seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (06/25/91)
I sure hope C= has some neat tricks up their sleeve...I've just heard three
pseudo-rumors that have me worried. I'm not trying to play -MB- here, but
I think they're cause for general concern.
1. The discussions betw-_en IBM and Apple involve the exchange of Apple's
software and interface technology for POWER RISC chips.
2. On October 21st Apple will unveil three new CPUs: an '040 tower, an '040
desktop, and an '030 based Classic. Their new laptops, or palmtops are
due in the next couple of months, maybe sooner.
3. NeXT is accquiring MC88000 family RISC chips for the next generation
of their workstations.
The A3000T is supposed to come out at the end of the summer, but if it has
the standard 25mHz '030 Apple's new machines will steal its thunder...an
A2500-like configuration could fill the gap for a while ('040 accelerator
pre-installed as an option on A3000 desktop and tower systems). But the
RISC threat is different.
NeXT is a threat for the UX systems since Commodore is now a low-end UNIX
workstation vendor. They've already got the jump on the A3000UX because of
the '040, and RISC workstations are what's making headlines right now (and
probubly in the future as well). NeXT will also be more price competitive
with Commodore than Apple (the price of the IIfx just went down to a mere
$8K for 4M and an 80M disc w/o keyboard or moniter...gimme a break!) But
Apple will gain more clout if it's aligned with IBM in releasing a POWER
based Macintosh. The new Macs will also more than likely come with 24bit
hardware on the motherboard (probably by integrating the 8*24GC
hardware...why reinvent the wheel?).
I think it'd be great for an '040 UNIX based tower setup to combat
Apple...they could even play on the name in their
advertising: The Amiga 3000 TUX now there's a classy sounding machine,
don't ya think? :)
Sean
/\
RealWorld: Sean Cunningham / \ "Doing our business is what
INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com VISION Amigas are for."
Voice: (512) 992-2810 \ /
// \/ "Holy #@*!" - any Psygnosis
KEEP THE COMPETITION UNDER \X/ GRAPHICS game playercmp9133@sys.uea.ac.uk (A.C. Lock) (06/25/91)
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: > >I sure hope C= has some neat tricks up their sleeve...I've just heard three >pseudo-rumors that have me worried. I'm not trying to play -MB- here, but >I think they're cause for general concern. > >1. The discussions betw-_en IBM and Apple involve the exchange of Apple's > software and interface technology for POWER RISC chips. > >2. On October 21st Apple will unveil three new CPUs: an '040 tower, an '040 > desktop, and an '030 based Classic. Their new laptops, or palmtops are > due in the next couple of months, maybe sooner. > >3. NeXT is accquiring MC88000 family RISC chips for the next generation > of their workstations. What the high end Amigas need is a turbocharged set of custom chips, which provide more facilities and operate at more acceptable speeds, to keep up with their CPUs. eg Faster blitter Data compression/decompression hardware More display modes(supporting 24 bit colour) More sound channels, although rumours of a new 12-channel sound chip being developed by CBM, were published in a UK weekly magazine (hope it's true) Once these are installed, there will be no comparison between high end Macs and Amigas. >I think it'd be great for an '040 UNIX based tower setup to combat >Apple...they could even play on the name in their >advertising: The Amiga 3000 TUX now there's a classy sounding machine, >don't ya think? :) > Perhaps we should call the new mac, the Macintosh II SUX >Sean > /\ > RealWorld: Sean Cunningham / \ "Doing our business is what > INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com VISION Amigas are for." > Voice: (512) 992-2810 \ / > // \/ "Holy #@*!" - any Psygnosis > KEEP THE COMPETITION UNDER \X/ GRAPHICS game player Regards Adam Lock
rehrauer@apollo.hp.com (Steve Rehrauer) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun24.223616.16742@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >I sure hope C= has some neat tricks up their sleeve...I've just heard three >pseudo-rumors that have me worried. I'm not trying to play -MB- here, but >I think they're cause for general concern. > >1. The discussions betw-_en IBM and Apple involve the exchange of Apple's > software and interface technology for POWER RISC chips. > >2. On October 21st Apple will unveil three new CPUs: an '040 tower, an '040 > desktop, and an '030 based Classic. Their new laptops, or palmtops are > due in the next couple of months, maybe sooner. This is not meant as a flame, but why do you care? Anything Apple does with any RISC (I personally doubt very much whether the RS/6000 architecture will ever fly in an Apple box) is going to be far, far up the price scale from C= products. Ditto '040 boxes from Apple. >3. NeXT is accquiring MC88000 family RISC chips for the next generation > of their workstations. >NeXT is a threat for the UX systems since Commodore is now a low-end UNIX >workstation vendor. NeXT and Commodore seem to be playing very different segments of the Unix market. NeXT has the chutzpah to say, "Different is better". E.g.: DisplayPostscript rather than X/Motif; Mach rather than SysV or Berkley; and now (apparently) 88K rather than MIPS or SPARC (or perhaps PA-RISC? :). They may very well be right, but recent experience somewhat close to home has shown that "better" doesn't always mean "successful". :-< Commodore, on the other hand, seems to be saying, "Standard, standard, standard -- and by way, did we mention 'standard'?" A particularly sexy application might cause me to buy a NeXT. But if I wanted a "vanilla, read: 'standard'" Unix box, especially if I wanted to develop an application and cover the largest possible hardware/OS base with it, I'd certainly NOT consider a NeXT. Doesn't mean the NeXT is "bad", just different -- and MS-DOS continually proves that the majority of computer buyers don't want "different". >I think it'd be great for an '040 UNIX based tower setup to combat >Apple... I'm sure Apple wouldn't notice. Seriously, what makes you folks think that inviting direct comparisons with Macs would be good for the Amiga? I mean, even as a sidelines observer (I don't own an Amiga) I have to say that the Amiga is an interesting machine. But if I were Joe ComputerNaivePerson, and assuming I'd even heard of the Amiga, it would take very little time to convince me that a Mac was a "better" buy, even at 2x - 3x the price. (Please send flames directly to me; I don't want to clutter this group with the traffic -- we've all heard the arguments anyways, and I think even the most rabid Amiga supporters know what I'm trying to say.) -- "Did you check the car to see if it's okay for | Steve Rehrauer a long trip, Sam?" "Well, the wheels are still | rehrauer@apollo.hp.com on... and here's the key... Yep, everything | Hewlett-Packard checks out!" -- Freelance Police | MA Languages Lab
lindwall@beowulf.ucsd.edu (John Lindwall) (06/26/91)
In article <1285@sys.uea.ac.uk> cmp9133@sys.uea.ac.uk (A.C. Lock) writes: >seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >> [Gloom and Doom predictions] This sounds like a great topic for comp.sys.amiga.advocacy! -- John Lindwall lindwall@cs.ucsd.edu "Oh look at me! I'm all flooby! I'll be a son of a gun!" -- Flaming Carrot
rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) (06/26/91)
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes >I'm not trying to play -MB- here, but >I think they're cause for general concern. >1. The discussions betw-_en IBM and Apple involve the exchange of Apple's > software and interface technology for POWER RISC chips. I don't think that CA has much to worry about because of this, the POWER RISC chips are suited to building workstations, and with apple's pricing I don't think that there is any danger to the other workstation vendors that apple will grab a large market share. Most likley any workstation that apple builds on these chips will be far out of the price range that the 3000UX is in (the IIfx already is without unix!). >2. On October 21st Apple will unveil three new CPUs: an '040 tower, an '040 > desktop, and an '030 based Classic. Their new laptops, or palmtops are > due in the next couple of months, maybe sooner. Humm... just a repackaged SE 30... it would be nice if apple finally priced an 030 machine descently.... As for an apple lap/palmtop it would be a change from the best that they currently have as their portable (well it's portable with a jeep ;-) >3. NeXT is accquiring MC88000 family RISC chips for the next generation > of their workstations. Humm... I'm suprised that they would put out YET ANOTHER machine, especially one with a different processor, my guess is that they will have some kind of accelerator card to plug into cubes (Mach can handle multiple processors), I don't think that this is much of a threat to CA either... it will probabily be a very small number produced (just how may cubes were sold anyway?). >The A3000T is supposed to come out at the end of the summer, but if it has >the standard 25mHz '030 Apple's new machines will steal its thunder...an >A2500-like configuration could fill the gap for a while ('040 accelerator >pre-installed as an option on A3000 desktop and tower systems). But the >RISC threat is different. Actually a '040 card would be nice to have for the 3000, especially since now that more companies are using it the price of the '040 should drop enough to make the accelerator card relatively cheap (say under $1000) since it can use the 3000's memory. >NeXT is a threat for the UX systems since Commodore is now a low-end UNIX >workstation vendor. They've already got the jump on the A3000UX because of >the '040, and RISC workstations are what's making headlines right now (and >probubly in the future as well). True, given the choice of an 040 NeXT 8MB with 400MB HD or an 030 5MB 100MB HD 3000UX for about the same price... well I think I woulld go with the NeXT... it really is a nice fast system, I still like my a3000, but if the slabs had been around when I got my 3000.... well I very well might have bought one over the 3000. >Apple will gain more clout if it's aligned with IBM in releasing a POWER >based Macintosh. The new Macs will also more than likely come with 24bit >hardware on the motherboard (probably by integrating the 8*24GC >hardware...why reinvent the wheel?). I really doubt that they will release a RISC based mac, first of all they'de have to rewrite the OS for it, and every vendor would have to recompile software for it... Apple might try to start a new line, but they have put a massive investement into promoting the mac. >I think it'd be great for an '040 UNIX based tower setup to combat >Apple...they could even play on the name in their >advertising: The Amiga 3000 TUX now there's a classy sounding machine, >don't ya think? :) Humm... I certainly agree that CA should release an '040 equiped amiga (ie 3500-> A3000+040 accelerator ), but if they don't I'm sure some 3rd party will soon (ie GVP for instance). As long as CA keeps the pricing of the A3000 compedative, I don't think they will have too much of a problem keeping up with apple. // Rick Golembiewski rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu \\ \\ #include stddisclaimer.h // \\ "I never respected a man who could spell" // \\ -M. Twain //
tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd Green) (06/27/91)
>This is not meant as a flame, but why do you care? Anything Apple does >with any RISC (I personally doubt very much whether the RS/6000 architecture >will ever fly in an Apple box) is going to be far, far up the price scale >from C= products. Ditto '040 boxes from Apple. Well the tower is supposed to list for ~7,500. It will have two separate scsi ports, built in ethernet, DMA, subsystems, 1meg rom, and built in accelerated 24-bit graphics (up to a 16" monitor for 24-bit, 21" monitor for 8bit), plus a whole slew of other stuff that I'm sure your don't care to hear about. The point is that I would not call that much hardware for 7.5K far far up from the Amiga line. More expensive perhaps but not way out of line. Note that the desktop 040 version will probably be considerably less. Disclaimer: Figures are taken from MacLeak and my memory. (Which has known to fail) Todd -- Internet: tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu NeXTMail: tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu BitNet: tagreen@iubacs.bitnet
tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd Green) (06/27/91)
>Humm... just a repackaged SE 30... it would be nice if apple finally >priced an 030 machine descently.... As for an apple lap/palmtop it >would be a change from the best that they currently have as their >portable (well it's portable with a jeep ;-) One of the funniest cartoons that I've seen in awhile pictured a business man with one oversized arm flexing his muscle and holding a Mac portable saying to his kids, "Boys, come over here and feel daddy's arm!" Todd -- Internet: tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu NeXTMail: tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu BitNet: tagreen@iubacs.bitnet
ritz@msb.com (Chris Mauritz) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun24.223616.16742@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: > > >I sure hope C= has some neat tricks up their sleeve...I've just heard three >pseudo-rumors that have me worried. I'm not trying to play -MB- here, but >I think they're cause for general concern. Not to be -MB- either...(I only do that on the ST board hehe...)... >1. The discussions betw-_en IBM and Apple involve the exchange of Apple's > software and interface technology for POWER RISC chips. Well, this might be a threat to CBU in a minor way. Let's face it, Commodore does not have the resources to compete with Apple or IBM in the high end. The 3000 UX is a low-end unix box with a not-so-low price (have you seen the educational pricing on the NextStation). It is much like the Atari TT in that is is competative with hardware Apple had out the door a while ago, yet the pricing isn't low enough to detract much from Apple's market. A more serious threat to CBU would be an apple 68030 box with a low price tag, sort of like the Mac LC (though that is a 68020). >2. On October 21st Apple will unveil three new CPUs: an '040 tower, an '040 > desktop, and an '030 based Classic. Their new laptops, or palmtops are > due in the next couple of months, maybe sooner. The 68030 Classic would be a veritable A3000 killer. Since CBU doesn't have any 68040 boxes, these higher-end Macs won't bite into CBU too much. If CBU wants to get any market share in this "war" they'll have to do it by using aggressive pricing. Very few consumers are going to choose a relatively unknown brand (Amiga) over a household word (Macintosh) if the prices