Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!helios.ee.lbl.gov!lbl-csam.arpa!antony
From: antony@lbl-csam.arpa (Antony A. Courtney)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Next computer (Re: CISC Silent Spring)
Message-ID: <4800@helios.ee.lbl.gov>
Date: 8 Feb 90 00:39:27 GMT
References: <8905@portia.Stanford.EDU> <160@zds-ux.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@helios.ee.lbl.gov
Reply-To: antony@lbl-csam.arpa (Antony A. Courtney)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
Lines: 69
X-Local-Date: 7 Feb 90 16:39:27 PST


In article <160@zds-ux.UUCP} gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) writes:
}In article <8905@portia.Stanford.EDU} underdog@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
}}In article <7341@pdn.paradyne.com} alan@oz.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy) writes:
}}|<NEXT can only be saved if Steve Jobs replaces the 680X0
}}|<with RISC processor like the Sparc chip.  In all compute
}}|<intensive applications, the Sparcstation I beats the NEXT
}}|<timewise.  Worse, NEXT costs MORE than a Sparstation I.
}
}}|Well, he has lots of choices here.
}
}}Agreed.  But Sparc now has a huge software base that could
}}easily be modified to fit the I/O of the NEXT, which BADLY
}}needs software, if NEXT were to incorporate the SPARC chipset.
}
}Huh?  SPARC has a larger software base than 680x0?  Where have you
}been?  If your talking about stuff for SunOS, sure, but NEXT was
}never intended to leverage from that software base, or they could
}be doing it now.  IMHO, software is NEXT's main problem.  Job's
}decided to invend yet another wizzy system interface, and at a time
}when the whole industry wants system software standards.  When the
}MAC first came out there wasn't anything comparable, now there is,
}so it is unlikely that the NEXT environment will have sufficient
}software written for it.
}
}}So, Jobs was squeezed out of the higher education market.  The
}}one thing that Jobs didn't count on back in mid 1980 was the
}}rise of the RISC machines.  What hurt him was the very long
}}product development time of NEXT.  He expected that back in mid-1980
}}(when he conceived of NEXT) there would be nothing like RISC.
}

This is a bit off from the truth.  I am looking at an article about Bill Joy in
the SF Chronicle from 1985 or 86.  The article claims that Sun is well on the
way to trying to make SPARC a standard, and then 3-4 paragraphs later, says:

...and Bechtolsheim recently began work on the design of a low-cost educational
computer that Sun employees jokingly refer to as the "Last" machine in a
pointed reference to its principal competitor, Steve Jobs' NeXT Inc.
	Joy says the two computers will have slightly different focuses.  He
refers to Jobs' computer, which is reported to have stunning sound and graphics
features, as the "ultimate dorm room machine for yuppie puppies."

}
}Has anyone seen a 68040?  I thought not.  You are comparing
}a chip that won't ship until this summer with one that is in
}a machine that has been in production for some time.  This
}occurs over and over in the RISC/CISC debate, but that doesn't
}seem to keep people from making these silly comparison's.
} ...
}I expected RISC processors to get to commodity prices very quickly
}(i.e. prices based almost completely on the cost to make to chip).

People also seem to be ignoring something here:  A key word in SPARC is
Scaleable.  It is, according to Sun, "designed from the outset to yield
succesively faster chips".  I'm SURE that by the time a 68040 based machine is
shipping, Sun will have a comparably priced SPARC based machine with equal or
greater performance.

}Gerry Gleason

			antony


--
*******************************************************************************
Antony A. Courtney				antony@lbl.gov
Advanced Development Group			ucbvax!lbl-csam.arpa!antony
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory			AACourtney@lbl.gov