kirchner@uklirb (04/21/88)
Sorry to use this puplic place, but I tried to send mail to Mr. Robert Michael Owens from Pennsylvania State Univ., but both addresses psuvax1!owens@unido ( psuvax1 not known at unido ) owens@cs.psuvax1.psu.edu ( expanded to 'owens%cs.psuvax1.psu.edu%ira.uka.de@RELAY.CS.NET' , could not be parsed at psuvax1 ) did not work. Please give me a better uucp-path ! Now to the puplic: In a recent note the commercial risks are listed. Among them is the Pyramid 9000. THIS IS CLEARLY NOT A RISC! (^ typical freudian misspelling ). I have seen the instruction set ref.manual, but I am not allowed to tell more. they want to keep their instruction set secret. R. Kirchner, Univ. Kaiserslautern
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (04/23/88)
In article <1600003@uklirb.UUCP> kirchner@uklirb writes: >In a recent note the commercial risks are listed. Among them is the Pyramid >9000. THIS IS CLEARLY NOT A RISC! (^ typical freudian misspelling ). A rather dogmatic statement, wouldn't you say? Whether or not the Pyramid 9000 is a RISC processor has been debated extensively in this newsgroup, and I just posted a brief summary a few days ago. I've had some lively discussions with people on both sides of the issue. If the Pyramid is "clearly" not a RISC, then I'd think people who knew the architecture inside and out would come to some kind of consensus. They haven't. The best observation came from John Mashey: "The Pyramid 90x is on the RISCy side of CISC, or the CISCy side of RISC." From Pyramid's marketing department: "...based on a few fundementals RISC theory," and "commercial RISC," which are sufficiently ambigious to mean anything you want. :-) The most important issue is whether Pyramid's archictecture has contributed to the present state of RISC theory. I'd say it has. <csg>