Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ames!elroy!smeagol!jplgodo!wlbr!scgvaxd!ashtate!dbase!csun!aeusesef From: aeusesef@csun.UUCP (Sean Eric Fagan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k Subject: Re: NS32000 Processor Message-ID: <697@csun.UUCP> Date: Fri, 24-Jul-87 21:56:29 EDT Article-I.D.: csun.697 Posted: Fri Jul 24 21:56:29 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 28-Jul-87 02:00:27 EDT References: <334@forbrk.UUCP> <1026@killer.UUCP> <10192@amdahl.amdahl.com> <4497@nsc.nsc.com> <10427@amdahl.amdahl.com> Reply-To: aeusesef@csun.UUCP (Sean Eric Fagan) Organization: California State University, Northridge Lines: 47 In article <10427@amdahl.amdahl.com> chongo@amdahl.UUCP (Landon Curt Noll) writes: >In article <4497@nsc.nsc.com> grenley@nsc.UUCP (George Grenley) writes: > >Landon, Iguess we all know by now that you're not too fond of NSC. So be it. > >Nevertheless you should know that CPU architecture elegance is NOT the primary > >reason to pick a CPU. Look at the number of people who buy Amdahls - surely > >it doesn't represent the optimum 32 bit architecture.... [Lot's and lot's of stuff deleted because of stupd requirements] > > * Regarding Amdahls: (allow me to substitute mainframes to avoid discussions > of ``my mainframe is better then your mainframe'') > > Mainframes often trail the high end state of the art by a number > of years. Their target is NOT people who want ``Superconducting > Nitrogen Cooled Optical connected thingy-ma-gigs''. Factors such > as MTBF, Price/performance, Compat-ness with other equipment, > environmental factors, etc. are important. Mainframes won't spout > the state-of-the-art in hardware parts. Even so, mainframes > do represent the state-of-the-art in performance, MTBF, and > price/performance for a number of situations. I've got to agree here. The 32k is a nice chip, allowing me (who likes to program in assembly language -- I'm seeking treatment though 8-)) to choose among a wide variety of instructions. Let me ammend that: a wide variety of *SLOW* instructions. At work, I work on Control Data Cybers, preferrably the 170/760, the fastenst machine (other than the Cray) I've ever worked on. (For those who don't know, the Cybers were designed by Seymore (sp?) Cray while he worked for CDC; they are similar to the Cray's except for lack of vectors.) Besides being a RISC machine, the 170/760 has wires on the inside. Lot's of them. Almost nothing else on the back, in fact, and there isn't a single silicon chip in the entire thing. (It's enough to give a repair technician nightmares.) But, even though using old technology, this thing will outperform 90% of the machines in existance today, and all of the machines when it was new. (But I hate RISC!) > >chongo/\oo/\ ----- Sean Eric Fagan Office of Computing/Communications Resources (213) 852 5742 Suite 2600 1GTLSEF@CALSTATE.BITNET 5670 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90036 {litvax, rdlvax, psivax, hplabs, ihnp4}!csun!{aeusesef,titan!eectrsef} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My employers do not endorse my | "I may be slow, but I'm not stupid. opinions, and, at least in my | I can count up to five *real* good." preference of Unix, heartily | The Great Skeeve disagree. | (Robert Asprin)