Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!amdahl!nsc!roger
From: roger@nsc.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k
Subject: Re: NS32000 Processor
Message-ID: <4409@nsc.nsc.com>
Date: Thu, 18-Jun-87 03:30:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: nsc.4409
Posted: Thu Jun 18 03:30:23 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jun-87 00:46:32 EDT
References: <266@udcps1.UUCP> <642@umnd-cs.D.UMN.EDU> <6779@g.ms.uky.csnet>
Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale
Lines: 55

In article <1751@tekcrl.TEK.COM>, terryl@tekcrl.TEK.COM writes:
> 
>      Ho, boy, I can't really believe this one. Please, Mr Thompson, define
> "stable". I know for a fact that we (Tektronix) had to do quite a bit of
> software "workarounds" for bugs in the chip (most notably the memory-manage-
> ment/TLB hardware). When we discussed these problems with National, the answer
> was "Oh, of course we know about these problems; they're fixed in the next
> mask revision" (or words to that effect). If memory serves me correctly (about
> a 50-50 chance), we were using revision J chips. Naturally, National never
> told us about these bugs until we discussed it with them. Just my opinion,
> mind you, but I think Mr. Gilmore was more on the mark than you were.
> 
> 
The point I was making obviously hit a tender spot.  As it related to
IBM which was the original question, they were not looking for an
MMU based system( I haven't seen one in the PC) and as you have said
the CPUs worked real well.  So our only area of contention in Teks case was
in your mind the MMU and the incident of matched chip sets.  My lab 
which is NOT in engineering has several running systems with the 1983/84
vintage parts.  All run very well.  In fact they are used for our
interoffice mail.  Uptime is constantly over 50 days.  We in fact had for
over a year one of Teks very own systems ---- stayed up real well. Yes we
had delivery problems and yield problems and communication problems
but as it related to the hardware aspects of the Tek system -----
better judgement tells me to leave well enough alone, but the blame
does not always fall on the supplier.  We have however as a result of
the early days of Series 32000 been trained to believe that the
customer is always right.  We now screen parts over wider voltages
and at HIGHER frequencies to meet special needs of various customers.
One of which is Teks.

The 32382 MMU which is used with the 32332 is fully production released
and being shipped in our customers products ( OPUS, Encore and others)
all on the 1 st mask rev.  We have no changes in the pipe.  Teks inputs
have helped.

>      Well, we had real 4.2 BSD Unix running on a 68010-based system running
> in late 1983-early 1984, so I'm not going to claim we were the first, but
> I'm wondering how companies like Sun were able to have one around the time
> frame you're mentioning (not to mention quite a few vendors who used the
> multiple 68000 trick to do demand paging; I'd have to say they were the REAL
> first micros with demand paging).
> 
Yes ----- but was the MMU a discrete solution. Had to be.  That was my point.

> was the cause of a lot of headaches for us).  Does that also mean the MMU
> will finally work at the same speed as the processor?? (Another cheap shot,
> but we couldn't run systems at more than 8 Mhz because of the MMU chip).
> 
the older 082 is available in 6, 10 and 12.5 MHZ and the 32382 is
at 15 MHZ.  We aren't marketing lower frequencies of that one simply
because all our yield runs at the 15 MHZ.  We are in an inventory
position.

Roger