Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!csg
From: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: To R.M. Owens / Pyramid=No Risc
Message-ID: <20469@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 22 Apr 88 19:06:28 GMT
References: <1600003@uklirb.UUCP>
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 18

In article <1600003@uklirb.UUCP> kirchner@uklirb writes:
>In a recent note the commercial risks are listed. Among them is the Pyramid
>9000. THIS IS CLEARLY NOT A RISC! (^ typical freudian misspelling ).

A rather dogmatic statement, wouldn't you say? Whether or not the Pyramid 9000
is a RISC processor has been debated extensively in this newsgroup, and I just
posted a brief summary a few days ago. I've had some lively discussions with
people on both sides of the issue. If the Pyramid is "clearly" not a RISC,
then I'd think people who knew the architecture inside and out would come to
some kind of consensus. They haven't. The best observation came from John
Mashey: "The Pyramid 90x is on the RISCy side of CISC, or the CISCy side of
RISC." From Pyramid's marketing department: "...based on a few fundementals
RISC theory," and "commercial RISC," which are sufficiently ambigious to mean
anything you want. :-)

The most important issue is whether Pyramid's archictecture has contributed to
the present state of RISC theory. I'd say it has.

<csg>