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. Summary: BSD and SV from NatSemi, 332 a reasonable compromise. AT BUS! Keywords: cheap nsc 532 Message-ID: <268@aber-cs.UUCP> Date: 24 Nov 88 19:39:47 GMT References: <433@sdrc.UUCP> <2659@sultra.UUCP> <1041@raspail.UUCP> <256@aber-cs.UUCP> <2667@sultra.UUCP> <1988Nov23.001325.2577@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Distribution: eunet,world Organization: CS Dept., University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK Lines: 250 X-Disclaimer: Any statement is purely personal. I am very pleased to see all this discussion, here are some comments: ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes: 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. Exactly! that was my point. A 10-15 MIPS machine is way beyond what we can currently afford (me, at least). Also, if you design your system carefully, switching over to 532 may just entail swapping a daughterboard... 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. You get a lot of the benefit of a 386, and the total system cost is much lower. The CPU internally is 32 bits, but externally 24/16 bits. You can run a 332 like that, if you want. 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. Actually, you probably will not be able to afford 5.4 very easily... There are ominous rumours. 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). Well, as I said, just hold your breath until I send to the FSF the full NONE kernel (so far mostly a paper design, unfortunately :-). 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.... Please send me mail about it. There was another message that said that it was going to cost A LOT. 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.... Sad truth, but truth. Moreover the 386 will be the second machine in order of importance, and it is for AT class machines, not multibus based ones, starting with 3.2. *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... OK, OK! dlr@daver.UUCP (Dave Rand) writes: In article <17659@gatech.edu> ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes: In article <8084@daver.UUCP> dlr@daver.UUCP (Dave Rand) writes: Ok. Everyone WANTS BSD. I'm game to do the port. How do I get it? I know how to get a Binary license for Sys V.3 (and the binary is cheap). How can ^^^^^^ I get one for BSD? Source is nice, but usually too expensive. So your going to do a BSD port to the 32k? And from the binary license, the source being to expensive... [stuff deleted] Yes, I did say BINARY. Not source. There are several companies offering NS32K System V Binaries (ZAIAZ being one of them). There are at least two ports of BSD to the NS32K (one by the U of Toronto, I think, and the other by Symmetric (sp?)). HCR and NatSemi. So - back to the question. I know how to get a NS32K Binary for System V. How do I get a NS32K Binary for BSD? Phone to NatSemi. Well, not really. They have ported BOTH BSD and Sys5 to their development machines, and are prepared to supply you (for a price...) the sources, if you are already a UNIX source licensee. By the way, the paper they had at some old USENIX on their BSD port was really interesting. Great guys. Neat job. meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: In article <7648@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> heppell@sim.berkeley.edu (Kevin G. Heppell) writes: (some VERY sensible suggestions) Obviously, I concur with Kevin. I don't care whether it's Nu-Bus or not, but it seems as good a suggestion as any, and a LOT better than the PC buses, altho the new standard from Compaq et al may be worthwhile. But since the ONLY reasons I will be on a PC-derivative are for developing PC software (and I VERY seldom do this!), or for using existing business products while I wait for someone to do them in UNIX (or I do them), I really have no use for anything else to be PC-compatible. That's what RS-232, Ethernet, and the like are for! and bga@raspail.UUCP (Bruce Albrecht) writes: In article <7648@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, heppell@sim.berkeley.edu (Kevin G. Heppell) writes: 3) The PC bus architecture is just as slow and awkward as the rest of the system. NuBus, at least, is an IEEE standard, supports 32 bits, and has a connector which can perform at reasonable speeds. From what I've seen of the inside of a Mac II, the AT-chassis form factor can be met with NuBus cards. I don't have any problems with using NuBus. Whose version would we use, since I believe Apple and NeXT have both modified it. I have a problem. Tipically AT bus components cost a fraction of the same things for other standards. Just look at the price differential with components for the MCA, the MacIntosh, the MacII, not to speak of the VMEBUS. Thanks Taiwan! Of course the AT bus is almost hopeless for memory access, but a private ememory bus is ok; I would have no objection to using the AT bus only for I/O (as 386 machine do, essentially, and just like the QBUS is used today). An alternative would be a machine with ONLY a memory bus, and all peripherals accessed via SCSI. Neat solution, but we are starting to see non disk, non tape SCSI peripherals (serial and ethernet interfaces) only now, in the MacIntosh market, and compare the prices with AT bus components, and width of choice. The MacIntosh Plus after all is just a machine like that, and that is not encouraging. Since the 32k series is supposed to be upwardly compatible, it should not matter whether or not the on-board 032 or an added 332 or 532 is doing the work. An add-in card will keep initial costs down, allow for easy up-grade, and provide for an I/O processor with the high-perf one. For those who _really_ want a 532 based motherboard, consider this: you will get a much larger user base through the method I have suggested, which makes software and hardware support much cheaper. And by designing in the upgrade, the initial $1000 outlay doesn't disappear when you go up a class. See below for software considerations. I don't think we should base it on an 016 or 032. That's like building a 68k system on a 010. Sure it's cheaper, but it's also going to be slower and need an upgrade all that much sooner. Also, if you use the 082 MMU, you'll probably want to get a '382 for an upgrade to the 332/532, but you may not need to get a new 382 for an upgrade of the 332 to 532. Also, the 082 and 382 are programmed differently, so I think it would be better if we only used one. I think there may be a number of people who would not be interested in this design if it uses the 032. If I had a choice between a home-brew 032, and a commercial 68030 (i.e., Atari or Commodore) for $3-4k, I'd probably go for the commercial system, but a $1500-2500 32332 or 32532 system would be my first choice. Agreed. 032 and 016 are backwards. Too slow; on the other hand we can afford a 386 level machine, probably not a R2000 level one. If upgrading were possible, so much the better. I'd pay more than $2000 for a full 32332 system. I would pay about the same that I'd pay for a 386 system. woods@gpu.utcs.Toronto.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: In article <2667@sultra.UUCP> dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan) writes: In article <256@aber-cs.UUCP>, pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: 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. Ok, here comes another blast furnace.... I'm a SysVr3 fan. Let's get that out in the open... I am not a Sys5 fan. I am not a BSD fan. I find all Unixes except the PDP ones distasteful. Long life V7! Long life 2BSD! Also I find UNIX a dead horse, born dead. But this is not the point. Please do not comment on the above paragraph; the point I want to make, as I have said, is that BOTH Sys5 and BSd have their pluses, compared to the alternatives (OS/9, Minix ?). Until we get GNU (nee Mach, nee Accent) from FSF, the best we get is UNIX, rare, medium or well done. We are lucky enough that NatSemi can give us either version, even if I'd rather have Sys5, because it is not too bad, and is the same I get on a 386, and NatSemi probably prefers to expend effort on Sys5 than BSD now. The real challenge is to get a machine off the air and make NatSemi or somebody else supply a cheap binary UNIX for it. This will be the trickiest part. -- 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)