Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site hammer.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!hammer!coryb
From: coryb@hammer.UUCP (Cory Barker)
Newsgroups: net.micro.16k
Subject: Re: Nat/Mot/Int; and DSI-32 optimizer
Message-ID: <1703@hammer.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Dec-85 19:28:30 EST
Article-I.D.: hammer.1703
Posted: Tue Dec 10 19:28:30 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 05:43:47 EST
References: <120@utastro.UUCP> <314@l5.uucp>
Reply-To: coryb@hammer.UUCP (Cory Barker)
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 27

In article <314@l5.uucp> gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>Motorola supplies a bug list to its customers, under nondisclosure;
>National won't, and even took action against some of its own employees
>who were telling customers about chip bugs.)

We have always had bug lists for the National chips.

>The 68881 math processor works fine and does nice 80-bit math in full
>IEEE glory; the 16081 only does 64-bit math, and is much slower.

How much is much?  May we see your benchmark numbers please?

>The 32032 is dead in this market; it's only 30% faster than a 16032,
>which puts it right in the 68000 ballpark -- if you can get a bug-free
>chip that runs at its rated clock speed.  (Haven't talked to anybody
>who has seen one of those either.)  The 32332, well, it's faster than a
>32032, but slower than both 68020 and 80386, so only people locked-in
>to National chips will buy it.

My number is 503-685-2763.  You can give me a call and talk to me.
Then you will have talked to someone who has seen a 32032 running Unix
and running it at 10Mhz without any kludgey work arounds in the complier.
Again, may we please see your benchmarks between the 32332 and the 68020?

Perhaps your article should have been posted to net.religion.68k.

Cory Barker