Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!lll-lcc!pyramid!nsc!roger From: roger@nsc.nsc.com (Roger Thompson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k Subject: Re: NS32000 Processor Message-ID: <4496@nsc.nsc.com> Date: Thu, 16-Jul-87 01:40:49 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.4496 Posted: Thu Jul 16 01:40:49 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jul-87 05:44:13 EDT References: <334@forbrk.UUCP> <1026@killer.UUCP> <10192@amdahl.amdahl.com> Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale Lines: 17 In article <10192@amdahl.amdahl.com>, chongo@amdahl.amdahl.com (Landon Curt Noll) writes: > Roger, I have confused by this. Perhaps you can explain a few things: > > I seem to recall a LONG LONG road from the Rev E 16032 (that could almost > keep a Un*x kernel running) to a Rev R (that is almost bug free). Am I > wrong or does this conflict with your statement of ``our CPU was stable''? > The point I was trying to make is that IBMs decission was software based not hardware. The MMU would/and does not make any difference to IBM. Oh yes, the 32532 is still on schedule. In fact it has been born and it does a whole lot more than wiggle. A whole lot more than towers of hanoi and we see no reason of not being able to sample on schedule. Roger