🚀 go-pugleaf

We have some SUN-3's that we are trying to port a non-CAE package to.
The binaries are very large and thus we find that our disk and RAM
memories are used up exceedingly fast.

Also in the same flavor as the SUN-3, you may want to look at
Integrated Solutions (an NBI company).  They have a box that looks
like the SUN-3 that they claim is faster (SUN has 1 1/2 wait states
to memory, the Integrated Solutions machine has 0 wait states on
write and 1 wait state on read.)  They also have some better graphics
support, or so they claim.  They are at:

        Integrated Solutions
        1140 Ringwood Court
        San Jose, CA 95131
        (408) 499-6929

BTW: I am not connected with Integrated Solutions, just looking at
their technology.

I work for Daisy.  I use our machine for software development.  It's
pretty good.  Our hardware guys use our machines for designing our
new machines.  They think it's pretty good to.  And since they use
it, they feed back comments to us programmers before the customers
get the software.  The result is better software.  So, one thing to
consider as you evaluate machines is "do you design hardware?  Or are
you a bunch of programmers with no customer contact?"

Of course I'm biased.

Daisy's proprietary workstations are 286 based, moving to the 386 as
it becomes real.  Much of our basic software runs on the IBM PC/AT
but not all of it because the PC/AT doesn't have sufficient
horsepower for big projects.  (For example, circuit, logic, or fault
simulation of large designs chew up vast amounts of CPU power.)  We
are also porting some stuff to the MicroVAX and to the bigger members
of the VAX family.  This is simply because the VAX is the standard
and we aren't stupid.

Customers buy our proprietary workstations because they are faster at
running CAE tasks than "standard" platforms such as Apollo, SUN,
PC/AT, and MicroVAX.  Our proprietary machines have special hardware
to accelerate functions found in CAE tasks, especially for graphics.
(We have two patents in the area.)  We also offer a good range of
optional equipment for even more speed: hardware accelerators for
simulation and chip place & route, physical modelling systems for
simulation of boards that use VLSI parts (for which models don't
exist), and multiple-CPU systems for raw general-purpose compute
power.

Our machines run Daisy software and third-party software.
(Obviously, more third party programs run on the PC/AT and MicroVAX
than on our proprietary hardware.)  Our software is quite good: a
nice schematic editor is the front end to a reasonably complete
verification environment for correct-the-first- time designs.  We
follow that up with software for automatic routing of semi-custom
chips and a really good polygon editor for full-custom ICs.  (I'm
especially biased here 'cause I wrote large chunks of the
semi-customer and full-custom interactive editors.)

We also have system support software: design management tools,
interfaces to other systems, and other dull stuff needed to complete
the job.  Our network support is Ethernet with a transparent file
system (similar to SUN but using XNS.)  Our Operating System, "Daisy
DNIX" (Hey!  I didn't pick the name!) is a UNIX-compatible system.
At the user and programmer levels, it is Unix.  But we have added our
networking support (something 4.2 bsd just gasps at) and a window
manager integrated into the Operating System and the tools (not just
a window toolkit kludged to fit on top of a 1970's vintage
TTY-oriented user interface.)

All in all, I like it.  Now if only they could turn down the air
conditioning in my office (it's winter time, guys), I would be happy.

Oh, by the way, I'm typing this on my office machine, using a virtual
VT-100 terminal emulator hooked up to a VAX over Ethernet.  I use the
VAX simply to get access to USENET.  I, like all other Daisy
programmers, develop my code on the same machine we ship to
customers.  So you know it has been debugged reasonably well.  (We
test our machines to extremes.  Do you know how expensive it is for
use to send a service engineer to your site to fix something?  Or to
process a customer-submitted bug?  $$$)

I hope this helps a bit.

                                        cordially,
                                        David Schachter

I used to work at Daisy.  Both their hardware and software are hardly
worth considering.  Last I heard, they were *still* trying to get
their multi-window Unix clone running (on 80286's).  There are other
companies (e.g., Sun), which have already accomplished that much at
least, and on better hardware (68020).

This is not to discourage you from evaluating Daisy, but I couldn't
resist putting in my two cents worth.

Bob Weissman
!well!rlw
G.WEISSMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA