nathan@orstcs.UUCP (nathan) (02/02/86)
IBM's RT-PC: first impressions I went to a demo of IBM's new supermicro, the RT (RISC Technology, i guess). They seem to be trying to change the name from PC-RT to RT-PC for typically mealy-mouthed reasons. They have two operating systems for it: one System V and the other BSD4.2. The V port was done by ISC, who did PC-IX and the mainframe ports: it's described as V.1 with Release 2 and 4.2 enhancements (whatever that means). It does seem to have paged virtual memory. The BSD port was apparently done by Berkeley, MIT, and/or Carnegie-Mellon. It seems fairly vanilla. One or both OS's has loadable device drivers. There is no OS window support in evidence, and the system V port doesn't seem to have jobs control. No Version-8'isms are in evidence. Only one compiler (C) comes standard; they sell an F77 for ~$1000, and Pascal and BASIC (guaranteed identical to PC versions!). There's a sleazeball command called "dos" that makes the shell look like PCDOS (del for rm, dir for ls, etc.) They also have a "menu shell" in the works, which should be amusing enough to try before discarding. They promised to publish protocols for writing one's own installable device drivers: expect to see somebody's window shell on it shortly. Hardware: 32-bit semi-RISC pipelined/cached processor (50K devices on-chip) with a separate paged-MMU (60K devices) providing 40-bit virtual address space. No indication of how the extra 8 bits of address are handled. Runs at about 68020 speed. Memory: minimum, 1 Meg; max, 4 Meg but you have to figure out what to do with the 1 Meg card it comes with, as memory additions come in 2Meg chunks and there's only room for two memory cards. It uses a PC-AT peripheral bus (it's not clear whether memory rides there too) where disk controllers, graphics boards, and network interfaces go. Standard display is a monochrome 512x768 pixel (they call them PELs!?); optional is a color board, same resolution but displays 16 of 64 colors. They have a bunch of other options, the higher-end ones actually attached graphics processors. The high-end CAD stuff requires a separate workstation processor to do 3D rotates, etc. You can also use a PC-AT EGA, which is necessary to run graphic programs on the... Optional i286 coprocessor. Compatible enough with the AT to run MS Flight Simulator, according to an IBM honcho. It has a socket for '287, and up to 1 Meg of RAM (apparently independent of RT memory). A DOS/program runs on the 286 as a subtask under Unix on the main processor. No windows, but you can flip back and forth from DOS screen to Unix (er, AIX) screen. Floating point performance with no FP accelerator is about as fast as an AT with a '287. With the FP board ($850), they say it's faster... I suppose I can believe that without proof. Disks offered are 4OM and 70M. The cheap box only holds one drive, the spendy one can have three for up to 210M of disk. If you add a serial expander you can connect *up to* 7 other users. (Apparently a Bell licensing restriction). There are some built-in serial ports for such as the mouse (2-button, rollerball), printers, etc. Ethernet ports can be had, and they say they're doing MAP drivers. Documentation: This is where the big surprise is. One can understand IBM rewriting Bell's manuals. The surprise is that they made the manuals readable, and understandable -- with little diagrams explaining inodes and links, and what fsck does. A readable Unix manual is inexplicable enough, but a readable IBM manual is shocking. Pricing: high. It's priced to compete with the Microvax II, i.e. $11K to $30K. It's strange how it's bundled: the OS and mouse are optional, the 1Meg ram card isn't. If you want 2 or 4 Meg, you have to throw away the 1M. I saw a fairly impressive presentation-level editor on it: WYSIWYG, with "MacDraw" and "MS Chart" (or equivalent) built in. They have the Interleaf stuff (too? that may be what I saw...). Judgments: This product will definitely give DEC (and everybody else) a run for their money. Although it's a bit pricey, DEC is too and high prices never stopped IBM before. Apple or S. Jobs had better hurry or IBM will sew up the academic market. It's hard to say whether support will be up to mainframe standards or down to PC standards -- apparently, almost none of the software was written within IBM, and most wasn't even commissioned by them. Much as I hate to admit it, though, IBM has produced a desirable product. I asked the rep what kind of political machinations within the company made this possible; he seemed to acknowledge the premise, pointing out that the group that put it together wasn't answerable to any of the traditional business units: their charter directs them to address the scientific/engineering market. They are being very quiet about offering accounting software on the machine.... Nathan C. Myers orstcs!nathan
ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (02/08/86)
