Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: OEM development systems (Re: MIPS machine
Message-ID: <273@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Jul-86 10:40:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.273
Posted: Tue Jul 29 10:40:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jul-86 00:33:01 EDT
References: <6964@utzoo.UUCP> <915@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 30
Summary: Why do it in house?

In article <915@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>Henry was noodging DEC for only selling packaged systems while MIPS
>would sell chips, boards, or systems.

It is unfortunate that DEC only sells it's systems under it's own
name, their folly, I guess.

>This is an utterly reasonable idea.  Consider how much pain would have
>been saved had Motorola sold Suns rather than their odd, slow Versados
>systems.
>How many people ever want to see an Intel Development System again?

Unfortunately, consider how little support Motorola would have recieved
had competitors been asked to sign non-disclosure agreements.

>[Of course you need to create the tools needed for cross-development,
>but OEM hardware and software, as a base to build development systems
>on, seems to follow the leading edge a lot closer than chip-mfrs'
>hardware and software.]

The main difference between a "chip maker" and a "system maker" is that
the "chip maker" is out to sell "chips".  To do this they need to provide
enough support to make implement systems around their chips as non-restrictive
as possible.

>I'm curious why MIPS hasn't made this rumor public knowledge.  Perhaps
>Plexus is not selling the system through its own sales offices yet?

Probably because they don't want to end up with Plexus as their only
customer.