Newsgroups: comp.arch Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: processor for graphics terminal [was: PC/AT clones with RISC cpu] Message-ID: <1990Nov3.052952.1786@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <2081@aber-cs.UUCP> <0093F0E4.0B02A980@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> <1990Nov2.000650.18866@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <0093F1A8.A28E4920@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> Date: Sat, 3 Nov 90 05:29:52 GMT In article <0093F1A8.A28E4920@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >Doesn't count :-) PC compatability (for better or worse) and decent X-term >capability would be more better... Some people would consider neither a virtue. :-) Both are de-facto standards that are hideously ugly and do terrible things to your system design if you enshrine them as fundamental goals. (Retaining the potential for them, on the other hand, is easy: any fast CPU with a large address space can emulate the early Intel processors at higher speed than Intel chips, and X is not difficult to port to a sane machine with a clean frame buffer.) >...use RISC processor and stick in Soft-PC in ROMs... A small practical difficulty with this approach is that Soft PC is licensed software. It also does a less than wonderful job of emulation, as our department is finding out on a bunch of DEC RISC workstations for undergrad teaching... >You might wanna look at how the SparcStation SLC was put together; I understand >there are a couple of companies offering up glue chip-sets for Sparc. The two parts of this sentence are unrelated. :-) I haven't seen details on the SLC, but Sun normally uses proprietary MMU designs that bear no relation to (e.g.) the "Sparc Reference MMU". Worse, not only are they proprietary but they are Top Secret, although apparently Sun has entirely forgotten why, since they can't offer any rational reason for it when asked. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry