phys169@canterbury.ac.nz (10/19/90)
In article <1536@ftc.framentec.fr>, ndoduc@framentec.fr (Nhuan Doduc) writes: > Over there in France, a marketing friend of me boasted last september that > we can wait for a big change from 88k to "his" risc by october. Now we're > only the 15th, so ... > The strangest of all is that when I mentioned this to another marketing > friend (of another 88K vendor), he seems to agree, reluctantly through, to > the "unavoidability" of this move ... > What does this mean? Are 88K's going the way of Beta vtr systems, or are there just too many companies doing workstations. I get the impression Sparcs are so far out in front that other chips, even if they're better, are close to doomed. Well, that's putting it a bit strong, perhaps, but what is a realistic appraisal of the situation? Mark (worried) Aitchison, Uni of Canty, New Zealand.
ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (10/19/90)
In article <1990Oct19.120218.9450@canterbury.ac.nz> phys169@canterbury.ac.nz writes: >What does this mean? Are 88K's going the way of Beta vtr systems, or are there >just too many companies doing workstations. I get the impression Sparcs are so >far out in front that other chips, even if they're better, are close to doomed. >Well, that's putting it a bit strong, perhaps, but what is a realistic >appraisal of the situation? In my humble opinion.... I think this is pretty close to the mark. While I would not call the 88k doomed, any more than I would call, say, the Intergraph Clipper doomed, or the AMD29000, I think it has missed the chance to gain any sizeable market penetration. I think you'll find a trend in the industry toward clustering around 2 or 3 architectures (as we have really always done: 8080/z80 and 6502, 80x86 and 680x0, etc.). Unless something really strange happens, you'll see the SPARC and MIPS chips float to the top of the heap. The rest of the pack is left to niche markets or oblivion. As far as technical issues of which chip is `best', I haven't seen too many cases where this has been a criteria for being top of the heap. It usually has more to do with issues like who delivers first, who has the more agressive marketroids or who gets a design win with someone big. At this point in the game, I personally could care less whose RISC I use. They are all fast, there are nice boxes built with all of them, and they all have reasonably good Unixes. Right now I'm looking for the chip with the kind of software profusion that has made the IBM PC the thing most of the world thinks of when they think of computers. Narrowing the market to a few decent architectures will help this along (cloning, e.g. LSI Logic SPARCkit, etc., helps even more). Sigh...and I had such hopes for the 88k. -- ken seefried iii "A snear, a snarl, a whip that ken@dali.gatech.edu stings...these are a few of my favorite things..."
mma@cypress.UUCP ( F) (10/20/90)
In Article <1990Oct19.120218.9450@canterbury.ac.nz> (Mark Aitchison) writes: >What does this mean? Are 88K's going the way of Beta vtr systems, or are there >just too many companies doing workstations. I get the impression Sparcs are so >far out in front that other chips, even if they're better, are close to doomed. >Well, that's putting it a bit strong, perhaps, but what is a realistic >appraisal of the situation? >Mark (worried) Aitchison, Uni of Canty, New Zealand. Well Mark, I and others believe your fears are well founded. It appears at this point in time that the 88k is headed the way of the Dodo bird. Of Course I'm slightly biased ;-> ... A local rumor surfaced that one of my SPARC customers was going to drop their 88k product. I called a highly placed engineering contact who said "We have no plans to drop the 88k, But it appears that the Marketplace already has." -> Signatures? We don't need no stink'in Signatures ! We're the SPARC Renegades from Hell !
rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) (10/22/90)
In article <15497@hydra.gatech.EDU> ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
<
<I think this is pretty close to the mark. While I would not call the
<88k doomed, any more than I would call, say, the Intergraph Clipper
<doomed, or the AMD29000, I think it has missed the chance to gain any
<sizeable market penetration. I think you'll find a trend in the
<industry toward clustering around 2 or 3 architectures (as we have
<really always done: 8080/z80 and 6502, 80x86 and 680x0, etc.).
<Unless something really strange happens, you'll see the SPARC and
<MIPS chips float to the top of the heap. The rest of the pack is
<left to niche markets or oblivion.
I believe that rumors of the 88k's demise are greatly exagerated. So
what if one marginal player drops out of the workstation business.
(Tek is still in the X-terminal business after all.) BFD.
Anyway, even if (over time) that became true, MIPS would *not* be the
first chip I though of as being (necessarily) the next in line for the
#2 spot behind Sparc. (And keep in mind that we are only talking about
RISC chips now... as far as other chips, the 68xxx and 80x86 still have
lots of milage left in them, and when it comes to instruction sets in
general, I imagine that the 370 and VAX instruction sets will be around
awhile yet).
I personally don't know what the outcome of the RISC wars will be yet,
but I think that it is a bit early to count Moto out. Even if Moto was
out, what about the i860? What about HP PA? What about the IBM RS/6000
processor? What data is there to support the notion that MIPS will beat
out all of these to take the #2 slot?
The last time I heard, MIPS was still a little (basically one product)
company that was bleeding red ink. Also, the last thing I heard about
DEC's push in the (MIPS-based) RISC business was that they were really
not selling very many DECstations at all.
(If this posting doesn't draw a response from John Mashey, I'll eat my
modem! :-)
My own opinion is that (over time) the heir to the #2 spot will be some
company with *both* deep pockets and a willingness to second source. That
most likely means either Moto or HP (although one never knows when, if ever,
Intel will wake up and realize that second sourcing is Good and not Bad).
<As far as technical issues of which chip is `best', I haven't seen too
<many cases where this has been a criteria for being top of the heap.
Right. I worked for NatSemi a couple of years ago when the 32000's slide
into oblivion was getting particularly steep. In the early days, the
32000 program had a motto: `Elegance is everything'. You can still
occasionally see licence plate frames tooling around Silly-Cone Valley
on the backs of Hondas emblazoned with that ridiculous motto. As the
demise of the 32000 began to reach fever pitch, some of the marketing
guys at National revised the motto to fit the changing times:
Elephants is everything!
I'm not 100% sure, but I have always presumed that the reference was intended
to refer to white ones. :-)
--
// Ron Guilmette - C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// Motto: If it sticks, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (10/22/90)
Motorola is claiming that their next generation 88K processor will perform b/w 60 and 100mips when running at 25MHz. I think that there is a market for a chip like this. Neither Apple or NeXT have chosen a RISC for their next generation machines, and I think that they will, considering the performance advantage of RISC. Apple has sold 10 times as many machines as Sun. If they go with the 88K, Motorola will catch up fast in the RISC arena. -Mike
tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) (10/22/90)
>>>>> Regarding Re: Tektronix shutdown & move away from 88k's??; rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) adds: rfg> I believe that rumors of the 88k's demise are greatly exagerated. So rfg> what if one marginal player drops out of the workstation business. rfg> (Tek is still in the X-terminal business after all.) BFD. I agree - I priced a Tek 88k workstation and I could not believe anyone would buy one at the prices they were charging (especially for memory), apparently I was right... Someone else pointed out the advantages of cloning and binary compatible software to improve the acceptance of an architecture. I might point out that the 88k is the *only* RISC chip with a binary compatibility standard and an AT&T approved (big deal) ABI is ongoing for Sys V.4 - MIPS really got shot in the foot here when DEC decided to run their bytes backwards. At that point a BCS or ABI for the entire line of machines using the MIPS chip became a hopeless dream. rfg> Anyway, even if (over time) that became true, MIPS would *not* be the rfg> first chip I though of as being (necessarily) the next in line for the rfg> #2 spot behind Sparc. I don't know about this - according to a magazine I have in front of me now Alex Brown Investors Report (whoever he is) claims that RISC workstation sales in FY 1990 were SPARC 187,000, MIPS 45,900, and HP, IBM and everyone else 32,000 - so MIPS is pretty solidly entrenched at the #2 spot right now (not that that means they will stay there). -- ====================================================================== domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com USMail: Tom Horsley uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley 511 Kingbird Circle Delray Beach, FL 33444 +==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+ | (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...) | +====================================================================+
ndoduc@framentec.fr (Nhuan Doduc) (10/22/90)
In <15497@hydra.gatech.EDU> ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >At this point in the game, I personally could care less whose RISC I >and they all have reasonably good Unixes. Right now I'm looking >for the chip with the kind of software profusion that has made the IBM I will add that the technician that I'm has the right to "love" XX Risc chips, but the budget-saver that I'm supposed to be, dictates without any hesitation to buy yy Risc chip. So one of the most important things is the richness of the software offer ... but also VERY important (not second to none!) is the presence of the supplier locally! you guys are in the States with differents constraints and solutions, but over here, in Europe and especially in France, the feeling at the solidity of the supplier, for me at last, is crucial. --nh Nhuan DODUC, Framentec-Cognitech, Paris, France, ndoduc@framentec.fr or ndoduc@cognitech.fr, Association Francaise des Utilisateurs d'Unix, France, doduc@afuu.fr PS: I love Mips but will continue to buy Sun; forget Clipper,88K ...
jcallen@Encore.COM (Jerry Callen) (10/22/90)
>tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes: > >Someone else pointed out the advantages of cloning and binary compatible >software to improve the acceptance of an architecture. I might point out >that the 88k is the *only* RISC chip with a binary compatibility standard >and an AT&T approved (big deal) ABI is ongoing for Sys V.4... Actually, it's going to be interesting to see what happens to the BCS as the ABI rolls in; there are some ugly incompatibilities that have to be resolved _somehow_ and, given the unpleasant realities of AT&T, I'll bet BCS/OCS comes out on the short end of the stick. I've come to believe that the One True Unix is today's equivalent of the Philosopher's Stone... -- Jerry "the eternal skeptic" Callen jcallen@encore.com
ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (10/22/90)
In article <2176@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes: >Anyway, even if (over time) that became true, MIPS would *not* be the >first chip I though of as being (necessarily) the next in line for the >#2 spot behind Sparc. (And keep in mind that we are only talking about >RISC chips now... as far as other chips, the 68xxx and 80x86 still have >lots of milage left in them, and when it comes to instruction sets in >general, I imagine that the 370 and VAX instruction sets will be around >awhile yet). MIPS doesn't look like much until you start to tally the design-ins (DEC, Sony, SGI (also resold as CDC and Pr1me), MIPS, etc.). I'll have to dig a little to quote solid numbers. And of *course* I was only refering to RISC stuff. We'll be stuck with 370 boxes until 2100... > Even if Moto was >out, what about the i860? What about it? There are only three boxes (that I know of) shipping using the i860 as a CPU running Unix, and none of them have any kind of volume. Certainly, the i860 has a big future as a coprocessor doing graphics or number crunching, but I don't see it as a mainstream Unix chip (of course, I'm probably dead wrong...;'). The i960 looks to be a much nicer Unix chip. And besides...the i860 is so damn *weird*... >What about HP PA? HP isn't selling 9000/800's like hotcakes (though they are apparently selling well), and Hitachi is a year away (I think) from bringing an HPPA box to market. >What about the IBM RS/6000 processor? I'll buy this one. IBM is selling RS/6000's as fast as they can make them, and the *are* fast. I guess I just have this mental block about IBM...;') They have also made whispers about second sourcing the chip set. >The last time I heard, MIPS was still a little (basically one product) >company that was bleeding red ink. Also, the last thing I heard about >DEC's push in the (MIPS-based) RISC business was that they were really >not selling very many DECstations at all. Both true. However, other MIPS users are doing pretty well (SGI, Sony). The fate of the MIPS architecture is not tied to the success of MIPS the company. I'll have to agree that noone (especially me) can count out any of the architectures now running around. However, with Tek gone and DG going, I don't think that anyone can deny the fact that the 88k is in a little trouble, as far as being one of the top 2 or 3 players in the RISC market. -- ken seefried iii "A snear, a snarl, a whip that ken@dali.gatech.edu stings...these are a few of my favorite things..."
mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (10/23/90)
Well, I guess I'm forced to respond, although I'd been trying to keep out of this one. I'm trying to keep things factual, but some of this kind of has to verge on marketing-in-self-defense. In article <2176@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes: >< ><I think this is pretty close to the mark. While I would not call the ><88k doomed, any more than I would call, say, the Intergraph Clipper ><doomed, or the AMD29000, I think it has missed the chance to gain any ><sizeable market penetration. I think you'll find a trend in the ><industry toward clustering around 2 or 3 architectures (as we have ><really always done: 8080/z80 and 6502, 80x86 and 680x0, etc.). ><Unless something really strange happens, you'll see the SPARC and ><MIPS chips float to the top of the heap. The rest of the pack is ><left to niche markets or oblivion. I assume Ken meant "to the top of the heap of the mult-vendor-used RISCs", since all of the other chips compared to were things used in multiple vendors' systems. (Hence, begging the question of what will go on with RS/6000, HP PA, both of which seem likely to survive OK.) >I believe that rumors of the 88k's demise are greatly exagerated. So >what if one marginal player drops out of the workstation business. >(Tek is still in the X-terminal business after all.) BFD. Of course it is not the demise. I do suspect that it means there is little likelihood of 88K presence in the higher end of the technical workstation market, leaving as possibilities mid-range (maybe, due to DG, Omron), and multi-user commercial (seems more likely: Moto, DG, Norsk). Also, some Telecom or Automotive applications remain a traditional Moto strength. Since some PC vendors have said they'll use SPARC or MIPS, that leaves Apple as the key design win that the 88K really needs, as almost every other big vendor has picked their RISC, if any. >Anyway, even if (over time) that became true, MIPS would *not* be the >first chip I though of as being (necessarily) the next in line for the >#2 spot behind Sparc. (And keep in mind that we are only talking about >RISC chips now... as far as other chips, the 68xxx and 80x86 still have >lots of milage left in them, and when it comes to instruction sets in >general, I imagine that the 370 and VAX instruction sets will be around >awhile yet). As noted elsewise, I don't expect any of these other instruction sets to go away. As to who's #1 & who's #2: a) There are workstations, ranging from low to high. Although I don't believe most market forecasts (if you compare numbers, it's very hard to tell who's right & who's wrong, even when it is possible to get good numbers). Sun is ahead in units, and at the low-end, whereas MIPS-based systems are pretty strong in mid-range to high-end. ((DEC, SONY, NEC. MIPS, Sumitomo Electric); (DEC, SGI, E&S)). All of the numbers I've ever seen show the total values to be much closer than the units, given the different emphases. (This makes perfect sense, of course, given what DEC, and especially SGI, and E&S do, although the mix is changing somewhat, especially as folks like Sony get ramped up. It is clear that Sun is a year ahead in going for the lowest price-points (kudoes to Andy B, of course), but the dust has yet to settle on this. IBM is coming in, more at high end than low end so far. Note that last year, Sun was 97+ % of the SPARC systems market, and hence, fairly easy to track. b) There are also servers, and multi-user machines, especially for commercial market. Here, HP PA does pretty well, as does MIPS. There is some Sun stuff here, but not much, and what makes it really confusing is that the Sun stuff sometimes seems to get counted twice, depending on which market analysis company you talk to. ICL does some here with SPARC. Note that a lot of the MIPS stuff, surprisingly, is already in the commerical market, and in fact, if you count commercial applications, I think the MIPS software catalog has more commercial applications that Sun's. (Whether bean counts are everything, like Sun seems to believe, is not something that needs to be tackled in this note.) IBM is coming into this, as RS/6000s get sold as commercial multi-user machines, which is perhaps a little odd (given the ISA's emphasis on floating point), but not surprising. c) Then there are things that are really big systems, but not UNIX or general-purpose, i.e., like telephone switches. here, I'd guess the RISC war is between MIPS (which has at least one public, and some more that aren't), and the 88K. Little trace of SPARC. In lower parts, all kinds of things, such i960s, AMD 29Ks, lots of 68Ks. d) Then there are things that really look like embedded control, like: laser printers, avionics, controllers, automobiles, etc. MIPS is actually doing OK in the (currently) small fraction of this market for which 32-bit micros make any sense. There are already plenty of chips in high-end laser printers (because of Adobe) and Canon Color Laser Copiers, and some of the more-dedicated embedded-control chips will be abel to compete for the lower-priced versions. (BIG WAR IN LASER PRINTERS). You WILL see MIPS chips in HDTVs, DATs, maybe VCRs, and automobiles (I can't name names of course). In any case, Motorola and Intel (960) will remain strong in this, and the new NSC 32K derivatives look interesting, and in general, there's room for lots more things. Anyway, the message was: MIPS is actually OK in selected parts of this already. This area is important for volume reasons, of course, and some of the most successful chips out there have had both systems applications and embedded applications. Little trace of SPARC here, so far, in anything actually shipping, except