Xref: utzoo comp.misc:1825 comp.sys.m68k:719 comp.sys.mac:11975 comp.sys.ibm.pc:11320 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!mordor!sri-spam!rutgers!mtune!codas!usfvax2!pdn!alan From: alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy) Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: The New Chips Message-ID: <2166@pdn.UUCP> Date: 2 Feb 88 16:36:17 GMT References: <4746@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1430@husc2.UUCP> <2101@pdn.UUCP> <10064@santra.UUCP> Reply-To: alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) Organization: Paradyne Corporation, Largo, Florida Lines: 109 Keywords: 386 In article <10064@santra.UUCP> hsu@santra.UUCP (Heikki Suonsivu) writes: /In article <2101@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes: />projection for '87. If Apple releases an "SE" type Mac with a '020 in it />(say at 12 MHz costing $3000 for the complete system), then the projection may />turn out wrong again. Even so, the installed base of '020's is now in / /Right now can 386-based AT-clones with 2 meg ram and reasonable hard /disk be bought for less than $3000, with 16 MHz zero waits. Maybe not /much but it is certainly faster than 12 MHz 68020. To get something /reasonable done, you have to add MMU also, but using 68030 would be /more sensible anyway, maybe they choose it. That depends on availability of the 68030 in quantitiy. If it can be done, I'm sure Apple will do it. Whatever. This week's Computerworld says Sculley has let it be known that a machine somewhere between (pricewise) the Mac II and the SE will be released this summer. CPU not specified, but NuBus slots and optional color video hardware are to be expected. Time will tell. />software. 32-bit software for the 386 is not expected to be available />in quantity until 1990 AT THE EARLIEST!! There's hardly even any '286 />protected-mode (16 Meg address space) software yet! /There's already unix available from 3 sources (counted xenix in also), /and I guess that alone gives quite a bunch of software available, gnu /emacs has already been ported, and there is lots of other goodies, /lots of it avaiable free. Who would want 286 protected mode software? /Or 286 at all? Not me. Others? UNIX is system software. It's of great interest to SOME hardcore computer jocks. Its of no interest to 90% (at least) of all computer users. Besides, just where do you think most UNIX application software currently comes from? Why, from 680x0 machines! Portability works both ways, of course. '386 UNIX applications should be easily portable to the 680x0. Of course, the easier it is to port applications accross CPUs, the more likely it is that people will migrate en masse to the best hardware available. In such a world, neither the '386 nor the '030 would be the CPU of choice. Since this is not happening, portability must be less than advertized in some way. Maybe it's just that it only works for source code at this point. Or is it because people are still too ignorant? Hmmm... Who wants '286 protected mode software? I don't, but then I haven't invested ANY money in '286 hardware or software. If I were a corporation with 5,000 ATs, I'd probably be VERY interested in software that would let me use 16MB of memory on my machines, instead of limiting me to 640K. />[lots of numbers from dhrystone benchmark] / /I'm running 8 MHz 286 and 10 MHz 68010, no waits for both, Unix on /both. Dhrystone tells me that 8 MHz 286 is faster than 10MHz 68010. /That's bullshit, tells my eyes and watch. Referring to dhrystone /is like comparing dos machines with Norton's SI. Your phrasing is strange here. I interpret your comments to the effect that the Dhrystone benchmark is not a good indicator of relative performance of different CPUs. I heartily agree with THAT! />By the time the Intel/MS-DOS/OS2 world is getting a reasonable supply of />'386 code on 30MHz machines (1990; 12,000 Dhrystones/second), the /OS2 is 286 operating system. Doesn't make sense to wait when they get /it bugfree and look like operating system, specially when it's made /for obsolete processor (286 is't high-tech, is it?). I would rather /run unix. Most users would rather use either the Finder or the Presentation Manager. Software companies are going to produce most software under these two environments. It's where the market is going; UNIX will NEVER be an operating system for the common man. /I would love to see IBM, Intel and Microsoft to collapse, development /of computers would speed up a lot. Meanwhile, I try to find best /alternatives available, and as I'm using unix most of time, I don't /pay much attention to the processor, price is more important, what I /get for my bucks. :-) If IBM, Intel and Microsoft all "collapsed" it would make the Great Depression look like a picnic. Get real. The people who buy the most computers (corporations) are a lot more sophisticated than you are in their purchasing decisions. They consider factors such as reliability, service, support, vendor strength and stability and also price. Many of them have to worry about these things on a world-wide scale (not just in one city). They also have to consider connectivity, training costs, administrative costs and maintenance costs. This doesn't mean they always make the best decision, and they certainly don't always buy the most technically excellent systems (note the distinction). They tend to be conservative. They prefer to let someone else debug new technologies before they buy in to them. 'Let the pioneers get the arrows in their backs' is their attitude. A new technology cannot supersede an existing technology unless the benefits of change evidently (to those paying the bills) outweigh the costs of junking the old technology. This is the central point at issue. Apple has been having ever-increasing success in arguing the Mac is a technology sufficiently better than the PC to justify its adoption. The UNIX vendors have been successful with this argument in the minicomputer and high-end workstation market. They have not been successful in the personal computer market. Since UNIX's competition in this market is improving faster than UNIX is, it is VERY unlikely that the situation will change. --alan@pdn