Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ll-xn!ames!amdahl!nsc!grenley From: grenley@nsc.nsc.com (George Grenley) Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k Subject: Re: Watch those flames... Message-ID: <4513@nsc.nsc.com> Date: Wed, 22-Jul-87 21:48:29 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.4513 Posted: Wed Jul 22 21:48:29 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 03:33:30 EDT References: <1467@tekchips.TEK.COM> <3825@pyr.gatech.EDU> Reply-To: grenley@nsc.UUCP (George Grenley) Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale Lines: 34 In article <3825@pyr.gatech.EDU> eeproks@pyr.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes: (much debate among me, landon, et. al. deleted) >I resent this! I don't blame you. I'm an engineer here at NSC. Roger Thompson, who also posts frequently to this group, used to be an engineer, and is now in the architecture group. We're not NSC's PR agency (we have Regis McKenna for that) > >If there was a problem with earlier revs of the 16032, then why should this >not be pointed out? Is this group only around to toot NS's horn, or is it >a forum for a technical discussion of the chips, for good and bad. Is it a >heresy to dare speak ill of a National chip? PROBLEMS should be pointed out. Mere pissing on the chip, though, isn't informed discussion of problems. It's name-calling. I want to see intelligent discussion about 32xxx in this group. Let the debate on which chip is better reside in comp.arch, where it belongs. I don't feel that this group is a place for non-32xxx advocates to take pot-shots. In that vein, I have an offer to make. I'd like to see some short C or assembly language programs that readers think make interesting bench- marks. Please mail them to me @ grenley@nsc. I want to run them on some systems as a test, I will not be distributing them or anything. More later. thanks, George