Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!elroy!cit-vax!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!jade!eris!mwm
From: mwm@eris.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Wishlist for A3000
Message-ID: <5939@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 17-Nov-87 01:34:53 EST
Article-I.D.: jade.5939
Posted: Tue Nov 17 01:34:53 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Nov-87 03:28:25 EST
References: <5888@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <2762@cbmvax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 75

In article <2762@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:
<in article <5888@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) says:
<> Keywords: Commodore A3000 Do it RIGHT!
< 
<> Probably. On the other hand, the options seem to be:
<> 
<> 	1) Coming out with a 16 bit A3000 next year. You'd do
<> 	*well* to get shot. [and two identical stupid suggestions]
<
<Yes, stupid!  Only PClones can get away with a 16 bit bus on a 32 bit
<machine.  Even IBM wasn't foolish enough to go that route.

Stupid indeed. Then again, I was listing all the options. But after
the Zorro I/Zorro ][ change, I wouldn't put them past CBM.

<There shouldn't be a problem with a 16/32 bit bus.

Except for getting CBM to market something done that well a second time.

<They're both TOO slow, especially NuBus.   And VME is far too expensive,
<and certainly not upward compatible.

I'm sure CBMs capability for building things cheap could overcome VME
being to expensive.

<> 	path to SUNs and the like for your customers. 
<
<I don't particularly want customers going to Sun, I'd rather keep them here.

Right - never mind what's good for the customer, let's make sure that
we're going to make lots of money.

<But that's OK, cause I can design a faster bus that's also
<cheaper, and also supports old Zorro cards.  You might not like it, but
<90% of current Amiga users will, and that's what I'm concerned with.  

Oh, I believe you can design it. I'd even like it. But can you
convince CBM to sell it?

<> <> P.S. Un*x support would be nice also. (notice I said nice, not req)
<> <	No problem.  8-)
<> 
<> Ah, but *which* Unix? I want MACH! Or maybe V8 (V9?). None of the
<> stuff that AT&T employees call Sh*tlix, or that's suffering from
<> Berkeley Brain Damage.
<
<But you've already said that you're going to do the Mach port to your
<'486 machine which doesn't exist yet, if no one else will port it.

Unless something really nifty comes along, I expect to wind up working
on that. But something really nifty came along once; it might come
along again.

<I really like Mach, but it's not Unix, is it.

Depends on how you define Unix. All the 4.3 utilities run on Mach. You
can put 4.3 device drivers into Mach (nuts, most of Mach's device
drivers are *from* 4.3!). It even takes a license from AT&T to run it.
Sure looks like a Unix to me.

<Unix is V from AT&T or BSD4, and you don't like either of these.

You've been listening to to many lawyers. Unix is anything that
supports the v7 system call interface - ptrace and the mpx cruft + a
reasonable extension to the tty interface.

<So you really don't want Unix either, do you.

Well, what you call Unix is now 15+ years old, and has been collecting
cruft since v7. Fortunately, there are several rewrites from the
ground up that are what I call Unix. Most of those don't suffer from the
creeping featurism rampant in what you call Unix. Some of them are
available for cheap/free.

	<mike