eeproks@pyr.gatech.EDU (Ken Seefried iii) (07/19/87)
In article <1467@tekchips.TEK.COM> jans@tekchips.TEK.COM (Jan Steinman) writes: <grenley@nsc.nsc.com (George Grenley) writes, quotes: <>In <10192@amdahl.amdahl.com> chongo@amdahl.UUCP (Landon Curt Noll) writes: <><>In article <4399@nsc.nsc.com> roger@nsc.nsc.com (Roger Thompson) writes: <><>When IBM was out searching for a micro, our CPU was stable... <><I seem to recall a LONG LONG road from the Rev E 16032 (that could almost <><keep a Un*x kernel running) to a Rev R (that is almost bug free)... <>Landon, I guess we all know by now that you're not too fond of NSC... < <I think either Landon has too much time on his hands, or he's just a <National-baiter. Why else would someone spend valuable working hours reading a <newsgroup devoted to a processor they hate? < <It would be nice to see some serious discussion for a change. I resent this! If there was a problem with earlier revs of the 16032, then why should this not be pointed out? Is this group only around to toot NS's horn, or is it a forum for a technical discussion of the chips, for good and bad. Is it a heresy to dare speak ill of a National chip? No chip is perfect, many are far from it, and it is perfectly legitimate to point out deficiences. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- K. J. Seefried iii P.O. Box 30104, Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!gitpyr!eeproks \-!gatech!gt-stratus!ken
johnw@astroatc.UUCP (John F. Wardale) (07/23/87)
>not be pointed out? Is this group only around to toot NS's horn, or is it >a forum for a technical discussion of the chips, for good and bad. Is it a The later, but its clearly aimed at the present and future...no need to unduly rub NSC's nose in what was "growing pains" if such alledged problems did exist. Enuf history junk already! (CRT-memory too!) John W astroatc!johnw@rsch.wisc.edu || ...lots...!uwvax!astroatc!johnw To err is human, to really foul up world news requires the net!
grenley@nsc.nsc.com (George Grenley) (07/23/87)
In article <3825@pyr.gatech.EDU> eeproks@pyr.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes: (much debate among me, landon, et. al. deleted) >I resent this! I don't blame you. I'm an engineer here at NSC. Roger Thompson, who also posts frequently to this group, used to be an engineer, and is now in the architecture group. We're not NSC's PR agency (we have Regis McKenna for that) > >If there was a problem with earlier revs of the 16032, then why should this >not be pointed out? Is this group only around to toot NS's horn, or is it >a forum for a technical discussion of the chips, for good and bad. Is it a >heresy to dare speak ill of a National chip? PROBLEMS should be pointed out. Mere pissing on the chip, though, isn't informed discussion of problems. It's name-calling. I want to see intelligent discussion about 32xxx in this group. Let the debate on which chip is better reside in comp.arch, where it belongs. I don't feel that this group is a place for non-32xxx advocates to take pot-shots. In that vein, I have an offer to make. I'd like to see some short C or assembly language programs that readers think make interesting bench- marks. Please mail them to me @ grenley@nsc. I want to run them on some systems as a test, I will not be distributing them or anything. More later. thanks, George