Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!linus!philabs!sbcs!root
From: root@sbcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k
Subject: Re: Recent Motorola ad seen in Byte
Message-ID: <394@sbcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Apr-87 09:19:50 EST
Article-I.D.: sbcs.394
Posted: Wed Apr 15 09:19:50 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Apr-87 03:31:50 EST
References: <362@sbcs.UUCP> <7872@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Computer Science Dept, SUNY@Stony Brook
Lines: 29

> > While I am on the subject, did anyone else catch Scott McNealys (Sun Micr.
> > Prez) regarding the '386 - they went something along the lines (rough
> > quote): "no high performance Unix exists for the chip - therefore it
> > has architectural problems".  I suppose the 68020 had the same archtectural
> > problems when it first came out, but they just "got better"...
> 
> Despite the stigma of being a company president, the man may know what he's
> talking about.  As I recall, the MMU in the 386 really does have at least
> one serious architectural problem that makes high-performance multiprogramming
> distinctly difficult.  The 68020 does not share said botch.  The way you've
> quoted it reverses cause and effect, but that could be a misquote or a
> misunderstanding.
> -- 
> "We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

Well Henry, perhaps MIS Week misquoted McNealy - here is the exact quote
from pg 8, MIS Week for March 2, 1987:

	"No one has done a high performance version of Unix on a 386,
	 so there is a lot wrong with the 386."

Don't think I reversed cause and effect in my original posting..  BTW, in my
readings of the 386 architectural manual + data sheets I didn't find anything
horrendously wrong with the 386 MMU (i.e. no worse than VAX/68851/National MMU's
:-).  Perhaps you would care to elaborate on the problem?

							Rick Spanbauer
							SUNY/Stony Brook