levy@nsc.nsc.com (Jonathan Levy) (12/21/89)
In article <1168@cirrusl.UUCP> grenley@sunkist (George Grenley) writes: > >It's nice to see the activity level up in this group again. It's been >sooooo quiet for awhile. > .. followed by some very unprofessional BS.... I would strongly suggest that contributers to this newsgroup remain technical. I much prefer a quiet group over one that wastes readers' time with personal grudges. I hope this is the last of this subject. Jonathan >disclaimer: National isn't my employer anymore so I can now speak freely. p.s I have no longer any association with Mr. Grenley, so I can speak freely too.
grenley@sunkist.UUCP (George Grenley) (12/22/89)
In article <13471@nsc.nsc.com> levy@nsc.nsc.com.UUCP (Jonathan Levy) writes: >In article <1168@cirrusl.UUCP> grenley@sunkist (George Grenley) writes: >>It's nice to see the activity level up in this group again. It's been >>sooooo quiet for awhile. >.. followed by some very unprofessional BS.... >I would strongly suggest that contributers to this newsgroup remain >technical. I much prefer a quiet group over one that >wastes readers' time with personal grudges. I hope this is the last of >this subject. >Jonathan >>disclaimer: National isn't my employer anymore so I can now speak freely. >p.s >I have no longer any association with Mr. Grenley, so I can speak >freely too. Let me speak plainly and professionally, then, Mr Levy. Although there are a number of individuals at NSC who are competent, professional people, and hard-working individual contributors, the 32k division as a whole is terrible - mostly because of terrible management, which I believe lies largely with the aforementioned Dick Sanquini, although other higher-ups had a hand in running it into the ground as well. National's commitment to the 32k has been uneven and ragged. Ask the customers - Sequent, for instance, which switched to the '386 for their new model, after getting a 32032 out the door. Tektronix, which basically never could get them to work right. Frankly, any engineer who designs in any member of the 32k series is making a very serious mistake. Support is poor, period. Since leaving National (at National's request) I have encountered several 32k users who were very busy designing out their 32016, 32C016, and 32CG16, among others. I will not say who in this posting because in some cases the re-design is still underway, and so the info is confidential. Let me close by re-iterating my opening remark: Many of the engineers who do the design work, both chip, board, and software, are extremely bright, competent, hardworking individuals, and I count many of them as my friends (although, after this posting, I daresay they won't consider me the same way 8-) ). Nevertheless, a number of the managers at NSC just aren't that bright, I guess. Certainly the 32k is an also-ran in the CPU wars. Perhaps we should have a vote? How many people think NSC's engineers are stupid? How many think the management is stupid? How many think everyone there is brilliant but incredibly unlucky? Regards, George Grenley Cirrus Logic, Inc.
johnt@opus.WV.TEK.COM (John Theus;685-2564;61-183;625-6654;hammer) (12/23/89)
In article <1192@cirrusl.UUCP> grenley@sunkist (George Grenley) writes: > >National's commitment to the 32k has been uneven and ragged. Ask the >customers - Sequent, for instance, which switched to the '386 for their >new model, after getting a 32032 out the door. Tektronix, which basically >never could get them to work right. > Well Mr. Grenley, its obvious that you never talked to this NSC customer since your knowledge of the facts is wrong. I was the hardware project leader for the 32032-based workstation. Following that project, I was the hardware project leader for a faster second generation 32016 workstation; someone else did the first generation 32016 box. Just to make it perfectly clear, there would not have been a second generation product if the first generation products had not worked. I'm typing this article on my 32032 box which has been my home workstation since it was build about 5 years ago. Now this is not to say that we didn't have problems getting the silicon to work reliably back then, but NSC and we worked through them. I've worked with several new processors over the years, the latest being an 88k design that we starting shipping several months ago, and in every case we've had trouble with the silicon. That's just part of trying to be one of the first to use a new chip. As for NSC being uneven and ragged, show a major cpu vendor that hasn't been at one time or another. I've had complaints for everyone of them. Finally, the other fact you ignored is besides building a 386-based box, Sequent upgraded their 32032 box to the 32532. John Theus johnt@opus.wv.tek.com Futurebus+ Parallel Protocol Coordinator Tektronix, Inc. Interactive Technologies Div. - shipping the Futurebus-based XD88 workstations
grenley@sunkist.UUCP (George Grenley) (12/30/89)
In article <279@leia.WV.TEK.COM> johnt@opus.WV.TEK.COM (John Theus) writes: >In article <1192@cirrusl.UUCP> grenley@sunkist (George Grenley) writes: >>National's commitment to the 32k has been uneven and ragged. Ask the >>customers - Sequent, for instance, which switched to the '386 for their >>new model, after getting a 32032 out the door. Tektronix, which basically >>never could get them to work right. >Well Mr. Grenley, its obvious that you never talked to this NSC customer >since your knowledge of the facts is wrong. Actualy, I've had a number of productive conversations with Opus, and their 32k stuff works well. I own a 32032 based unix board for my PC. >I was the hardware project >leader for the 32032-based workstation. Following that project, I was >the hardware project leader for a faster second generation 32016 workstation; >someone else did the first generation 32016 box. >Just to make it perfectly clear, there would not have been a second >generation product if the first generation products had not worked. I'm >typing this article on my 32032 box which has been my home workstation >since it was build about 5 years ago. >Now this is not to say that we didn't have problems getting the silicon to >work reliably back then, but NSC and we worked through them. I've worked >with several new processors over the years, the latest being an 88k >design that we starting shipping several months ago, and in every case >we've had trouble with the silicon. That's just part of trying to be one >of the first to use a new chip. >As for NSC being uneven and ragged, show a major cpu vendor that hasn't >been at one time or another. I've had complaints for everyone of them. >Finally, the other fact you ignored is besides building a 386-based box, >Sequent upgraded their 32032 box to the 32532. Yes, they reversed their position on this when Siemens, which OEMs Sequnet boxes in Europe, asked them to continue the line. Although I'm sure SEquent won't say so in so many words, though, the reason they built a '532 box was 'cuz Siemens made them, more or less. John, I'm curious about a couple of things. One, is Opus still selling the '532 board? I assume so. Two, are you planning a "732" (or whatever NSC calls the follow-on to the '532) board? Three, how did you work around the problem where the '532 hangs if you write a floating point number across a page boundary, and you fault on the second page? The '532 hangs on this condition, I believe - but I may be incorrect on this. >John Theus johnt@opus.wv.tek.com >Futurebus+ Parallel Protocol Coordinator >Tektronix, Inc. >Interactive Technologies Div. - shipping the Futurebus-based XD88 workstations