🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec16.235011.17202@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>, simonich@croatia.eng.hou.compaq.com (Chris Simonich) writes:
> Very well put.  However, wouldn't it be MUCH cheaper if you used a byte wide
> interface instead of 32 bit wide interfaces?  The same architecture with
> the Compaq Proposal saves a lot of pins on the control block.
> I don't know all that much about Tc, but I've been told that each channel
> requires about 60ish pins on the controller once data, control, and power/
> gnd pins are taken into account.  The Compaq proposal requires 20ish pins
> per channel on the controller.  One could save 120 pins on the controller
> for this case by using the Compaq Proposal rather than Tc.  A 120 pin savings
> translates into a significant cost savings.

Well, working for a small company that can't afford to run out and spin
ASICs for every design, I would much rather deal with a TURBOchannel that
can be managed with a few PALs and jellybeans than a lower pin-count bus
that requires an ASIC to unpack that packets.
-- 

Roger Ivie                      "My God! That computer is full of Pentium!
ivie@cc.usu.edu                  It's a wonder that you haven't been turned
                                 into mutants!"