rice@dg-rtp.dg.com (Brian Rice) (10/22/90)
I've typed in a few interesting excerpts from an article in the October 15, 1990, "Computerworld." "RISC-based Macs said to be on Apple's drawing board" "Apple Computer, Inc. is reportedly working to integrate Motorola, Inc.'s reduced instruction set computing (RISC) microprocessor technology inti its popular Macintosh personal computer line by as early as next year." [...] "The move could be advantageous to both firms. Motorola... has so far stalled in drumming up widespread interest in its current RISC offering, the 88000 [i.e., the big boys use something else --BR]. Apple, meanwhile, is feeling the heat from workstation makers such as Sun Microsystems, Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Digital Equipment Corp. [the aforementioned big boys --BR], which already use RISC technology and have targeted the price of their machines at the heart of the Macintosh line. "At last week's Microprocessor Forum technical conference in Burlingame, Calif., Motorola described plans to introduce a second-generation RISC chip, due out next year. Dubbed the 88110, the microprocessor is expected to...combine the CPU, cache memory and memory management sections on a single chip." End of excerpts. It's a pretty non-technical news article; its other salient points are the performance projections for the new-generation 88k (50-85 MIPS) and a remark about the fact that 88k Mac software would not be binary-compatible with previous software. Disclaimer: Just because I found this article interesting doesn't mean my employer did, God bless 'em. -- Brian Rice rice@dg-rtp.dg.com +1 919 248-6328 DG/UX Product Assurance Engineering Data General Corp., Research Triangle Park, N.C.
mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (10/23/90)
In article <1990Oct22.021837.26420@dg-rtp.dg.com> rice@dg-rtp.dg.com writes: >I've typed in a few interesting excerpts from an article >in the October 15, 1990, "Computerworld." ..... >"At last week's Microprocessor Forum technical conference >in Burlingame, Calif., Motorola described plans to introduce >a second-generation RISC chip, due out next year. Dubbed >the 88110, the microprocessor is expected to...combine >the CPU, cache memory and memory management sections on >a single chip." Now, in the "don't believe everything you read" column: I was there, and what I heard was: a) The speaker (Keith Diefendorff), and the foils, said "The following is not a product announcement but rather a disclosure of Motorola's plans for the 88000 Family and a sneak preview of the next generation processor." b) No dates were given in the talk. c) In the questions, Keith was asked "when?" and (I'm pretty sure) he said that the product would be ANNOUNCED next year. Then there was some more questioning along lines of announce-deliver intervals that I didn't catch, but I'm pretty sure Keith did NOT say it would be delivered next year. (I don't think he said it WOULDN'T BE, either.) IF SOMEBODY ELSE (WHO WAS ACTUALLY THERE) CAN CORRECT THIS, please do. Of course, this turned into "due out next year", whatever THAT means :-) >End of excerpts. It's a pretty non-technical news article; >its other salient points are the performance projections >for the new-generation 88k (50-85 MIPS) and a remark about >the fact that 88k Mac software would not be binary-compatible >with previous software. The foils say 3-5X performance increase over 88100/88200, using 0.8micron TLM HCMOS, less than 1.5M transistors. Especially interesting are the "80-bit wide internal data paths" (For FP), and other features mentioned include: runtime reordering of loads&stores, speculative execution, bus snooping w/separate tags, branch acceleration. Predictions for 2H 90's said: "4X performance increase each generation 100 million transistors 300MHz Multiple processors on a single chip 4000+ MIPS per chip within the next ten years" Summary said: "The 90's is the decade of RISC The 88000 is the strongest RISC architecture available The 88110 will set new price/performance standards Common architecture from "toaster to supercomputer" The U.S.'s largest semiconductor manufacturer is committed to RISC and to the 88000 Family" -- -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
torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) (10/23/90)
mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: >Predictions for 2H 90's said: > "4X performance increase each generation > 100 million transistors > 300MHz > Multiple processors on a single chip > 4000+ MIPS per chip within the next ten years" >Summary said: > "The 90's is the decade of RISC > The 88000 is the strongest RISC architecture available > The 88110 will set new price/performance standards > Common architecture from "toaster to supercomputer" > The U.S.'s largest semiconductor manufacturer is committed to > RISC and to the 88000 Family" Well, I guess Motorola is finally learning to compete with Intel's publicity machine... :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "To tell the truth, I'm absolutely buggered" - Peter Jones
tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) (10/23/90)
