Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!a.gp.cs.cmu.edu!koopman
From: koopman@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Philip Koopman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Forth Engines / Harris
Summary: a supplemental view on what went wrong
Message-ID: <11111@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 15 Nov 90 11:42:55 GMT
References: <1982.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> <1990Nov14.150715.28620@mlb.semi.harris.com>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 56

In article <1990Nov14.150715.28620@mlb.semi.harris.com>, krl@jujeh.mlb.semi.harris.com (Ken Lyons) writes:
> For starters, everything to follow is my opinion and not the official
> position of Harris.  Besides, Friday is my last day there.
I don't work for Harris now, so my opinion is strictly my own as well.

 
Ken Lyons writes:
> I think the primary reason for cutting funds to the RTX line (which is
> not yet self-supporting) is that the market is down and sales are
> lousy.  That doesn't necessarily answer the question, "Why RTX and
> not something else?"  It seems that presently the payback is better
> for other lines, so the decision appears to be made for short-term
> benefits, which is all too usual.
 
I think that the "market down/sales lousy" reason (which is superficially
true) is more a convenient excuse for upper-level Harris management
than a reality.  From the market research I saw while at Harris, it
was evident that it _always_ takes at least 3 years for a new proprietary
processor to become self-sufficient (this means one with a new instruction
set, not a next-generation compatible chip).  You can't make money
by selling one- and ten-piece orders to people building prototypes --
but you make lots of money a year or two later when they ramp up
production.  RTX has always been given insufficient resources
(and now, insufficient time) to achieve success within Harris.
 
Look at the Transputer -- about 10 years and perhaps just barely
there (but, still funded and growing every year).  It is true that
Harris Semiconductor has a tremendous cash flow crunch.  This,
combined with a sector-wide deemphasis of digital technology spelled
doom for RTX despite the fact that it was in reasonably good shape
for long-term customer growth.
 
So, the demise of RTX had almost nothing to do with technology
problems.  It had something to do with marketing (but, they were
getting smarter and could probably have recovered if given
the chance).  It had something to do with Harris' problems producing
low-cost RTX silicon on their old 2.0 micron fab line (RTX's
can be made for much less than it cost Harris to make them,
thus lowering price, but you really want to be on 1.0 micron
technology to do it).  It had a lot to do with cash flow (which is a
stupid reason to cancel a new processor line when you have N large
customers poised on placing large orders).  It had even more
to do with what Harris would like to call a "deemphasis" on
digital technology, meaning that *any* new proprietary processor
(stack, register, whatever) wouldn't fit into their plan
of concentrating on analog, power, and mixed signal.
 
I would say that RTX technology still makes sense for systems
that must have high real-time performance at moderate cost.
The question is, who is going to do it?

  Phil Koopman                koopman@greyhound.ece.cmu.edu   Arpanet
  2525A Wexford Run Rd.
  Wexford, PA  15090
*** this space for rent ***