songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) (04/02/91)
Jim Mann writes: > >Yes, NeXT has the Mac beat for now at the high Mac high end. A NeXT station >is a better buy than the high-end Mac ... More insightful stuff about pricing and software availability ... >you need more speed, the SE30 is available for about $2400. Jim has a very good point here and is driving at something pretty important. Next has got the highend mac whipped up as far as price for performance, but it costs the average guy $5000 to get a machine. As long as Next keeps this as their low end they will (IMHO, of course) reamin at best a niche machine and possibly go out of business. Consider, NeXT is certainly not going to lead MIPS/$$ very long. In fact the Sparc II has already got the Cube beat hands down. Additionally while nice applications are out there for the Next, they are invarialby quite a bit more expensive than their mac counterparts-- probably because of the low number companies are expecting to ship. I keep reading it being billed as a machine for the power PC user, but can it really survive on that market? Maybe Next should consider making a standalone, cheap, 68030 based machine something that could sell bunches and drive the software market prices down. The Next seems to suffer from being a mix of workstation and PC rather than benefit from the mix. It has the high price of a workstation (both hardware and to a lesser degree software) while not being able to keep up with the fastest workstations. If they were to strip off all the Network stuff from both the hardware and software, maybe they could make a machine that would be able to appeal to more people, and still have reasonable performance. (after all, 030's ran OK with a harddrive.) Anyway, -Chris /*I hope nenver to have to speak for Purdue*/
declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Apr1.200929.17719@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: > Jim has a very good point here and is driving at something pretty important. > Next has got the highend mac whipped up as far as price for performance, but > it costs the average guy $5000 to get a machine. Agreed, and emphatically! After you get to the $5,000 barrier, NeXT is very competitive. Below that? Not really. $-) > As long as Next keeps this as their low end they will (IMHO, of course) > reamin at best a niche machine and possibly go out of business. Consider, > NeXT is certainly not going to lead MIPS/$$ very long. In fact the Sparc II > has already got the Cube beat hands down. I don't think they'll go out of business, but they won't be as successful as they should be. > Additionally while nice applications are out there for the Next, they > are invarialby quite a bit more expensive than their mac counterparts-- > probably because of the low number companies are expecting to ship. > I keep reading it being billed as a machine for the power PC user, but > can it really survive on that market? > > Maybe Next should consider making a standalone, cheap, 68030 based machine A while ago, I would have said "no way - 040 or bust!" But I have a NeXTstation 8/105 and an original NeXT 16/660 in my dorm right now, and the difference between the two is not that significant that I can't stand to use the 030 NeXT - in fact, I use it most of the time. RAM _does_ make a difference. If NeXT was to have a - say - 25 MHz or 33 MHz 68030 machine with 32K of cache and eight megabytes of RAM standard, that wouldn't be bad. Include twelve SIMM sockets. Throw a NetworkInstall application into /NextAdmin that would configure the /etc/rc* scripts to refrain from starting up unneeded network services. For a truly standalone machine, you could even turn off /usr/lib/sendmail and some other things. Oh yes - and support Apple's Stylewriter. 360 dpi, slow engine, but only $350 or so at normal academic discounts. That would be fun to use with PostScript. Or get the same engine, paint it NeXT black and slap a logo on it: $550 list, $385 academic. As long as there's a NeXT printer port interface, that is. How about adding a 15" monitor, with say 1024x768 pixels (yes, I know, it's not megapixel resolution, but neither is the current NeXT). Leave in thin Ethernet, take out twisted-pair (hey, *I* don't use it). Throw in an 80 or 105 MB HD, and call it the NeXTstation LC. Give it a list price of $2,995. Academic discounts down to $1,995. IMHO, _that_ would sell. -Declan
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Apr1.200929.17719@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: >If they were to strip off all the Network stuff from both the hardware and >software, maybe they could make a machine that would be able to appeal to >more people You forgot to say "April Fool." -=EPS=-
dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) (04/02/91)
songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: >If they were to strip off all the Network stuff from both the hardware and >software, maybe they could make a machine that would be able to appeal to >more people, and still have reasonable performance. (after all, 030's >ran OK with a harddrive.) NO! Leave the networking in. Just take the NeXTStation pizza box and use the 030/25 setup[cpu/fpu/dsp] in and sell for $2495. NeXT's factory would probably get swamped with orders! Look at how many of us snapped up cubes at the Businessland Fire sales. That sort of price point would grab in many who were evaluating getting the Macintoshes in or considering PCs especially with SoftPC and the fact that the 2.88M drive will read DOS disks. The real question is can NeXT make enough money even if the sales volume is high? They need to have good enought profit margins to stay alive. They'll also have to move to a RISC cpu to be considered a player in the high end marketplace. Hp has finally realized this and has announced their 56mips for $12k RISC box. So NeXT has to choose carefully as to which chipset they go with. 1) MIPS (DEC, SGI, various Japanese & Korean vendors,Compaq) 2) SPARC (Sun, Solbourne,various Japanese & Korean vendors) 3) RIOS (IBM) 4) HP-PA (Hewlett Packard and various Japanese & Korean vendors) 5) Motorola (Data General, various Japanese vendors) Moto's 88k may NOT be the optimal choice given their poor track record on delivery of the 040. They are single source whereas you've got several manufacturers whomping on each other in SPARC intl for example competing to make and deliver chipsets. On the other hand Steve J. could cut a hard deal with Moto since all the major workstation vendors have abandoned them. David Williams
