investors but that is all I picked up. -- Eric B. Rapin UUCP: {3comvax,amdahl,ames,csi,hplabs}!bnrmtv!rapin Bell-Northern Research, Inc. ARPA: bnrmtv!rapin@ames.arpa Mountain View, California
las@apr.UUCP (Larry Shurr) (01/28/88)
<exchange over superiority of 68xxx over 80x86 (or was it superiority of
80x86 over 68xxx) omitted>
Is it ALREADY time for another round of "Your favorite microprocessor
is shit! - No your's is!" ?
--
"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
- Oscar Wilde, James Whistler or George Bernard Shaw depending on who you ask
Name: Larry A. Shurr (cbosgd!osu-cis!apr!las or try {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbcp1!las)
Disclaimer: The above is not necessarily the opinion of APR or any APR client.farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (01/28/88)
In article <4227@utai.UUCP> tjhorton@ai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes: > >IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel. IBM has never 'owned' Intel. At most, they owned about 12% of the stock, which always struck me as a reasonable move, since they were dependent on Intel for many of their products (not just for the PC line, by the way). If I remember correctly, the major portion of the stock purchase was AFTER the release and success of the PC. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
kds@mipos3.intel.com (Ken Shoemaker) (01/28/88)
In article <1430@husc2.UUCP> sipples@husc2.UUCP (Timothy Sipples) writes: >Anyway, the Motorola 68030 is now state-of-the-art, with the 68040 announced. I hadn't heard that the 68040 had been announced, but whatever. When is Mot saying that they will have samples? Also, state-of-the-art is a very subjective measurement. -- "I guess people just like to shoot their guns. It is indicative of a considerable amount of stupidity." Sgt. Robert McLin, L.A. County Sheriff Dept. Ken Shoemaker, Microprocessor Design, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, California uucp: ...{hplabs|decwrl|amdcad|qantel|pur-ee|scgvaxd|oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!kds csnet/arpanet: kds@mipos2.intel.com
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (01/28/88)
In article <883@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> delaney@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (John Delaney) writes: >Those discussing IBM's commitment to the 80x86 family should keep in >mind IBm's purchase of a nontivial share of Intel (~10%) a few years >back. That may tend to mix cause and effect. Actually it reached a peak around something like 17%. Not that Intel did anything particularly special for them that I could see. (I worked there beteen 83-85.). Also by now you have heard that as of february they will have sold all of the shares they bought and have a 0% stake in them. --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.
bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (Bobmon) (01/28/88)
to John Mashey (whose return address didn't work) --
OK, You've confused me by the following article (exerpts from comp.sys.ibm.pc).
You seem to assume that RISC machines require relatively few clock cycles
per "vax-mip". This would suggest that the instruction set is closely
matched to the things the benchmarks do ("vax-mip-instructions"?).
I thought that one principle of RISC was that simpler instructions could
run fast enough to allow using more of them to get the job done. This would
mean (to me, anyway) more clocks per "vax-mip", albeit at a higher clock speed.
Would you please explain why Lower cycles/vax-mip means more RISCiness?
In article <1417@winchester.mips.COM> mash@winchester.UUCP (John Mashey) writes:
- The simplest measure of RISC-vs-CISC is the number of cycles per equivalent
- amount of work, i.e., cycles/vax-mip, for example (which is NOT the
- same as cycles/(native instruction). The way you compute this is:
- ...
- Rel Clock Clock/ Machine
- Perf MHz Perf Type
- 1 5 5 VAX 11/780 [4.3BSD]
- 2.1 16.7 8 68020 (Sun-3/160)
- 4* 25 6.2 68020, 64K cache (Sun-3/260) (had to guess on this one)
- 8.4 16.7 2 SPARC (Sun-4/200) [a RISC]
- 11.3 15 1.3 MIPS R2000 (MIPS M/1000 system) [a RISC]
- ...
- may fix that (2-cycle bus interface helps). Notice the difference
- that the cache makes between the 2 Suns in dropping the cycle/vax-mips number.
-
- Finally, note that even outright RISC machines differ in their
- RISCyness according to this metric.todd@uhccux.UUCP (The Perplexed Wiz) (01/28/88)
In article <1430@husc2.UUCP> sipples@husc2.UUCP (Timothy Sipples) writes: >Anyway, the Motorola 68030 is now state-of-the-art, with the 68040 announced. >If you are inquiring about benchmark results, I don't know of any direct com- >parisons between the 68030 and the 80386. However, according to Byte and The Jan88 issue of Dr. Dobb's has an article titled "386 vs. 030: The Crowded Fast Lane." One amusing section of the article is titled "Lies, Damn Lies, and Benchmarks." The article is not an in-depth one. However, it does provide some interesting insights....todd -- Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii Faculty Development Program UUCP: {ihnp4,uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!sdcsvax!nosc!uhccux!todd ARPA: uhccux!todd@nosc.MIL BITNET: todd@uhccux INTERNET: todd@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU
todd@uhccux.UUCP (The Perplexed Wiz) (01/28/88)
In article <4227@utai.UUCP> tjhorton@ai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes: >>IBM is sticking with the Intel line, so the 80386 will (probably be >>better) than the 68020. > >IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel. Considering that they >owned the company, and the 802xx stuff was coming out around then, you >think they would have looked at the specs and built the PC to move in I think you may have things a bit backwards here. As I recall, IBM chose the Intel 8088 over the Motorola 68K because the support chips and 8-bit bus for the 8088 was cheaper and more plentiful. IBM started buying large chunks of Intel after they started building the PC, not the other way around. Moreover, IBM recently sold off large chunks of Intel stock. A number of analysts said that the reason IBM bought into Intel years ago was to insure that Intel stayed in business and therefore able to supply chips to IBM. Since IBM now seems to believe that Intel can run on their own without a big blue life support, they sold off a lot of Intel stock. -- Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii Faculty Development Program UUCP: {ihnp4,uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!sdcsvax!nosc!uhccux!todd ARPA: uhccux!todd@nosc.MIL BITNET: todd@uhccux INTERNET: todd@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU
larry@pdn.UUCP (Larry Swift) (01/28/88)
In article <462@picuxa.UUCP> gp@picuxa.UUCP (Greg Pasquariello X1190) writes: >In article <4227@utai.UUCP>, tjhorton@utai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes: >> IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel. > >Where do you people come from. IBM did _not_ own Intel. You're both right. IBM did not own a majority of Intel, but owned (owns?) a significant block of Intel's stock.
