Path: utzoo!attcan!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.
Keywords: cheap nsc 532
Message-ID: <259@aber-cs.UUCP>
Date: 22 Nov 88 19:15:35 GMT
References: <433@sdrc.UUCP> <2659@sultra.UUCP> <1041@raspail.UUCP> <2661@sultra.UUCP> <256@aber-cs.UUCP> <17648@gatech.edu> <924@bacchus.dec.com>
Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: CS Dept., University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK
Lines: 86
X-Disclaimer: Any statement is purely personal.

In article <924@bacchus.dec.com> vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes:

    [ this piece actually from somebody else, cited by vixie: ]
    # [...] 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.

    [ vixie's comments: ]

    Heck, Symmetric 375's cost about that much.  Not that I particularly
    recommend the '375, but I agree that anyone who wants to program an OS
    for the 32k should probably be programming WITH a 32k if it's at all
    possible.

Ahah. Were it so easy! Actually, the 386 system I am buying is somewhat
larger than the MINIMUM described above, and yes, with all discounts
factored in will be just a tad over $5500 at the end (my own money...
will have to dig DEEP into my relatively shallow pockets, so price, and
price/performance are dominating issues).

There are several considerations here:

    I am going to build a portable OS; so initial platform is not so
    important, it will not be a 32k specific system.

    The 386 is not that terrible for os developers. It is far less
    complicated than it seems, and the os related functions are quite
    straightforward and well designed, even advanced. This is true,
    conceded, only if you do not care at all about backwards
    compatibility, and the compiler is already done :-), but I don't
    think that the main attraction of an object oriented, distributed
    capability nucleus, would be in MSDOS/8088 compatibility :-).

    However I would really rather use the 32k because it is obviously
    the easiest architecture for which do the machine dependent parts
    of an os, and you can easily imagine that I could dispense with any
    tougher challenge.

    Actually the machine is for developing a nucleus, not an entire os;
    the rest will be the extensive toolset developed by the FSF. In
    other words, wait a couple of years and you will have the luxury of
    a choice between *two* GNU kernels. This also means that I have to
    choose a system on which g++ is already available. Well, the 386 is
    the last to be considered by the FSF people, but something is
    better than nothing.

    To me the MINIMUM machine listed above looks enourmous; I used to
    run 5 users on a 256kb 11/34. Also, I am not a member of the SV.4
    team! :-).  To me os design is about elegance, frugality, etc...
    See SP&E, August 1979, for something I have as a model.

    The MINIMUM 386 system configured above is vastly superior in
    performance etc... to a symmetric (by several times overall, and by
    an order of magnitude in CPU speed) or to anything I could find, on
    this side of the Pond, for the same range of price, in the 32k (or
    68k for that matter) worlds, not to mention the difficulties of
    getting a decent UNIX, virtual memory, peripherals, etc...  Hint:
    VME bus systems are EXPENSIVE.

    I would be prepared to expend some more money, for some less
    performance, for the priviledge of working with a 32k system.

My site lost a few articles (partition full...) yesterday and the day
before, so I do not know if anybody took up the other point I made:

    Would it be possible (I mean convenient, reasonable, good)
    to build either:

	a single board 32k CPU like the Ciarcia's one, for use on one
	of the now numerous AT clones that do not have a motherboard,
	but only an AT bus backplane ?

	a daughterboard by way of which one could remove a 286 or a 386
	from an AT clone and run in its place a 32K ?

If either of these were possible, and there were a suitable UNIX
implementation, oen could well reap the advantages of being able to buy
*cheap* in the AT clone market and the AT components market (a disk
controller board for an AT clone, for not much worse performance, costs,
retail, one tenth of a board for a VME machine, and one fifth that of a
board for a Q-BUS machine, and so on...).
-- 
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 3BZ (UK)