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]