Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ll-xn!nike!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!kds From: kds@mipos3.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker ~) Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.amiga,net.micro.atari16,net.micro.mac Subject: Re: The Motorola 68030 Message-ID: <205@mipos3.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 17:41:04 EDT Article-I.D.: mipos3.205 Posted: Wed Oct 1 17:41:04 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 01:33:37 EDT References: <2270@gitpyr.UUCP> <7637@sun.uucp> <729@sauron.UUCP> <200@mipos3.UUCP> <280@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> Reply-To: kds@mipos3.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker ~) Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, CA Lines: 85 Keywords: here we go again... Xref: mnetor net.micro.68k:1304 net.micro.amiga:4984 net.micro.atari16:2266 net.micro.mac:7353 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. > > Firstly, it is clear that Motorola's architecture is a lot >cleaner than Intel's. Certainly their chips may be a year or so behind >Intel (i.e. 68020 and 80286, 68010 and 80186, etc.); but their chips are >far superior. Even if you insist on comparing the 68010 to the 80286 >it is not clear at all that the 80286 wins hands down; the '010 has an >architecture more well-suited to implementation of multi-level interrupt >multitasking systems. The fact is that for implementation of real >systems the 68010 in many cases is a far more appropriate choice than >the 80286. (about Unix implementation, see BYTE article last month.) >And of course the 68020 is far and away the superior chip compared >to the 80286, and the '020 has been available in real computer systems >for some time. From this point of view it seems reasonable to compare the >'286 to the '020 rather than the '010, and here the comparison is clear. >'020s are used (as you all know) in Sun workstations, TurboAmigas, etc. >'286s are used in ATs. There is really no comparison between the two >classes of machine. 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. > 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 >(especially UNIX and AmigaDos/Intuition), although some optimization >wouldn't hurt. From the point of view of the Intel chips, the 8088-based >MS-DOS is nothing more than a kludge on the 80286 and 80386; for that >operating system to take advantage of those chips a complete re-write >must be done, and is in the process of being completed as we speak. >This new operating system however will most likely be incompatible to >a great degree with the old, 8/16-bit MS-DOS and will contain major bugs >for some time. AmigaDOS/Intuition has been running on the 68000 for >about a year now, and Unix implementations for the 68000/68010 chips have >been floating around for at least 3 or more years. To compare the 80386 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. 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. And Unix implementations for 8086-based chips have been floating around for at least 5 years. MS-DOS already is a 16-bit os, and always has been. 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?" >P.S. BTW, have you guys heard about the 78000 (!?) See Nanobytes in >the latest BYTE (the //GS issue). This is a RISC uprocessor with a >rated speed of 20 (VAX-equivalent?) MIPS . . . this kind of speed >totally blows away the RT PC (note: the RT PC performed just a hair >better than an PC AT in benchmarks . . . see PC World or PC magazine >of a month ago. . . not very impressive . . .) Oh, this is great. Yet another paper product. This one, they haven't even had a press release on! I guess it must be more than a year away (:-)). -- The above views are personal. I've seen the future, I can't afford it... Ken Shoemaker, Microprocessor Design, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, California uucp: ...{ hplabs|amdcad|qantel|pur-ee|scgvaxd|oliveb }!intelca!mipos3!kds csnet/arpanet: kds@mipos3.intel.com