Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!gatech!ncar!tank!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!urbsdc!aglew
From: aglew@urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC v. CISC (really, context-s
Message-ID: <28200222@urbsdc>
Date: 30 Oct 88 19:12:00 GMT
References: <181648@<1988Oct28>
Lines: 15
Nf-ID: #R:<1988Oct28:181648:urbsdc:28200222:000:715
Nf-From: urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM!aglew    Oct 30 13:12:00 1988


>In article <313@auspex.UUCP> guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) writes:
>>While I was at Sun, I don't remember there ever having been any effort
>>to reduce the depth of the kernel call stack in order to speed things up
>>on SPARC-based Suns...
>
>Um, Guy, a lot of us Sun customers concluded quite a while ago that
>performance (except on benchmarks) is not high on Sun's list of priorities.
>"Just buy a faster machine, we'll be happy to sell you one."
>-- 
>The dream *IS* alive...         |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>but not at NASA.                |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Yep, SUN keeps making liars out of the people who say that the CPU
has ceased to be a bottleneck. :-)