Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!ken
From: ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k
Subject: Re: The 'cost' of a '532 system.
Keywords: cheap nsc 532
Message-ID: <17648@gatech.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 88 18:44:20 GMT
References: <433@sdrc.UUCP> <2659@sultra.UUCP> <1041@raspail.UUCP> <2661@sultra.UUCP> <256@aber-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii)
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Tech, Atlanta
Lines: 62

In article <256@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>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. 
>
I agree with this whole hartedly, and will be detailing my thoughts on the
subject in the next few days...
>
<stuff deleted>
>
>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, 

What about things like long file names and symbolic links to name a few?
Sorry, but Sys V.3 is still not that great.  Maybe System V.4.........

>					 and Interactive's version of 386 5.3.2
>has it...  

For the record, no it doesn't.  It just calls what it has Fast File System.
What ISC has done is make the in kernal stuff more efficient.  It is, however,
still the System V file system and bears no simblance to the BSD FFS.

>	   in BSD you do not get mapped files, streams etc...  

I'll buy that...but you also forgot other good things like HDB uucp.  I'd
still much rather have BSD, but thats a religious issue.

>								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.  

This is silly.  Writing an OS is a big enough pain in the ass without having
to deal with a horrid bastard architecture like the '386 (although, to be
fair, it does have some interesting features).  For the price of a MINIMUM,
which would be FAR from what an OS developer would need, '386 based system 
(16MHz, 2MB, 40-60MB disk, EGA, ISC 386ix v.2.0 == $5500+) you should be 
able to dig up a usable 32k based Unix machine.  Hell, there are tons of 680x0
based systems that fall into that price range that would be better than a
'386.  As you are at a University, you could probably get a Sun 3/50 with big
disk and tape for under $7K (what a decent '386 system REALISTICLY costs).
Whoops, I forgot, theres that nasty BSD again...;')

>	     But (BIG NUMBERS ONLY) NatSemi will never come forward with such a
>thing, will it ? My only hope is all of YOU. 

The way things look, this is probably true.  If the '386 is the hottest
selling Unix chip around (recently), its only because NS fumbled the ball...

>-- 
>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)


	ken seefried iii	...!{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs, 
	ken@gatech.edu		masscomp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax,
	ccastks@gitvm1.bitnet	ut-ngp, ut-sally}!gatech!ken

        "Children is more trouble than human beings!" -- Popeye the Sailor