🚀 go-pugleaf

alan@oz.nm.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy) writes:
><NEXT can only be saved if Steve Jobs replaces the 680X0
><with RISC processor like the Sparc chip.

>Perhaps his cozy relationship with IBM will give him access to the
>America (ROMPII) processor?

Does his cozy relationship go any further than the deal involving the
NeXT windowing system (what's it called, NeXT StEP)?  To me, that just
looked like IBM being conservative, betting money on all the horses,
so that it couldn't lose (not that it would really "win" either, but
losing all the races you've bet on is no fun).

From a business standpoint, using the America processor seems to me to
be a very unwise move, and I doubt it will happen.  "Let's see, I'll
just crawl underneath IBM's huge thumb."  First thing is the issue of
compilers for the chip.  Who's got them?  Well, IBM does, but those
are probably proprietary.  Maybe NeXT will retarget the GNU compilers
to generate code for this processor, giving the fruits of their labors
to the FSF?  Or pay a software house to retarget a C++ compiler?
These are all ticklish things, and a shoddy job of retargetting a
compiler could make more difference in the ultimate performance of the
box than the choice of processor.  He would do well to get a good
processor _and_ a good compiler for it.

[Pushing this thread back towards comp.arch fodder]

I thought the NeXT architecture, and its choice of O/S, was designed
to eventually adapt to multiple processors (no, I don't mean the DSP,
you boneheads, I already know about that :-).  Any opinions on this?
Other PC and workstation class machines are slowly appearing with
multiple processors.  Any totally unsubstantiated rumors about the
NeXT that someone would care to spew on the net? :-)
--
	Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas