Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!ico!rcd
From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: ACE (Was Re: Will NeXT survive?  Grow with the times?)
Summary: lack of commitment (or decisiveness)?
Message-ID: <1991May2.224316.17903@ico.isc.com>
Date: 2 May 91 22:43:16 GMT
References: <1991Apr30.191117.4373@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> <32459@usc> <281f3e99.2f35@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>
Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO
Lines: 39

rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Falconer) writes:
> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
> >I *believe* that the goal is to support the same OS on both '386s (and
> >'486s, of course) and on the MIPS-based machine.

(Sean - did you mean "OSes"?  ACE intends to have two for the *86 world at
least, and I thought they were doing it for the R4000 also.)

> 	Well, yes, that _is_ the stated goal. However, it was this
> particular sticking point which essentially convinced the Wall Street
> analysts who turned out in droves for the ACE announcement that the
> whole thing was a bad joke. If Compaq and Microsoft, which between
> them ought to be able to do so, had had the balls to defy Intel and 
> make a geniunely clear, unambiguous commitment to Mips and the R4000
> architecture, the picture would have been clearer...

Can't the same be said for the software non-decision, in which ACE commits
to both OS/2 NT and something sort-of-UNIXy?  (I can't tell how UNIXy that
offering is intended to be, because I've heard some mumbles that say OSF/1
code, others that say OSF/1 API from unspecified code base, etc.)  If these
folks really wanted to set some unified future direction, and they're going
for OS software that has yet to be written, why did they need to pick two
directions (times two hardware directions gives four?) instead of one?  I
may be missing something important, but this aspect of ACE sure looks like
one of those "it's a dessert topping; it's a floor polish" skits.

Overall, I see ACE as just another industry consortium...neither the
largest nor smallest, first nor last, best nor worst.  It looks like the
idea is to sell iron, and the power of such a huge consortium is to be able
to tell you what you "want" (i.e., what you're going to get) without being
bothered by pesky user input.  It may help things some; I'll be glad to
see some non-*86 low-end machines if that can happen, and there are some
other areas where they might produce benefit...but don't expect a major
bold step into the future from a group which already has decided not to
decide on a single direction for either hardware or software.  (Decisive-
ness is the enemy of market share.)
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind.