Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uwm.edu!src.honeywell.com!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!quest!digibd!rhealey
From: rhealey@digibd.com (Rob Healey)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: R4000 "announcement"
Message-ID: <1991Feb12.174817.18563@digibd.com>
Date: 12 Feb 91 17:48:17 GMT
References: <90@shasta.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, St. Louis Park, MN
Lines: 30

In article <90@shasta.Stanford.EDU> jackk@shasta.Stanford.EDU (jackk) writes:
>I read in a recent EE Times article that there are no working chips
>yet for the R4000. This type of pre-announcement is disturbingly
>reminiscent of IBM's "pre-announcement" of the 360/95 before
>there were even lab prototypes running. If I recall correctly,
>some of their competitors took legal action against them. To this day,
>such "pre-announcements" from IBM cause competitors to accuse them
>of creating "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" in the marketplace to
>freeze out competition, yet we hear no such accusations against
>MIPS. Is it simply a matter of size ?

	Hmm, does this cover software simulators of said arch? If
	it exists in software can it be considered a working prototype?

	The excuse I saw was the MIPS was tired of competitors misrepresenting
	what the chip is/will be and decided to release the information
	now to clear up any misunderstandings. Take the excuse for
	what it's worth I guess. For all we know they might have silicon
	oscillating in a lab someplace, then again, they may not.

	My question here is:

	If an architecture exists only in software can it be considered
	a valid prototype of said arch? Does a physical prototype have
	to exist in this age of simulation? When does an arch. cease to
	be vaporware? Has anyone thought or looked into this musing question?

		Curiously,

		-Rob Healey