Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!daver!bungi.com!news
Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k
Subject: RE: Et532
Message-ID: <9011270226.AA13931@virtech.UUCP>
Date: 27 Nov 90 02:26:17 GMT
References: <<9011241501.AA03595@wombat.bungi.COM>>
Sender: news@daver.bungi.com
Lines: 52
Approved: news@daver.bungi.com

George:

> > One place I would like to see a second CPU would be on a graphics board.
> > Ideally this would be a simple board with a CG16 and the RGP chipset.  Les
> > Wilson at National can give a simple schematic for an X-terminal coprocessor
> > board.  I would be more than happy :-D to assist with the serious (ahem)
> > software development.
> 
> ARRRGGGHHHH!!!!! You've got to be kidding right!! The RGP and the CG16 would
> be the worst choice I could ever see anyone making for a graphics unit.  The
> RGP is DEAD - no longer supported - at it's best is was a DOG and very
> poorly supported. Have you ever looked at the RGP performance? The cg16 is
> nearly a dog also, a 68k is similar for most things and even faster on data
> manipulation at the same clock speed. The address calculation time kills the
> cg16 - nice architecture but not enough silicon in the right places. It is
> 1980 technology, a better choice would be one of the newer riscs etc, even
> the new Intel 960SA. If we are playing with hardware for hobby/instruction
> which is what the pc532 is meant to be about, then let's try and use silicon
> that is at least nearly state of the art.

I disagree with using an Intel anything, and I think using a compatible
processor on the graphics card would simplify things.  You're a hardware
person, I'm a software person.  How about a TI34020, then?

> HA, a simple X-terminal with the cg16  - tell me about it. Just take the
> schematic and replace the cpu with any other - it will be just as 'simple'.
> The cg16 has some bitblt stuff etc but this doesn't make it a graphics
> chip. Again a 960SA and a C&T VGA chip etc, would be a better choice in
> terms of simplicity in the hardware.

VGA, eh?  I doubt that making it PC-compatible would make the software any
easier to write.  PCs have no intelligence in their graphics.
Heck, in terms of simplicity of hardware, dual-ported RAM and a 6845 would
be easier. :-{  In fact I can picture a 8751 doing the SCSI side. :-/
(Feel like another healthy arrrggghhhh?)

> Well, lots of things to do, but currently no time to do it. We need more
> hardware folk out there to take a design through to completion and fab
> boards. How about it?
> 
> Right, got that off my chest! Now that I'm awake I can get back to some
> software (gad's the programmer's union will be after me) I'm doing...
> 
> Regarding the complexity of the et532, I agree it has a lot of stuff on it -
> but then it was designed for a purpose which wasn't to be cheap and low end
> etc. If someone does a simple ethernet board I would suggest using something
> that can move data to/from the SCSI at a reasonable rate - at least
> 3Mbytes/sec.

Agree there.  I just don't know about all that hardware which needs a
fairly complex software program to control... or the cost.  I'm an experimenter
on my own budget out here.