🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec17.100528.62134@cc.usu.edu> ivie@cc.usu.edu (CP/M lives!) writes:
>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!"

Uh, why do you assume an ASIC is required?  Anyway, the intermediate nodes
of the network may be used over and over in any new design.  The only time
you would have do design anything new is if you changed the system interface.
--
======================================================
Christopher Simonich        simonich@twisto.compaq.com
Compaq Computer Corp.       [713] 374-1898
======================================================