Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!pyrnj!pyrdc!uunet!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!pcg
From: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k
Subject: Re: The 'cost' of a '532 system.
Summary: Stop daydreaming, 532 is EXPENSIVE
Keywords: cheap nsc 532
Message-ID: <256@aber-cs.UUCP>
Date: 19 Nov 88 21:46:15 GMT
References: <433@sdrc.UUCP> <2659@sultra.UUCP> <1041@raspail.UUCP> <2661@sultra.UUCP>
Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: CS Dept., University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK
Lines: 41
X-Disclaimer: Any statement is purely personal.

In article <2661@sultra.UUCP> dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan) writes:

    I  got  some  good  figures  from Steve Ligett, who says the
    artwork would  cost  ~$200,  the setup fee for the PC's would be
    ~$1000, and the  per-PC costs would be ~$150. It should be noted,
    that I haven't checked these figures. Neither has Steve. They are
    ballpark numbers.  With  this in mind, approx- imately 20 people
    would make the BARE PC BOARD  cost  $200. After that, you're on
    your own. SIMM's tend to be expensive,  but I don't mind paying for
    a good system, when it is in little  (unnoticeable)  increments.
    The PC board would be of the XT (or AT) variety. A case costs
    $20->40, depending on taste. A PSU can cost  up  to  $70, depending
    on power, and a keyboard can cost up to $100.  These are all
    "off-the-cuff" figures. As for the minor detail of  a  20MHz '532
    chip (or chip set?), someone from NSC will have to answer that one.
    Of course, on top of that, is the OS.

Stop daydreaming Der!  a 532 is too expensive, and probably not needed.  I
think a 332 would do.  The problem with 532 is that it is not only quite
expensive in small quantities, but it is too damn fast.  The real cost of a
system is not in the CPU, is in the support around it.  Think over it. 

In my never humble opinion, why not have a look at the nice at 286 single board
design from Byte, published several months ago ? If such a design had a 32k CPU
instead of a 286 (and yes, I think this could be done, it is just a bit hard). 
In other words, the aim should be to develop a 386SX not a 386 type of system. 
And as long as it is as compatible as possible with a 286, so much the better. 
Would it be possible to plug a 32k based daughterboard in the socket for a 286
or 386 CPU in an existing AT board ? (no, I am not a jester!)

I am going to buy a 386 box with S5.3.2.  Remeber, the only real superiority of
BSD over 5.3.2 is the Fast file system, and Interactive's version of 386 5.3.2
has it...  in BSD you do not get mapped files, streams etc...  I am going to
use it for developing th next great capability based distributed operating
system.  I would for sure use a 32k based cpu instead of the 386 if I could run
UNIX on it.  But (BIG NUMBERS ONLY) NatSemi will never come forward with such a
thing, will it ? My only hope is all of YOU. 
-- 
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi			INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
Sw.Eng. Group, Dept. of Computer Science	UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
UCW, Penglais, Aberystwyth, WALES SY23 3BX (UK)