[comp.sys.nsc.32k] '532 wishlist votes

scwilk@sdrc.UUCP (Ken Wilkinson) (03/24/88)

Subject number 1:

   Ok folks, its been a few weeks since I posted a message suggesting
   that we get off our duffs and design a computer based on the '532.

   Given the OVERWHELMING RESPONSE  of  THREE people :-} I am posting
   the results:



>In article <235@sdrc.UUCP> I wrote:
>     o   IBM PC/AT  system board replacement, uses present PC cheap 
>         and availble parts for enclosure , HD and graphics contrlr etc.
>
>     o   Classic SBC design with SCSI on board memory. Uses a terminal.
>
>     o   Above with AT type (EGA?) graphics controller chip set.
>
>     o   design a SBC but have slots for expansion.
>
>

      2 -   votes for IBM PC/AT system board replacement.
      1 -   vote for SBC with SCSI.

>Software:
>
>     o   REAL UN*X (BSD, SYS V) 
>
>     o   MINIX                      (yecchhh, sorry :) )
>
>     o   MACH
>
>     o   Other PD OS                (check out os.research)


      2  - votes for BSD Un*x.
      1  - vote for Sys V.

> 
>     I have a friend who is a dedicated hacker and owns a business
>     with the ablility to make PCB's from schematics.  I would be 
>     willing to help translate a schematic to artwork if others are
>     will to help design it.  Any takers?                  
> 

      ONLY 1 person was willing to help!  (typical)
      Thanks Scott. What are your skills?


      If anyone else is interested, you may still vote, just email
      responses to <uunet!sdrc!scwilk>

     
Subject number 2:

      I see that a replacement for the NCR SCSI chip which promises
      twice the performance is available. Anyone know anything about
      it? Suppose to be plug compatable...

herder@myab.UUCP (Jan Herder) (03/29/88)

In article <249@sdrc.UUCP> scwilk@sdrc.UUCP (Ken Wilkinson) writes:
>Subject number 2:
>
>      I see that a replacement for the NCR SCSI chip which promises
>      twice the performance is available. Anyone know anything about
>      it? Suppose to be plug compatable...

	I suppose that you are speaking of L5380 made by Logic Devices.
It's better than NCR5380 but not much since the 5380 suffers from severe
brain damage from the beginning. The high speed version is a 48 pin CMOS 
variant that is plug compatible with NCR5380 CMOS. Since the non CMOS
variant is a 40 pin chip it's not plug compatable with itself.

	Stay away from 5380 chip it's impossible to implement full
SCSI with it. Full SCSI means disconnect, multiple host's and function
as initiator and target at the same time. The Western Digital WD33C93
is a much better choice.

pekka@prefix.liu.se (Pekka Akselin [The Mad Midnight Hacker]) (03/31/88)

In article <352@myab.UUCP> herder@myab.UUCP (Jan Herder) writes:
>	Stay away from 5380 chip it's impossible to implement full
>SCSI with it. Full SCSI means disconnect, multiple host's and function
>as initiator and target at the same time. The Western Digital WD33C93
>is a much better choice.

I agree on that. I've looked on both for a project here, and I found
that the WD33C93 was (is) a better choice. The project was (was) building
a 32332 based UNIX machine but the project hardly even started. I was one
of the adminstrators for that project but when I've got a 32 bitter of
my own I leaved the project.

The project was a great one! It was called 'Isabella' after the day it was
started. I'm very sorry that it wasn't finished (if I have to be honest
I have to say that the project is emerging but slowly).

	/pekka

[...The Mad Midnight Hacker Strikes Again...]
______________________________________________________________________________
pak@ida.liu.se                                   ...!uunet!enea!liuida!ida!pak
Pekka Akselin, Univ. of Linkoping, Sweden (The Land Of The Midnight Hacker 8-)

Bus error (core dumped)