Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Cost of Designing a New Computer Message-ID: <809@cci632.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Jan-87 18:37:04 EST Article-I.D.: cci632.809 Posted: Tue Jan 6 18:37:04 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Jan-87 23:44:55 EST References: <950@husc6.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex B) Organization: CCI, Communications Systems Division, Rochester, NY Lines: 88 Summary: What are you trying to build. After reading some of the follow-ups to this posting, I thought I would ask for a little additional information and offer a little clarification. In article <950@husc6.UUCP> reiter@harvard.UUCP (Ehud Reiter) writes: >I'm trying to get some order of magnitude estimates for what resources >are required to design a state-of-the-art "new" computer system. I'm >currently using the following figures, and I was wondering what people >thought of them. > >New micro using existing microprocessor and existing system software > - 1's of engineer man-years >New microprocessor - 10's of engineer man-years >Fab plant to build microprocessor - $100,000,000 of equipment >New micro system software - 100's of engineer man-years Try 1000's of man-years if you want to talk starting from scratch. >New supermini hardware - 10's of engineer man-years >New supermini system software - 1000's of engineer man-years Try 10's of man-years if simply porting existing sytems. >Port UNIX to new supermini - 1's of engineer man-years >New mainframe hardware - 100's of engineer man-years >New mainframe system software - 1000's of engineer man-years Try 10's of man-years if simply porting existing systems. > >Notes: A) The context is the question of how much would it cost a >protectionist country to develop its own "local" computer system. The issue here is how "protectionist" do you mean? If you are talking about the U.S.S.R., and expecting such a country to reach state-of-the-art using no "public domain", shareware, or published information, and violating no copyrights or liscence agreements, all of your figures are way off. In general, your assumption that microprocessor developement is less expensive than mainframe development is false. It appears cheaper, since there is much more volunteer effort and garage software, which, even when not used directly, has significantly influenced concepts, principles, and technology, causing the micro industry to be as complex and sophisticated as the mainframe industry. On the other hand you include porting UNIX to a super-mini, so this would imply using available software, such as PD and Shareware as application software. Under these conditions, the major expenses are writing the compiler, writing the device drivers (lowest level), and tweaking the OS to take advantage of appropriate memory management. Having worked in a company that has done both a micro (5/32) and a super-mini (6/32) and currently a super-computer (according to press releases), the differences are actually only quite slight, at worst perhaps by a factor of two. Getting a box from gates to full Sys-V or 4.2 seems to take about 50-100 man-years, depending on the ability of the management/staff. The killer expense, of course, is when one wishes to introduce new technology. For example the Xerox/Apple applications interfaces were major efforts, involving 1000-2000 man-years of effort. The 6/32 FT his the grandson of a system that has been evolving for 10 years, with an average of 100 people/year. Even the "trivial" contribution of the PC, though little was invested by IBM, involved thousands of 5-30 person teams and companies over 4 years to achieve the quality and technology now available. Communication, interaction, cross-pollenation, and coupling, both at the staff and product level are important factors as well. Perhaps Inmos style multi-processor technology or some "new kid" will be able to muster the 1-10,000 man-years required to make their "new technology" the "state-of-the-art" of the 1990's. > C) Any data on the cost of adapting application software to a new >hardware architecture is also welcome. An important factor is the actual archetectural factors of the system, at both the hardware and software level. Porting generic UNIX/C applications like "pipes and filters" for text is quite trivial. On the other hand, porting an RT-11/assembler application, with routines that are counting on automatic re-initialization of statics as a result of overlays, application level knowledge of the device drivers, and pathalogical coding can actually be worse than analysing the design of the application and starting from scratch. I know this appears very general, but the questions involved don't come with "pat answers". I've seen applications written in 1 staff-year that were quite complex, but based on known technology, a good development environment, and a good organization. I've also seen simple enhancements that took 100 staff-years to do that were quite simple, but involved innovation, a development environment that involved weeks for one compile, test, and debug round, and software so proprietary that even other people in the same group wouldn't be told about it. Draw your own conclusions. Rex B.