maybe, VME boards. I don't know what the true metric is: chip unit volume, system unit volume, or total value. It's hard to tell what's happening unless you have these, and it depends on who you are as to what you think is important. (This is why it's hard to declare anything #1 or #2, even in systems. Let me pick the market segment, and whether it's units or value, and I can prove almost anything about who's ahead!) >I personally don't know what the outcome of the RISC wars will be yet, >but I think that it is a bit early to count Moto out. Even if Moto was >out, what about the i860? What about HP PA? What about the IBM RS/6000 >processor? What data is there to support the notion that MIPS will beat >out all of these to take the #2 slot? As usual, it depends on what you're counting, and it's hard to tell. I think the original thing was for chips used in lots of people's systems, although I certainly don't expect HP PA and RS/6000 to go away. So far the i860 seems mostly used as a non-reprogrammmable graphics unit. It is the case that a fair number of serious companies ship MIPS-based systems, already, in a wide range or markets. >The last time I heard, MIPS was still a little (basically one product) >company that was bleeding red ink. Also, the last thing I heard about >DEC's push in the (MIPS-based) RISC business was that they were really >not selling very many DECstations at all. > >(If this posting doesn't draw a response from John Mashey, I'll eat my >modem! :-) Well, your modem is safe. Of course, some facts would help here: 1) MIPS sells machines ranging from $9K desktops thru $150K servers, and has cranked out quite a few system products in a few years. We do have 700+ people, and have done >$100M so far in 1990. (This is NOT big, of course, but it's not a little 1-product company.) 2) MIPS has designed both CMOS and ECL chipsets of various kinds, and has all kinds of technology-license products, as well as lots of software products, both of its own, and third-party. MIPS third-party s/w catalog by itself is 700+ packages (without counting mice, NCD X-terminals, VME extenders, etc, like at least one other vendor does :-) of products one can actually order and get. (This begs the question of bean-counting of applications, but does say somebody out there msut beleive something is happening, as most of these applications came on in the last 12 months.) 3) We just announced results for last quarter, and I'd hardly call it bleeding red ink (slight profit), although life is certainly not easy out there right now for almost everybody in this business. As is well-known, we are working hard with our colleagues at B.I.T. to improve yields on the ECL chips. It doesn't take much arithmetic to see what happens when you have, for instance, 20 $150K computers you'd like to ship, and each is missing one chip..... $3M takes a big byte from a quarter, at our size. >My own opinion is that (over time) the heir to the #2 spot will be some >company with *both* deep pockets and a willingness to second source. That >most likely means either Moto or HP (although one never knows when, if ever, >Intel will wake up and realize that second sourcing is Good and not Bad). Well, do note that MIPS also has plenty of money in the bank, although hardly in this league. As I think another poster noted, the web of partnerships, relationships, investors, etc, around MIPS is much bigger than MIPS itself. Anyway, nothing is certain in this business, and many players have various strengths in this. However, the rules in this game keep changing, and sometimes surprising huge established players... -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: mash@mips.com OR {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash DDD: 408-524-7015, 524-8253 or (main number) 408-720-1700 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
jdarcy@encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) (10/23/90)
mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: >Of course it is not the demise. I do suspect that it means there is >little likelihood of 88K presence in the higher end of the technical >workstation market, leaving as possibilities mid-range (maybe, due to >DG, Omron), and multi-user commercial (seems more likely: Moto, DG, Norsk). I don't know about this part. Encore's plans for the 88K are pretty hefty machines, and Dolphin's not too far off the mark either. I wouldn't be at all surprised if DG had some plans for a big 88K multi either. My personal opinion is quite the opposite of yours: I think SPARC and MIPS will have most of the workstation market (low and high end, respectively) but that the 88K will become more popular in the high end servers, especially multis. The obvious exception to this trend is SGI (and, in the future, DEC), but overall I think 88Ks will sell into that market very well. -- Jeff d'Arcy, Generic Software Engineer - jdarcy@encore.com Nothing was ever achieved by accepting reality
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) (10/23/90)
In article <15638@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: > > I'll have to agree that noone (especially me) can count out any of the > architectures now running around. However, with Tek gone and DG > going, I don't think that anyone can deny the fact that the 88k is in > a little trouble, as far as being one of the top 2 or 3 players in > the RISC market. I beg your pardon? Data General is most certainly *not* withdrawing the 88K-based AViiON line from the market! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA
ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (10/25/90)
In article <1990Oct23.162306.5579@dg-rtp.dg.com> goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: > >I beg your pardon? Data General is most certainly *not* withdrawing >the 88K-based AViiON line from the market! > I was not refering to DG pulling the AViiON. I was refering to DG's health as a buisiness. -- ken seefried iii "A snear, a snarl, a whip that ken@dali.gatech.edu stings...these are a few of my favorite things..."
crisp@mips.COM (Richard Crisp) (10/25/90)
In article <1990Oct23.162306.5579@dg-rtp.dg.com> goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: >In article <15638@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried >iii) writes: >> >> I'll have to agree that noone (especially me) can count out any of >the >> architectures now running around. However, with Tek gone and DG >> going, I don't think that anyone can deny the fact that the 88k is in >> a little trouble, as far as being one of the top 2 or 3 players in >> the RISC market. > >I beg your pardon? Data General is most certainly *not* withdrawing >the 88K-based AViiON line from the market! When the previous poster said Data General was going.... perhaps what he meant was that Data General was going ...*nowhere* :-) -- Richard Crisp crisp@mips.com MIPS Computer Systems !decwrl!mips!crisp 928 Arques MS 2-02 (408) 524-8177 Sunnyvale, Ca 94086
glasser@dg-rtp.dg.com (Scott Glasser) (10/25/90)
In article <15779@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: |> In article <1990Oct23.162306.5579@dg-rtp.dg.com> goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: |> > |> >I beg your pardon? Data General is most certainly *not* withdrawing |> >the 88K-based AViiON line from the market! |> > |> |> I was not refering to DG pulling the AViiON. I was refering to DG's |> health as a buisiness. |> |> -- |> ken seefried iii "A snear, a snarl, a whip that |> ken@dali.gatech.edu stings...these are a few of |> my favorite things..." |> I've seen folks wagering $0.75 or thereabouts on 88k futures. The US Geological Survey (DIS II) and Sprint International have placed "bets" totaling over $150M that DG's AViiON 88k Systems will be around at least until the late '90s. Any takers? :-) ===========================+============================================ == Scott Glasser | internet: glasser@dg-rtp.dg.com Data General Corp. | uucp: <backbone>!mcnc!rti!dg-rtp!glasser Research Triangle Park, NC | voice: (919) 248-6113 ---------------------------+-------------------------------------------- -- Q: How many managers does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: Three. One to find someone to do the work, one to take credit, and one to <your favorite manager stereotype goes here>. ======================================================================== ==
staff@cadlab.sublink.ORG (Alex Martelli) (10/25/90)
phys169@canterbury.ac.nz writes: ... >just too many companies doing workstations. I get the impression Sparcs are so >far out in front that other chips, even if they're better, are close to doomed. I'm pretty sure this is false for "other chips" *in general* - MIPS, in particular, seems to be doing just fine, what with Sony and DEC and SGI and so on - but I don't know about the 88000 itself. -- Alex Martelli - CAD.LAB s.p.a., v. Stalingrado 45, Bologna, Italia Email: (work:) staff@cadlab.sublink.org, (home:) alex@am.sublink.org Phone: (work:) ++39 (51) 371099, (home:) ++39 (51) 250434; Fax: ++39 (51) 366964 (work only; any time of day or night).
