Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!edsews!charette From: charette@edsews.EDS.COM (Mark A. Charette) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Why is the RT slow? Message-ID: <5050@edsews.EDS.COM> Date: 20 Nov 88 01:21:31 GMT References: <5046@polya.Stanford.EDU> Organization: EDS/TSD - Troy, MI Lines: 26 > ......... > I don't think its very mysterious why the RT performance is so bad. Aside from > the dark rumours that the architecture was deliberately crippled so as not to > impact existing product lines, it (the implementation, NOT the architecture) > was not whizzy because of engineering tradeoffs. They stuck to a microcomputer > bus, they used a process technology that was barely state-of-the-art (or > wasn't by the time they finished, anyway), did not have a cache. It only ran > at 6MHz! Why bother with a cache! They made lots of tradeoffs for backwards > compatibility with existing systems. The later RTs (125,135) are reasonable, middle of the road performers when you look at the CPU speed. However, you might just want to look at the disk I/O performance. I wish our little Suns ran that fast. Also, IBM won't stand still in this marketplace. Once IBM finds out REAL money can be made in the workstation market, they'll be here with a reliable, almost whizbang machine. Considering their quality control, I think they could come up with a real winner that doesn't come DOA or have random errors caused by the phase of the moon. -- Mark Charette "People only like me when I'm dumb!", he said. Electronic Data Systems "I like you a lot." was the reply. 750 Tower Drive Voice: (313)265-7006 FAX: (313)265-5770 Troy, MI 48007-7019 charette@edsews.eds.com uunet!edsews!charette