delaney@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (John Delaney) (01/28/88)
In article <40222@sun.uucp>, cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: > Not that Intel did > anything particularly special for them that I could see. (I worked there > beteen 83-85.). I have heard otherwise from one top technical type at Intel. A project he was running was killed and others he tried to started were stillborn because of interference by IBM. He ended up being ordered to stop certain activities by an executive of IBM, not by Intel's management. I for one am glad to see IBM out of Intel. As for my original remark and some comments one it, let me say I knew IBM firts bought into INTEL after it became a major user of Intel CPUs. But it is hard to believe that their continuing commitment thereafter was purely technical in motivation. The question now that IBM has sold out its share of Intel is whether IBM will continue a high level of commitment to Intel CPUs, go with another vendor, or user IBM-developed and manufactured CPUs. I would bet on the last. After all, IBM has some of the best manufacturing and packaging technology in the world in-house. John
joel@peora.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch) (01/29/88)
In article <2751@fluke.COM>, kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: > Those discussing IBM's purchase of a nontrivial share of Intel (~10%) should > keep in mind IBM's recent partial divestiture of it's Intel stock. It is > more than possible that to IBM, Intel is "just a supplier" and beyond that, > a sole-source supplier with demonstrated problems with its manufacturing > process. The stake in Intel may have been nothing more than a way to insure > delivery during a critical period. One should note that IBM could have > purchased Intel on the open market for cash during the time it bought it's > 10% stake. I would think that IBM would have good right to be concerned. I seem to recall that a couple of computer makers went out of business in the 70s because of problems getting 8085 chips. Didn't IBM get the right to use the Intel photomasks and manufacture their own chips? I suspect that IBMs interest in Intel decreased a lot after they got their hands on those. If IBM had bought out Intel, it seems to me that it would put them in a uncomfortable position with regard to potiental antitrust action, since they would be supplying critical components to their competitiors. If there were significant problems supplying chips to those companies, IBM might find themselves in Federal Court. -- Joel Upchurch @ CONCURRENT Computer Corporation (305-850-1040) Southern Development Center/2486 Sand Lake Road/ Orlando, Florida 32809 {decvax!ucf-cs, ihnp4!pesnta, vax135!petsd, akgua!codas}!peora!joel
tjhorton@utai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) (01/29/88)
In article <462@picuxa.UUCP> gp@picuxa.UUCP (Greg Pasquariello X1190) writes: >In article <4227@utai.UUCP>, tjhorton@utai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes: >> IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Where do you people come from. IBM. I've worked for various different operations within the company. >IBM did _not_ own Intel. I don't have the exact figures. I know they bought heavily into Intel. If the 20% that has been mentioned is correct, it's a lot more than I own of any large semiconductor company. I've been led to believe they owned much more. And IBM, by NO means, runs without politics. >It was simply that Intel provided a complete chipset for a personal computer >whereas most other companies only supplied individual chips (i.e. CPU). I've designed cards to work in the PC, and I never saw anything special in it. I'd have to look at the old databooks, but I think you are qualitatively wrong. My other point was that they could easily have gotten their hands on pre- production specs for the 80286. When I was at Bell Northern, we did it several times (even with Intel, I might add). Look inside the original PC. You could have picked a few friends and designed something better in maybe 3 months.
pl@tut.fi (Pertti Lehtinen) (01/29/88)
From article <462@picuxa.UUCP>, by gp@picuxa.UUCP (Greg Pasquariello X1190): > In article <4227@utai.UUCP>, tjhorton@utai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes: >> IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Where do you people come from. IBM did _not_ own Intel. It was simply > that Intel provided a complete chipset for a personal computer whereas > most other companies only supplied individual chips (i.e. CPU). > As far as I know, IBM owned part of Intel on those days. And I think that chipset was not so very complete, as basic display controller (MC6845) is from Motorola. Pertti Lehtinen pl@tut.fi -- pl@tut.fi ! All opinions expressed above Pertti Lehtinen ! are preliminary and in subject N 61 26' E 23 50' ! to change without any further notice.
bobb@elrond.CalComp.COM (Robert J. Boulanger) (01/29/88)
As a former Intel employee, until Jan 12, 1988, I can assure you that IBM NEVER owned Intel. A few years ago, IBM did purchase approximately 20% of Intel's outstanding stock, but it has since resold most, if not all, of its holdings in the Intel Corporation.
gp@picuxa.UUCP (Greg Pasquariello X1190) (01/29/88)
In article <1416@winchester.mips.COM>, mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: > >IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel. > Nonsense. They started with the 8088 long before there was any relationship. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! I have been getting flamed all week for saying the same thing. It's good to know that there are others out there that know the real story! Greg Pasquariello ihnp4!picuxa!Tinman!gpasq
sedwards@esunix.UUCP (Scott Edwards) (01/30/88)
in article <686@uthub.toronto.edu>, koko@uthub.toronto.edu (M. Kokodyniak) says: > Xref: esunix comp.misc:1903 comp.sys.m68k:708 comp.sys.mac:12460 comp.sys.ibm.pc:9936 > > In article <1430@husc2.UUCP>, sipples@husc2.UUCP (sipples) writes: >> Instruction sets: the 68xxx is a little more RISC-like than the 80xx(x); > Either a CPU is RISC or it isn't. The 68xxx has an instruction set which > is more orthogonal than that of 80xx(x). Sheilds up, Mr. Sulu! The 68000 orthogonal? ha ha ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA. I dare you find more that 4 operators that allow exactly the same set of operand sizes, sources and destinations. 32xxx = almost orthogonal. 80xxx = kind of, sort of orthogonal. 680xx = orthogonal only in Motorola Ministry of Propaganda literature, otherwise a joke.
delatizk@lf-server-2.BBN.COM (Jonathan Delatizky) (01/30/88)
IBM has in fact been selling most of the remaining Intel stock it owns over the last few months. I'm not entirely sure, but I think I read a statement to the effect that IBM would sell it all.
hsu@santra.UUCP (Heikki Suonsivu) (01/30/88)
In article <2101@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes: >projection for '87. If Apple releases an "SE" type Mac with a '020 in it >(say at 12 MHz costing $3000 for the complete system), then the projection may >turn out wrong again. Even so, the installed base of '020's is now in Right now can 386-based AT-clones with 2 meg ram and reasonable hard disk be bought for less than $3000, with 16 MHz zero waits. Maybe not much but it is certainly faster than 12 MHz 68020. To get something reasonable done, you have to add MMU also, but using 68030 would be more sensible anyway, maybe they choose it. >software. 32-bit software for the 386 is not expected to be available >in quantity until 1990 AT THE EARLIEST!! There's hardly even any '286 >protected-mode (16 Meg address space) software yet! There's already unix available from 3 sources (counted xenix in also), and I guess that alone gives quite a bunch of software available, gnu emacs has already been ported, and there is lots of other goodies, lots of it avaiable free. Who would want 286 protected mode software? Or 286 at all? Not me. Others? >[lots of numbers from dhrystone benchmark] I'm running 8 MHz 286 and 10 MHz 68010, no waits for both, Unix on both. Dhrystone tells me that 8 MHz 286 is faster than 10MHz 68010. That's bullshit, tells my eyes and watch. Referring to dhrystone is like comparing dos machines with Norton's SI. >By the time the Intel/MS-DOS/OS2 world is getting a reasonable supply of >'386 code on 30MHz machines (1990; 12,000 Dhrystones/second), the OS2 is 286 operating system. Doesn't make sense to wait when they get it bugfree and look like operating system, specially when it's made for obsolete processor (286 is't high-tech, is it?). I would rather run unix. >Motorola world will have a larger supply of 68040 software on 40 MHz >machines doing 70,000 Dhrystones/second. Really. No kidding. The I would love to get such a thing, but right now, I have to select between $3000 taiwanese 386 clone and $6000 68020 unix box. I would rather take $3000 in cash and $3000 taiwanese clone. Though, right now I couldn't afford either... :-( >Intel likes to talk about compatibility. But it's Motorola who have >actually delivered it from the 68000 to the 68040, without needing >special compatibility modes. The fact that the 80386 executes three Only upward compatibility. Intel has modes, but their previous processors are pure shit. Though, it's not a good argument either way, operating systems should make it possible for me to forget about what chip there is in the machine (YARUU = Yet Another Reason to Use Unix). >different instruction sets (8086, 80286, 80386) is sugar coating on >a fundamentally poison pill. As time goes on, this will become more >apparent. Mostly I use 8086 compatibility to be able to run Flight simulator and other nice games. And sometimes, to compile programs developed under unix for customers too stupid, poor or tied-with-ibm-because-their- boss-doesn't-understand-anything-about-computers to get anything but a mess dos. I would love to see IBM, Intel and Microsoft to collapse, development of computers would speed up a lot. Meanwhile, I try to find best alternatives available, and as I'm using unix most of time, I don't pay much attention to the processor, price is more important, what I get for my bucks. :-)
mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (01/30/88)
In article <5683@iuvax.UUCP> bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (Bobmon) writes: >to John Mashey (whose return address didn't work) -- >OK, You've confused me by the following article (exerpts from comp.sys.ibm.pc). >You seem to assume that RISC machines require relatively few clock cycles >per "vax-mip". This would suggest that the instruction set is closely >matched to the things the benchmarks do ("vax-mip-instructions"?). >I thought that one principle of RISC was that simpler instructions could >run fast enough to allow using more of them to get the job done. This would >mean (to me, anyway) more clocks per "vax-mip", albeit at a higher clock speed. >Would you please explain why Lower cycles/vax-mip means more RISCiness? A better way to state this is: at a given clock speed, make the computer do as much real work as possible. The clock speed tends to be a function of technology, which improves over time. RISC designers believe that, at the same clock speed, a well-engineered RISC should run faster than a CISC, using the following theory: a) A RISC may well use more instructions than the CISC. b) However, the RISC instructions use enough less cycles/instruction that the total cycle count is lower. c) The RISC may well use less hardware to do instructions, and hence, save hardware for other speed-enhancing operations. Anyway, the typical goal of designers is to find that mythical "optimal point", where everything you have pays for itself, and you're not missing something that would pay for itself. More RISCiness: there are a lot of attributes people have used to decide whether or not something is a RISC (like "every machine designed since 1983 is a RISC...:-)). The reasons I like the one I described are: a) The numbers are something you can determine by knowing a machine's clock rate, and running user-level benchmarks. I.e., this is a number you can measure in an objective way, without needing instruction + cache + mmu simulators, or hardware probes. b) Lower numbers usually correlate with machines called RISCs. Of course, it is quite possible (as Motorola has pointed out, and has IBM, DEC, etc have done for years on large machines), it is quite possible to lower the cycles/mip number for ANY machine by throwing hardware at it, usually by improving pipelining, improving the memory hierarchy, etc. For example, I suspect the biggest win in the 68030 is the 3->2 cycle bus interface change. The RISC argument says that a well-designed RISC gets the performance without burning up the silicon area, so it can use it for other things, and also takes less time to redesign for faster technologies. For more on this, this topic gets discussed over in comp.arch a lot more, and there are plenty of reasonable articles on the topic. -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash OR mash@mips.com DDD: 408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
jed4885@ritcv.UUCP (Jason Dyer) (01/31/88)
In article <623@gethen.UUCP> farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: >In article <4227@utai.UUCP> tjhorton@ai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes: >> >>IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel. > >IBM has never 'owned' Intel. At most, they owned about 12% of the stock, >which always struck me as a reasonable move, since they were dependent on >Intel for many of their products (not just for the PC line, by the way). >If I remember correctly, the major portion of the stock purchase was >AFTER the release and success of the PC. > >-- >Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just >{ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate > unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." >gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame People, please, I'm getting sick of seeing arguments of how much Intel stock IBM does or doesn't own in comp.sys.m68k. Please check your followup line before you go shooting these things off. -Jason (With my luck this will some how get cross posted to rec.whale.lovers. :^)
doug@edge.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (02/02/88)
>IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel. As many folks have already pointed out... this is a pure crock. IBM didn't own anything of Intel until long after the PC was well established. And then they only bought about a 1/4 interest, and they've sold that off (before the October stock market crash, the lucky dogs!) >and the 802xx stuff was coming out around then More nonsense. The 80286 wasn't even thought of when the PC was designed. - - - - - "Sherman, set the Wayback machine for 1980, location: Boca Raton, Florida." Here we find the designers of the PC trying to decide which CPU to use. The obvious choice is the Z-80. The big problem with the Z-80 is that *everybody* uses it -- it'd be easier to differentiate the product if it used a different CPU. Like maybe a 16-bit CPU. Sure! That would give it an edge in the market. And maybe allow more than 64K of memory without bank-switching! Let's see, who makes 16-bit CPUs... Intel makes the 8086. For 64K programs, it's as easy to program as the Z-80, and there's an 8080-to-8086 translator program available. The 8086 is a bit yucky for bigger programs, but it sure beats the bank-switching that would be needed for a Z-80. Zilog makes the Z-8000 series. The Z-8002 can only address 64K, but the Z-8001 can address 8 Meg using an even messier segmented addressing scheme than the 8086, one which requires the addition of the Z-8010 MMU chip in order to use effectively. Ick, bank switching would be easier. Motorola makes the 68000, but by company policy they won't sell them for use in home computers. DEC makes the LSI-11. But it's expensive and only addresses 128K. And buying a single-sourced critical component from a competitor is risky business. No way! There are a bunch of oddball chips from manufacturers like Fairchild and National Semiconductor, but none are serious contenders for the design. The only real possibilities are the 8086 and Z-8000. The decision is made easier because there's an 8-bit-bus version of the 8086 (the 8088). This significantly reduces the number of other chips needed in the design -- albeit at a definite reduction in performance on any 16-bit operations. So the choice is fairly obvious. And "the rest is history". - - - - - The point that most people miss when they berate IBM for having gone with Intel is that the 68000 was *not* an available option at the time. A few years later, Apple would get its foot in the door with the Lisa (not a home computer), and then managed to pry the door wide open with the Macintosh. Other than the 68000, what would *you* have designed in, hmmm? And remember that this is supposed to be a low-cost home computer: the standard machine has 16K of RAM, uses cassette tape for storage, and BASIC in ROM; for the big-time user the mother-board can hold up to 64K of RAM and you can put two single-sided 160KB floppy disk drives in the machine. -- Doug Pardee {ames,hplabs,sun,amdahl,ihnp4,allegra}!oliveb!edge!doug Edge Computer Corp., Scottsdale, AZ uunet!ism780c!edge!doug
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (02/02/88)
In article <40222@sun.uucp>, cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: |> Not that Intel did anything particularly special for them that I could see. |> (I worked there beteen 83-85.). In article <889@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> delaney@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (John Delaney) writes: |> I have heard otherwise from one top technical type at Intel. A project he |> was running was killed and others he tried to started were stillborn because |> of interference by IBM. He ended up being ordered to stop certain activities |> by an executive of IBM, not by Intel's management. I for one am glad to see |> IBM out of Intel. Well let me be more clear without violating any nondisclosure agreements I signed... Intel did not do anything special for IBM because it owned some percentage of the company, that is not to say things were not done for IBM as a large customer. Basically, if you buy > $100,000,000 worth of chips from Intel you can ask them to put things into them, or change things around, or test to a given speed parameter. Ford does it all the time with the Engine controllers that Intel builds for them. By the same token if any big customer throws some money at you to build something, and is either paying for the development or preordering some fixed quantity of the final product (which is the same thing essentially). You build it no? You want an 8088 with 32 bit address registers and a linear address segment? Send Intel $10,000,000 and I am sure they would be glad to build it for you. By the same token if you are a 'top technical type' and working on a project that is being funded by a large customer, you are responsible for meeting the needs of that customer, so they can tell you, "No, we don't want it to work like that, we want it to work like THIS." You don't have a choice really, except to do it that way. About the only interference IBM ever caused was to be very aggressive about verifying the Intel test patterns. Generally, if you couldn't show them a test pattern that verified a particular spec they got really upset. And in that regard, I would say that IBM actually increased the quality of Intel parts significantly because of the additional testing. Of course that helped everyone, not just IBM. --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.
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (02/02/88)
In article <2757@peora.ccur.com> joel@peora.UUCP writes: > If IBM had bought out Intel, it seems to me that it would put them in a > uncomfortable position with regard to potiental antitrust action ... Everyone that knew that Texas Instruments started life as a division of IBM raise you right hand. Ok, for you trivia fans, can you name the antitrust case where IBM was ordered to divest themselves of that business? (No, I don't remember it off hand, but I do remember talking about it around '77 - '78 when IBM was defending itself against Memorex et al) --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.
FYS-MA@FINTUVM.BITNET (Matti Aarnio) (02/02/88)
In article <1480@uhccux.UUCP>, todd@uhccux.UUCP (The Perplexed Wiz) says: >The Jan88 issue of Dr. Dobb's has an article titled "386 vs. 030: The >Crowded Fast Lane." One amusing section of the article is titled "Lies, >Damn Lies, and Benchmarks." That particular section title sounds like one Inmos paper telling us quirks behind Dhrystone, and some other *popular* bencmarks. Among others it points out, that "well" made string library for C language helps 80x86 family to get especially good results when comparing to other cpus without string instructions. (Inmos talks about their Transputers) It points out also, that most of *popular* bencmarks rely on some special features, that usually are tought to be atomistic, and same on everywere. They also backtracked Dhrystone to original Algol source, where they found that string dependency. To compare cpus with running similar applications on them is sometimes impossible. I could run some global weather model with big net of Transputers, but I could never run it in any of my home "computers". Comparing them with running UNIX clones ? Maybe, but it asks also for GOOD implementation, and fast disks. (main traps on UNIX, you know) >Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii Faculty Development Program / Matti Aarnio, U. of Turku (Physics departement/WPL), FINLAND UUCP: mea@kolvi.hut.fi BITNET: FYS-MA at FINTUVM (different computers) <food-for-tail-eater>
han@apple.UUCP (Byron Han, fire fighter) (02/03/88)
Can we please move this discussion to comp.misc? According to Mr. Spock,
"Cross posting is an illogical wastage of USEnet resources"
Besides my 'n' and 'k' keys are getting weaker... :-)
--
------------------------ Byron Han, Communications Tool ----------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 27Y Cupertino, CA 95014
ATTnet:408-973-6450 applelink:HAN1 domain:han@apple.COM MacNET:HAN
GENIE:BYRONHAN COMPUSERVE:72167,1664 UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!hanalan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy) (02/03/88)
In article <10064@santra.UUCP> hsu@santra.UUCP (Heikki Suonsivu) writes: /In article <2101@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes: />projection for '87. If Apple releases an "SE" type Mac with a '020 in it />(say at 12 MHz costing $3000 for the complete system), then the projection may />turn out wrong again. Even so, the installed base of '020's is now in / /Right now can 386-based AT-clones with 2 meg ram and reasonable hard /disk be bought for less than $3000, with 16 MHz zero waits. Maybe not /much but it is certainly faster than 12 MHz 68020. To get something /reasonable done, you have to add MMU also, but using 68030 would be /more sensible anyway, maybe they choose it. That depends on availability of the 68030 in quantitiy. If it can be done, I'm sure Apple will do it. Whatever. This week's Computerworld says Sculley has let it be known that a machine somewhere between (pricewise) the Mac II and the SE will be released this summer. CPU not specified, but NuBus slots and optional color video hardware are to be expected. Time will tell. />software. 32-bit software for the 386 is not expected to be available />in quantity until 1990 AT THE EARLIEST!! There's hardly even any '286 />protected-mode (16 Meg address space) software yet! /There's already unix available from 3 sources (counted xenix in also), /and I guess that alone gives quite a bunch of software available, gnu /emacs has already been ported, and there is lots of other goodies, /lots of it avaiable free. Who would want 286 protected mode software? /Or 286 at all? Not me. Others? UNIX is system software. It's of great interest to SOME hardcore computer jocks. Its of no interest to 90% (at least) of all computer users. Besides, just where do you think most UNIX application software currently comes from? Why, from 680x0 machines! Portability works both ways, of course. '386 UNIX applications should be easily portable to the 680x0. Of course, the easier it is to port applications accross CPUs, the more likely it is that people will migrate en masse to the best hardware available. In such a world, neither the '386 nor the '030 would be the CPU of choice. Since this is not happening, portability must be less than advertized in some way. Maybe it's just that it only works for source code at this point. Or is it because people are still too ignorant? Hmmm... Who wants '286 protected mode software? I don't, but then I haven't invested ANY money in '286 hardware or software. If I were a corporation with 5,000 ATs, I'd probably be VERY interested in software that would let me use 16MB of memory on my machines, instead of limiting me to 640K. />[lots of numbers from dhrystone benchmark] / /I'm running 8 MHz 286 and 10 MHz 68010, no waits for both, Unix on /both. Dhrystone tells me that 8 MHz 286 is faster than 10MHz 68010. /That's bullshit, tells my eyes and watch. Referring to dhrystone /is like comparing dos machines with Norton's SI. Your phrasing is strange here. I interpret your comments to the effect that the Dhrystone benchmark is not a good indicator of relative performance of different CPUs. I heartily agree with THAT! />By the time the Intel/MS-DOS/OS2 world is getting a reasonable supply of />'386 code on 30MHz machines (1990; 12,000 Dhrystones/second), the /OS2 is 286 operating system. Doesn't make sense to wait when they get /it bugfree and look like operating system, specially when it's made /for obsolete processor (286 is't high-tech, is it?). I would rather /run unix. Most users would rather use either the Finder or the Presentation Manager. Software companies are going to produce most software under these two environments. It's where the market is going; UNIX will NEVER be an operating system for the common man. /I would love to see IBM, Intel and Microsoft to collapse, development /of computers would speed up a lot. Meanwhile, I try to find best /alternatives available, and as I'm using unix most of time, I don't /pay much attention to the processor, price is more important, what I /get for my bucks. :-) If IBM, Intel and Microsoft all "collapsed" it would make the Great Depression look like a picnic. Get real. The people who buy the most computers (corporations) are a lot more sophisticated than you are in their purchasing decisions. They consider factors such as reliability, service, support, vendor strength and stability and also price. Many of them have to worry about these things on a world-wide scale (not just in one city). They also have to consider connectivity, training costs, administrative costs and maintenance costs. This doesn't mean they always make the best decision, and they certainly don't always buy the most technically excellent systems (note the distinction). They tend to be conservative. They prefer to let someone else debug new technologies before they buy in to them. 'Let the pioneers get the arrows in their backs' is their attitude. A new technology cannot supersede an existing technology unless the benefits of change evidently (to those paying the bills) outweigh the costs of junking the old technology. This is the central point at issue. Apple has been having ever-increasing success in arguing the Mac is a technology sufficiently better than the PC to justify its adoption. The UNIX vendors have been successful with this argument in the minicomputer and high-end workstation market. They have not been successful in the personal computer market. Since UNIX's competition in this market is improving faster than UNIX is, it is VERY unlikely that the situation will change. --alan@pdn
dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) (02/03/88)
All this talk about IBM using Intel because they owned Intel is absurd!
This is from memory, and much may be apocriphal (spelling?), from the
time when I was working for a competitor of IBM's and both they and we
had not released a personal computer (I'm not counting the IBM 5100.)
I believe that IBM was working on what they considered to be a far better
personal computer but felt that they had to get into the market ASAP so
they would have a presence before their super-duper machine was ready.
They looked around and found a small company in {Texas, florida, Arizona,
New Mexico, someplace} which was selling a board with an 8088, memory,
serial ports, etc. and had CPM/86 running on it. IBM purchased this
board/design/company(?) and modified it, adding or modifying the expansion
slots (they may not have done this...) and adding the keyboard and video.
They created a package around this board with a power supply and did a
few other things, then marketed the machine, believing that they would
only sell a few thousand in the first year, when their own, much better,
non-Intel based machine would be ready. They were shocked at the response
to the IBM-PC. It became a monster. There were then stuck with it and
the Intel chips. Period.
At the same time, DEC introduced a PC based around the 808[86] and an
8085 (or was it a Z80) which ran both CPM/86 and CPM/80, was faster,
had higher disk density, was much more reliable, had better video than
the monochrome adaptor but was not expandable. This killed it.
The open buss architecture of the IBM-PC was not, I believe, IBM's
doing, but they benefited from it greatly.
The reason that IBM stays with the Intel chips now is simply that
the upgrade path must be maintained. If IBM were to introduce a
new machine which ran none of the binaries from the machine that
it was to replace, they would sell very, very few of them at first.
Now, with this all said and done, please move this discussion
out of the 68k newsgroup. It's taking over!
--
Nobody at the place where I work Daniel A. Glasser
knows anything about my opinions ...!ihnp4!chinet!dag
my postings, or me for that matter! ...!ihnp4!mwc!dag
...!ihnp4!mwc!gorgon!dag
One of those things that goes "BUMP!!! (ouch!)" in the night.stank@orca.TEK.COM (Stan Kalinowski) (02/03/88)
I don't want to get into the Intel vs Motorola holy wars, but I'd like to comment about 8088 emulation on the 68020. (By the way, my personal view on that Intel vs Motorola thing is this: A mature software engineer learns to exploit any hardware architecture to it's full advantage, it's up to the hardware engineers to provide an architecture that closly supports the application.) >In article <4227@utai.UUCP> tjhorton@ai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes: . . . >the 68k, which was one point in its favor. Contrary to what you >may have heard, the 68000 can not emulate an 8080 or 8086 at >anything approaching native speed. I'm told that the 68020 can, >but I have yet to see it demonstrated. The 68000 just isn't >significantly faster than the 8086 (look at 68000 benchmarks, >not 68020). Basically, I agree that a 68000 probably cannot emulate an 8086 without some sort of hardware assistance. Right now Tektronix offers an IBM PC emulator, called SoftPc, that runs on our new 43xx series 68020 workstations. Basically, an image of an IBM monitor pops up in an X window and you can type dos commands on the keyboard. The 43xx workstation employs a 20 Mhz 68020 and I'm told that the SoftPc emulator runs the PC magazine benchmarks just slightly faster than the 4.77 MHz PC. I don't know much about the internal workings of SoftPc so I can'c comment on the possibility of speeding it up. -- US Mail: Stan Kalinowski, Tektronix, Inc. Information Display Group, Graphics Workstations Division PO Box 1000, MS 61-028, Wilsonville OR 97070 Phone:(503)-685-2458 uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver}!tektronix!orca!stank
jesup@pawl5.pawl.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup) (02/03/88)
In article <1029@edge.UUCP> doug@edge.UUCP (Doug Pardee) writes: >"Sherman, set the Wayback machine for 1980, location: Boca Raton, Florida." >Here we find the designers of the PC trying to decide which CPU to use. ... >Motorola makes the 68000, but by company policy they won't sell them for >use in home computers. ... >The only real possibilities are the 8086 and Z-8000. The decision is made >easier because there's an 8-bit-bus version of the 8086 (the 8088). This >significantly reduces the number of other chips needed in the design -- >albeit at a definite reduction in performance on any 16-bit operations. ... >The point that most people miss when they berate IBM for having gone with >Intel is that the 68000 was *not* an available option at the time. A few >years later, Apple would get its foot in the door with the Lisa (not a home >computer), and then managed to pry the door wide open with the Macintosh. Hmmm. According to a friend of mine who worked at Boca at and after that time, there were 3 competing design teams. Of those three, one used the 8088, the other two used the 68000. The general opinion at Boca was that the 68000-based machines were much better, but that internal politics hurt them in the evaluation. Where does this "68000 is outlawed for home machines" come from, anyway? // Randell Jesup Lunge Software Development // Dedicated Amiga Programmer 13 Frear Ave, Troy, NY 12180 \\// beowulf!lunge!jesup@steinmetz.UUCP (518) 272-2942 \/ (uunet!steinmetz!beowulf!lunge!jesup) BIX: rjesup
croft@spked.UUCP (Steve Croft) (02/03/88)
Just a clarification on a point by Doug Parde... he stated that the 80286 wasn't even thought of when IBM came out with the PC... I can't state when the 286 work began, but do know from documentation that it was well into design by 1982... in fact, the design of the 386 began in 1982... I would assume that intel *was* working on the 286 at the time the PC came out... A working chip? Well, they're still working on it. steve
rod@cpocd2.UUCP (Rod Rebello) (02/03/88)
In article <2129@pdn.UUCP> larry@pdn.UUCP (0000-Larry Swift) writes: >You're both right. IBM did not own a majority of Intel, but owned (owns?) >a significant block of Intel's stock. IBM no longer owns any Intel stock.
exodus@uop.edu (G.Onufer) (02/04/88)
In article <2474@orca.TEK.COM>, stank@orca.TEK.COM (Stan Kalinowski) writes: ... > Basically, I agree that a 68000 probably cannot emulate an 8086 > without some sort of hardware assistance. Right now Tektronix offers ... Wanna bet? I have in front of me a beast named 'PC-ditto' for my Atari ST.... runs most IBM PC software about as fast as the original 4.77 MHz (?) PC did..... Off the path, but I also run CP/M software and Macintosh software on a regular basis. Oooops, a secret is out! :-) G. Onufer exodus@uop.edu
corey@svo.UUCP (Corey McCormick) (02/05/88)
In article <161@spked.UUCP> you write: > >Just a clarification on a point by Doug Parde... he stated that the 80286 >wasn't even thought of when IBM came out with the PC... > >I can't state when the 286 work began, but do know from documentation that >it was well into design by 1982... in fact, the design of the 386 began in >1982... I would assume that intel *was* working on the 286 at the time the >PC came out... > >steve For what it is worth, some people that were working for a couple of very large IBM accounts were told by IBM in '75-'76 that IBM had designed and built a computer with the same rough capabilities of an IBM 360 (model 60 I think, I've no idea what they are) ~1Mb addressable RAM, 64Kb segments, ala 8086/8. BTW, most posters of the '286 have a (C) 1982 on the mask... Corey
uhclem@trsvax.UUCP (02/05/88)
R33>/* Written 1:45 pm Feb 1, 1988 by edge.UUCP!doug in trsvax:comp.sys.m68k */ R33>Tons of way-back info deleted here... R33>Motorola makes the 68000, but by company policy they won't sell them for R33>use in home computers. R33>More stuff skipped.... R33>The point that most people miss when they berate IBM for having gone with R33>Intel is that the 68000 was *not* an available option at the time. A few R33>years later, Apple would get its foot in the door with the Lisa (not a home R33>computer), and then managed to pry the door wide open with the Macintosh. Uh, Remember the Tandy Model 16? Came out in early 1982? Designed in 1981 and sorta had a 68000 processor in it? You know, a personal computer? In 1985 its name got respelled and was called Tandy 6000? A lot of each of those suckers were sold. They were expensive, but at the time, their price was matched by an equivalent PC or early XT. Now how did Tandy manage to pry those 68000's out of Motorola if they were so dead set on keeping them out of the home market? And when did Mac get announced? Oh yes, during the Super Bowl in 1984. R33>Other than the 68000, what would *you* have designed in, hmmm? And remember R33>that this is supposed to be a low-cost home computer: the standard machine R33>has 16K of RAM, uses cassette tape for storage, and BASIC in ROM; for the R33>big-time user the mother-board can hold up to 64K of RAM and you can put R33>two single-sided 160KB floppy disk drives in the machine. All I can say is maybe IBM should have taken the hint from Radio Shack on what to do with the cassette storage. I actually know someone who bought the early IBM PC with the cassette port and no floppies. You could run, well, BASIC. He put an order in for a floppy drive after two days. Could it be that Tandy saw the 68000 as the next logical step above the Z-80? Perhaps too big a step, as they fell back to the 186, then to the 8088. <My opinion. I also like registers. I also like instructions that work in more than just one specific register. Even the IBM 370 without a stack was more regular than the average Letni. Perhaps a BALR is in order.> "Thank you, Uh Clem." Frank Durda IV @ <trsvax!uhclem> ...decvax!microsoft!trsvax!uhclem ...convex!infoswx!hal6000!trsvax!uhclem
jwhitnel@csi.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) (02/05/88)
In article <330@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> beowulf!lunge!jesup@steinmetz.UUCP writes: |In article <1029@edge.UUCP> doug@edge.UUCP (Doug Pardee) writes: |>"Sherman, set the Wayback machine for 1980, location: Boca Raton, Florida." "Yes, Mr. Peabody" :-) |>Here we find the designers of the PC trying to decide which CPU to use. |... |>Motorola makes the 68000, but by company policy they won't sell them for |>use in home computers. |... | ... | |Where does this "68000 is outlawed for home machines" come from, anyway? Most of the following is second hand from Hal Handeburg's (sp?) newsletter DTACK Grounded. This newsletter was published from late 79 to about two years ago and very pro-68000, but not always pro-Motorola. According to Hal (or FNE as he titled himself in the newsletter), Motorola's marketing was to position the 68000 as a PDP-11 killer and that it was too powerful and expensive for the home market. Since his company Digital Accoustics built a 68000 add-on board for the Apple // (remember this is around 1980) he had lots of dealings with the Morotola salespeople but very little help. Only when Intel started wiping the floor with Morotola due to the IBM PC did Motorola see the light. | // Randell Jesup Lunge Software Development Jerry Whitnell Been through Hell? Communication Solutions, Inc. What did you bring back for me? - A. Brilliant
ned@ghostwheel.UUCP (Ned Nowotny) (02/05/88)
In article <2753@omepd> hah@mipon3.UUCP (Hans Hansen) writes: >There is a fair article in the Jan issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal of Software >Tools: > > "The 68030 How good is it" > "Fair" is a bit too kind. For Dr. Dobbs Journal, the article was almost content free. Other than a general description of the separate instruction and data caches on chip, the article had very little to say about the processor. Instead, a significant portion of the article was devoted to the usual litany of benchmark inadequacies. However, no benchmarks were presented. Since the article was on a new processor and not on the trouble with benchmarks, the wasted column inches could have been better used to describe other enhancements over the rest of the 680XX family. In particular, a detailed look at the on chip memory management functions and how they differ from the facilities offered by the 68451 and the 68851 would have been appreciated. The most unfortunate part is that Tyler Sperry, the new managing (?) editor, was responsible for this article. Amazingly, a guest editorial replaced his monthly editorial because he was too busy with this "lead" article. I was developing a few doubts about DDJ before this, but now I am really concerned. Coupled with the recent changes at Byte, I'm afraid that the future of the computer-related popular press is MacWorld and a bevy of clones. Ackkkk!!! -- Ned Nowotny (ned@ghostwheel.aca.mcc.com.UUCP)
ned@ghostwheel.UUCP (Ned Nowotny) (02/05/88)
In article <9342@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@zephyrus.UUCP (william E Davidsen) writes: >In article <4227@utai.UUCP> tjhorton@ai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes: >> >>IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel. Considering that they >>owned the company, and the 802xx stuff was coming out around then, you >>think they would have looked at the specs and built the PC to move in > >I don't mind you expressing your opinion, but I do take offense >at presenting blatent lies as fact. IBM does not own Intel. IBM >never did own Intel. At one time they had a small block of Intel >stock (about 15% as I recall). > While the corrections are appreciated, please note that anything like a 15% share of a publicly traded corporation is not "small". IBM gained a considerable amount of clout over Intel with its acquisition of this block of stock. However, the stock was most likely purchased by IBM as an insurance policy for its PC line and not because of a desire to base all their microprocessor based products on Intel chips. In fact, the stock was purchased after the IBM PC was developed. -- Ned Nowotny (ned@ghostwheel.aca.mcc.com.UUCP)
gp@picuxa.UUCP (Greg Pasquariello X1190) (02/06/88)
In article <2129@pdn.UUCP>, larry@pdn.UUCP (Larry Swift) writes: > In article <462@picuxa.UUCP> gp@picuxa.UUCP (Greg Pasquariello X1190) writes: > >In article <4227@utai.UUCP>, tjhorton@utai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes: > >> IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel. > > > >Where do you people come from. IBM did _not_ own Intel. > > You're both right. IBM did not own a majority of Intel, but owned (owns?) > a significant block of Intel's stock. We are not both right. IBM began using the Intel stuff before they had any (financial) interest in Intel. After a while, IBM bought about 10 percent of Intel stock. Since then, I believe (although I'm not sure) that IBM has sold some or all of it's Intel stock. Greg Pasquariello ihnp4!picuxa!Tinman!gpasq
jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (02/06/88)
In article <161@spked.UUCP>, croft@spked.UUCP (Steve Croft) writes: > Just a clarification on a point by Doug Parde... he stated that the 80286 > wasn't even thought of when IBM came out with the PC... > > I can't state when the 286 work began, but do know from documentation that > it was well into design by 1982... in fact, the design of the 386 began in > 1982... I would assume that intel *was* working on the 286 at the time the > PC came out... Well, you're right. Unfortunately, this isn't too relevant: you must compare the chips available at the time the PC was being designed, not when it came out (despite what some PC-bashers on the net would like to believe, it wasn't rushed out the door in 6 months). The PC's basic design was set down in 1979, I believe. Certainly not later than 1980. Selecting a processor was one of the first decisions to be made, and was influenced primarily by two facts: 1) There was a mountain of CP/M software that could be fairly simply transported, and much more simply than it could have been ported to the 68000. This made it much more likely to get software support early on. 2) The 8086 family of chips was a complete set, that could be wired together to produce a complete machine. There were few-to-none support devices for the 68000 available. Needless to say, this was also true for the 286... -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC (@WB5BBW)...>splut!< | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD CI$: 71036,1603 uucp: {uunet!nuchat,academ!uhnix1,{ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1}!splut!jay Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. The opinions herein are shared by none of my cats, much less anyone else.
bownesrm@beowulf.UUCP ( Stowaway aboard the Long Shot) (02/06/88)
I don't know 'bout the rest of ya'll, but I'm getting mighty tired or reading the old IBM-does-Intel gossip in comp.sys.m68k. This is a newsgroup for discussion about the 68000 series processors, not the Intel/Motorola war. Please take it elsewhere gentlebeings. Bob Bownes, aka iii, aka captain comrade bob | Since I AM my employer, Function Consulting, Albany, New York, 12203 | I guess these opinions are (518)-482-8798 voice (518)-482-9228 (anon uucp) | those of my employer bownesrm@beowulf.uucp | my houseplants, and my TR-6.
Thomas_E_Zerucha@cup.portal.com (02/08/88)
I have an Atari ST and run PC Ditto which is an IBM PC Software emulator. It helps to have file compatibility between the ST and the PC. It runs slow, but not that much slower than a 4.77 Mhz PC (I would guess 20-70% of that speed) on my 8Mhz 68000 system. Graphics slow down a lot, but things that are compute intensive (PKXARC) run at a tolerable speed. It doesn't replace a PC (especially since the speeds are normally greater than 4.77 even on the cheap clones), but to run a few PC programs it is more than enough. Since this program should be available, I would suggest taking a look for yourself to see what can be done.
ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (02/08/88)
RE: 80386 and 680x0 Please PLEASE note: > > Disclaimer: I am not trying to start a my-computer-can-beat-your-computer > war. Please e-mail any resonses, I'll summarize is nececessary. > > Johan Larson watdragon.waterloo.edu We dont want to start that one all over again!
crds@ncoast.UUCP (Glenn A. Emelko) (02/09/88)
Yes, I too will verify that the 8086 can be emulated on the 68000 series -- I seem to recall the first notions of this coming from EE-Times in late 1986. I got a real warm feeling in my heart when I heard that someone had done this on a SUN workstation and were running MSDOS in a window (heheh was this the first implementation of Concurrent MSDOS? :-> :-> ). I had a great time showing my co-workers about this and chuckling at the ones who liked 80xx series stuff. No, that's not a flame -- I like 80xxx stuff too, it's just that I like 68xxx stuff better :->. Is anyone aware of 68xxx stuff being emulated on 80xxx processors? Glenn A. Emelko (crds@ncoast, or ...!ihnp4!cbosgd!mandrill!hal!ncoast!crds in bad weather)
ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) (02/09/88)
I used to be and Intel 8088/8086/80186/80286/80386 fan, but I got better. 68000 family forever !! Seriously folks, the 8088 was originally designed a a stepping stone chip for those users of old 8080 & 8085 stuff who wanted more performance without having to redesign equipment to accomodate a bus larger than 8 bits. The fact that IBM chose what was supposed to be only a replacement/upgrade chip to base an entire family of computers around boggles the mind. And unfortunately Intel chose to perpetuate all its errors thoughout the whole family of chips. This is nice for code designers, who can run their 8088 code on an 80386, but real unpleasent for hardware folks. Sigh. The comment that "Intel Architectures Build Character" is a quite succinct summation. Thank ghod I get to use real chips like the 68020 now. flames to /dev/null -- * Randy Martens @ rochester!kodak!elmgate!ram * "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike." * disclaimer : The preceeding represents only my random babbling, * and certainly reflects no one else's opinions. Fnord.
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (02/10/88)
Is source code available for PC Ditto? I'd like to run it on a 3B1/UNIX PC.
--
Peter Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334
Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (02/10/88)
In article <462@picuxa.UUCP>, gp@picuxa.UUCP (Greg Pasquariello X1190) writes: > In article <4227@utai.UUCP>, tjhorton@utai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes: > > IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel. > Where do you people come from. IBM did _not_ own Intel. For that matter IBM didn't design the IBM-PC. It burst fully fleshed from Zeus' head... uh... Seattle Computer Products. Anyone have the complete story on how the IBM-PC really came about. The original hardware and DOS came from the aforementioned company (modulo typos), but how close was the original IBM-PC to its predecessor? -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) (02/11/88)
In article <1446@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: | [...] | For that matter IBM didn't design the IBM-PC. It burst fully fleshed from Zeus' | head... uh... Seattle Computer Products. I don't believe that's correct. SCP wrote a CP/M lookalike called QDOS (quick and dirty operating system), supposedly done in less than a week by a resident hacker. I was a dealer for SCP at the time, and they never gave any indication of development other than S100. If someone has some hard facts to the contrary I'd like to see tham. Rumour need not apply. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (02/11/88)
In article <1446@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <462@picuxa.UUCP>, gp@picuxa.UUCP (Greg Pasquariello X1190) writes: >> In article <4227@utai.UUCP>, tjhorton@utai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes: >> > IBM used the 80xx stuff because they owned Intel. >> Where do you people come from. IBM did _not_ own Intel. > >For that matter IBM didn't design the IBM-PC. It burst fully fleshed from Zeus' >head... uh... Seattle Computer Products. Uh, you're going to get flamed for this one. This is completely false. MS-DOS originally came from SCP. jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (02/11/88)
In article <1446@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >For that matter IBM didn't design the IBM-PC. It burst fully fleshed from Zeus' >head... uh... Seattle Computer Products. Bad news. Bad information. Seattle Computer wrote the first version of what later became MS-DOS, but did NOT have anything to do with the design of the IBM PC. Seattle Computer's DOS (which I think, but am not certain, was called QDOS, for Quick DOS) was intended only to provide a CP/M-like interface to their 8086 computer, which I believe, but am again not certain, was an S-100 bus machine. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
mikewa@microsoft.UUCP (Mike Walma) (02/11/88)
In article <9498@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <1446@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >| [...] >| For that matter IBM didn't design the IBM-PC. It burst fully fleshed from Zeus' >| head... uh... Seattle Computer Products. > > I don't believe that's correct. SCP wrote a CP/M lookalike called QDOS >(quick and dirty operating system), supposedly done in less than a week >by a resident hacker. I was a dealer for SCP at the time, and they never >gave any indication of development other than S100. > > If someone has some hard facts to the contrary I'd like to see tham. >Rumour need not apply. >-- According to Gordon Letwin, long time software guru here at Microsoft, Microsoft bought the rights to something called SCP-DOS written by Tim Paterson at SCP, in or around August 1981. Microsoft used it as the basis of MS-DOS 1.0. Gordon descibes it as a CP/M-80 clone that ran on the 8088's. My reference for this is Gordon's new book, Inside OS/2. If people really need to know more, I suppose I could ask him for more info. Mike Walma Microsoft rarely shares my opinions.
croft@spked.UUCP (Steve Croft) (02/12/88)
In article <1446@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > For that matter IBM didn't design the IBM-PC. It burst fully fleshed > from Zeus' head... uh... Seattle Computer Products. Well, the way I heard SCP only did the DOS; the hardware was all Big Blue (according to "Fire in the Valley"... of course, they could be lying....)
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (02/14/88)
Accoding to some stuff I read recently, Microsoft bought the right to market qdos from Seattle Computer Products at the time that Microsoft was courted by IBM. At the time, the story has it, qdos was one of the few operating system products that would run on the 8086/8088. Digital Research made the unfortunate mistake of snubbing IBM, and Bill Gates had the great fortune and business acumen to be in the right place at the right time to win the IBM contract. Qdos eventually became IBM's DOS 1.0. It really was a pretty terrible operating system, that was not really much different form CP/M. 1.0 didn't even have a heirachical file structure. After Microsoft picked up qdos, they did the further development to add the heirarchical file system and all the goodies that we know and love/hate now. There was recently a law suit were Microsoft and SCP locked horns about who actually owned the rights to the current version of DOS / MS-DOS. SCP argued that they had retained rights to sell all future versions of DOS. Microsoft argued that Microsoft had expended great effort to improve the current releases of DOS and that the current releases were virtually different products, bearing only minor resemblance to version 1.0. I don't know how the suit turned out; I'd guess that Microsoft won, if not on moral grounds, at least on the fact they have more lawyers and $$$ than SCP. --Bill
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (02/18/88)
... davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > Current price for a small 80386 UNIX system is about $4k > for 2MB memory, UNIX runtime and C, 40MB hard drive, mono > display. I was unable to find a 68020 based system with a > similar configuration which is available for less than ~$5600 to > the end user. I didn't count discounts on either type of > machine. It's not UNIX, but it's at least a real operating system (as opposed to a glorified file server like MS-DOS: you can get a 68020 (and soon a 68030) Amiga system for significantly less than that. And you get pretty good PC graphics even by today's standards. > The 80386 allows running MS-DOS programs under UNIX. No > matter what your opinion of MS-DOS, there is a lot of good, > cheap, software available for it, and many people would rather > have the option than not. Witness that there are DOS cards for > the Amiga, ATT 7300, Sun, etc. There's also a lot of good, cheap, software for the Amiga out there that doesn't have to run in an emulation mode. And, as you said, if you really need it you can get it. Personally, I don't miss it. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.