In article <1400012@orstcs.UUCP> nathan@orstcs.UUCP (nathan) writes: >memory additions come in 2Meg chunks and there's only room for two >memory cards. It uses a PC-AT peripheral bus (it's not clear whether >memory rides there too) where disk controllers, graphics boards, >and network interfaces go. RT-PC memory sits on the fast (RT-only) bus, but the disk controller sits on the AT bus. Current versions of the disk system don't provide for DMA, apparently due to the I/O Channel Controller not being able to request DMA through the Memory Management unit. Everybody here is saying that IBM used a fairly conservative technology (2-micron NMOS) for the RISC chip, so future performance enhancements are possible/likely. The RT bus and RISC chip are designed to support multiple processors (bus has TAG bits to identify the device a request came from, and processor has set & test bit instruction) It appears to be a well executed machine - Sun and company are probably worried about the RT-PC-2 It's too bad the put the keyboard's escape key in the wrong place again, it lives up there among the function keys, above the main keyboard. -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu (cmu-cs-c.arpa) Usenet: ralphw@mit-eddie.uucp Fido: Ralph Hyre at Net 129, Node 0 (Pitt-Bull) Phone: (412)CMU-BUGS
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/09/86)
> ...Runs at about 68020 speed... > > Floating point performance with no FP accelerator is about as fast as > an AT with a '287. With the FP board ($850), they say it's faster... > > ...It's priced to compete with the Microvax II, i.e. $11K to $30K... Then why bother? Buy a Sun 3 or another 68020 machine. If it isn't distinctly superior on either price or performance (and the 68881 is a good deal faster than AT-with-287, I believe), then why take a chance on an oddball product that IBM may drop next year? Especially with only a 16-bit bus for peripherals. > This product will definitely give DEC (and everybody else) a run for > their money. Although it's a bit pricey, DEC is too and high prices > never stopped IBM before. Apple or S. Jobs had better hurry or IBM > will sew up the academic market... Don't forget Sun and Apollo, who are much more price-competitive and function-competitive than DEC. Beating DEC prices and performance has never been terribly hard, so comparing the RT against DEC hardware is a joke. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz) (02/12/86)
In article <6382@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: [talking about the disadvantages of the IBM-RT] >Especially with only >a 16-bit bus for peripherals. > >> This product will definitely give DEC (and everybody else) a run for >> their money. > >Don't forget Sun and Apollo, who are much more price-competitive and >function-competitive than DEC. Beating DEC prices and performance has >never been terribly hard, so comparing the RT against DEC hardware is >a joke. Especially since DEC uses a 16-bit bus for its peripherals. :-) Or maybe I misunderstand the size of the venerable Unibus? Seriously, though, whenever you bring in a certain three letters into the subject, then performance becomes moot. Certain people, many of whom are in the position to make purchasing decisions, would tend to buy anything and everything they can from IBM. If the RT does get off the ground, it won't be because of performance, but simply because it has an 'IBM' label on the front. -- Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage. calma!radzy@ucbvax.ARPA {ucbvax,sun,csd-gould}!calma!radzy
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (02/12/86)
> Seriously, though, whenever you bring in a certain three letters > into the subject, then performance becomes moot. Certain people, > many of whom are in the position to make purchasing decisions, > would tend to buy anything and everything they can from IBM. If > the RT does get off the ground, it won't be because of performance, > but simply because it has an 'IBM' label on the front. > -- > Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage. Riiiiiiiight. Just like the PC Jr. had. (Note past tense). But, by all means, let's keep the theory, and throw away any data that don't fit. We call that "scientific." -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
earlw@pesnta.UUCP (Earl Wallace) (02/13/86)
In article <361@utastro.UUCP> nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >> Seriously, though, whenever you bring in a certain three letters >> into the subject, then performance becomes moot. Certain people, >> many of whom are in the position to make purchasing decisions, >> would tend to buy anything and everything they can from IBM. If >> the RT does get off the ground, it won't be because of performance, >> but simply because it has an 'IBM' label on the front. >> -- >> Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage. > >Riiiiiiiight. Just like the PC Jr. had. (Note past tense). > >But, by all means, let's keep the theory, and throw away any data that >don't fit. We call that "scientific." > >-- >Ed Nather >Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin >{allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather >nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Anyone who thinks those three letters don't sell, I feel sorry for them. The PC Jr. was targeted for the masses; just plain folk like you and me. The RT sure as hell ain't going to end up in the masses homes unless its price drops to $5000 or less for a fully functional system. So, the big boys are going to buy the RT because they have the bucks to spend. When your boss knows next to nothing about computers and he has been tasked by his boss to purchase one, who do you think he is going to buy from? It does seem to be true that no one has ever been fired for buying IBM. I bet you thought that the boss would ask one of his worker-bees to research into the purchase of the computer, eh? HA! BULL! Maybe he/she will ask the bee to do the research but I'll bet the bossman will ask why IBM is not at the top of your list! P.S. - What about fair elections while we're at it....
spf@bonnie.UUCP (Steve Frysinger) (02/13/86)
> > If the RT does get off the ground, it won't be because of performance, > > but simply because it has an 'IBM' label on the front. > > -- > > Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage. > > Riiiiiiiight. Just like the PC Jr. had. (Note past tense). > > But, by all means, let's keep the theory, and throw away any data that > don't fit. We call that "scientific." > PC Jr and RT are entirely different markets, with entirely different consumers and consumer motives. Behavioral "data" from PC Jr's history is (in my opinion) not comparable to the RT situation. "Science" requires that we compare data only from comparable experiments. Steve Frysinger *** Why would I express anyone's opinion but my own?
radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz) (02/13/86)
>> -- me > -- nather@utastro (Ed Nather) >> Certain people, >> many of whom are in the position to make purchasing decisions, >> would tend to buy anything and everything they can from IBM. > >Riiiiiiiight. Just like the PC Jr. had. (Note past tense). When I made the original posting, I had in mind businesses, not individuals (most individuals aren't "in the position to make purchasing decisionS", but only a single purchase). When you talk about the PCJr, there are 2 things to keep in mind: 1. It was *not* primarily intended for businesses. 2. Its main competition *as far as businesses go* is the PC (Sr :-). Since the competition for the PCJr also had the IBM label on the front, then technical merit comes into the picture, and of course the Jr loses. >But, by all means, let's keep the theory, and throw away any data that >don't fit. We call that "scientific." When you examine someone else's theory and find data that don't fit what *you think* the theory means (assuming that the theory was explained in language, rather than with math), then it might be a good idea to reconsider what the theory really is. My apologies for not making myself clear enough the first time around. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. -- Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage. calma!radzy@ucbvax.ARPA {ucbvax,sun,csd-gould}!calma!radzy
bdw@chinet.UUCP (Bill Wisner) (02/14/86)
In article <6382@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > [...] >Don't forget Sun and Apollo, who are much more price-competitive and >function-competitive than DEC. Beating DEC prices and performance has >never been terribly hard, so comparing the RT against DEC hardware is >a joke. One problem: Sun and Apollo may be more price-competitive and function- competitive, but they don't have nearly the name recognition. I, personally, had never heard of Sun _or_ Apollo computers until I discovered UNIX. However, DEC was a familiar name to me from the beginning. -- Bill Wisner / The Computer Connection UUCP: ihnp4!chinet!bdw CIS: 76474,1213 USNail: 6290 Highway 44 Star, ID 83669 Witty Quote: If you owned the universe, where would you put it? Witty Disclaimer: When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.
jay@ethos.UUCP (Jay Denebeim) (02/16/86)
In article <361@utastro.UUCP>, nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: (Tim Radzykewycz) > > If > > the RT does get off the ground, it won't be because of performance, > > but simply because it has an 'IBM' label on the front. (Ed Nather) > Riiiiiiiight. Just like the PC Jr. had. (Note past tense). Oh would that that statement were true. The PC Jr. is showing up on the shelves yet again. I noticed some adds in some of the computer stores, they start in big bold letters "The news of my demise is somewhat exagurated". There have been several callers on my board reciently with new PC Jr.s. Looks like big blue is going to keep pushing 'em till they get rid of the 750K units they've got stockpiled. -- Jay Denebeim "One world, one egg, one basket." {seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!ethos!jay Deep Thought, ZNode #42 300/1200/2400 919-471-6436
wagner@utcs.uucp (Michael Wagner) (02/18/86)
There are many 3-letter bigotries in this world. IBM is only one. There are also people who will only buy DEC equipment. So what? Lets not make this a political discussion. Michael Wagner (wagner@utcs)
jgray@pilchuckDataio.UUCP (Jerrold Gray) (02/20/86)
> > Seriously, though, whenever you bring in a certain three letters > > into the subject, then performance becomes moot. Certain people, > > many of whom are in the position to make purchasing decisions, > > would tend to buy anything and everything they can from IBM. If > > the RT does get off the ground, it won't be because of performance, > > but simply because it has an 'IBM' label on the front. > > -- > > Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage. > > Riiiiiiiight. Just like the PC Jr. had. (Note past tense). > > Ed Nather > Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin > {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather > nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU I tend to aggree with Tim to some extent. The PC Jr. was not targetted toward the same market as other "business" machines. If you may recall a good percentage of the marketing hype on the PC Jr. was toward home use. I don't know of anybody in the profession spectrum who considered the PC Jr. a serious business or engineering contender. The RT on the other hand is closer to the business/engineering/scientific market arena than the PC Jr. ever was. If they play their cards right (marketing-wise) the IBM label will become very important. Personally I don't think I would ever buy anything IBM makes. Jerrold L. Gray uw-beaver!teltone!dataio!pilchuck!jgray USNAIL: 10525 Willows Road N.E. /C-46 Redmond, Wa. 98052 (206) 881 - 6444 x478 Telex: 15-2167
ins_aeas@jhunix.UUCP (Earle A .Sugar) (02/22/86)
> > > Seriously, though, whenever you bring in a certain three letters > > > into the subject, then performance becomes moot. Certain people, > > > many of whom are in the position to make purchasing decisions, > > > would tend to buy anything and everything they can from IBM. If > > > the RT does get off the ground, it won't be because of performance, > > > but simply because it has an 'IBM' label on the front. > > > -- > > > Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage. > > > Personally I don't think I would ever buy anything IBM makes. > > Jerrold L. Gray > uw-beaver!teltone!dataio!pilchuck!jgray IBM is a state of mind more than anything else. IBM means guaranteed medocrity. For corporate purchasing types who have covering their posteriors as the main priority, rather than trying to get the best price/performance ratio, IBM is fine. For those who want better than mediocre, IBM is a target of scorn. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ Earle A. Sugar Disclaimer:"I doubt anyone else here agrees with me." USENET: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_aeas CSNET:ins_aeas@jhunix.csnet ARPA:ins_aeas%jhunix.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa BITNET: INS_BEAS@JHUVMS (as a last resort) "If you don't expect anything, you'll never be dissappointed." or call 301-889-0815 after 6 P.M. EST
rupp@tetra.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (03/04/86)
In article <361@utastro.UUCP> nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >> Certain people, >> many of whom are in the position to make purchasing decisions, >> would tend to buy anything and everything they can from IBM. ... >> ...simply because it has an 'IBM' label on the front. >> -- >> Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage. > >Riiiiiiiight. Just like the PC Jr. had. (Note past tense). > >But, by all means, let's keep the theory, and throw away any data that >don't fit. We call that "scientific." > >-- >Ed Nather >Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin >{allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather >nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Well, I must agree with Tim. It is well known in the business community that IBM has an overwhelming image advantage with corporate purchasers. One reason I know is that my brother has been in computer marketing for years with Northstar, Alpha Micro, Sharp, and others. He tells me that with most company purchasers, there is simply no way to counter the IBM syndrome (called by a friend of mine I['ve] B[een] M[esmerized]). As for the PC Jr., I think that is the exception which proves the rule (whatever that means). IBM did NOT have an automatic lock on the low-end home market. IBM had to compete on something approaching even terms with Apple, Commodore, and Atari. Which means that the Jr. had to succeed on its own merits. The potential buyer, mostly not people caught up in the IBM syndrome, looked at the Jr. and asked, "What have you got to offer?" The Jr., obviously deliberately crippled by its manufacturer, failed. I have two minds about IBM. Being a good libertarian, I applaud the company's honest success. But I am also dismayed at the arrogance of a firm that would release a computer which was clearly not what is should have been, all in the expectation that the IBM label would make up for its shortcomings. That's what happens when one entity (be it a corporation or a government) has too much power for too long. The problem is, when does a coporation get so big that it no longer has to worry about offering the best product or service it can in order to remain profitable?