bostrov@prism.cs.orst.edu (Vareck Bostrom) (04/02/91)
In <1991Apr1.200929.17719@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: >Jim Mann writes: >> >>Yes, NeXT has the Mac beat for now at the high Mac high end. A NeXT station >>is a better buy than the high-end Mac >... More insightful stuff about pricing and software availability ... >>you need more speed, the SE30 is available for about $2400. [ stuff deleted ] >As long as Next keeps this as their low end they will (IMHO, of course) >reamin at best a niche machine and possibly go out of business. Consider, >NeXT is certainly not going to lead MIPS/$$ very long. In fact the Sparc II has >already got the Cube beat hands down. Really? I got my NeXT for $5000, and get 23040 dhrystones out of it. A SPARC-2 would have cost me $15,000 (which I don't have) and only get me (unupgradable) 32000 dhrys. I think the NeXT still has that one. [ stuff about nice but expensive NeXT software deleted ] >Maybe Next should consider making a standalone, cheap, 68030 based machine >something that could sell bunches and drive the software market prices down. >The Next seems to suffer from being a mix of workstation and PC rather >than benefit from the mix. It has the high price of a workstation (both >hardware and to a lesser degree software) while not being able to keep >up with the fastest workstations. >If they were to strip off all the Network stuff from both the hardware and >software, maybe they could make a machine that would be able to appeal to >more people, and still have reasonable performance. (after all, 030's >ran OK with a harddrive.) NO! NeXT should be competing with workstations, not with PC's such as the Macintosh. I think the entire Idea about NeXT is to have a machine that has Everything That You'd Ever Want right there on the machine that you buy. NeXT is in a position where it's developers know that they can devolop network applications, and the NeXT has the hardware to support those apps. Same with Floating Point and Signal/Array processing hardware. Every NeXT has it, so devolopers don't have to worry about devoloping seperate modules for each and every possible hardware configureation. Also, it's silly for NeXT to go backwards to a 68030 now, IMHO, they are already doing fairly well with their 040 machines, and how much money would it actually drop the price, going to an 030? I hope that in the near future, the entry level machines will be those with only one CPU (68040 or 68050 (?)) and the higher level machines will contain multiple CPU's. But no matter what, NeXTs should all have all of the hardware that they come with today, networking and all. - Vareck Bostrom ---------------- bostrov@gnu.ai.mit.edu + FSF account bostrov@prism.cs.orst.edu + Forwarded to gnu.ai.mit.edu
scott@texnext.gac.edu (Scott Hess) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Apr1.200929.17719@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: In article <1991Apr1.200929.17719@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: Jim Mann writes: >you need more speed, the SE30 is available for about $2400. Jim has a very good point here and is driving at something pretty important. Next has got the highend mac whipped up as far as price for performance, but it costs the average guy $5000 to get a machine. ... Maybe Next should consider making a standalone, cheap, 68030 based machine something that could sell bunches and drive the software market prices down. The Next seems to suffer from being a mix of workstation and PC rather than benefit from the mix. It has the high price of a workstation (both hardware and to a lesser degree software) while not being able to keep up with the fastest workstations. First things first - if NeXT were capable of shipping all the machines they now have backordered, and all orders they get from now on same-day or even same-week, they will be quite successful for this year. Even yet they aren't pushing the machines because they aren't yet able to fill demand. I'm not complaining (well, yeah, I am sort of :-), but it's just a fact to live with for awhile. That out of the way, consider the prices of 4M simms. Falling so fast, by about August I'd expect 16M of RAM to be around $500. A 16M '030 system is all most people would ever need. Put it in a slab, and alot of people would be fairly happy with that system - you'd sell about a billion of them into schools as client machines, if you can get the price down in the $2500 range (.edu discount). If they were to strip off all the Network stuff from both the hardware and software, maybe they could make a machine that would be able to appeal to more people, and still have reasonable performance. (after all, 030's ran OK with a harddrive.) I don't think it's worthwhile to strip the network stuff. In software, the network stuff is free - it will barely even slow the machine down, as most stuff doesn't talk with it. In hardware, maybe - but since they've already done all the work for it, it's probably not going to save much. Maybe $100 or $200 for the whole bag. Later, -- scott hess scott@gac.edu Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad <I still speak for nobody> "Simply press Control-right-Shift while click-dragging the mouse . . ." "I smoke the nose Lucifer . . . Banana, banana."
petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (04/03/91)
David Williams writes: >NO! Leave the networking in. Just take the NeXTStation pizza box and >use the 030/25 setup[cpu/fpu/dsp] in and sell for $2495. NeXT's >factory would probably get swamped with orders! Look at how many of us snapped >up cubes at the Businessland Fire sales. That sort of price point would grab >in many who were evaluating getting the Macintoshes in or considering PCs >especially with SoftPC and the fact that the 2.88M drive will read DOS disks. I don't think I agree... the NeXT wasn't a dog with the 030, but it was close, the software spectacular, the hardware a littel boring. Another program is that there is no upgrade path with the Station, perhaps a "processor card" (about big enough to hold the '040) would be the right way to go, then I would say that an '030 would be OK, becuase then people could upgrade at a later date. I agree, however, that the networking MUST stay, the NeXT can't deliver on its "interpersonal computing" promis without it, though I wouldn't mind if the twisted pair disappeared :-), as I never thought it a sound approach electrically, too many problems. >The real question is can NeXT make enough money even if the sales volume >is high? They need to have good enought profit margins to stay alive. Yes, they can survive with a little bit more volume :-), I believ their factory is capable of roughly 100,000 machines/year, more then enough, and they could always build anouther. >They'll also have to move to a RISC cpu to be considered a player in the >high end marketplace. Hp has finally realized this and has announced >their 56mips for $12k RISC box. So NeXT has to choose carefully as to >which chipset they go >with. > > [Lists major RISC chips] > >Moto's 88k may NOT be the optimal choice given their poor track record on >delivery of the 040. They are single source whereas you've got several >manufacturers whomping on each other in SPARC intl for example competing >to make and deliver chipsets. On the other hand Steve J. could cut a hard >deal with Moto since all the major workstation vendors have abandoned them. I don't know that I agree with teh RISC approach in general, and I think a multi-processor approach is much more sound, and in the end better. A quad-'040 machine would dust the new HP (which, BTW, is VERY impressive), especially if they attached 4 56001 chips to it. I think this is they way NeXT is going, and I think it is the right way. If they decide to go RISC (God forbid), then I hope they stay away from Sparc, it is not "infinitely extensible" as it's proponents claim, and I see it as the least suitable choice. My preference is for the MIPS set, perhaps the new R4000 due out next year I belive, or perhaps the PA-RISC from HP (also quite good). The 88K is also a pretty good processor, but I'm not sure its the best, but then who knows what kind of deal Motorola would cut, if they could get 50MHz 88K processors out the door, they would be a force to be reckoned with. Chris -- + Chris Petrilli | Internet: petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu + Insert silly disclaimer drivel here.
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu (Don McGregor) (04/04/91)
In article <SCOTT.91Apr2112457@texnext.gac.edu> scott@texnext.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes: >That out of the way, consider the prices of 4M simms. Falling so fast, >by about August I'd expect 16M of RAM to be around $500. A 16M '030 >system is all most people would ever need. Put it in a slab, and alot >of people would be fairly happy with that system - you'd sell about a >billion of them into schools as client machines, if you can get the >price down in the $2500 range (.edu discount). > I think they'd be better off sticking with the '040 and riding the price curve down. If they used an '030 they'd also need to put an FPU on it; buying the chips seperately might wind up costing more than buying '040s. Not to mention the need to design a new motherboard, keep two production lines open, bigger parts inventory, etc. It's not impossible to get the edu price down to $2500 with the current system. In a year or so they should be in a position to cut the price, perhaps coupling the price cut with unbundling some of the software-- WriteNow comes to mind. WordPerfect can't be all that happy about having competition that comes free with the computer. Did anybody else notice that the docs are in RTF instead of WriteNow format? Don McGregor |"You can fall for chains of silver/You can fall for mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu| chains of gold/You can fall for pretty strangers/ | And the promises they hold..."
ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio) (04/04/91)
Well, my fantasy for a low-end NeXT would be a little box with two NeXTbus slots, one of which had one of the old '030 Cube boards in it, with 16 1-meg SIMMs. I'd like to see a cheap-o color card available for the other slot. -- Doug DeJulio ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu
songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) (04/04/91)
scott@texnext.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes: > >I don't think it's worthwhile to strip the network stuff. In software, >the network stuff is free - it will barely even slow the machine down, >as most stuff doesn't talk with it. In hardware, maybe - but since >they've already done all the work for it, it's probably not going to >save much. Maybe $100 or $200 for the whole bag. > I suppose the reason I'd suggest stripping off the network stuff is that for those who put their machine at home it is almost completely useless. I know several people who have seen our Next and said, "Wow, I wish I could get one for home -- but I can't justify the cost." Absence of network hardware would lower production costs and the absence of the software would lower required harddrive space -- raising usability. Sure, if NeXT could sell an 030 Station w/all the networking stuff at $3000 list or so and still make enough money, that would be super, but if anything had to go, I'd like to see the networking stuff go first. After all, for a home machine slip or UUCP is about the height of connectivity. -Chris
trims@athena.mit.edu (Erik G Trimble) (04/04/91)
