Article View: comp.sys.nsc.32k
Article #1494Re: The 'cost' of a '532 system.
From: Piercarlo Grandi
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1988 19:15
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1988 19:15
86 lines
4921 bytes
4921 bytes
In article <924@bacchus.dec.com> vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes:
[ this piece actually from somebody else, cited by vixie: ]
# [...] For the price of a MINIMUM, which would be FAR from what an OS
# developer would need, '386 based system (16MHz, 2MB, 40-60MB disk, EGA,
# ISC 386ix v.2.0 == $5500+) you should be able to dig up a usable 32k
# based Unix machine.
[ vixie's comments: ]
Heck, Symmetric 375's cost about that much. Not that I particularly
recommend the '375, but I agree that anyone who wants to program an OS
for the 32k should probably be programming WITH a 32k if it's at all
possible.
Ahah. Were it so easy! Actually, the 386 system I am buying is somewhat
larger than the MINIMUM described above, and yes, with all discounts
factored in will be just a tad over $5500 at the end (my own money...
will have to dig DEEP into my relatively shallow pockets, so price, and
price/performance are dominating issues).
There are several considerations here:
I am going to build a portable OS; so initial platform is not so
important, it will not be a 32k specific system.
The 386 is not that terrible for os developers. It is far less
complicated than it seems, and the os related functions are quite
straightforward and well designed, even advanced. This is true,
conceded, only if you do not care at all about backwards
compatibility, and the compiler is already done :-), but I don't
think that the main attraction of an object oriented, distributed
capability nucleus, would be in MSDOS/8088 compatibility :-).
However I would really rather use the 32k because it is obviously
the easiest architecture for which do the machine dependent parts
of an os, and you can easily imagine that I could dispense with any
tougher challenge.
Actually the machine is for developing a nucleus, not an entire os;
the rest will be the extensive toolset developed by the FSF. In
other words, wait a couple of years and you will have the luxury of
a choice between *two* GNU kernels. This also means that I have to
choose a system on which g++ is already available. Well, the 386 is
the last to be considered by the FSF people, but something is
better than nothing.
To me the MINIMUM machine listed above looks enourmous; I used to
run 5 users on a 256kb 11/34. Also, I am not a member of the SV.4
team! :-). To me os design is about elegance, frugality, etc...
See SP&E, August 1979, for something I have as a model.
The MINIMUM 386 system configured above is vastly superior in
performance etc... to a symmetric (by several times overall, and by
an order of magnitude in CPU speed) or to anything I could find, on
this side of the Pond, for the same range of price, in the 32k (or
68k for that matter) worlds, not to mention the difficulties of
getting a decent UNIX, virtual memory, peripherals, etc... Hint:
VME bus systems are EXPENSIVE.
I would be prepared to expend some more money, for some less
performance, for the priviledge of working with a 32k system.
My site lost a few articles (partition full...) yesterday and the day
before, so I do not know if anybody took up the other point I made:
Would it be possible (I mean convenient, reasonable, good)
to build either:
a single board 32k CPU like the Ciarcia's one, for use on one
of the now numerous AT clones that do not have a motherboard,
but only an AT bus backplane ?
a daughterboard by way of which one could remove a 286 or a 386
from an AT clone and run in its place a 32K ?
If either of these were possible, and there were a suitable UNIX
implementation, oen could well reap the advantages of being able to buy
*cheap* in the AT clone market and the AT components market (a disk
controller board for an AT clone, for not much worse performance, costs,
retail, one tenth of a board for a VME machine, and one fifth that of a
board for a Q-BUS machine, and so on...).
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
Sw.Eng. Group, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
UCW, Penglais, Aberystwyth, WALES SY23 3BZ (UK)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<259@aber-cs.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!pcgReferences:
<433@sdrc.UUCP> <2659@sultra.UUCP> <1041@raspail.UUCP> <2661@sultra.UUCP> <256@aber-cs.UUCP> <17648@gatech.edu> <924@bacchus.dec.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!pcg From: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k Subject: Re: The 'cost' of a '532 system. Keywords: cheap nsc 532 Message-ID: <259@aber-cs.UUCP> Date: 22 Nov 88 19:15:35 GMT References: <433@sdrc.UUCP> <2659@sultra.UUCP> <1041@raspail.UUCP> <2661@sultra.UUCP> <256@aber-cs.UUCP> <17648@gatech.edu> <924@bacchus.dec.com> Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Distribution: eunet,world Organization: CS Dept., University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK Lines: 86 X-Disclaimer: Any statement is purely personal.