malc@iconsys.uucp (Malcolm Weir) (10/26/90)
In article <TOM.90Oct22074015@hcx2.ssd.csd.harris.com> tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes: > >I don't know about this - according to a magazine I have in front of me now >Alex Brown Investors Report (whoever he is) claims that RISC workstation >sales in FY 1990 were SPARC 187,000, MIPS 45,900, and HP, IBM and everyone >else 32,000 - so MIPS is pretty solidly entrenched at the #2 spot right now >(not that that means they will stay there). >-- Are these numbers units, or dollars? Do they reflect component sales or system sales? If they refer to units sold, then SPARC certainly is way ahead, and will probably remain there. BUT SPARC systems are cheap, (relatively) and MIPS, HP, 88K, and IBM are basically going into big(-er) boxes, which carry a higher price tag. So from a software standpoint, the dominating players will be the ones with the highest investment (IMHO), which at present is probably HP today, with a rapidly accelerating IBM behind them. But, the 88K is being used in multi-user things from DG, Motorola, Encore, Sanyo/Icon er al., and the existing proven ABI result in an installed base representing a fair sum of money. Which may in turn be enough to keep the 88K a healthy contender. Of course, if Apple produces an 88K Mac, then all bets are off. Macs are traditionally expensive machines which sell as if they are cheap PCs, basically because of their software. Finally, remember that not all of the big players in the computer industry have announced a RISC product/strategy/loyalty. OK, so NCR dropped out of 88K, in favor of parallel '486s (Yukk, bletch...), but we're still waiting for Unisys and several of the non-U.S. vendors (such as Bull, Olivetti, etc.) are still to commit (I think). In short, don't dismiss the 88K lightly, particularly if the 88110 (or whatever) turns out to be an easy upgrade from the 88K. Multiple 85 MIP chips? Yummy. Malc.
lbrown@dg-rtp.dg.com (Lee Brown) (10/26/90)
jcallen@Encore.com says: |> Actually, it's going to be interesting to see what happens to the BCS as |> the ABI rolls in; there are some ugly incompatibilities that have to be |> resolved _somehow_ and, given the unpleasant realities of AT&T, I'll bet |> BCS/OCS comes out on the short end of the stick. As an occasional participant in the 88open committee that works on the BCS/OCS and ABI, I'll echo your opinion that there are some ugly incompatibilities between V.3 and V.4 (thanks, AT&T) that have made writing the ABI challenging. However, those incompatibilities have been addressed satisfactorily (I wouldn't have bet on it, but it happened) and BCS/OCS support is both possible and guaranteed for several years to come. -- Lee Brown (919) 248-6274 Data General Corporation lbrown@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 T. W. Alexander Drive {backbone}!mcnc!rti!dg-rtp!lbrown Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (10/26/90)
In article <jdarcy.656653748@zelig> jdarcy@encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) writes: >mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: >>Of course it is not the demise. I do suspect that it means there is >>little likelihood of 88K presence in the higher end of the technical >>workstation market, leaving as possibilities mid-range (maybe, due to >>DG, Omron), and multi-user commercial (seems more likely: Moto, DG, Norsk). >I don't know about this part. Encore's plans for the 88K are pretty hefty >machines, and Dolphin's not too far off the mark either. I wouldn't be at >all surprised if DG had some plans for a big 88K multi either. My personal >opinion is quite the opposite of yours: I think SPARC and MIPS will have >most of the workstation market (low and high end, respectively) but that >the 88K will become more popular in the high end servers, especially multis. >The obvious exception to this trend is SGI (and, in the future, DEC), but >overall I think 88Ks will sell into that market very well. Hmmm. I hadn't split it out that way, but certainly could be possible. Encore is using standard 88K's (I think), so that one kind of depends on the performance track of the 88100 over the next year or so, compared with the {SPARC, MIPS, IBM RS/6000} high-end tracks. DG has described an ECL project, as has Dolphin, but at least one of the those dates (and maybe both) that I've seen was 1992. Hence, if there are going to be big technical servers in 1991, it's probably up to Encore... If there aren't some in this market in 1991, 1992 won't matter very much... I will observe that the 88100 (as shown on SPEC data anyway), is better at integer & 32-bit FP than 64-bit FP, which will tend to keep 88100-based machines away from the parts of the market that like 64-bit FP, given the other competition that's out there. (Of course, plenty of the technical market doesn't need 64-bit FP). -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: mash@mips.com OR {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash DDD: 408-524-7015, 524-8253 or (main number) 408-720-1700 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (10/29/90)
[ ... Tek is out of 88K based systems -- poor 88k ... ]
Note that I am redirecting followups to comp.arch, because the alleged
demise of the 88k is not longer the sole subject of this thread.
On 23 Oct 90 02:22:26 GMT, mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) said:
mash> In article <2176@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette)
mash> writes:
rfg> I think this is pretty close to the mark. While I would not call
rfg> the 88k doomed, any more than I would call, say, the Intergraph
rfg> Clipper doomed, or the AMD29000, I think it has missed the chance
rfg> to gain any sizeable market penetration. I think you'll find a
rfg> trend in the industry toward clustering around 2 or 3 architectures
rfg> (as we have really always done: 8080/z80 and 6502, 80x86 and 680x0,
rfg> etc.). Unless something really strange happens, you'll see the
rfg> SPARC and MIPS chips float to the top of the heap. The rest of the
rfg> pack is left to niche markets or oblivion.
mash> I don't know what the true metric is: chip unit volume, system
mash> unit volume, or total value.
Well, if we are comparing chips it is probably total value of chips
shipped. Number of chips shipped is also another good metric, and
probably we want to see both numbers, because they say different things.
Given that CPU&support chips are a small fraction of system cost, it
seems silly to decide the popularity of a chip architecture on the unit
or sales volume of the systems it goes into.
rfg> The last time I heard, MIPS was still a little (basically one
rfg> product) company that was bleeding red ink. Also, the last thing I
rfg> heard about DEC's push in the (MIPS-based) RISC business was that
rfg> they were really not selling very many DECstations at all.
Well, MIPS has got the DEC account. That is by itself interesting;
actually *very* interesting; and DEC is selling fairly well, even if
other parts of the company are doing not so well. After all, as some
business weekly suggested some time ago, MIPS' business is basically
technology licensing, like Adobe, not products.
mash> Of course, some facts would help here: 1) MIPS sells machines
mash> ranging from $9K desktops thru $150K servers, and has cranked out
mash> quite a few system products in a few years.
Incidentally, why not make a MIPS PC/AT compatible? I mean, a machine
that has an R3000 chip set instead of a 386 chip set, and is otherwise
identical (can use the same peripherals, boards, cages, etc...). I think
that 386 compatibility would easily be done with a 386 plug in board
(instead of doing the opposite, like Everex and others, who put with
good success an 88k or 29k onto a plug in board) and VP/ix or DOSmerge.
It would be extraodinarily inexpesive -- I guess that an R3000 chip set
would be cheaper than a 386/486 chip set. I would believe that going for
the 8088/80286/80386 motherboard replacement market would be nice, and
could provide the needed volume for MIPS, or AMD or Motorola, or SPARC,
or the ARM, or anybody else.
If somebody says that the PC/AT motherboard technology is not well
suited to running high speed RISC chips, please tell me why the 486
seems competitive with such high speed RISC chips when running in PC/AT
type motherboards (ISA or EISA). Also, please tell me in which way it is
different from motherboard technology in the new Sun SPARC machines,
except that the letter do not have that many slots :-).
mash> We do have 700+ people, and have done >$100M so far in 1990.
mash> (This is NOT big, of course, but it's not a little 1-product
mash> company.)
This is *miniscule*. Many regional car dealerships, or Coca Cola
distributors, or McDonald's licensees, have substantially higher
turnovers and profits in the USA. Naturally it is interesting that MIPS
are doing 100M/700 == 150K dollars per employee on average. That they
are not posting huge profits is simply a miracle (I know better of
course).
Also consider Dell, or CompuAdd, or many of the players in the IBM PC
clone market. By comparison with them, MIPS is pretty small, and does
not have comparable growth rates or profits; it has substantially higher
turnover per employee though.
mash> 2) MIPS has designed both CMOS and ECL chipsets of various kinds,
mash> and has all kinds of technology-license products, as well as lots
mash> of software products, both of its own, and third-party.
Ok, ok, John Mashey, we know you are darn good. We know, OK? :-).
Not only that, you are the only ones, apart from SPARC, that have
licensed your thing to many second sources. You are also "open"!
mash> 3) We just announced results for last quarter, and I'd hardly call
mash> it bleeding red ink (slight profit), although life is certainly
mash> not easy out there right now for almost everybody in this
mash> business.
Including even the above mentioned clone makers.
mash> As is well-known, we are working hard with our colleagues at
mash> B.I.T. to improve yields on the ECL chips.
In the latest issue of Byte I read that BIT have *dumped* the R6000
development. Am I hallucinating? The justification given was that it is
expected that CMOS chips will soon reach the same speeds, and the window
of opportunity for an ECL based CPU has been reestimated from half a
dozen years to one or two, which is too little. Too bad, because I love
ECL.
mash> It doesn't take much arithmetic to see what happens when you have,
mash> for instance, 20 $150K computers you'd like to ship, and each is
mash> missing one chip..... $3M takes a big byte from a quarter, at our
mash> size.
That is why MIPS had better be a technology company. No matter how much
liquidity they have, big oligopolists can make their customers pay for
their suppliers' mistakes better.
mash> Well, do note that MIPS also has plenty of money in the bank,
mash> although hardly in this league. As I think another poster noted,
mash> the web of partnerships, relationships, investors, etc, around
mash> MIPS is much bigger than MIPS itself.
Both would melt in ten seconds if MIPS looked like being a loser.
Fortunately MIPS looks like being a winner.
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.ukmash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct25.183519.19324@iconsys.uucp> malc@iconsys.uucp (Malcolm Weir) writes: .... >Finally, remember that not all of the big players in the computer industry >have announced a RISC product/strategy/loyalty. OK, so NCR dropped out of 88K, >in favor of parallel '486s (Yukk, bletch...), but we're still waiting for >Unisys and several of the non-U.S. vendors (such as Bull, Olivetti, etc.) >are still to commit (I think). Bull ships MIPS-based boxes. The 88K list I use in public talks includes the following (please correct me or update if I'm wrong; I prefer not to show incorrect info about competitors): 1)Shipping:Motorola, DG, Sanyo/ICON, Tadpole Technology, Dolphin, Omron, Harris, BBN, Encore (Alpha or Beta), Avalon, Force. 2) Dropped out: Tektronix, Stratus, Everex/Opus (maybe), NCR 3) Not yet: Unisys 4) From Moto's 4Q89 list of design-ins (don't know status): Ellemtel, Northern Telecom, Omnicomp, Prometa, Aitech Systems, Ltd, Raytheon, Smiths Industries, Thomson, MCC Experimental Systems, JPL. From other notes, it sound like I might add Philips (as the system division OEMs 88K boxes, although the embedded folks are doing SPARC stuff.) In Europe, almost everybody seems to be committed except Olivetti. (ICL to SPARC; Dolphin to 88K; most of rest to MIPS). In the U.S., major uncommitteds include Apple, Compaq, Zenith, Dell, etc. In Far East, it's mostly SPARC & MIPS, with a few players yet to be committed. -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: mash@mips.com OR {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash DDD: 408-524-7015, 524-8253 or (main number) 408-720-1700 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (10/30/90)
In article <42487@mips.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: >In article <1990Oct25.183519.19324@iconsys.uucp> malc@iconsys.uucp (Malcolm Weir) writes: >.... >>Finally, remember that not all of the big players in the computer industry >>have announced a RISC product/strategy/loyalty. OK, so NCR dropped out of 88K, >>in favor of parallel '486s (Yukk, bletch...), but we're still waiting for >>Unisys and several of the non-U.S. vendors (such as Bull, Olivetti, etc.) >>are still to commit (I think). > >Bull ships MIPS-based boxes. > And Olivetti ships i860 boxes, though I dunno if that really counts (they are i486 motherboards with i860 co-processors). Other than that, Olivetti hasn't, to my very incomplete knowledge, even announced interest in other RISC architectures. I'd like to know if this is otherwise. >2) Dropped out: Tektronix, Stratus, Everex/Opus (maybe), NCR ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | I don't think this is anywhere near official. However, Sun, LSI Logic and Opus have been plowing a lot of effort into the SPARCkit clones, and the last Opus person I talked to (circa 5 weeks ago) mentioned that I "probably wouldn't want to buy and 88k Personal Mainframe" (88k plugin card for ISA bus machines). They would really like you to buy SPARC stuff... -- ken seefried iii "A snear, a snarl, a whip that ken@dali.gatech.edu stings...these are a few of my favorite things..."
nadkarni@samsung.COM (Sanjay Nadkarni) (10/30/90)
I am curious to hear about the dropouts. Were the reasons purely business (ie. decided not to enter the workstation market) or were they also related to performance and other things like not enought ISV's commited and Motorola not keeping up the delivery dates. -- Sanjay Nadkarni Internet: nadkarni@samsung.com Samsung Software America Andover, MA 01810 "..my thoughts and my opinions"
quirk@dg-rtp.dg.com (Peter Quirk) (10/31/90)
The 88K is not going away. In fact, Motorola has announced (leaked?) news of the 88110 recently and published a broad brush roadmap for the 88K cpu for the next ten years. They predict they will be delivering 400 MIPS on a CMOS chip before the end of the decade. Almost as interesting was the announcement of the 88300 - a combination of the 88110 and 68030 I/O for embedded controller applications. All those 68030-based controllers will start screaming when fitted with an 88300. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Peter Quirk Internet: quirk@quokka.webo.dg.com Data General Corporation Phone: +1 (508)898 4679 3400 Computer Drive Fax: +1 (508)898 2684 Westboro, MA, USA 01581
jkenton@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff Kenton) (10/31/90)
From article <1095@dg.dg.com>, by quirk@dg-rtp.dg.com (Peter Quirk): > The 88K is not going away. In fact, Motorola has announced (leaked?) > news of the 88110 recently . . . How much news of the 88110 is public now? Can we talk about it? Six months ago, when I mentioned the 88110 in a posting, Motorola's non-disclosure police got all upset. Where does this stand now? Anyone from Motorola have an official comment (or an unofficial guess)? ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ----- jeff kenton: consulting at jkenton@pinocchio.encore.com ----- ----- until 11/30/90 -- always at (617) 894-4508 ----- ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----
massengi@unx.sas.com (Darrell Massengill) (11/01/90)
In article <Fnll&ww2@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >Motorola is claiming that their next generation 88K processor will >perform b/w 60 and 100mips when running at 25MHz. I think that there >is a market for a chip like this. Neither Apple or NeXT have chosen a >RISC for their next generation machines, and I think that they will, >considering the performance advantage of RISC. Apple has sold 10 >times as many machines as Sun. If they go with the 88K, Motorola will >catch up fast in the RISC arena. > >-Mike The Oct. 15 Computerworld (page 6) indicates that Apple is using the new 88110 chip in a new Macintosh that is due out early next year. This could be a sign that Apple will move toward the 88000 architecture in general. Even though the SPARC and MIPS people who post to this news group want you to believe that the 88000 is a "dead" architecture - I believe that it is still too early to decide who will and will not make it. I think those folks from SPARC and MIPS hope if they say it is dead often enough it will become true. They may be worried about not remaining #1 and #2. I've seen the specs on the new 88110 (under non-disclosure) and I think they have reason to be worried... And speaking of rumors - is there any truth to DEC moving away from MIPS and toward their own architecture? If so, MIPS should worry. (That should SPARC some debate from the MIPS folks). Disclaimer: Opinions are mine, mine, mine... -- Darrell Massengill Manager of Host Development SAS Institute Inc. massengi@unx.sas.com (919) 677-8000 x7658 SAS Campus Dr, Cary, NC
mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (11/01/90)
In article <1095@dg.dg.com> quirk@dg-rtp.dg.com (Peter Quirk) writes: >The 88K is not going away. In fact, Motorola has announced (leaked?) >news of the 88110 >recently and published a broad brush roadmap for the 88K cpu for the >next ten years. >They predict they will be delivering 400 MIPS on a CMOS chip before the >end of the decade. >Almost as interesting was the announcement of the 88300 - a combination >of the 88110 and >68030 I/O for embedded controller applications. All those 68030-based >controllers will >start screaming when fitted with an 88300. Sigh. There is a discussion theme going on, here, and in comp.arch, about the unreliability of second/third/fourth-hand information. The discussion takes the form of: A: I hear that magazine X printed that Y said such and such, or that company Q is doing or has done Z. B: I was there, Y didn't say that, X got it wrong OR: I work for Q, and we didn't do Z; here are the true facts I thought that more of the details of this particular issue (88110) were covered in <42311.mips.mips.com>, posted October 23. If thatr got lost somewhere, I'll repost it: it quoted the interesting parts of the presentation, a copy of which is on my bookshelf. The number given was 4000 mips/chip, and the presentation at Microprocessor Forum was explicitly NOT an announcement; no dates were given, other than to say (under pressure from audience) it would be announced next year. A single foil covered the 88300 family: "Family of integrated processor products 88000 Architecture compatible Emphasis: High integration Low cost Low power Modular design Compatible with 68300 family I/O modules Leverages 88110 technology, tools, and software" *opinion* that is not an announcement, and if you can tell me from that what they'll look like and whether or not they'll be competitive with other parts on the market whenever they come out, I am imnpressed. Just for calibration: 1) The 68040 was described (not announced) at Hot Chips, 6/89. 2) In 1986 Motorola presentations, the 78000 (previous number of 88000) had the following schedule: Alpha parts July 1987 Beta Oct 87 Production (200-500 sets) April 88 MC Production July 88 The foils also say (exact quote): "1987 - 20 MHZ CMOS 78000 MPU and 78200 CMMU CHIP SET (13 MIPS AND 6 MFLOPS) 1989 - 30 MHZ 78000 CHIP SET (20 MIPS AND 10 MFLOPS) 1989 - A/I ORIENTED DERIVATIVE PROCESSOR AND CMMU CHIP SET (>2 MLIP) * TAG PROCESSING IN PROCESSOR * GARBAGE COLLECTION IN CMMU 1990 - VECTORIZED FLOATING POINT 1991 - GAAS INTEGER UNIT (>50 MIPS)" You may recall that the 88K was announced 2Q88, but it was about 3Q89 before many production chips were shipped, given the FP bugs. Now, this is NOT to say that Moto is bad and evil, and says things that don't happen. Vendors often have plans they believe in, and things just don't work that way, and t his happens to almost everybody, especially since customers DEMAND a 10-year roadmap, when NOBODY really knows exactly what they're going to do in 5 years, much less 10. However, the point is: the industry right now is undergoing a terrific "futures war" in which everyone outpredicts everybody else, and wonderful bubble charts are drawn to show futures. In addition, at conferences, people describe one chip set after another, each faster. The only problem is that many of them NEVER come to pass. Of things described in Hot CHips and Microprocessor Forum, within last 18 months, at least 3-4 CPUs described to eager audiences have already been cancelled before they were ever shipped, and many more had better have some Good Luck if they're going to make it soon enough to be interesting. -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: mash@mips.com OR {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash DDD: 408-524-7015, 524-8253 or (main number) 408-720-1700 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
ggw%wolves@cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) (11/01/90)
In <16031@hydra.gatech.EDU> ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >In article <42487@mips.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: > >The 88K list I use in public talks includes the following (please correct >me or update if I'm wrong; I prefer not to show incorrect info about >competitors): >1)Shipping:Motorola,DG, Sanyo/ICON, Tadpole Technology, Dolphin, Omron, Harris, > BBN, Encore (Alpha or Beta), Avalon, Force. >2) Dropped out: Tektronix, Stratus, Everex/Opus (maybe), NCR >3) Not yet: Unisys [to repeat] >2) Dropped out: Tektronix, Stratus, Everex/Opus (maybe), NCR > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | >I don't think this is anywhere near official. However, Sun, LSI Logic >and Opus have been plowing a lot of effort into the SPARCkit clones, >and the last Opus person I talked to (circa 5 weeks ago) mentioned >that I "probably wouldn't want to buy and 88k Personal Mainframe" (88k >plugin card for ISA bus machines). They would really like you to buy >SPARC stuff... This week, Opus told me that they have NO PLANS TO ABANDON the 88k. They ARE *pushing* the spark, but they do have active engineering programs for the 88k. They, in fact, have just released the re-engineered board that allows for 4MB SIMMs. We should finally be getting our beta-test board upgraded to a real board :-) Additionally, an updated X-Windows System for the PM400 was recently released. What did NOT help was that Everex decided to no longer make the 2015 ethernet controller that Opus has written into the kernal. I guess I need to get the kernal customizing kit now for sure! :-( Disclaimer: You think Duke or Opus have any official relationship to what I type? Get your head examined! No WAY! -- Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/01/90)
In article <42589@mips.mips.COM>, mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: > 1989 - A/I ORIENTED DERIVATIVE PROCESSOR AND CMMU CHIP SET > (>2 MLIP) > * TAG PROCESSING IN PROCESSOR > * GARBAGE COLLECTION IN CMMU This design was actually written up as a thesis in Arizona, but when I heard about it was still covered by all sorts of non-disclosure stuff, and I was on the wrong side of the agreements. So I _do_ know that there was a design, and that the claimed LIP rate had some sort of credibility assuming the projected speed of the base processor, but I _don't_ know whether it ever got as far as masks, let alone silicon. The 88k makes a nice AI machine as it stands. -- The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3 may always be replied to with a lob across the net. --Alasdair Macintyre.
mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Nov1.043445.28860@wolves.uucp> ggw%wolves@cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: >[to repeat] >>2) Dropped out: Tektronix, Stratus, Everex/Opus (maybe), NCR >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>I don't think this is anywhere near official. However, Sun, LSI Logic >>and Opus have been plowing a lot of effort into the SPARCkit clones, >>and the last Opus person I talked to (circa 5 weeks ago) mentioned >>that I "probably wouldn't want to buy and 88k Personal Mainframe" (88k >>plugin card for ISA bus machines). They would really like you to buy >>SPARC stuff... > This week, Opus told me that they have NO PLANS TO ABANDON the >88k. They ARE *pushing* the spark, but they do have active engineering >programs for the 88k. They, in fact, have just released the >re-engineered board that allows for 4MB SIMMs. We should finally be >getting our beta-test board upgraded to a real board :-) Additionally, >an updated X-Windows System for the PM400 was recently released. OK, thanx. Sorry for the error, I'll fix the charts. (Now that I think of it, the specific comment was attributed to Everex, but I'l try to recheck.) -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: mash@mips.com OR {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash DDD: 408-524-7015, 524-8253 or (main number) 408-720-1700 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) (11/04/90)
In article <42310@mips.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: >Well, I guess I'm forced to respond, although I'd been trying >to keep out of this one. I'm trying to keep things factual, but some of >this kind of has to verge on marketing-in-self-defense. I just wanted to follow-up a previous posting of mine and say that (as John Mashey has pointed out) I said some things that were entirely unfair regarding MIPS. I'm sorry that I said these things. In particular, John pointed out to me that (all rumors aside) MIPS has *not* been losing money, and in fact thay have continued to show a profit (however small) even during these difficult times. Also, I said that MIPS was a `one product company'. John pointed out to me that this might have a radically different meaning (in some people`s minds) that what I meant. All I meant was that (unlike Intel, which is into everything from EEPROMS to top-of-the-line parallel processors, and Motorola, which is into everything from celular phones to DSP's) MIPS' primary claim to fame is their CPU chips (and, as John points out, the systems which contain them). The point I was trying to make was that (relative to these beheamoths) MIPS doesn't have quite the same breadth of product lines. Thus, should the computer business go *really* sour, MIPS would not have the same kind of divergent product lines that Moto and Intel have to sustain them. Of course, as John also rightly points out, MIPS is no longer just a CPU company, and they actually do derive the bulk of their income from selling *systems*. Also, they seem to have signed up a lot of big players for their architecture. These facts bode well for MIPS' long term survival even if a very steep downturn should occur. In a private E-mail message, John pointed out to me that my characterization of MIPS as a `one product company' might be misconstrued (by some) to infer that `they hit one home run, and that's all they will ever get'. Anyway, that's most certainly *not* what I meant to say. They have already hit several home runs. I just meant that they are strictly in the CPU business (and, much to my surprize, the systems business in a big way). They don't make celular phones and the don't make large scale parallel processors or EEPROMS. (Come to think of it... maybe they like it better that way. :-) I just wanted to set the record straight. Now I'm sorry that I ever even joined in this argument about who is winning and who is losing the RISC wars. I hope that everybody wins. When there are lots of competitors (as now) and lots of healthy competition, the biggest winners are the customers and the computer industry as a whole. Yea verily, let us not hasten back to those sad times when a giant blue shadow darkened the landscape in all directions for as far as the eye could see. -- anon -- // Ron Guilmette - C++ Entomologist // Internet: rfg@ncd.com uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg // Motto: If it sticks, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Oct31.180726.18797@unx.sas.com> massengi@unx.sas.com (Darrell Massengill) writes: >The Oct. 15 Computerworld (page 6) indicates that Apple is using the >new 88110 chip in a new Macintosh that is due out early next year. >This could be a sign that Apple will move toward the 88000 architecture >in general. There has been discussion elsewhere on the unreliability of such rumors. This is a perfect example of vague rumor-mongering. Let's try to convert it into something specific, so that on some date, one can either say "it happened, or it didn't". I'd claim that "due out" ought to include: announcement demo and maybe shipping, or if not, then soon thereafter and that early next year should be 1Q91, but could be 2Q91. Would people accept the following restatement as specific enough that you could know whether it happened or not? "Apple is using the new 88110 chip in a new Mac, and will announce and demo it no later than the end of June, 1991." Now, my personal opinion is that it seems unlikely, but who knows? However, if it doesn't happen, will people agree that speculative rumor-columns in such magazines are poor sources as facts to back up arguments? :-) >Even though the SPARC and MIPS people who post to this news group want >you to believe that the 88000 is a "dead" architecture - I believe that If you backtrack in this discussion, it was started neither by MIPS nor SPARC folks, although somebody from Cypress did jump on pretty quick. I only got in there because some of the ensuing random shots were aimed here. >it is still too early to decide who will and will not make it. I think >those folks from SPARC and MIPS hope if they say it is dead often enough >it will become true. I do not believe this is an accurate characterization of MIPS-derived postings - the "88K-is-a-dodo" and similar things came from other directions. I will admit to mocking some of the silly stuff printed in rumors columns.... >I've seen the specs on the new 88110 (under non-disclosure) and I >think they have reason to be worried... Maybe, maybe not. It is always easy to say "I've seen the future under NDA and it looks good." because it is improper to say anything more, and hence there is no way for anyone else to challenge such a statement. Again, to make this concrete we SHOULD be worried if: 1) The major uncommitted companies go for the 88110. 2) Important existing MIPS|SPARC customers switch to 88110. >And speaking of rumors - is there any truth to DEC moving away from >MIPS and toward their own architecture? If so, MIPS should worry. I believe that this has been taken care of in the (unfortunate) recent sequence of postings. -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: mash@mips.com OR {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash DDD: 408-524-7015, 524-8253 or (main number) 408-720-1700 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (11/08/90)
On 5 Nov 90 19:59:31 GMT, mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) said:
mash> In article <1990Oct31.180726.18797@unx.sas.com>
mash> massengi@unx.sas.com (Darrell Massengill) writes:
massengi> The Oct. 15 Computerworld (page 6) indicates that Apple is
massengi> using the new 88110 chip in a new Macintosh that is due out
massengi> early next year. This could be a sign that Apple will move
massengi> toward the 88000 architecture in general.
mash> There has been discussion elsewhere on the unreliability of such rumors.
mash> This is a perfect example of vague rumor-mongering.
So if Computerworld says 'Apple may well have an 88k based MacIntosh by
2Q 91' it is a rumour, if Apple were to say that it would not be? Ahem,
are we naive enough to believe a manufacturer more than an independent
source? As to me, I disbelieve everybody until proven otherwise...
mash> Let's try to convert it into something specific, so that on some
mash> date, one can either say "it happened, or it didn't".
Like the R6000 chip? In another article in this same newgroup you
comment wisely on how many illusions and delusions one can have in
making product announcements. A bird in hand... I had caught a fish
this bigggggggggggggggggggg... :-).
Let's say that vaporware is the manufacturer's way of doing rumour
mongering.
mash> However, if it doesn't happen, will people agree that speculative
mash> rumor-columns in such magazines are poor sources as facts to back
mash> up arguments? :-)
Also manufacturrer's announcements :-). Even after the product is
delivered -- for example VUPS ratings.
massengi> And speaking of rumors - is there any truth to DEC moving away
massengi> from MIPS and toward their own architecture? If so, MIPS
massengi> should worry.
mash> I believe that this has been taken care of in the (unfortunate)
mash> recent sequence of postings.
Let's see if I can summarize them like this:
1) I ask confirmation for a possibly fault recollection that Byte
have reported that BIT is no longer interested in developing the
R6000 because of problems that delay the chip so much that it is no
longer a good bet.
2) Myself and other almost immediately correct this to attributing the
source not to byte but to PCW and the decision to stop R6000 development
to DEC inasmuch they are concerned.
3) Some people from MIPS attack Byte foursquare as an irresponsible
magazine, quoting another example in which it had got a rumour wrong (it
was indeed factually correct).
3) DEC has never announced any product based on the R6000, but they were
officially interested in it.
4) PCW (an UK magazine) quotes "Computer lettergram" and DEC sources to
the effect that DEC will not use the R6000 chip in its MIPS based
products because it believes that delays in the production of such a chip
mean that its window of opportunity will be closed too soon (one or two
years) by equivalently fast CMOS chips. Nobody has cared to deny any
part of this.
5) MIPS people confirm that they are working very hard with BIT people
to overcome unexpected problems in getting working R6000 chips in volume
at some high enough frequency (apparently 60Mhz), and that they have a
good number of very expensive systems awaiting shipment because of this,
and thus a large incentive to stick to R6000 development.
6) DEC officials related to VMS development state that they think of
introducing their own VMS oriented RISC architecture. No details are
available.
7) DEC officials related to Ultrix development state that they will
stick to the MIPS RISC architecture. Full details are available at your
nearest DEC sales office for their current products.
8) Nobody can provide any figures on the numbers or values of MIPS based
DEC workstations and systems sold so far. I am told by conflicting
sources that sales are good/bad.
9) People from MIPS give witty and candid commentary on how approximate
(read: rumours) can be statements by major (Motorola) and minor (MIPS)
players when it comes to leading edge technology.
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.ukcrisp@mips.COM (Richard Crisp) (11/09/90)
In article <PCG.90Nov7171525@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > >3) Some people from MIPS attack Byte foursquare as an irresponsible >magazine, quoting another example in which it had got a rumour wrong (it >was indeed factually correct). I am not sure which folks from MIPS you are referring to, but it feels like you are talking about me. Therefore, I'll take a shot at addressing this: I haven't attacked Byte as an irresponsible magazine, that is your conclusion. I stated that you can't always believe what you read, and to offer evidence, I brought up a story that Byte had published in either 1978 or 1979. This story described a chip Motorola was due to produce, a user microprogrammable 68000 which had EPROM rather than mask ROM for the microcode. Now this story was dead wrong. Moto never offered or planned to offer a user microprogrammable 68000. They never did, and I'll suggest that they never will. A bit of digression: Moto would have to publish intimate internal design details which they have jealously guarded over the years (especially in 1979!) in order for anyone to have a prayer of microprogramming the 68K. To expect them to offer a user microprogrammable engine at any time, but particularly during the intensely competitive time in which the first reasonable architectures appeared is ludicrous. Back on the subject: At any rate you have asserted that since IBM paid MOTO to modify the 68000 to build two variants each with logic changes and microcode changes, made not by IBM, but by the original manufacturer, Moto, that somehow makes this user microprogrammable speculation "factually correct". From my perspective "factually correct" would mean that the essence of the story is true. The story as originally reported was that Moto would offer EPROM based, user re-microprogrammable 68000's. To me the essence of the story is that Moto planned to offer user microprogrammable 68k's. Whether it was done in EPROM or some other way, was insignificant. The IBM story in effect stated that Moto made some custom mods to the 68K for IBM. This is saying that the manufacturer will make changes on his chip for you if you are willing to pay. I feel that for you to insist that the IBM story implies the microcode story is "factually correct" is to irresponsibily ignore logic and reasoning. It is incredible the pain and trouble folks will go through to avoid saying "I was wrong"! -- Richard Crisp crisp@mips.com MIPS Computer Systems !decwrl!mips!crisp 928 Arques MS 2-02 (408) 524-8177 Sunnyvale, Ca 94086
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (11/11/90)
On 9 Nov 90 03:15:24 GMT, crisp@mips.COM (Richard Crisp) said: crisp> From my perspective "factually correct" would mean that the crisp> essence of the story is true. The story as originally reported crisp> was that Moto would offer EPROM based, user re-microprogrammable crisp> 68000's. From how I had read the Byte story at the time that was not my understanding. A lot of time has passed, but my recollection (I do not keep copies of Byte that old) was that it would not have loadable or user changeable microcode, but that Motorola would offer the possibility to have custom instruction sets -- and I seem to remember that this most probably meant a different mask. I don't remember the EPROM thing; I guess that I would have been impressed by this detail, because the implications would have been really interesting. Or maybe I just read onchip ROM instead of EPROM. crisp> To me the essence of the story is that Moto planned to offer user crisp> microprogrammable 68k's. Whether it was done in EPROM or some crisp> other way, was insignificant. Again, my perception of the essence of the story was that Motorola planned to offer *customer* microprogrammed 68ks, that is in essence bespoke instruction sets, if you were prepared to pay. And they did this, even if IBM was presumably the only taker. The significance of the event was that they were prepared to change (within limits) their architecture, if you bought enough of their silicon, and this meant that they had designed the cip with that goal in mind. If they had put the microcode in EPROM we would have had the first microcomputer RISC as soon as somebody substituted the EPROM (assuming ti could be external) with a fast RAM cache... :-). Apart from this difference of interpretation, let's try to justify this article's presence in comp.sys.88k, by musing on this new chip's ability to support multiple instruction sets. Apparently (from a thread in comp.arch, and considering Sir Clive Sinclair's work on a very fast RISC) the way to go now is not to have ROM/EPROM microprogrammable chips, but RISC/VLIW chips that can emulate in "sw" higher level architectures. Does anybody know of object level translators or interpreted emulators or hybrids from/to the 88k architecture (e.g. like running MIPS code on a VAX)? How good is the 88k architecture, e.g. compared to the MIPS or SPARC or AMD 29k ones, as un UCODE, e.g. to emulate other RISC/CISC architectures, or as a target from them? Which you think are the easiest to emulate/translate with the 88k? -- Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
massengi@unx.sas.com (Darrell Massengill) (11/14/90)
In article <42487@mips.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: > >The 88K list I use in public talks includes the following (please correct >me or update if I'm wrong; I prefer not to show incorrect info about >competitors): >1)Shipping:Motorola, DG, Sanyo/ICON, Tadpole Technology, Dolphin, Omron, Harris, >BBN, Encore (Alpha or Beta), Avalon, Force. >2) Dropped out: Tektronix, Stratus, Everex/Opus (maybe), NCR >3) Not yet: Unisys >4) From Moto's 4Q89 list of design-ins (don't know status): >Ellemtel, Northern Telecom, Omnicomp, Prometa, Aitech Systems, Ltd, Raytheon, >Smiths Industries, Thomson, MCC Experimental Systems, JPL. > >From other notes, it sound like I might add Philips (as the system division >OEMs 88K boxes, although the embedded folks are doing SPARC stuff.) > >In Europe, almost everybody seems to be committed except Olivetti. >(ICL to SPARC; Dolphin to 88K; most of rest to MIPS). >In the U.S., major uncommitteds include Apple, Compaq, Zenith, Dell, etc. >In Far East, it's mostly SPARC & MIPS, with a few players yet to be >committed. >-- Yes, but remember it "ain't" over 'til its over. I don't know if anyone is really "committed". For example, Electronic News (Oct 29) had 2 articles that indicated that people "committed" to MIPS were moving away. It indicated that Stardent which has MIPS boxes, was going to move to the '860 chip for the "next-generation" systems. (page 13). And the article on the new DEC RISC architecture indicated that DEC will be moving away from MIPS (at least long term). The DEC official said "MIPS is not a big company and may not be able to move as fast as we can.". (page 8). Motorola is a "big company" with a fair amount of financial support. They can hang in there for a long time and vendors will likely move to them just because of that. I don't think you can count anyone out yet. I think that there are likely to be shifting commitments for some number of years, especially as the architectural limitations of some of the chips are encountered. And speaking of your "public talks" (should be "sales pitches")... I have heard one and they are a "little slanted", don't you think? And SINCE you have counted the 88000 as a "non-survivor" (0nly SPARC and MIPS survive in your talks), why do you express such an interest in this news group talking about an architecture that is "dead"? Disclaimer: Opinions are mine, mine, mine... -- Darrell Massengill Manager of Host Development SAS Institute Inc. massengi@unx.sas.com (919) 677-8000 x7658 SAS Campus Dr, Cary, NC
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (11/17/90)
On 14 Nov 90 14:27:02 GMT, massengi@unx.sas.com (Darrell Massengill) said:
massengi> In article <42487@mips.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes:
[ ... who has chosen which RISC ... ]
massengi> Yes, but remember it "ain't" over 'til its over. I don't know
massengi> if anyone is really "committed". For example, Electronic News
massengi> (Oct 29) had 2 articles that indicated that people "committed"
massengi> to MIPS were moving away.
Not really, not really. Let me defend MIPS for a change.
massengi> It indicated that Stardent which has MIPS boxes, was going to
massengi> move to the '860 chip for the "next-generation" systems. (page
massengi> 13).
Only as vector coprocessors; they still keep MIPSes as their main
engine. The 860 makes for a poor general purpose chip, but an excellent
quasi-vector one. Meiko also sell systems that have SPARCs as main
engines, transputers for supporting parallel programming, and 860s as
vector processors hanging off the transputers.
massengi> And the article on the new DEC RISC architecture indicated
massengi> that DEC will be moving away from MIPS (at least long term).
Well what is know is that given fabrication difficulties for ECL and
advances in CMOS geometries DEC have decided not to have any product
based on the R6000 ECL MIPS; they will use some unspecified new
implementation of the MIPS architecture in CMOS. This is not moving away
from MIPS. It is also known that the VMS people find that the VAX
architecture is not competitive with the MIPS one in price/performance,
so they are moving away from the VAX architecture, towards an as-yet
unannounced VMS oriented RISC architecture of their own. The
(comparatively small) Ultrix side of DEC seems to remain loyal to MIPS.
I would bet that they ain't going to use something like MIPS for the VMS
oriented RISC, more probably something like streamlined VAX.
massengi> I don't think you can count anyone out yet. I think that
massengi> there are likely to be shifting commitments for some number of
massengi> years, especially as the architectural limitations of some of
massengi> the chips are encountered.
Well, as far as workstations are concerned, AMD, HP-PA, ARM[23], and
Clipper are out of the running. For workstations it is pretty much SPARC
vs. everybody else, and that everybody else is MIPS and 88K (The IBM
America is the dark horse that may yet have the last laugh). 88K has to
contend with the fact that not only it is strictly proprietary, it is
strictly proprietary to a company that owns the 68K architecture, a
situation not dissimilar to DEC and the VAX.
Motorola may be betting either way, like DEC is doing (68k/VMS I win;
88k/MIPS I don't lose). If they get the Apple account (and every
indication seems to be that they have) the 88k will be for most
observers as well positioned as the MIPS architecture.
As to me, I am most happy with open architectures, that can be
implemented or second sourced by many parties.
--
Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk