Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!samsung!uunet!shelby!jackk@shasta.Stanford.EDU
From: jackk@shasta.Stanford.EDU (jackk)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: MIPS, Compaq and Microsoft in bed - NYT story (TRY AGAIN, SORRY)
Message-ID: <98@shasta.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 13 Feb 91 21:14:51 GMT
References: <29920@usc> <45777@mips.mips.COM>
Organization: Stanford University Computer Systems Laboratory
Lines: 34

John Mashey writes....
>	(NOTE: it is hysterically funny to see a concern that little ol'
>	MIPS might be overhanging the market with vapor and should be
>	sued. 
I didn't mean to suggest that I think they "should" be sued, or that
there is any basis to do so. There is
*more* than enough legal manuevering in the computer industry these days.

> Let's recall any of the following:

>		Sun ECL SPARC announced in 1987, and decribed in technical
>			papers in 1989, used as evidence of superior scalability
>		"50MHz 486" ballyhooed to be delivered 4Q90, and
>			widely-given Intel charts with 586, 686, etc....
>		Public 68040 presentations in mid-1988, 88110 presentations
>			in 1990.
>		IBM "technology" presentations early 4Q90, well before
>		product availability.
>	BTW: I'm not criticizing any of these at all by listing them here;
>	but people should keep a sense of proportion :-)

I guess my comment was more directed at the different ways the trade
press treats such announcements coming from  IBM and from smaller
companies. Malice seems to be assumed more often in the case or larger
companies.

I would also add that  I think that voice of the technical
professionals from MIPS (esp. John Mashey et. al.) have been some of
some of the most informed and rational on the net.
His efforts to help clean up and standardize benchmarking practices
are especially notable. This is in part why I was so surprised to see
the R4000 info prior to say, an ISSCC paper. The argument that
software suppliers need time to plan is a good one, and perhaps it is
the press that has made this look more splashy than it is.