Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!oliveb!sun!chiba!khb
From: khb%chiba@Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - SPD Languages Marketing -- MTS)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Criteria for comparing RISC processors
Message-ID: <102927@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 4 May 89 11:01:11 GMT
References: <2368@ogccse.ogc.edu> <1464@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> <141@dg.dg.com> <18120@winchester.mips.COM> <144@dg.dg.com> <18316@winchester.mips.COM> <147@dg.dg.com> <18653@winchester.mips.COM> <102441@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <156@dg.dg.com>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman - SPD Languages Marketing -- MTS)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 24

In article <156@dg.dg.com> mpogue@dg.UUCP (Mike Pogue) writes:
>>
>   Over time, MIPS, SPARC, and the 88K will all have pretty much the same 
>clock rates, and will use the same feature sizes.

maybe, maybe not. If Prisma meets their schedules you will be proved
wrong around Jan 1990.


> company that can't decide whether it wants to sell
>chips or not (SPARC)....

Sun doesn't even bulid chips. The announced, and sucessfully executed
(last 2 years), plan is to license (anybody who wants to get in the
act) the technolgy and let them sell chips. 

One can debate the merits of the plan; but to characterize it as
confused seems a bit much.

Cheers.
Keith H. Bierman      |*My thoughts are my own. Only my work belongs to Sun*
It's Not My Fault     |	Marketing Technical Specialist    ! kbierman@sun.com
I Voted for Bill &    |   Languages and Performance Tools. 
Opus  (* strange as it may seem, I do more engineering now     *)