Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!usc!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!calgary!ctycal!ingoldsb
From: ingoldsb@ctycal.UUCP (Terry Ingoldsby)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC vs CISC (rational discussion, not religious wars)
Summary: A few months will eventually not matter
Message-ID: <508@ctycal.UUCP>
Date: 16 Nov 89 20:01:13 GMT
References: <503@ctycal.UUCP> <2@zds-ux.UUCP>
Organization: The City of Calgary, Ab
Lines: 26

In article <2@zds-ux.UUCP>, gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) writes:

> But really, I'm beginning to think that the simplicity and speed of design
> and testing is the really big win with RISC.  Also, product quality goes up
> because there are fewer ways for things to go wrong, fewer tests to write and
> run, and fewer places to make errors in design, layout, etc.  Note that Intel

Exactly.  As long as getting to market 6 months faster than the other guy is
the critical factor in marketing a design, then RISC will win.  Once the curve
flattens, then timing will be far less important.  Consider the early automobile
industry.  In the beginning radical changes were made to engines, suspensions
drivetrains every few years.  Compare a 1960 car to a 1980 car an the improve-
ments have become much more evolutionary than revolutionary.  Does a car
manufacturer really have a significant advantage over his competitor because
he introduces a new feature a year before the competition?  Probably not.  Why?
Because the performance gain is a few percent, not orders of magnitude. 

Anyway, I'm drifting further from comp.arch with each posting.  Also, I'm
not sure I believe my own arguments, if for no other reason then I can't
picture a stagnated computer industry.


-- 
  Terry Ingoldsby                       ctycal!ingoldsb@calgary.UUCP
  Land Information Systems                           or
  The City of Calgary         ...{alberta,ubc-cs,utai}!calgary!ctycal!ingoldsb