Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!torrie From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) Subject: Re: The 68050 - end of the 680x0? (was Re: The Amiga's Future) Message-ID: <1991Jun15.173342.2832@neon.Stanford.EDU> Sender: torrie@neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA References: <5068@orbit.cts.com> <16647@darkstar.ucsc.edu> < <1308@cbmger.UUCP> <28@ryptyde.UUCP> > <01dH!cmr@cs.psu.edu> <1991Jun10.072945.8821@neon.Stanford.EDU> <22365@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1991Jun13.003707.19785@neon.Stanford.EDU> <2 <22460@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1991 17:33:42 GMT Lines: 67 daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1991Jun14.004412.26009@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >You might argue for Compaq wanting better Intel CPUs, maybe they're not so >concerned if they're committed to ACE. DEC and SGI certainly have no motive >in getting Intel excited, neither do Microsoft or MIPS. Well, DEC does have a range of high-end 80x86 PC's (interestingly, just re-badged Intel machines). Although they're also much more committed to MIPS than Compaq, having already produced R3000 workstations. I still think Compaq and all the hanger-on clone makers in ACE have a good reason for wanting to put the wind up Intel. >> I still think Compaq would prefer to stay with the 80x86 family >I think that was done, more than anything, for software reasons. If you make >high end PClones ACE compatible, at the source level (actually, it's more >like specifying the ACE system as being compatible in the first place, since >this Intel stuff already exists), then you get a free flow of software from >the extremely large PClone market, since porting to the MIPS machines will >be a piece of cake. This has yet to be proved - i.e. it all depends on Microsoft actually getting a portable OS/2 v3.0, and including all the Windows stuff, and having a compiler which can compile to both architectures equally well. Microsoft's track record with advanced development hasn't been exactly impressive - check out their TrueImage debacle. >> Current 68K users are unlikely to go the SPARC route, given its poor >>performance and relatively poor architecture. [You'll note that a lot >>of 80x86 vendors are now selling SPARC systems - I guess they know how >>to pick a bad one :-)]. >I guess Sun would be a little surprised to hear that, since they replaced the >68K with SPARC, and in fact, really hadn't quite "taken off" as a major force >in the workstation market until they did. I think Sun went SPARC only because of their limited time-to-market. They wanted a RISC machine out as fast as possible, and the SPARC was a way to build a cheap, fast processor out of a gate array. Unfortunately, the architectural niceties were lost in the rush. >eventually do. They're going to copy something. SPARC machines are faster >than 80x86s, and Sun's making it easy for these guys to make these copies (of >course, not real fast ones, but the low end systems). Although they're not making it easy for them to sell them, [as in preventing their resellers from stocking non-Sun SPARC machines]. I have a feeling that Sun is shooting itself in the foot with SPARC. It's been over a year since these SPARC-clone machines were announced, and they've yet to make even a minimal dent. >>MIPS is definitely Motorola's biggest threat, especially if Motorola doesn't >>get the 88110 out and shipping soon after the R4000. >I agree there, they are the two I would look at if I had to start building a >RISC system this year. Or, as the rumours go, IBM's RS/6000 if it's available for licensing. :) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "I didn't get where I am today without knowing a good deal when I see one, Reggie." "Yes, C.J."