cch@sei.cmu.edu (Clifford Huff) (11/11/86)
In article <47@nikhefk.UUCP> henkp@nikhefk.uucp (Henk Peek) writes: >Where can I get a the current futurebus and NuBus "work" standards. >I have only an old futurebus concept. Are there differences between >the TI-NuBus and MIT-Nubus? > You can find out more infomation about the proposed IEEE P1196 standard (NuBus), by contacting one of the following sources of infomation: Secretary, IEEE Standards Board 345 E. 47th St. New York, NY 10017 IEEE Computer Society 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (714) 821--8380 IEEE Service Center 445 Hoes Lane Piscataway, NJ 08854 (201) 981-1393 This information was extracted from a recent article in IEEE Spectrum Oct 86, "A Framework For Computer Design", which dealt with the topic of buses and bus standards. The article listed all present and proposed IEEE bus standards along with a short description of their typical uses. The article has the following comments about the following buses: NuBus IEEE P1196 "High performance microprocessor bus with simple protocols independent of processors and manufacturers" Typical use: "Lean multiple microprocessor systems" Originators: MIT and Texas Instruments Other Comments about NuBus in article: "Another next-generation bus, Nubus (IEEE P1196), was sponsored for standardization by Texas Instruments. It is another high- performance bus designed to be processor-independent, based in part on its simplicity. It has so many features in common with Mulitbus II that a merger of the two standards was proposed at one time. However, Nubus has a leaner protocol that Multibus II. In contrast to the subsystem philosophy of both Intel and Motorola, Nubus has no associated memory, I/O, or serial buses. It thus has a certain appeal to potential users who favor a stripped-down approach to multiprocessing." VME IEEE P1014 "Popluar system bus initially conceived to support the Motorola 68000 processor family" Typical use: "High-end microprocessor systems" Originator: Motorola Multibus IEEE 796 "Widely used microprocessor system bus supporting Intel and other processors" Typical use: "Mid-range microprocessor systems" Originator: Intel Multibus II IEEE P1296 "High-performance microprocessor system bus" Typical use: "High-end multiple processor systems" Originator: Intel Futurebus IEEE P896 "Very high-performance system bus independent of processors and manufacturers." Typical use: "Top-end multiple microprocessor systems" Originator: IEEE ->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> :) Concerning the next generation of slotted-Macintoshes, the 27 Oct issue of InfoWorld in 'Notes from the Field' had these rumors and comments: It is reported that the slotted-Mac will have at least 6 Nubus slots, but some versions may have a dozen. (Yes) Apple has made provisions for a MS-DOS card that uses an Intel 80286 that will run DOS as a task. (I understand that this is being done in cooperation with the same people who provide the Phoneix BIOS.) The slotted-Mac will run either the Mac operating system or a version of Unix System V with Berkeley 4.2 BSD extensions. With Unix, they'll throw in C, Fortran-77, and Assembler and make MPW Pascal an option. Infoworld also reports that slotted-Mac won't appear until March 86. Three months later, Apple would fix the slotted-Mac so it can do multitasking with the Mac operating system running under Unix. The article goes on to say the Mac would use a 25-MHz 68020 with 68881 floating point coprocessor. The Mac would also use a special memory management chip (MMU) to make multitasking operate faster than if it was done by the 68020. Regarding displays, Infoworld reports Apple will sell two displays initially, both with 680 by 480 pixel resolution. One will be a 12-inch monochrome monitor and the other a 13-inch color monitor. At introduction will be a special video card for driving the displays in true gray scale. Later, they'll move up to a pair of 19-inch monitors, one monochrome and the other color. So there is the latest from Infoworld regarding the next generations of Mac's... ____ ______ _____ _____===== Cliff Huff / __ \ | _____| |_ _| _____========= cch@sei.cmu.edu | |__|_| | |__ | | _____============= Software Eng. Institue _\___ \ | __| | | _____================= Carnegie-Mellon Univ. | |__| | | |____ _| |_ _____============= Pittsburgh, PA 15213 \____/ |______| |_____| _____========= (412) 268-6382 -----===== C a r n e g i e - M e l l o n U n i v e r s i t y
cch@sei.cmu.edu (Clifford Huff) (11/11/86)
For people interested in the Nubus, you can find out more infomation about the proposed IEEE P1196 standard (NuBus), by contacting one of the following sources of infomation: Secretary, IEEE Standards Board 345 E. 47th St. New York, NY 10017 IEEE Computer Society 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (714) 821--8380 IEEE Service Center 445 Hoes Lane Piscataway, NJ 08854 (201) 981-1393 This information was extracted from a recent article in IEEE Spectrum Oct 86, "A Framework For Computer Design", which dealt with the topic of buses and bus standards. The article listed all present and proposed IEEE bus standards along with a short description of their typical uses. The article has the following comments about the following buses: NuBus IEEE P1196 "High performance microprocessor bus with simple protocols independent of processors and manufacturers" Typical use: "Lean multiple microprocessor systems" Originators: MIT and Texas Instruments Other Comments about NuBus in article: "Another next-generation bus, Nubus (IEEE P1196), was sponsored for standardization by Texas Instruments. It is another high- performance bus designed to be processor-independent, based in part on its simplicity. It has so many features in common with Mulitbus II that a merger of the two standards was proposed at one time. However, Nubus has a leaner protocol that Multibus II. In contrast to the subsystem philosophy of both Intel and Motorola, Nubus has no associated memory, I/O, or serial buses. It thus has a certain appeal to potential users who favor a stripped-down approach to multiprocessing." VME IEEE P1014 "Popluar system bus initially conceived to support the Motorola 68000 processor family" Typical use: "High-end microprocessor systems" Originator: Motorola Multibus IEEE 796 "Widely used microprocessor system bus supporting Intel and other processors" Typical use: "Mid-range microprocessor systems" Originator: Intel Multibus II IEEE P1296 "High-performance microprocessor system bus" Typical use: "High-end multiple processor systems" Originator: Intel Futurebus IEEE P896 "Very high-performance system bus independent of processors and manufacturers." Typical use: "Top-end multiple microprocessor systems" Originator: IEEE :) Concerning the next generation of slotted-Macintoshes, the 27 Oct issue of InfoWorld in 'Notes from the Field' had these rumors and comments: It is reported that the slotted-Mac will have at least 6 Nubus slots, but some versions may have a dozen. (Yes) Apple has made provisions for a MS-DOS card that uses an Intel 80286 that will run DOS as a task. (I understand that this is being done in cooperation with the same people who provide the Phoneix BIOS.) The slotted-Mac will run either the Mac operating system or a version of Unix System V with Berkeley 4.2 BSD extensions. With Unix, they'll throw in C, Fortran-77, and Assembler and make MPW Pascal an option. Infoworld also reports that slotted-Mac won't appear until March 86. Three months later, Apple would fix the slotted-Mac so it can do multitasking with the Mac operating system running under Unix. The article goes on to say the Mac would use a 25-MHz 68020 with 68881 floating point coprocessor. The Mac would also use a special memory management chip (MMU) to make multitasking operate faster than if it was done by the 68020. Regarding displays, Infoworld reports Apple will sell two displays initially, both with 680 by 480 pixel resolution. One will be a 12-inch monochrome monitor and the other a 13-inch color monitor. At introduction will be a special video card for driving the displays in true gray scale. Later, they'll move up to a pair of 19-inch monitors, one monochrome and the other color. So there is the latest from Infoworld regarding the next generations of Mac's... ____ ______ _____ _____===== Cliff Huff / __ \ | _____| |_ _| _____========= cch@sei.cmu.edu | |__|_| | |__ | | _____============= Software Eng. Institue _\___ \ | __| | | _____================= Carnegie-Mellon Univ. | |__| | | |____ _| |_ _____============= Pittsburgh, PA 15213 \____/ |______| |_____| _____========= (412) 268-6382 -----===== C a r n e g i e - M e l l o n U n i v e r s i t y
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (11/11/86)
In article <7310@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > The genesis of the Mac's closed-box philosophy can be traced back to an > Apple internal paper, published a few years ago in one of the ACM SIG > publications, titled something like "Making a million computers a year". Another must-read paper for anybody interested in MacHistory: %T Design case history: Apple's Macintosh %A Fred Guterl %J IEEE Spectrum %V 21 %N 12 %P 34-43 %D December 1984 The design trade-offs are staggering. Why not extra RAM or a second floppy drive? Too much heat to survive without a cooling fan. Have to save on PCB real estate? Make the video circuitry do double duty as the sound generator during the vertical retrace. Why no parallel interface? Because the serial interfaces are almost as fast and are a lot easier to shield to meet FCC specs. Read the paper. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 "you can't spell unix without deoxyribonucleic!"
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (11/12/86)
I just read Cliff's posting with the quotes from the magazine article about the various busses. From what knowledge I have, I have some doubts about the quality of the article and I would like to hear what other more knowledgeable people could say about it. What stuck out in my mind was the blurb on VME. It said that VME was a Motorola bus. VME has been heavily promoted by Motorola but it is *not* a Motorola bus. It is intended to be a generallized design. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura (416) 652-3880
tomk@intsc.UUCP (Tom Kohrs) (11/13/86)
In article <1381@lsuc.UUCP James Omura writes: > It said that VME > was a Motorola bus. VME has been heavily promoted by Motorola but > it is *not* a Motorola bus. It is intended to be a generallized > design. What ever Motorola may have told the public, VME is not a generalized bus. All of the control signals and timings are direct extensions of 68000 processor. You might be able to consider VME as a non-Mot product much like the 68K is no longer a Motorola product. If you think the VME architecture is generalized talk to someone that has tried to put a non-68K engine on the bus, it is not trivial. -- ------ "Ever notice how your mental image of someone you've known only by phone turns out to be wrong? And on a computer net you don't even have a voice..." tomk@intsc.UUCP Tom Kohrs Regional Architecture Specialist Intel - Santa Clara
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (11/14/86)
In article <401@intsc.UUCP>, tomk@intsc.UUCP (Tom Kohrs) writes: > If you think the VME > architecture is generalized talk to someone that has tried to put a non-68K > engine on the bus, it is not trivial. Who ever claimed that commercial computer design is trivial? I appreciate that it is harder to put a non-68K on a VMEbus. I'm wondering if Tom has ever built Multibus systems out of 68K's. (For the uninitiated, Tom works at Intel, and the Multibus was an 8080 bus, subsequently revised for 8086's.) Byte order was a constant hassle (the Tapemaster Multibus tape controller STILL requires the Sun driver to byte-swap ALL THE DATA going to or from the drive, precluding streaming). You can make a good, saleable system using a "non native" bus though -- we did. We could all live with a bus that was hard for EVERYBODY to interface to, but why bother? I'd rather it be easy for at least ONE major chip to interface to... -- John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa "I can't think of a better way for the War Dept to spend money than to subsidize the education of teenage system hackers by creating the Arpanet."
berger@datacube.UUCP (11/14/86)
You can purchase VME cards with 80286 80386 and Dec J-11 chips on them.
Though I don't know why you would want to use them :!).
But seriously folks, why would Apple choose the Nu bus. There are no
existing add on products for it. There are over 2000 products for the VME...
Bob Berger
Datacube Inc. 4 Dearborn Rd. Peabody, Ma 01960 617-535-6644
ihnp4!datacube!berger
{seismo,cbosgd,cuae2,mit-eddie}!mirror!datacube!bergergeorge@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) (11/15/86)
Flame on... In article <401@intsc.UUCP> tomk@intsc.UUCP (Tom Kohrs) writes: >What ever Motorola may have told the public, VME is not a generalized bus. >All of the control signals and timings are direct extensions of 68000 >processor. You might be able to consider VME as a non-Mot product much >like the 68K is no longer a Motorola product. If you think the VME >architecture is generalized talk to someone that has tried to put a non-68K >engine on the bus, it is not trivial. In the spirit in which you requested that Motorola propaganda be kept out of comp.sys.intel, may I also request that you (and your buddies) keep the equivalent Intel bullshit out this newsgroup? One might also ask why Sun, not only dropped Multibus but why they never used Intel processors. Flame off. -- Regards, George Hart, Computer X Canada Ltd. UUCP: utzoo >!mnetor!george seismo BELL: (416)475-8980
jkg@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Jim Greenlee) (11/15/86)
In article <3818@mnetor.UUCP> george@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) writes: >In article <401@intsc.UUCP> tomk@intsc.UUCP (Tom Kohrs) writes: >>What ever Motorola may have told the public, VME is not a generalized bus. >>All of the control signals and timings are direct extensions of 68000 >>processor. You might be able to consider VME as a non-Mot product much >>like the 68K is no longer a Motorola product. If you think the VME >>architecture is generalized talk to someone that has tried to put a non-68K >>engine on the bus, it is not trivial. > >In the spirit in which you requested that Motorola propaganda be kept >out of comp.sys.intel, may I also request that you (and your buddies) >keep the equivalent Intel bullshit out this newsgroup? > Forgive me for sticking my big nose in where it is probably not wanted (I am generally just a passive observer of this newsgroup), but I don't see the "I" word mentioned anywhere in this posting. It looks to me like Tom is making a simple (probably true) statement about the usability of VME for architectures other than Motorola's. There are manufacturers of other microprocessors besides Motorola and the other guys, you know :-) I think your tone and language may be a little strong for what is probably a fair assessment of VME, or for that matter, ANY non-general microprocessor bus. BTW, what are you doing reading comp.sys.intel anyway? :-) Jim Greenlee -- The Shadow...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!jkg Abj lbh'ir tbar naq qbar vg! Whfg unq gb xrrc svqqyvat jvgu vg hagvy lbh oebxr vg, qvqa'g lbh?!
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (11/15/86)
In article <401@intsc.UUCP> tomk@intsc.UUCP (Tom Kohrs) writes: >In article <1381@lsuc.UUCP James Omura writes: >> It said that VME >> was a Motorola bus. VME has been heavily promoted by Motorola but >> it is *not* a Motorola bus. It is intended to be a generallized >> design. > >What ever Motorola may have told the public, VME is not a generalized bus. >All of the control signals and timings are direct extensions of 68000 >processor. You might be able to consider VME as a non-Mot product much >like the 68K is no longer a Motorola product. If you think the VME >architecture is generalized talk to someone that has tried to put a non-68K >engine on the bus, it is not trivial. I think we're not looking at the problem the same way. As such I think I'm not in disagreement with you or the original article anymore. In terms of buss signals I expect you're right (I'm not going to bother checking). I was looking at it from the historical development. It was developed out of a consensus of primarily European users with Motorola "input" into the design process. The asynch nature of the bus was in part to accomodate differences in technology. As I understand it, it's hard to design an asych card no matter what technology, so 68K specific signals aside, asking someone who has tried to make an Intel product based card for such a system is going to produce negative responses. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- Jim Omura 2A King George's Drive, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura (416) 652-3880
george@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) (11/18/86)
In article <2636@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> jkg@gitpyr.UUCP (Jim Greenlee) writes: >Forgive me for sticking my big nose in where it is probably not wanted (I >am generally just a passive observer of this newsgroup), but I don't see >the "I" word mentioned anywhere in this posting. It looks to me like Tom >is making a simple (probably true) statement about the usability of VME >for architectures other than Motorola's. There are manufacturers of other >microprocessors besides Motorola and the other guys, you know :-) I heard a rumor about that :-). >I think your tone and language may be a little strong for what is probably a >fair assessment of VME, or for that matter, ANY non-general microprocessor bus. I apologize for the language. As for the tone, it was antagonistic but no less so than the original comp.sys.intel posting. I'm not sure that I agree that with your assessment of the VMEbus as a non-general bus. What are your criteria for classification? For that matter, I would like to see Tom back up his assessment as well. If he had done so originally, the discussion would have continued on a (much more desirable) technical level. >BTW, what are you doing reading comp.sys.intel anyway? :-) A moment of weakness :-) -- Regards, George Hart, Computer X Canada Ltd. UUCP: utzoo >!mnetor!george seismo BELL: (416)475-8980
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (11/18/86)
In article <1283@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > subsequently revised for 8086's.) Byte order was a constant hassle (the > Tapemaster Multibus tape controller STILL requires the Sun driver to > byte-swap ALL THE DATA going to or from the drive, precluding > streaming). Why doesn't Sun use the Tapemaster-A, which will do the byte swapping by itself? -- emordnilapanalpanama Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim Compuserve: 72257,3706 Delphi or GEnie: mnementh
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (11/20/86)
In article <4523@ism780c.UUCP>, tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: > Why doesn't Sun use the Tapemaster-A, which will do the byte swapping > by itself? Perhaps by now they do. I know they leaned on Tapemaster for years to get this solved. The point remains that using big endian byte order on the Multibus was a hassle, though the market eventually moved to make it easier. I presume that if enough people build little endian VMEbus systems, the same thing will happen to VMEbus peripherals. -- John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa "I can't think of a better way for the War Dept to spend money than to subsidize the education of teenage system hackers by creating the Arpanet."
stevel@dartvax.UUCP (Steve Ligett) (11/25/86)
In article <105700001@datacube> berger@datacube.UUCP writes: >But seriously folks, why would Apple choose the Nu bus. There are no >existing add on products for it. There are over 2000 products for the VME... From what I know of Apple, whether or not there are add-on products might not be a factor in choosing a bus, or what you see as a negative, they might see as a positive. disclaimer - I don't know what bus Apple will use. -- Steve Ligett stevel@dartmouth.edu or (astrovax cornell decvax harvard ihnp4 linus true)!dartvax!stevel