Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!apple!vsi1!wyse!mips!sultra!dtynan
From: dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k
Subject: Re: The 'cost' of a '532 system.
Summary: Not quite.  What about the future?
Keywords: cheap nsc 532
Message-ID: <2667@sultra.UUCP>
Date: 21 Nov 88 22:41:54 GMT
References: <433@sdrc.UUCP> <2659@sultra.UUCP> <1041@raspail.UUCP> <256@aber-cs.UUCP>
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: Tynan Computers, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 71

In article <256@aber-cs.UUCP>, pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (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. 

What support?  Do you mean the DMA, memory, or discrete circuitry?  As I said
in the previous posting, I believe the system should run real fast to memory,
but slower to the PC-Bus.  I don't agree that a '532 is not needed.  The
current migration of software (both applications, and OS), is toward Big Time.
Sure, the '332 may be just great today, but what about next year?  Will we
have to start over again?  One of the systems I use at home, is a vanilla
IBM-PC.  It is now totally and completely obsolete.  It can barely handle
the stuff I put on it.  Anyone want to buy an IBM-PC (4.77MHz) for $2,500??
I thought not.  My point is, that I want a system that will grow with the
technology.  Four years ago, I thought 10Mb was more than enough.  I seriously
thought about removing the 'DELETE' command.  Want to guess how much space
X-Windows eats?  I want a system which, if it won't perform at next-years
rates, at least allows me to upgrade.  Why should I sell myself short?

>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.

Interesting point.  What issue(s) of Byte was that in (I cancelled my
subscription long ago)??

>In other words, the aim should be to develop a 386SX not a 386 type of system. 

Huh?  I think I missed something.  What is a 386SX?

>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!)

Sure.  This could be done, but this is nothing more than a "stop-gap" measure.
You'd basically have to give the 32K a "frontal lobotomy".  In which case, you
end up with a system not that far removed from a '286.  The main difference
being the lack of segmentation registers.  Why bother?  This would do you for
a while, but what about next year?  What about the fact that the AT doesn't
*really* support anything over 1Mb?  You'd have to hack and hack, and end up
with a system that you'd want to replace in a year, anyway.

>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

I beg to differ.  Granted, I've never used Release 3, but I have definitely
used S5.2.1, and found it nasty (I'm fighting to avoid using stronger words).
BSD also has sockets.  Not to mention 'csh', and many more features.  However,
you're certainly welcome to your opinion.  But, don't expect AT&T to continue
to support release 3, when 4.0 is in the wings, and don't expect 4.0 to run
on your AT box.

>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

*WE* are trying to, but we need your support.  As for your first point about
the price of the '532 chip (or chipset?), call me an optimist, but I believe
NSC won't leave us "high and dry".
						- Der
-- 
	dtynan@zorba.Tynan.COM  (Dermot Tynan @ Tynan Computers)
	{apple,mips,pyramid,uunet}!Tynan.COM!dtynan

 ---  If the Law is for the People, then why do we need Lawyers? ---