Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!bionet!apple!amdahl!oliveb!stratus!gbs
From: gbs@stratus.UUCP (George B. Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k
Subject: Re: 32K "do-it-yourself" kits...
Keywords: The Ultimate Scrooge...
Message-ID: <1051@stratus.UUCP>
Date: 8 Nov 88 21:34:46 GMT
References: <2613@sultra.UUCP> <7532@nsc.nsc.com> <1039@stratus.UUCP> <7594@nsc.nsc.com>
Reply-To: gbs@stratus.UUCP (George B. Smith)
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc. Western Development Center
Lines: 81

In article <7594@nsc.nsc.com> grenley@nsc.nsc.com.UUCP (George Grenley) writes:
>I said a lot of work would be required.  However, for a hobbyist on
>a budget, it would not be too difficult to add a DRAM controller and a couple
>of meg of DRAM; and also add a SCSI port.

Amen to a lot of work!  My viewpoint here is that it would be so much work
that a blank PC board may be a better starting point.  In other words, what
advantage does the 532DK give other than the 532 chip?  It is in a 
non-standard physical format, and it has only 128k of static RAM and a serial
port.

>Here at the ol' factory we have
>a list of app notes we're working on; these subjects are to be covered, as
>quick as we can get to them.  (By the way, while we cannot commit to anything,
>we do sometimes work with outside engineers to write such app notes.)

I have to say that I am skeptical about these app notes.  The staffing level
in the 32k group is the issue here.  Now the cg16 group has done some *very*
good things in the way of app notes as is readily apparent in the new 32k
data book.  For netlanders, please note that the 32k app group and the cg16
app group are two totally different groups with very different management.

>This would make a pretty good single or small multi user system.  Not a
>NeXT or anything, but the cost is reasonable.

As long as you continue to say this I must continue to disagree.

>>Now the CG16 group is working on something that would be a good starting
>>point for a 32k PC system.
>
>I do not believe this is a good alternative, for several reasons.  First, the
>32CG16 has no MMU capabilities, so any Unix type box is out.

What about Minix?  XINU? They run very nicely on a PC/XT with no mmu.  For that
"low cost, hobbyiest system" you mention, I think the cg16 is more than capable.
It will be a very low cost part, will be supported *very* well, and will be
widely available I suspect.  I wouldn't brush it off quite yet.  Also, the
configuration of the cg16 PC will be *quite nice*.

>Second, while the
>BitBlt capabilities of the CG16 make it quite fast at bit diddling, in terms
>of general performance, it is more like a 15 mhz 68000 - not that fast compared
>to other CPUs on the market.  Although I haven't benchmarked it, I would guess
>that a fast 286-clone machine running Microport UNIX (or similar) would be
>at least as fast, maybe faster.

I am sure that the cg16 people can defend themselves far better than I can.
Let me say that at least it will get around the horrible segmentation problems
that the 286 UNIX people have.

>Why build a slow machine?  Most of the cost of any UNIX-capable machine is 
>going to be memory (32 1 meg RAMS = $500-$1000) and disk (40 meg = $500).
>So, why not hook it up to a GREAT CPU?

Since we have been discussing low-cost, "hobbyiest" systems, I don't think
many of them will be porting actual UNIX to this type of hardware.  Besides,
I don't think you can beat the Ziaz deal right now anyway.

>>Let's put it
>>another way, if they thought they *could* do it, would they find a way
>>to get it done?
>
>As my esteemed former collegue knows, wanting to do something and doing it
>are different.  NSC, with the overhead of a billion dollar semi plant capacity,
>simply cannot afford to do business "retail".

I am afraid that I *don't* know.  That is why I asked the question.  Let's
look at your half-empty glass a different way.  Suppose we looked at it as
a half-full glass, i.e. National, with the resources of a $2 billion company,
can it do something that small companies can do with far, far fewer resources
can do?  I think it is a matter of *desire*.  If you wanted to produce a
neat low cost, useful, fun system, then you probably would find a way.  If
you *don't* want to do this sort of thing, then it doesn't matter what you
have in the way of resources or overhead or what, you probably won't do it.

>Best Regards,
>the first George
>Nat'l Semi

George B. Smith                  Disclaimer: personal opinion only.
Stratus Computer, Inc.
gbs@stratus