Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!max!crisp From: crisp@mips.COM (Richard Crisp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.m88k Subject: Re: Tektronix shutdown & move away from 88k's?? (really, Apple rumor) Message-ID: <42964@mips.mips.COM> Date: 9 Nov 90 03:15:24 GMT References: <1990Oct19.120218.9450@canterbury.ac.nz> <15497@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1990Oct31.180726.18797@unx.sas.com> <42775@mips.mips.COM> Sender: news@mips.COM Reply-To: crisp@mips.COM (Richard Crisp) Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. Lines: 53 In article 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