Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!pacbell!hoptoad!unisoft!gethen!farren
From: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: GATHER and say NO to MCA!
Message-ID: <1007@gethen.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jul 88 13:24:51 GMT
References: <42900016@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu> <12400006@cpe>
Reply-To: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Organization: There's Unix there in Oakland
Lines: 20

In article <12400006@cpe> neese@cpe.UUCP writes:
>
>The implementation in the MC bus is better, but overhead is high.  True
>coprocessing is NOT damn near impossible.  It takes more attention to detail.
>Do your homework before making brash statements.

My homework: 18 years of experience, including 8 years designing multi-
processor systems, from S-100 bus to proprietary bit-slice systems.
6 years of experience with PC bus issues.  And experience with all of the
existing coprocessor cards for the PC (all that I know about, anyhow).
Damn near impossible is what I said, and damn near impossible is what I
meant.

If doing true coprocessing on the PC (AT) bus is so trivial, why haven't
we seen cards that work, and work well?

-- 
Michael J. Farren             | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just 
{ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}!     | dogmatize it!  Reflect on it and re-evaluate
        unisoft!gethen!farren | it.  You may want to change your mind someday."
gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame