Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ll-xn!cit-vax!amdahl!chongo
From: chongo@amdahl.amdahl.com (Landon Curt Noll)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k
Subject: Re: NS32000 Processor
Message-ID: <10192@amdahl.amdahl.com>
Date: Wed, 15-Jul-87 02:32:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.10192
Posted: Wed Jul 15 02:32:58 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jul-87 03:18:44 EDT
References: <334@forbrk.UUCP> <1026@killer.UUCP>
Reply-To: chongo@amdahl.UUCP (Landon Curt Noll)
Organization: Amdahl Coup, UTS Products Hen house
Lines: 21

>In article <4399@nsc.nsc.com> roger@nsc.nsc.com (Roger Thompson) writes:
>When IBM was out searching for a micro, our CPU was stable.  What was
>the real decider, your guess is as good as mine.  But it probably had
>more to do with application software being available without ...

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''?

It seems that both Mot and Intel have done very very well even with the MMU
problem you talk about.  The vast majority of Un*x boxes contain Mot
or Intel CPUs.  Maybe the market place doesn't see the lack of a complete
chip set as a big problem, or maybe there is something about the NSC chip set
that negates this advantage?

chongo <> /\oo/\
-- 
[views above shouldn't be viewed as Amdahl views, or as views from Amdahl, or
 as Amdahl views views, or as views by Mr. Amdahl, or as views from his house]