Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!caip!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!magore From: magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.amiga,net.micro.atari16,net.micro.mac Subject: Re: The Motorola 68030 Message-ID: <2618@watdcsu.UUCP> Date: Sun, 5-Oct-86 00:15:55 EDT Article-I.D.: watdcsu.2618 Posted: Sun Oct 5 00:15:55 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 7-Oct-86 20:05:52 EDT References: <2270@gitpyr.UUCP> <7637@sun.uucp> <729@sauron.UUCP> <200@mipos3.UUCP> <7183@utzoo.UUCP> Reply-To: magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 45 Keywords: here we go again... Xref: mnetor net.micro.68k:1353 net.micro.amiga:5103 net.micro.atari16:2340 net.micro.mac:7436 In article <7183@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> And what about the new family jewels? Should I feel vindicated that Mot >> has finally decided that on-chip memory management is a good idea? ... > >Only when Intel decides that on-chip caches are a good idea. The 68030 >has *both*. So does the Clipper, by the way. The MIPS chip set likewise >does the MMU and half (the hard half) of the cache. Where's Intel? > > >> ...what about performance? Why would a new, ultra-high end user choose >> the 68030 over, say, the Clipper, or the MIPS chips, each of which >> (if you believe the numbers) should exceed the 68030's performance (with >> the promise of delivering more sooner) and are available, in some semblance, >> today? > >Probably no particularly good reason except compatibility. I notice, >however, that the line of argument has shifted slightly: we don't hear >the word "Intel" any more. >-- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry Hi, I just would like to bring up a new topic to think about. I find that working at the chip level can be a great joy but *most* consumers do not. They mostly run programs and only care if they run -fast enough-. As far as writing programs go the compiler is where the real sweet occurs yet compiler writers are *few* compared to end users. Then we have to weigh just how many *good* applications can be addressed with only a compiler rather then an assembler. This problem is more complex -to be sure- but I would say that the compiler that is most mature is the winner (at the time). That is because a buggy compiler can cause much pain to developers... Market competition has to occur to 'debug' the compilers etc.... What I am getting at is by no means the fault of hardware design -just the first in high volume to market wins-... I have a 68K and an 8086! but I can use both... Ok everybody - lets here it for 'to each his own' (any cheers?). I think most people don't get down to the hardware level like the rest of us. Well for now I'll think about getting so sleep and dream of some *real* cpu's not like the toys we have today but say in 10 years. (You know 10 years from now when we have the computing power of a CRAY in a kid's toy.....:-) # Mike Gore # Institute for Computer Research. # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.