Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!spdcc!ima!dirtydog!jimm
From: jimm@ima.isc.com (Jim McGrath)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: machines with some loadable microcode are easier to fix
Keywords: microcode hardware bugs
Message-ID: <1991Jan04.190156.21339@dirtydog.ima.isc.com>
Date: 4 Jan 91 19:01:56 GMT
References: <71537@bu.edu.bu.edu> <1991Jan04.035359.12547@kithrup.COM> <777@TALOS.UUCP>
Sender: news@dirtydog.ima.isc.com (NEWS ADMIN)
Reply-To: jimm@ima.isc.com (Jim McGrath)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Cambridge, MA 02138-5302
Lines: 15

In article <777@TALOS.UUCP> jerry@TALOS.UUCP (Jerry Gitomer) writes:
>
>Sorry guys, but the ability to fix bugs wasn't even a consideration in
>deciding to use loadable microstore -- it was economics.  The computer
>users demanded "families of computers", that is computer systems that
>could run the same programs and varied only in price and performance. 
>These demands were based on a desire to reduce the software costs
>associated with upgrading to a faster machine.
>
It also made it possible to sell the same hardware at two price
points.  Adding no-op loops to slow down operation of the "cheaper"
version allowed a company sell two versions of a computer with no
increase of manufacturing overhead.

Jim