In article <14575@life.ai.mit.edu>, petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes: |> |> I don't think I agree... the NeXT wasn't a dog with the 030, but it |> was close, the software spectacular, the hardware a littel boring. I happen to possess an '030 cube with a hard drive and 2.0 running on it and, sure it's not the neat '040, but it runs alot faster than the entry level Mac Classic or '286 Clones. Remember, this is supposed to be an entry-level system, NOT a power-user. I say go with a 40Mhz '030/'882 combo (incluing of course the 25Mhz 56001) |> Another program is that there is no upgrade path with the Station, |> perhaps a "processor card" (about big enough to hold the '040) would |> be the right way to go, then I would say that an '030 would be OK, |> becuase then people could upgrade at a later date. I agree, however, |> that the networking MUST stay, the NeXT can't deliver on its |> "interpersonal computing" promis without it, though I wouldn't mind if |> the twisted pair disappeared :-), as I never thought it a sound |> approach electrically, too many problems. Yeah, a big problem of the Stations is no expandability. an '030 Direct Slot would be nice on a low-cost NeXT. But, never underestimate the ability of those crazy 3rd-party developers to make clip-on accellorators for the CPU. (like most CPU-upgrades for Macs). I agree tha Networking must say, but leave twisted pair in, too. Thin-wire can be pretty expensive, and remember, this is supposed to be a LOW-cost NeXT. |> |> >The real question is can NeXT make enough money even if the sales volume |> >is high? They need to have good enought profit margins to stay alive. |> |> Yes, they can survive with a little bit more volume :-), I believ |> their factory is capable of roughly 100,000 machines/year, more then |> enough, and they could always build anouther. |> ..... |> Chris |> |> -- |> |> + Chris Petrilli |> | Internet: petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu |> + Insert silly disclaimer drivel here. I think NeXT would have no problem maintaining profitability if they sold low-end NeXTs. Profit margin on each low-end may be considerably lower than on the Stations and Cubes, but hey, that's why you sell them in HIGH VOLUME. To Summerize, here's my vote for a low-end NeXT (NeXT, are you listening? ;-) ) 40Mhz 68030/68882, 25Mhz 56001 DSP, Thin and twisted pair Ethernet, SCSI-I (note!), 8 SIMMS sockets, 2.88 Floppy, on-board video, '030 Direct Slot, and options for 80/105/200 MB 3.5 hard drive Would be nice to see retail for this (inc. Monitor + keyboard) around $3000. (maybe H.E. around $2000) for 80 HD / 8 RAM version. -Erik
araftis@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Alex Raftis) (04/04/91)
In article <34936@athertn.Atherton.COM> dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) writes: >songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: > >They'll also have to move to a RISC cpu to be considered a player in the >high end marketplace. Hp has finally realized this and has announced >their 56mips for $12k RISC box. So NeXT has to choose carefully as to >which chipset they go >with. > What makes you say this. Sure RISC is nice, and it has it's place, but look at what advantages RISC gives. It has few intructions, so they execute quickly. That's nice, but each instruction does very little, so you need five instructions to do the same thigns a CISC processor can do. A RISC processor has a lot a registers to work with for speed. Well, the 68040 has sixteen registers, which I find more than plenty when programming. What are some of its disadvantages? Well, floating point work generally is more difficult. They're also nearly impossible to work with at the assembly level due to the amount of work the programmer has to do to make the advantages of RISC, like pipelining work. On the other hand, look at the 68040. It executes instructions at around 1.3 cycles per instuction. It gives you lots of registers. It's easy to work with at the assembly level while its easy to write compilers for. It has a large established base of programmers. It's only major problem is in clock speed. A 25 Mhz 68040 can beat a SPARC at 25Mhz, but the SPAC's top speed is 40Mhz, which will easily beat the 040. Motorola claims to be working on a 50Mhz version of the 040, but I don't have any idea of when they claim this will be released. From NeXT's perspective, they decided to go with the Motorola line. If they should decide to change at this point consider what they would have to do. They would need to 1. rewrite their system software. 2. Many companies would be forced to make major changes to current software packages. 3. They would have to completely rework all that they've done with their hardware. Basically, they'd need to pump a lot of money into doing something that only has dubious advantages. With their current strategy they can work their way into the workstation market with their 25 Mhz cube, which requires low cost memory and support hardware, while they wait for faster versions of the processor to come onto the market. Once this occurs, they can begin to release faster version of the Cube, while still selling their current models as the Workstation for the rest of us. -- -------------------------------------------------- Internet: araftis@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU America Online: xela (Real Life: Alex Raftis)
sritchie@cs.ubc.ca (Stuart Ritchie) (04/04/91)
In article <34936@athertn.Atherton.COM> dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) writes: >NO! Leave the networking in. Just take the NeXTStation pizza box and >use the 030/25 setup[cpu/fpu/dsp] in and sell for $2495. NeXT's [...stuff deleted...] >David Williams I wonder if 68030 + 68882 costs more than a 68040? --- Some potential garbage not necessarily related to David's posting: Maybe the real trick in getting usable MIPS is multiprocessing. Sure, 56 MIPS sounds great, but don't forget that your cache gets destroyed at interrupt time, thus reducing 56 MIPS to DRAM speed. Well, OK, I don't know what I'm talking about, but maybe there is some truth to that statement. Hell, take a look at networking. Even 15 MIPS isn't enough to drive TCP at Ethernet rates in the Unix environment. This is one area that could use some dedicated multiprocessor support. Something tells me that having a scalable multiprocessor architecture is the way to go. I sure haven't done my homework to back this statement, but it's a gut feeling. --- About BlastApp: great game. Highly addictive. But one thing that worries me is this. I remember reading a disclaimer somewhere saying that the game may suffer performance problems on a 030 machine. I'm really worried about this. Even with a tiny window like BlastApp has, is DPS really that much of a bottleneck? Or were there some efficiency compromises made by the implementor? Where does the real bottleneck lie? Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I really like the stuff that can be done with Display PostScript, and I've taken advantage of this power in my own applications. I hope to never have to write another X or Motif application again. Later dudes! ...Stuart <sritchie@cs.ubc.ca> Wot's uh... the deal?
