Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!gatech!ken
From: ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,comp.periphs
Subject: Re: Designing for the FHF (was Re: Proprietary hardware)
Keywords: schematics, repair information, free software foundation,
Message-ID: <18204@gatech.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 89 17:36:46 GMT
References: <2140@cpoint.UUCP> <3743@stiatl.UUCP> <1204@naucse.UUCP> <1410@husc6.harvard.edu> <18167@gatech.edu> <4899@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii)
Organization: School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Tech, Atlanta
Lines: 56
Xref: utzoo sci.electronics:5597 comp.periphs:1635

In article <4899@cbnews.ATT.COM> mjs@cbnews.ATT.COM (martin.j.shannon) writes:
>
>Yeah, I'd like to suggest that you design for something better than what
>current technology can do now.  

Yea...wouldn't we all.  But that is completely off base for what any
reasonable FSF would want to do.  My concept at least, is to build a
machine that would be reasonably priced to build and could concievably
be wire wrapped.  This means last generation technology.

>       So "we" need to design for an (at least potentially) incredibly fast
>bus,

No, 'we' don't.  Not unless we have some very specific applications.
If you want Cray performace, get a Cray. 'we' want a machine that runs
fast enough to get the job done and runs good software.  'we' can get
by just fine with something on the order of a 10MHz NuBus. 

>	and include a large (256K?) cache (the larger the cache, the slower
>"main" memory can be), 

Ummmm...you need to learn a little more about caches.  You can get the
same hit-rate with a 64K, 2-way cache as a 128K, direct-mapped cache
(93%).  Bigger is not nessesarily better.  In any case, have you
prices building a cache like that lately?  Talk about sticker shock...

>			option for hardware floating point, and a "real"
>intelligent ports card, and some flavor of Ethernet(TM), and a fast multi-
>drive disk controller (SCSI-2 may be a real good standard, speed- and
>compatibility-wise), 

These are pretty reasonable (and being worked on)...

>			hardware implementation of X-Windows, 

What is that?

Its fine to talk about 40MHz parts and big caches and multi-MBs buses,
but down here in the real work, it doesn't work like that.  Little
things like 'what is the price of test equipment that can handle a
40MHz system' suddenly become nasty.

So I'm sorry for all of you that want that type of stuff out of a FSF.
I don't see it happening.  I don't really see a 20MHz machine.  I see
something about a generation and a half old, single user that a decent
hardware hack can wirewrap in his garage (sort of like the first 8080
boxes), that will run real system software (unix-like).  My design
work is going to be in the 16MHz 68020 ballbark, perhaps a bit less
(the original planning looked at a 15MHz NS32332).  Oh...and it will
have an integral display (mono).

I guess the thing that would sum it up is my limit in design is what I
can build paying for it out of my own pocket....

	...ken seefried iii
	   ken@gatech.edu