>"At last week's Microprocessor Forum technical conference >in Burlingame, Calif., Motorola described plans to introduce >a second-generation RISC chip, due out next year. Dubbed >the 88110, the microprocessor is expected to...combine >the CPU, cache memory and memory management sections on >a single chip." To my mind, the real question is: "Will the 88k based Apple product (if it ever arrives) be 88open compliant?". I am not making any accusations (yet :-), but it would be just like Apple to produce an 88k box and then screw around with the software architecture so you couldn't possibly run anything but Apple software on it. If they don't follow the 88open standards, I think the entire 88k community should stand ready to pelt Apple with rotten tomatoes lobbed from a great height. The best feature of the 88k is the 88open standards which have already produced the first family of Unix boxes from wildly different vendors which can all run the same shrink wrapped software. If Apple bucks this trend they really will be dooming the 88k to oblivion. -- ====================================================================== 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...) | +====================================================================+
jkenton@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff Kenton) (10/23/90)
From article <TOM.90Oct23070120@hcx2.ssd.csd.harris.com>, by tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley): > > To my mind, the real question is: "Will the 88k based Apple product (if it > ever arrives) be 88open compliant?". I am not making any accusations (yet > :-), but it would be just like Apple to produce an 88k box and then screw > around with the software architecture so you couldn't possibly run anything > but Apple software on it. If they don't follow the 88open standards . . . Apple hasn't even announced an 88k product and you're already pissing on them. If they decide to make an 88110 MacIntosh (and not just another Unix box with an Apple logo on it) a lot of the BCS/OCS specifications would be irrelevant. But, an 88110 MacIntosh would be a *VERY* nice machine. ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ----- jeff kenton: consulting at jkenton@pinocchio.encore.com ----- ----- until 11/30/90 -- always at (617) 894-4508 ----- ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----
twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) (10/24/90)
>>>>> On 23 Oct 90 11:01:20 GMT, tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) said: > To my mind, the real question is: "Will the 88k based Apple product (if it > ever arrives) be 88open compliant?". I am not making any accusations (yet I don't know a lot about the 88open standards, but it seems to me that Apple is going to do something besides running UNIX, in which case 88open won't make much difference... -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet/CSnet: twl@cs.brown.edu | Ted "Theodore" Leung BITNET: twl@BROWNCS.BITNET | Box 1910, Brown University UUCP: uunet!brunix!twl | Providence, RI 02912
ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (10/24/90)
----- Has Apple *officially* said it will use the 88k? They have had several internal RISC projects going on at one time or another, only some of which related to 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..."
torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) (10/24/90)
tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes: >To my mind, the real question is: "Will the 88k based Apple product (if it >ever arrives) be 88open compliant?". I am not making any accusations (yet >:-), but it would be just like Apple to produce an 88k box and then screw >around with the software architecture so you couldn't possibly run anything >but Apple software on it. If they don't follow the 88open standards, I think >the entire 88k community should stand ready to pelt Apple with rotten >tomatoes lobbed from a great height. I agree completely. I have no idea of what Apple plans to do, if indeed they intend to do anything. However, a cynic could suggest that if (as some doomsayers have suggested here) the 88K market is dead apart from Apple, then Apple can probably do as they want. (e.g. if Apple is selling 100 88K machines for all other vendors 1 88K machine, then who cares if Apple is off on its own... it's defining the 88K market by its sheer numbers.) -- just another random thought -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Jim Bolger - sleepwalking to victory
lewine@dg-rtp.dg.com (Donald Lewine) (10/30/90)
In article <13028@encore.Encore.COM>, jkenton@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff Kenton) writes: |> From article <TOM.90Oct23070120@hcx2.ssd.csd.harris.com>, by tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley): |> > |> > To my mind, the real question is: "Will the 88k based Apple product (if it |> > ever arrives) be 88open compliant?". I am not making any accusations (yet |> > :-), but it would be just like Apple to produce an 88k box and then screw |> > around with the software architecture so you couldn't possibly run anything |> > but Apple software on it. If they don't follow the 88open standards . . . |> |> |> Apple hasn't even announced an 88k product and you're already pissing on |> them. If they decide to make an 88110 MacIntosh (and not just another Unix |> box with an Apple logo on it) a lot of the BCS/OCS specifications would |> be irrelevant. But, an 88110 MacIntosh would be a *VERY* nice machine. It is likely that a Apple 88110 system would look a great deal like A/UX 2.0 on a Mac IIfx. In other words, it would run UNIX and support BCS/OCS applications. It would preserve the MAC finder look-and-feel. Some flavor of the A/UX Mac toolbox would allow Mac applications to run as well. This would be an Apple propritary extension to the BCS/OCS. DISCLAIMER: This is all stuff that I made up. The relation to any real products is a pure accident. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Donald A. Lewine (508) 870-9008 Voice Data General Corporation (508) 366-0750 FAX 4400 Computer Drive. MS D112A Westboro, MA 01580 U.S.A. uucp: uunet!dg!lewine Internet: lewine@cheshirecat.webo.dg.com
twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) (10/30/90)
>>>>> On 29 Oct 90 19:50:02 GMT, lewine@dg-rtp.dg.com (Donald Lewine) said: > It is likely that a Apple 88110 system would look a great deal > like A/UX 2.0 on a Mac IIfx. In other words, it would run UNIX I hope not. This would be a terrible step backwards for Apple, and the rest of the personal computing world. There are lots of better things to do with all those 88k compute cycles beside burning them to run UNIX. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet/CSnet: twl@cs.brown.edu | Ted "Theodore" Leung BITNET: twl@BROWNCS.BITNET | Box 1910, Brown University UUCP: uunet!brunix!twl | Providence, RI 02912
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (10/31/90)
jkenton@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff Kenton) writes: >Apple hasn't even announced an 88k product and you're already pissing on >them. If they decide to make an 88110 MacIntosh (and not just another Unix >box with an Apple logo on it) a lot of the BCS/OCS specifications would >be irrelevant. But, an 88110 MacIntosh would be a *VERY* nice machine. Agreed! Posters should at least *try* not to let current prejudices lead them to lambast others for what they *might* do in the future. That said, given that Apple is already a member of both OSF and UI, and given the fine work of 88/Open in establishing BCS/OCS specifications - and getting vendors to follow them - and given that application software should be widely available if and when Apple should chose to release an 88k box, Apple would be foolish NOT to conform.
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (11/01/90)
twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) writes: >I hope not. This would be a terrible step backwards for Apple, and >the rest of the personal computing world. There are lots of better >things to do with all those 88k compute cycles beside burning them to >run UNIX. Like what, pray tell? Apple's only major innovation in operating systems in recent years is A/UX. How else can one run one's favorite Mac applications while still benefitting from UNIX' functionality? Assuming you're not suggesting running [Multi]Finder (an 88k-based system for such would be overkill), just what do you propose as an appropriate environment?
twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) (11/03/90)
>>>>> On 31 Oct 90 16:37:50 GMT, shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) said: > Like what, pray tell? Apple's only major innovation in operating > systems in recent years is A/UX. How else can one run one's favorite Mac > applications while still benefitting from UNIX' functionality? Assuming > you're not suggesting running [Multi]Finder (an 88k-based system for such For one thing, as far as unsophisticated users are concerned, Multifinder was an innovation in operating systems design, even though it's particular type of multitasking is old hat to computer scientists. By the same note, much of what is appearing in UNIX today is old hat to Multics people. UNIX isn't real functional to college freshman, or administrative assistants, for example. The market is to the every day person, not the power starved computer scientist. As far as Apple is concerned, IF they are going to go to the engineering effort of designing a box around the 88k, I don't really think that UNIX is a good choice, unless they want to become just another workstation manufacturer. Apple now has 6 years of experience with all the horrors inside the MacOS (and there are many), as well as some glimpses into the directions that personal computing may go. I would hope that when they cut to a new CPU, that additional innovation would occur, not just more of the same (and in my opinion A/UX, NeXTStep, OpenLook, etc are just more of the same). If Apple wants higher powered versions of the MacOS or A/UX, they'd be much better off sticking with 68k based stuff. If they go to the 88k, they'd better give people a really good reason to junk their old applications. If you want specifics, go look at some of the things that Xerox did 15 years ago (the stuff that doesn't appear in the Mac). Its disappointing to believe that the only thing we can do with unbelievably fast processors is make poor knockoffs of things that were done 15 years ago, with a quarter of the present day resources. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet/CSnet: twl@cs.brown.edu | Ted "Theodore" Leung BITNET: twl@BROWNCS.BITNET | Box 1910, Brown University UUCP: uunet!brunix!twl | Providence, RI 02912
rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) (11/04/90)
In article <TWL.90Nov2181100@flanger.cs.brown.edu> twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) writes: > >... If they { apple } go to the 88k, they'd >better give people a really good reason to junk their old >applications... I don't see why such a transition should require end users to junk their existing applications programs. Hasn't a program to convert 68000 object code to 88000 object code been built? If not why not? It would seem to me to be a trivial exercize, given that you actually have *more* registers to play with in the 88000 and than in the 68000. The only other requirement for static conversion of existing object files that I can think of is that Apple would have to make sure that all of the software interrupts that hook you to specific functions in the old OS still hook you to similar (or identical) functions in the new (88k) OS. Gee! Now that I think of it, why hasn't DG written such a program? Aren't there a lot of people out there who have spent big bundles of money buying binary applications for Sun 2's and Sun'3 who now are in a position of having to kiss off those investments if they want to get horsepower upgrades to their hardware along Sun's prefered upgrade path (i.e. Sun 4's)? Could DG capture this market if they had a 68k => 88k binary code converter and if they did a bit of OS fiddling? I believe that 68k => 88k conversion would be one hell of a lot simpler than say 68k => sparc conversion (but I could be wrong). Am I oversimplifying? Is the Pope Catholic? Well maybe. Maybe there really is no such market, or maybe the market is just too small to be significant. Or maybe if the vendors of the original binary applications that ran on the original machines found out that their customers were running those applications on CPU's for which they were not licenced (and which even had different instruction sets!) they would frown upon the practice. Still, aren't there companes that make and sell binary converters which allow you to run your crusty old MS-DOG programs on various other (non-Intel) architectures? -- // 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.
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (11/04/90)
[This should probably go to comp.os.misc, I think] In article <TWL.90Nov2181100@flanger.cs.brown.edu> twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) writes: >For one thing, as far as unsophisticated users are concerned, >Multifinder was an innovation in operating systems design, even >though it's particular type of multitasking is old hat to computer >scientists. Yes, the user-interface used in MultiFinder is an innovation. Too bad Apple didn't think it up, eh? (Actually, it's *good* that Apple didn't, or else nobody else could use a windowing graphical user interface.) >By the same note, much of what is appearing in UNIX today >is old hat to Multics people. Well... not necessarily. In Multics, everything was memory. In Unix, everything is (within limits) a file. mmap(), for example, can be viewed as a way to assign a memory location to a file (instead of the more mainstream interpretation of assigning a file to a location in memory). (No, that's not a perfect interpretation, either one, but... 8-)) >. I >would hope that when they cut to a new CPU, that additional innovation >would occur, not just more of the same (and in my opinion A/UX, >NeXTStep, OpenLook, etc are just more of the same). Again, Apple didn't really do that much innovation. True, they did a lot of *work* on the Mac, but the real innovation had been done at PARC. (As derogatory as I might be towards Apple, I *would* like to point out that, yeah, they did something really impressive with the Mac. I just don't think it was that innovative...) -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "*Never* knock on Death's door: ring the bell and seanf@sco.COM | run away! Death hates that!" uunet!sco!seanf | -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor") (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
massengi@unx.sas.com (Darrell Massengill) (11/07/90)
In article <TWL.90Oct23134646@boojum.cs.brown.edu> twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) writes: >>>>>> On 23 Oct 90 11:01:20 GMT, tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) said: > >> To my mind, the real question is: "Will the 88k based Apple product (if it >> ever arrives) be 88open compliant?". I am not making any accusations (yet > >I don't know a lot about the 88open standards, but it seems to me that >Apple is going to do something besides running UNIX, in which case >88open won't make much difference... >-- >-------------------------------------------------------------------- You never can tell about Apple, but... in UNIX Today (Nov. 5, Page 6) there is an article about Apple's booth at Comdex. The article indicates a push of Apple's A/UX (Apple's UNIX). ..."Apple will be showing all its A/UX products...". "Highlighted among the A/UX-running Macs will be the new Macintosh IIsi..." SO, you never can tell. 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