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (04/04/91)
I would suggest that this thread continue in comp.arch, which is more suited to it. In article <27fa3350.6bc2@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> araftis@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Alex Raftis) writes: >What makes you say this. Sure RISC is nice, and it has it's place, but >look at what advantages RISC gives. It has few intructions, so they execute >quickly. That's nice, but each instruction does very little, so you need >five instructions to do the same thigns a CISC processor can do. Which end up not being used. Fact: the current generation RISCs are almost invariably "faster" than the current generation CISCs. Consider 68030 vs. R3000 (I believe those were about comparable). Consider 68040 vs. R6000. In both cases, the MIPS chip is "faster" (the SPECmarks are higher, by a considerable margin). Few compilers use any of the nifty instructions that a CISC has. gcc, for example, uses a relatively mundane set of instructions for the 68k line. Most instructions get unused this way, in a CISC; on the other hand, most of the instructions that the MIPS series has *are* used by the compiler (the exceptions being about a dozen or so that are used to do things like page control, processor control/setup, etc.). >A RISC >processor has a lot a registers to work with for speed. Well, the 68040 >has sixteen registers, which I find more than plenty when programming. Maybe you don't, but I can come up with cases where it isn't. Using the MIPS again. It has 32 integer registers (one of which is hardwired to 0, I believe). Some of the registers are, by convention, used to pass in subroutine arguments. Result? Subroutine calls are *fast*. Also, the return address goes into r31, not onto a stack; this is also quite faster than the 68040 (MIPS does: r31 := pc+1; pc = addr, while the 68k has to do quite a bit more, including storing into memory, decrementing the sp, and *then* incrmeneting the pc, as well as parsing the addressing mode). >What are some of its disadvantages? Well, floating point work generally >is more difficult. They're also nearly impossible to work with at the assembly >level due to the amount of work the programmer has to do to make the >advantages of RISC, like pipelining work. So? How often do you program at the assembly level for unix? I rarely do; when I do, I use gcc to help. The MIPS assembler takes care of pipeline slots, so you don't have to deal with *that* part of it. In addition, you *do* realize that the R6000 has essentially the same FP instructions that the 68040 does? Yeah, that's right. The 68040 got rid of *tons* of instructions. There goes *that* part of your "CISC is better than RISC" argument. >On the other hand, look at the 68040. It executes instructions at around >1.3 cycles per instuction. That depends on your instruction stream. The R3000 gets about the same ratio, although I seem to recall "1.2"; however, I don't have any reference to that, so that's just hearsay. >It gives you lots of registers. So does the R3000. >It's easy to >work with at the assembly level while its easy to write compilers for. Actually, I have no trouble writing in assembly for any of the current RISC chips. And the R3000 is easier to write a compiler for than the 68k; there's a lot of stuff you don't have to worry about. (For example, all the addressing modes. Sure, they make your code smaller, but not necessarily faster.) >It's only major problem is >in clock speed. A 25 Mhz 68040 can beat a SPARC at 25Mhz, but the SPAC's >top speed is 40Mhz, which will easily beat the 040. Motorola claims to be >working on a 50Mhz version of the 040, but I don't have any idea of when >they claim this will be released. I don't like the SPARC. It's got an ugly instruction set. How about the RIOS or the MIPS? They are acknowledged to be the fastest chips, generally (although the new HP chip[set?] also seems to be pretty fast, as well). >With their current strategy >they can work their way into the workstation market with their 25 Mhz >cube, which requires low cost memory and support hardware, while they wait >for faster versions of the processor to come onto the market. When a 50MHz 68040 comes out, I expect MIPS to come out with a 75MHz (or faster) R4000; this will be able to get 150MIPS max, and should average around 100MIPS. I know that doesn't mean much; let's just say it will have such impressive SPECmarks (assuming the system is designed to keep pace) that Motorola would have to come out with a 120MHz 68040 to keep pace. >Once this >occurs, they can begin to release faster version of the Cube, while still >selling their current models as the Workstation for the rest of us. You can only make things go so fast at any given technology. Using the technology to put all of those transistors on a 68040, the RISC people will make a much faster chip (see R6000, RIOS, R4000 when it comes out). Go read _Computer Architecture: A Quantitive Approach_, by Hennessey and Patterson. Then make your arguments again. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
scott@texnext.gac.edu (Scott Hess) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Apr3.192844.27708@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: scott@texnext.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes: >I don't think it's worthwhile to strip the network stuff. In software, >the network stuff is free - it will barely even slow the machine down, >as most stuff doesn't talk with it. In hardware, maybe - but since >they've already done all the work for it, it's probably not going to >save much. Maybe $100 or $200 for the whole bag. I suppose the reason I'd suggest stripping off the network stuff is that for those who put their machine at home it is almost completely useless. I know several people who have seen our Next and said, "Wow, I wish I could get one for home -- but I can't justify the cost." Absence of network hardware would lower production costs and the absence of the software would lower required harddrive space -- raising usability. Sure, if NeXT could sell an 030 Station w/all the networking stuff at $3000 list or so and still make enough money, that would be super, but if anything had to go, I'd like to see the networking stuff go first. After all, for a home machine slip or UUCP is about the height of connectivity. slip requires the network stuff (else it's hardly useful!). UUCP will require a large subset of it (all the sendmail stuff, for certain). The problem with removing the network stuff is that it has been part of BSD Unix for so long now that it's hard to find where Unix leaves off and the TCP/IP starts up. A large portion of the code will have to stay so that other, apparently unconnected, programs can continue running. Also, removing the networking programs and files would save very little disk space. Most of the network utilities which could be removed are 16k or 32k in size (with few exceptions). It takes alot of those to equal even one Mathematica, much less a Webster's. I hold to my point - removing the networking stuff would not reduce the price more than $100 or $200. Not so much as removing, say, the DSP. Personally, I think the slabs are quite close to the minimal system. NeXT will have some room to drop by next XMas, I think . . . or Q1 '92 at the latest. Later, -- scott hess scott@gac.edu Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad <I still speak for nobody> "Simply press Control-right-Shift while click-dragging the mouse . . ." "I smoke the nose Lucifer . . . Banana, banana."
waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (04/05/91)
In article <1991Apr03.232400.1560@kithrup.COM>, sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: > I would suggest that this thread continue in comp.arch, which is more suited > to it. > Probably a good idea but it's probably also a good idea for the more vocal members of the NeXT community (posters to this newsgroup) to work out what they'd like to see from NeXT just in case it has an influence. I believe that NeXT has generally positioned themselves for moving to new CPU architectures. I would like to see them improve themselves in this regard by adopting the Open Software Foundation versions of UNIX. In particular, I would like to see them develop a real-time implementation of OSF/1 or OSF/2 (they probably don't have to be in a hurry...their work in the forefront of adopting the Mach kernel gives them some time--but not much). And they are in great shape as a result of their choice of PostScript and Display PostScript. It's hard to say how their bet on object-oriented programming will play out (are they too dependent on Objective-C? C++? can/will NeXTstep be made to interface with whatever object-oriented language predominates in the future?) but I think it will be a major win for them. They may have to move on to a more advanced signal processing chip but, for the most part, moving to new platforms should be relatively easy for them. And it's a "don't care" issue for the users (so long as the platform's black:^) and developers since the environment goes along intact. As to the RISC vs. CISC discussion itself, I can only say that I believe that Sean Eric Fagan has summed up the case for RISC nicely. He observes that "Few compilers use any of the nifty instructions that a CISC has." I believe I read recently that RISC was based on the observation that, in fact, only about 30% of the instructions in CISC computers were used by compilers. The rest of the instructions, for all practical purposes, were just excess baggage. So the 68040 is fast...but it is already obsolete. But it's "good enough" for now and has the advantage of upward compatibility with a lot of existing software. It's a great transition choice. c.f.waltrip Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu> Opinions expressed are my own. BTW, I AM an Adobe shareholder (very small8^() and that MAY contribute to my enthusiam for NeXT's choices in that regard.
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (04/05/91)
In article <1991Apr3.192844.27708@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: > Absence of network >hardware would lower production costs and the absence of the software >would lower required harddrive space -- raising usability. I can purchase good quality name-brand Ethernet cards for PCs for less than $200. I assume this means the "true cost" of these is really less than $80. But consider that a lot of that is paying for the card itself, interfacing to the ISA bus, etc.--things that aren't needed when the network hardware is part of the motherboard. What are we really talking about here? $30? Less? The savings, if any, is probably negligible. The software requirement is also quite small--it just doesn't account for any significant amount of disk space. >anything had to go, I'd like to see the networking stuff go first. After >all, for a home machine slip or UUCP is about the height of connectivity. SLIP requires *no less* software than an Ethernetted machine. (In fact, it requires quite a bit more.) You're barking up the wrong tree. -=EPS=-
songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) (04/05/91)
>In article <1991Apr3.192844.27708@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> > songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: >> Absence of network >>hardware would lower production costs and the absence of the software >>would lower required harddrive space -- raising usability. > >I can purchase good quality name-brand Ethernet cards for PCs >for less than $200. I assume this means the "true cost" of >these is really less than $80. But consider that a lot of >that is paying for the card itself, interfacing to the ISA bus, >etc.--things that aren't needed when the network hardware is >part of the motherboard. What are we really talking about here? >$30? Less? The savings, if any, is probably negligible. > >The software requirement is also quite small--it just doesn't >account for any significant amount of disk space. > Actually, the point is, cheap or not it is useless to a home user. And I'm not so sure that if you looked at NextMail and sendmail and all the config stuff if you would not see a pretty large percentage of a 100Meg drive. Sure Slip is just as big, but let's face it, there are people out there who would like a Next and don't feel the need to be on a network. Maybe I just have a weird set of friends, but I know of several people who are quite interested in Next as a home machine and see all the network stuff simply as cost add (distinct from value add) where cost is measure both in dollars and megabytes. I hate to reccommed PC's and macs to them, but considering the cost of a usable standalone Next system, that is precisely what I am going to do. My point was, if you want networking at home, all you want is Slip and a serial port. You do not want an ethernet port. Moreover, there are lots of people who want (at most) to dial compuserve but still want a Next. Also, just to mention it, I've seen a plotitical war over $8 per unit production cost in a $3000 printer before, I would not describe a cost even as low as $30 per unit negligible. (After all, $30 times 100,000 machines.....) -Chris
scott@texnext.gac.edu (Scott Hess) (04/06/91)
In article <1991Apr3.220544.22348@cs.ubc.ca> sritchie@cs.ubc.ca (Stuart Ritchie) writes: In article <34936@athertn.Atherton.COM> dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) writes: >NO! Leave the networking in. Just take the NeXTStation pizza box and >use the 030/25 setup[cpu/fpu/dsp] in and sell for $2495. NeXT's [...stuff deleted...] >David Williams I wonder if 68030 + 68882 costs more than a 68040? Not yet, but it will be there by the time NeXT could come out with a new '030 machine . . . Some potential garbage not necessarily related to David's posting: Maybe the real trick in getting usable MIPS is multiprocessing. Sure, 56 MIPS sounds great, but don't forget that your cache gets destroyed at interrupt time, thus reducing 56 MIPS to DRAM speed. Well, OK, I don't know what I'm talking about, but maybe there is some truth to that statement. Actually, it's worse than that. That 56 MIPs for the HP PA is more than likely closer to peek MIPs than HP would like to admit. Which means that the actual performance on real applications will be less. The IBM RS/6000 suffers from this problem - the performance improvement you'll see on real applications is not in line with the quoted 40,000 MIPs . . . Hell, take a look at networking. Even 15 MIPS isn't enough to drive TCP at Ethernet rates in the Unix environment. This is one area that could use some dedicated multiprocessor support. This is the way to go, IMHO. Take a look at the PC world - graphics cards with TI 34010 or other dedicated coprocessors are a commodity item. Let's throw an i860 (no, wait, a i960) on the motherboard with some RAM, and get rid of that DPS overhead. Give it to me in monochrome (8-bit mono on an i860 would be sweet) and I'll buy as many of those machines as I have the money for . . . About BlastApp: great game. Highly addictive. But one thing that worries me is this. I remember reading a disclaimer somewhere saying that the game may suffer performance problems on a 030 machine. I'm really worried about this. Even with a tiny window like BlastApp has, is DPS really that much of a bottleneck? Or were there some efficiency compromises made by the implementor? Where does the real bottleneck lie? Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I really like the stuff that can be done with Display PostScript, and I've taken advantage of this power in my own applications. To see what DPS can do, take a look at Stuart (no pun intended, Stuart!). DPS gives a much larger window of performance possibilities than many other windowing systems, such as X or QuickDraw. The problem is that it's so damn flexible. What it comes down to, though, is that there can be a great return on investment for those willing to spend some time and elbow grease looking at the DPS code that they output. Unless you're quite lucky (or experienced), your first attempt program will be 2-5x slower than one that's been more well-thought-out. This is part of the reason I think all developers should be forced to work on '030 machines, as that gives them more incentive to think things out . . . Later, -- scott hess scott@gac.edu Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad <I still speak for nobody> "Simply press Control-right-Shift while click-dragging the mouse . . ." "I smoke the nose Lucifer . . . Banana, banana."
aozer@next.com (Ali Ozer) (04/08/91)
In article <SCOTT.91Apr5093250@texnext.gac.edu> Scott Hess writes: >In article <1991Apr3.220544.22348@cs.ubc.ca> Stuart Ritchie writes: >> About BlastApp: great game. Highly addictive. But one thing that >> worries me is this. I remember reading a disclaimer somewhere saying >> that the game may suffer performance problems on a 030 machine. ... >> I'm really worried about this. Even with a tiny window like BlastApp >> has, is DPS really that much of a bottleneck? Or were there some >> efficiency compromises made by the implementor? Where does the real >> bottleneck lie? >To see what DPS can do, take a look at Stuart (no pun intended, Stuart!). >DPS gives a much larger window of performance possibilities than >many other windowing systems, such as X or QuickDraw. Scott is right: Look at Stuart, or look at BoinkOut. These apps show that DPS can be real fast. Or look at co-Xist, which goes through DPS. It's fast. One of the best things about BlastApp is how quickly it was designed and implemented: Excluding the time it took to create the levels, draw the various objects, and come up with reasonable (well, semi-reasonable) sounds, the whole game took four days to write, half of which was spent designing and the rest implementing & debugging. I've worked on many computer games in my life (none professionally), and not many made to completion: Many years ago, before I knew better, I'd start writing code as soon as I got the idea for a new game and that usually led to an early doom. Later I learned to design before implementing. However I'd spend so much time trying to come up with a reasonable design that I usually would get sick of the whole thing before any reasonable amount of code was written... Thus I was thrilled to see BlastApp get to its current state in only four days. Sure, it could use some more levels, and could be faster --- but that can all be done afterwards. Adding levels or even new types of objects is trivially easy (actually you can add new levels without even recompiling, hint, hint), and many performance optimizations can be made in the way the game draws, in the way different objects interact, etc. There's a lot of room for optimization in the game, and it's all private to the implementation of the various classes --- which means without having to make any changes to the overall structure of the program. After putting four days into creating the thing and some more days designing levels and drawing objects, I decided I was not going to find time to optimize it in the near future so I posted it as is... The bottom line is that a "prototype" such as BlastApp can be created in a short time and be so usable is all due to the power of NeXTstep. Just remember to design first, and design in an object-oriented fashion, and you'll find that you'll be able to create apps with great ease and be able to optimize, tune the UI, or make other changes as necessary later. My two cents! Ali, Ali_Ozer@NeXT.com
scott@texnext.gac.edu (Scott Hess) (04/08/91)
In article <1462@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: In article <1991Apr3.192844.27708@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: > Absence of network >hardware would lower production costs and the absence of the software >would lower required harddrive space -- raising usability. I can purchase good quality name-brand Ethernet cards for PCs for less than $200. I assume this means the "true cost" of these is really less than $80. But consider that a lot of that is paying for the card itself, interfacing to the ISA bus, etc.--things that aren't needed when the network hardware is part of the motherboard. What are we really talking about here? $30? Less? The savings, if any, is probably negligible. and songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: Also, just to mention it, I've seen a plotitical war over $8 per unit production cost in a $3000 printer before, I would not describe a cost even as low as $30 per unit negligible. (After all, $30 times 100,000 machines.....) For a market which more than likely consists of between 30,000 and 50,000 machines per year (if they get 50, we'll see celebration in Redwood City!), I think another big point is that two different types of motherboard will be a bother. First, there's the modified motherboards. Then, there's the modified casing (who wants those empty holes in the case?). Then, the ordering overhead, and probably all the complaints about lack of upgrade path. Also, the software installation procedure would be more complicated. Basically, we'd be doubling the number of configurations in which you could order your NeXT - not even considering those who might want a mixture (ability to use UUCP, thus requiring some stuff, while not having TCP/IP). Considering their size, I suspect distributing two machines, one without networking, one with, will actually cost _more_ than just leaving it the way it is. I'd rather then distributed two versions of the keyboard, personally (one being the "correct" one, the other being the newer one :-)! Later, -- scott hess scott@gac.edu Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad <I still speak for nobody> "Simply press Control-right-Shift while click-dragging the mouse . . ." "I smoke the nose Lucifer . . . Banana, banana."
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Apr5.151726.29819@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: >Actually, the point is, cheap or not it is useless to a home user. I don't buy this argument either. Here in the land of astronomical housing prices, it's quite common for more than one person to live under the same roof... and I have to try very hard to think of households-with-computers that only have one! Last week I watched the videotape of Steve Jobs on his "interpersonal computing" soapbox. I think he's right on target here. Networking is *the* single most important feature of the NeXT. -=EPS=-
bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) (04/09/91)
In article <SCOTT.91Apr8095815@texnext.gac.edu> scott@texnext.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes: > [text deleted --SJB] > >Considering their size, I suspect distributing two machines, one >without networking, one with, will actually cost _more_ than >just leaving it the way it is. I'd rather then distributed >two versions of the keyboard, personally (one being the "correct" >one, the other being the newer one :-)! Hmm... I don't think "correct" is really applicable to the old keyboard either, given the placement of the tilde over the numeric keypad. I'd rather see *both* versions replaced by one that looks like the old one with deficiencies (like the tilde location) fixed. *That* would be the "correct" one as far as I can see. > >Later, >-- >scott hess scott@gac.edu >Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad ><I still speak for nobody> >"Simply press Control-right-Shift while click-dragging the mouse . . ." >"I smoke the nose Lucifer . . . Banana, banana." Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG Systems Programming Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 60115 ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett@cs.niu.edu * * BITNET: A01SJB1@NIU * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "Well, I don't know, but I've been told, in the heat of the sun * * a man died of cold..." Oakland, 19 Feb. 1991, first time since * * 25 Sept. 1970!!! Yippee!!!! Wondering what's NeXT... :-) * **********************************************************************
glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) (04/09/91)
Scott Bennett writes > Hmm... I don't think "correct" is really applicable to the old > keyboard either, given the placement of the tilde over the numeric > keypad. Although the key cap doesn't show it, Shift-Escape yields a tilde on the old keyboard. I think that's a pretty standard place for it. Too bad the key doesn't show it. I think the old keyboard is pretty close to perfect, and I'm pretty picky about my keyboards. I still haven't learned to like the new keyboard. Can't live without \ and | somewhere reachable. But, before we get going on this again, we must realize that keyboards are highly personal things and SOMEONE must like the new keyboard. If you're out there, and you really LIKE it, send me some mail. I've never heard anybody say anything nicer than "I can tolerate it." -- Glenn Reid RightBrain Software glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us NeXT/PostScript developers ..{adobe,next}!heaven!glenn 415-851-1785 (fax 851-1470)
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Apr8.225901.12473@mp.cs.niu.edu> bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes: > Hmm... I don't think "correct" is really applicable to the old >keyboard either, given the placement of the tilde over the numeric >keypad. I'd rather see *both* versions replaced by one that looks >like the old one with deficiencies (like the tilde location) fixed. >*That* would be the "correct" one as far as I can see. In case you haven't realized: the ~-character can be accessed with shift-ESC. Thus the old keyboard is relatively correct. Maybe this should be put in the FAQ-sheet. Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet
mikec@wam.umd.edu (Michael D. Callaghan) (04/09/91)
In article <473@heaven.woodside.ca.us> glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) writes: > >Scott Bennett writes >> Hmm... I don't think "correct" is really applicable to the old >> keyboard either, given the placement of the tilde over the numeric >> keypad. > >Although the key cap doesn't show it, Shift-Escape yields a tilde on >the old keyboard. I think that's a pretty standard place for it. >Too bad the key doesn't show it. I think the old keyboard is pretty >close to perfect, and I'm pretty picky about my keyboards. > >I still haven't learned to like the new keyboard. Can't live without >\ and | somewhere reachable. > >But, before we get going on this again, we must realize that keyboards >are highly personal things and SOMEONE must like the new keyboard. If >you're out there, and you really LIKE it, send me some mail. I've never >heard anybody say anything nicer than "I can tolerate it." Just a question, since I'm not selling mine, but would there be a market for an old keyboard if I were willing to sell one? If so, how much of a market? -- MikeC _________________________________________________________ Michael D. Callaghan, MDC Designs, University of Maryland mikec@wam.umd.edu