Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!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: <17658@gatech.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 88 11:05:48 GMT
References: <433@sdrc.UUCP> <2659@sultra.UUCP> <1041@raspail.UUCP> <256@aber-cs.UUCP> <2667@sultra.UUCP>
Reply-To: ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii)
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Tech, Atlanta
Lines: 93

Yet another in my series of 'For The Record' articles...;')

In article <2667@sultra.UUCP> dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan) writes:
>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?  

I belive you have missed the whole boat here.  People are talking about
building an *inexpensive* yet reasonably powered machine.  Next year, my
friend, the 32532 will be passe also, thechnology moves pretty damn fast these
days.  The 532 cost big $$$, the memory to feed the 532 cost big $$$, and the
IO capacity to feed the 532 costs, you guessed it, big $$$.  Like the National
Semi guys have been saying, if you want a 532, talk to Heurikon, they did it
right.

>                                              Want to guess how much space
>X-Windows eats?  
>rates, at least 
In the neighborhood of 45MB+ with source...though I haven't 'du'ed release 3
yet.

>>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?
>

The 386SX is a 16-bit data bus version of the 386 (akin to the 8088/8086
pair).  The idea is to reduce system cost by reducing the nessesary memory and
IO bandwidth.

>
>                  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).

Yes...100%

>BSD also has sockets.  

Yes you've obviously never used Release 3.  The STREAMS facility, which
replaces sockets, is much nicer...

>			Not to mention 'csh', 

I think the 3b2 is the only System V.3 system ive seen that didn't come with
csh.

>						and many more features.  

That certainly goes both ways.  As I said, i like BSD, but that is religion,
and religion only.  Both systems are getting VERY close feature wise.

>									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.

I beg to differ.  There is still an awful lot of active support for System
V.2, perhaps not from AT&T, but certainly from vendors (when was the last time
AT&T gave support on a System V based, say, Silicon Graphics...?) Vendors
support Unix.  AT&T barely supports the 3b's, much less anyone else.

System V.3.x support is NOT going to vapourise for a few years (and then we'll
be running Mach or Unix System V.5 or OSF/OS or Clouds (nawwww) or whatever).

And as far as Release 4, think yet again...i have been quote preliminary
pricing on System V Release 4.0 for the 386.  And for the record, Release 4
looks pretty damn nice....

Another point of interest:  the 80386, along with the 3b2 and the SPARC are
targets for the official AT&T reference ports of future AT&T Unixes, which
means that other than device drivers, Unix will compile off the tape for these
processors.  This is NOT the case for the NS chips, which (at least) will need
the memory management code rewritten, along with tons of other kernal stuff.
Not slamming the NS chips, just stating the facts....

>
>*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".

Perhaps...perhaps a year from now...perhaps not...I'm pushing the '332...

>	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? ---

	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