Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu From: hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.amiga,net.micro.atari16,net.micro.mac Subject: Re: The Motorola 68030 Message-ID: <202@eneevax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 4-Oct-86 21:09:00 EDT Article-I.D.: eneevax.202 Posted: Sat Oct 4 21:09:00 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 7-Oct-86 19:54:22 EDT References: <2270@gitpyr.UUCP> <7637@sun.uucp> <729@sauron.UUCP> <200@mipos3.UUCP> <280@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> <205@mipos3.UUCP> Reply-To: hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) Organization: Imperial Widget Research Center, Kingdom of Maryland Lines: 114 Keywords: here we go again... Xref: mnetor net.micro.68k:1350 net.micro.amiga:5097 net.micro.atari16:2336 net.micro.mac:7432 In article <205@mipos3.UUCP> kds@mipos3.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker ~) writes: >In article <280@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: >> >> In re: Motorola's continual announcements . . . is it fair >>to compare the 68030 to the 80386, etc.? >> >> Yes. > >Of course, there is no comparison between the two classes of machines, because >you in here introduce more than two classes of machines. I would not >put Sun workstations and Turbo Amigas in the same class of machine simply >because the Amiga does not support any kind of memory management. If you >want to have a grown-up machine, one that supports multi-user/multi-tasking >you really need to have this. I have used 68k boxes without that have >tried to do it, and it works, but you are just asking for trouble. That >the same 286-based box can support an unprotected os like ms-dos and >a protected os like Unix means that it can function in either of these >two classes. Not until you have the 68030, or you make an entire subsystem >plug in with a 68020 and an mmu, can you claim to have upgraded your Amiga >the way plugging a 286 upgrades a pc. Your assertion about classifying 68k based machines is more or less correct; I wouldn't want to lump the Amiga and the Sun together. Yet. But sooner or later Commodore will get their act together, and you can bet on the existence of an MMU in Atari's TT box next year, and that whatever design one uses, it will be infinitely easier to live with than the Intel segmentation design. A simple matter of extracting limited function from a limited design. >> Another important point to make is that operating systems implemented on >>the 68000 series chips will run fairly well on the higher-grade chips; >>UNIX, AmigaDos/Intuition, Mac Operating System, ST GEM/TOS, et cetera are >>all capable of taking advantage of the higher-level chips' capabilities > >In the first place, msdos, while not taking advantage of the functionality >of the 286 or the 386, is certainly not a kludge when run on them. In >addition, when you go from one type of 68* based box to another, you also >need to rewrite the operating system, because the memory management systems >are incompatible. You just walked down the wrong alley for an Intel person. I dare say that there are far more diversified and completely alien implementations of the MS-DOS BIOS and kernal than there ever have been 68k implementations of Unix. In fact, the amount of dirty work needed to port Unix memory management from one 68k system to another pretty much is based on only two variables: which version of Unix, and whether or not you're demand paged. The minimum functionality required to run Unix well is easily accomodated by just about every 68k MMU design I've ever seen. What's a '386 user to do, use the warped `MMU' inherent in its predecessors? No...you need a rewrite. Motorola passed that trial years ago when the '010 was introduced. > People have also generated 286-based cards that plug >into plain old IBM pcs and have gained a significant performance upgrade, while >running their old software. I'm sure the same thing can and will happen >with the 386. What a coincidence! Just about everybody else in the world has too! And if you're not convinced, I have some Apple-II+ accelerator boards I'd like you to meet. > And Unix implementations for 8086-based chips have been >floating around for at least 5 years. Amazing. Commercial Unix implementations for 68000-based machines have been floating around for well over 5 years; check the ads in your old Byte issues. >MS-DOS already is a 16-bit os, and always has been. What are you trying to say? "And it always will be?" We're not discussing 6502's here. The 68k family is already a 32-bit processor, and always has been. Bus sizing is just another one of its strengths, if you will. > When going from a 68020 to a 68030, you will have to >rewrite the os to take advantage of the memory management that the 68030 >provides...otherwise you just have a little faster 68020, much like you >can use a 286 as a faster 8086. How about if we compare apples to apples? >Can you say "incoherency?" Can you say "Yes, you are becoming incoherent"? When going from a 68020 to a 68030, you will have to throw away that PMMU chip you had sitting next to it. Code changes? Motorola claims you won't need any. I'll be more than happy to throw away another large power-sucking chip; I need the real-estate anyhow. When going from a '286 to a '386, you will have to rewrite the OS to take advantage of a real MMU. You guys DO have a real MMU, don't you? Otherwise, you have a little faster '286. As for improvements in Motorola's performance, a large number of programs benefitted wonderfully from the DBxx change in the '010, and that's the name of the game. Otherwise, why would NEC try to market the V20/V30 family? >-- >The above views are personal. > >I've seen the future, I can't afford it... > >Ken Shoemaker, Microprocessor Design, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, California Yes, the good people of Oakhill are jumping the gun a bit, but it isn't going to bother me a bit. As far a Joe Blow is concerned, his computer suddenly became faster and less power grubbing with a minimum of hardware redesign on my behalf. As far as I'm concerned, I just won an MMU and a data cache and saved myself a lot of money. Keep your iAPX toys, guys; I might look you over if you start running circles around Vax 8800's. If. The opinions expressed within are entirely mine, and may not reflect the views of the University of Maryland. But a hell of a lot of my friends share them. -dave -- David Hsu (301) 454-1433 || -8798 || -8715 "I know no-thing!" -eneevax Communications & Signal Processing Laboratory / EE Systems Staff Systems Research Center, Bldg 093 / Engineering Computer Facility The University of Maryland -~- College Park, MD 20742 ARPA: hsu@eneevax.umd.edu UUCP: [seismo,allegra,rlgvax]!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu "Hoy?"