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