of the machines are remotely close (within $1K or so for similarly configured machines). This isn't a statement about the quality of the Amiga versus the Mac, it is just marketing reality. >3. NeXT is accquiring MC88000 family RISC chips for the next generation > of their workstations. So? Do you really think that CBU has the resources to develop/market a RISC machine? Do you think anyone would buy one? I'm not trying to be facetious, but I think CBU would have an impossible time breaking into this market. I'd be happy to listen to anyone who can argue otherwise. >The A3000T is supposed to come out at the end of the summer, but if it has >the standard 25mHz '030 Apple's new machines will steal its thunder...an >A2500-like configuration could fill the gap for a while ('040 accelerator >pre-installed as an option on A3000 desktop and tower systems). But the >RISC threat is different. Well, if it is a 25mhz 68030, the technology will already be dated. I think Commodore should try to establish a niche in the video market in the same manner in which the ST grabbed the MIDI market. Trying to keep up with the "big boys" in the techno-battle will probably wind up being futile. > >NeXT is a threat for the UX systems since Commodore is now a low-end UNIX >workstation vendor. They've already got the jump on the A3000UX because of >the '040, and RISC workstations are what's making headlines right now (and >probubly in the future as well). NeXT will also be more price competitive >with Commodore than Apple (the price of the IIfx just went down to a mere >$8K for 4M and an 80M disc w/o keyboard or moniter...gimme a break!) But >Apple will gain more clout if it's aligned with IBM in releasing a POWER >based Macintosh. Yep. >The new Macs will also more than likely come with 24bit >hardware on the motherboard (probably by integrating the 8*24GC >hardware...why reinvent the wheel?). Doubtful. How many people, other than us techno-snobs <grin>, really want/need/are willing to pay for 24-bit video? If only a small segment of the market meets this criteria, than it doesn't make sense to bump up your costs by making it a "standard feature." Don't you think so? >I think it'd be great for an '040 UNIX based tower setup to combat >Apple...they could even play on the name in their >advertising: The Amiga 3000 TUX now there's a classy sounding machine, >don't ya think? :) I think it would be great too! Hell, I'd even buy one if the price was competetive. I just don't see it happening. Cheers, Chris p.s. Personally, I'd love to see CBU give Apple a kick in the ass. I hope they pull it off. -- ------------------------------------+--------------------------------------- Chris Mauritz |People are strange ritz@msb.com |when you're a stranger. Copyright (C) 1991 |The Doors-
arctngnt@amiganet.chi.il.us (Bowie J Poag) (06/29/91)
Mabye thats the answer. Let Commodore jump its price up to where "the big boys" are pushing it.. Heard somewhere that the Mac IIfx costs a little more than $950 to make, just a rumor.. If its one thing that Commodore needs more than anything else, its payola. Start pushing HIGH END Unix boxes to test the marketing waters.. Make some luxury computers. On another note: I say, can you dig what Saturn is doing. Revamping the whole idea of how to produce a car. Has anyone thought of doing this with operating systems? Someones got to make some kind of architecture to bridge between Unix, MSDOS, Mac, Amiga, and perhaps even NeXT. Computers need to be standardized. We cant rely off BridgeBoard, Medusa's, and A-Max all our lives, yah know.. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Flicker turns me on. -BJP | Get back into the SeX PiSToLs if you program in Arctangent, Naperville IL. | C. It helps. // ---------------------------- \X/ A M I G A ! \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
rehrauer@apollo.hp.com (Steve Rehrauer) (06/30/91)
In article <arctngnt.1273@amiganet.chi.il.us> arctngnt@amiganet.chi.il.us (Bowie J Poag) writes: >I say, can you dig what Saturn is doing. Revamping the whole idea of how to >produce a car. Has anyone thought of doing this with operating systems? They certainly has. OSF/1, Unix International (SysVR4), and less recently, Microsoft/IBM (OS/2 -- don't you believe this is merely intended for PeeCee boxes, nosireebub). I dunno, does ACE propose a particular OS not in that camp? >Someones got to make some kind of architecture to bridge between Unix, MSDOS, >Mac, Amiga, and perhaps even NeXT. Computers need to be standardized. We cant >rely off BridgeBoard, Medusa's, and A-Max all our lives, yah know.. Standards bring their share of downside, too. Like, innovating in the face of twenty zillion existing apps-that-mustn't-be-broken isn't easy, I'd guess. Besides, then what would y'all in this group have to pick on poor Apple and IBM about, eh? :-P -- "Did you check the car to see if it's okay for | Steve Rehrauer a long trip, Sam?" "Well, the wheels are still | rehrauer@apollo.hp.com on... and here's the key... Yep, everything | Hewlett-Packard checks out!" -- Freelance Police | MA Languages Lab
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/30/91)
In article <1991Jun29.194017.10138@apollo.hp.com> rehrauer@apollo.hp.com (Steve Rehrauer) writes: >In article <arctngnt.1273@amiganet.chi.il.us> arctngnt@amiganet.chi.il.us (Bowie J Poag) writes: >>I say, can you dig what Saturn is doing. Revamping the whole idea of how to >>produce a car. Has anyone thought of doing this with operating systems? > >They certainly has. OSF/1, Unix International (SysVR4), and less recently, >Microsoft/IBM (OS/2 -- don't you believe this is merely intended for PeeCee >boxes, nosireebub). I dunno, does ACE propose a particular OS not in that >camp? > >>Someones got to make some kind of architecture to bridge between Unix, MSDOS, >>Mac, Amiga, and perhaps even NeXT. Computers need to be standardized. We cant >>rely off BridgeBoard, Medusa's, and A-Max all our lives, yah know.. > >Standards bring their share of downside, too. Like, innovating in the face >of twenty zillion existing apps-that-mustn't-be-broken isn't easy, I'd guess. What we need is an OS with a P-CODE loader (this makes it processor independent), Multiprocessing, Multitasking, multiuser, seamless networking (like the ability to dynamically link/call functions across a net, multiprocessing on a LAN, etc), device independent graphics/sound, voice recognition, handwriting recognition, built in 3d rendering w/seamless integration of power gloves and 3d visors, etc. Yes, I'm dreaming. Really, this is a combination of AmigaDOS, Unix, Plan 9, XWindows, Mac's System, Penpoint, Sphinx. I can't wait for the day when we all have fiber-optic network lines to the home just like phones. I turn on my computer, startup virtual reality internet browser, drive around until I see the library of congress online database, enter it, grab some online books (in multimedia format of course with animation, sound, text, etc) >Besides, then what would y'all in this group have to pick on poor Apple and >IBM about, eh? :-P I believe on day there will be a processor independent, platform independent, extensive OS. I could care less if it run MSDOS programs or not, I'd rather discard that excess baggage for state of the art. >-- >"Did you check the car to see if it's okay for | Steve Rehrauer > a long trip, Sam?" "Well, the wheels are still | rehrauer@apollo.hp.com > on... and here's the key... Yep, everything | Hewlett-Packard > checks out!" -- Freelance Police | MA Languages Lab -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (06/30/91)
In some article (Ray Cromwell) writes: > What we need is an OS with a P-CODE loader (this makes it processor >independent), Multiprocessing, Multitasking, multiuser, seamless networking >(like the ability to dynamically link/call functions across a net, >multiprocessing on a LAN, etc), device independent graphics/sound, >voice recognition, handwriting recognition, built in 3d rendering >w/seamless integration of power gloves and 3d visors, etc. >Yes, I'm dreaming. Nice dream though, please pass the pipe. :-) > Really, this is a combination of AmigaDOS, Unix, Plan 9, XWindows, > Mac's System, Penpoint, Sphinx. You forgot the smiley face. You should check out OSF's latest fooforah something called "ANDF" which sounds like your P-CODE idea. Only it is a bit different, they actually want to "compile" ANDF code into the native machine code and then run that compiled executable. Sounds like a support nightmare to me (how do you know if a bug in the application you just sold your customer is in your code or the ANDF compiler? And if it is in the ANDF compiler how do you convince the customer? Virii are also a sticky issue if your compiler gets infected) Several different p-code like systems have of course been tried, the most common being UCSD Pascal and Xerox's SmallTalk system (which was a virtual machine). Unfortunately such systems always seem to be at a disadvantage to something like IBM PC clones which just forego the various architectures and all use the same one. > I can't wait for the day when we all have fiber-optic network lines >to the home just like phones. ... I'd just like PacBell to get off their butt and get ISDN service to my house. Even for a zillion dollars they don't seem to inclined to offer this, much less direct fiber. > I believe on (one?) day there will be a processor independent, platform >independent, extensive OS. I could care less if it run MSDOS programs or not, >I'd rather discard that excess baggage for state of the art. Well SmallTalk or a decent Lisp environment might cover it then. Did you want an "extensive" or "extensible" OS ? Either way it will take a lot of memory :-) but heck, they're showing of 64MBit DRAMS at ISSCC so those 4MB simms ought to be getting cheap enough for the home market. -- --Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: <none> Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!"
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/30/91)
arctngnt@amiganet.chi.il.us (Bowie J Poag) writes: > > >Mabye thats the answer. Let Commodore jump its price up to where "the big >boys" are pushing it.. Heard somewhere that the Mac IIfx costs a little more >than $950 to make, just a rumor.. Probably not true. The 68030 they use must cost $300++ at least. 4 megs of ram is probably around $200(at the prive they pay, bulk). The Quantum hard drive probably costs around $300 to $400...I allready hit $900 without the FPU and R&D.. >On another note: > >I say, can you dig what Saturn is doing. Revamping the whole idea of how to >produce a car. Has anyone thought of doing this with operating systems? >Someones got to make some kind of architecture to bridge between Unix, MSDOS, >Mac, Amiga, and perhaps even NeXT. Computers need to be standardized. We cant >rely off BridgeBoard, Medusa's, and A-Max all our lives, yah know.. Saturn isn't all THAT different. Why does it look like every other GM car? It doesn't have air bags, etc..Ah, if anyone revamped how to build a car its Chrysler and the reorganization of their development activities. Ah, they now have four "platform" teams(small car, large car, truck/jeep, and minivan) which include people from marketing, product planning, design, vehicle engineering, manufacturing engineering, procurement and supply, and finance. This new "team" effort will allow them to crank a newly designed car from concept approval to production in just over 3 years(The LH is comming in 1992 from this program and the PL in 1993)...This is not the place for this type of discussion tho...and I don't get rec.autos here :-( I asked for it L-O-N-G ago... I do believe some effort to standardize computers will happen, but you might not see it in the next 10 years. As far as Commodore, Atari, Compaq are concerned, they all run on electricity and thats standard enough. If anything standard is going to come out, it will be from Japan, where companys can work together without anti-trust. Remember MSX? It failed, but will the next MSX? I believe IBM had a vision of this with OS/2 didn't they? Wasn't there supposed to be a Mac version of OS/2? is this all in the dumper now? Look for "pink" talk also... -- C-UseNet V0.42f Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (07/01/91)
In article <16029@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: >You forgot the smiley face. You should check out OSF's latest fooforah >something called "ANDF" which sounds like your P-CODE idea. Only it >is a bit different, they actually want to "compile" ANDF code into the >native machine code and then run that compiled executable. Sounds like >a support nightmare to me (how do you know if a bug in the application >you just sold your customer is in your code or the ANDF compiler? And >if it is in the ANDF compiler how do you convince the customer? Virii >are also a sticky issue if your compiler gets infected) > >Several different p-code like systems have of course been tried, the >most common being UCSD Pascal and Xerox's SmallTalk system (which was >a virtual machine). Unfortunately such systems always seem to be at >a disadvantage to something like IBM PC clones which just forego the >various architectures and all use the same one. I was sorta of thinking about a loader that takes the second pass output from a compiler. (sort of like GCC's RTL) It would contain instructions like (move memory into register, move register to stack, etc) Of course there would be hinting in the file to have loaders optimize at load time. Of course, the loader program could always be saved in its native machine code for faster loading (it would still have the p-code hunks in it though) >> I can't wait for the day when we all have fiber-optic network lines >>to the home just like phones. ... > >I'd just like PacBell to get off their butt and get ISDN service to >my house. Even for a zillion dollars they don't seem to inclined to >offer this, much less direct fiber. I'd like direct fiber to the home so I can run Ethernet speed modem connections (or >Ethernet speed), video transmissions (HDTV channels?) , multiple phone lines (ISDN). I've heard that the cost of fiber is approaching that of copper now. I'd gladly pay to have a fiber line to my house. (atdt 5551212 CONNECT 10485760) >> I believe on (one?) day there will be a processor independent, platform >>independent, extensive OS. I could care less if it run MSDOS programs or not, >>I'd rather discard that excess baggage for state of the art. > >Well SmallTalk or a decent Lisp environment might cover it then. Did you >want an "extensive" or "extensible" OS ? Either way it will take a lot >of memory :-) but heck, they're showing of 64MBit DRAMS at ISSCC so >those 4MB simms ought to be getting cheap enough for the home market. Extensible. One that never needs a complete replacement. After all, with a massive standard like this, we don't want it to become obsolete. All in good time. With 14gb 128mb/sec optical cd's on the way (via Optex,inc and their modulated light encoding method) and the really big drams, memory and disk storage won't be the main problem. >-- >--Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems >uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: <none> Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM >These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. >"I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!" -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /