🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2270@gitpyr.UUCP> rodney@gitpyr.UUCP (RODNEY RICKS) writes:
>In the September 18, 1986 issue of Electronic Design magazine, there is an
>article on page 27 describing the new microprocessor from Motorola, the 68030.
>The chip is said to run software 20% to 30% faster than the 68020.  The chip
>is supposed to be available in mid-1987, along with an improved math
>coprocessor, the 68882, which will be up to 25% faster than the 68881.
>
>Rodney Ricks

The Electronic Design article you reference contained a misprint.  The 68030
is *not* 20-30% faster than the 68020, it *is*  50- 75% faster than the
68020 (at equivalent clock speeds).  Also, the 68882 is *not* 25% faster
than the 68881, it *is* 100-300% faster (2x-4x).

tom johnson             ut-sally/oakhill/tomj

> In the September 18, 1986 issue of Electronic Design magazine, there is an
> article on page 27 describing the new microprocessor from Motorola, the 68030.
  ... edited out ...

Ah yes another volley in the "Well this stuff is OK but look at what we will
have next year!" contest. Anyone for starting a "Best Announced but not
yet available product" award? 
-- 
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.

In article <2270@gitpyr.UUCP> rodney@gitpyr.UUCP (RODNEY RICKS) writes:
>In the September 18, 1986 issue of Electronic Design magazine, there is an
>article on page 27 describing the new microprocessor from Motorola, the 68030.
>The chip is said to run software 20% to 30% faster than the 68020.  The chip
>is supposed to be available in mid-1987, along with an improved math
>coprocessor, the 68882, which will be up to 25% faster than the 68881.
>

I hope the '82 is more like twice as fast as the 68881.

>The bus data transfer rate of the 68030 is 40 Mbytes/sec.

Think about this.  That's a memory access time of 25 nanoseconds, more than
4 times as fast as the memory we use in our PC's, Macs, Amigas, and Apples.

>Now, when will I be able to connect one to my Amiga?

Probably soon.  But it won't be noticably faster than a CSA 68020.
An editorial on the subject of the 68040 (yes, 40) in a recent issue of
a small PC magazine commented that these chips are so fast that a fair
amount of high-speed cache memory is absolutely essential to take full
advantage of them.  And that means minicomputer pricing, not micros.
Unless one of you hot-shot chip designers out there can put together a
1 MB DRAM with 25 ns access which will sell for less than $100 apiece :->

			Stephen Walton, speaking for myself

Dudley Moore: You must be a nut case!
Peter Cook:  They said that about Galileo!  They said that about Einstein!
Moore:  Yeah, well they've said it about a lot of nut cases, too.
					-from the movie "Bedazzled"

In article <7637@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.uucp (Chuck McManis) writes:
>> In the September 18, 1986 issue of Electronic Design magazine, there is an
>> article on page 27 describing the new microprocessor from Motorola, the 68030.
>  ... edited out ...
>
>Ah yes another volley in the "Well this stuff is OK but look at what we will
>have next year!" contest. Anyone for starting a "Best Announced but not
>yet available product" award? 

Okay...the Sun 3/200. (or did you not mean *generally* available?)
-- 

Mark Campbell    Phone: (803)-791-6697     E-Mail: !ncsu!ncrcae!sauron!campbell

In article <7637@sun.uucp>, cmcmanis@sun.uucp (Chuck McManis) writes:
> Ah yes another volley in the "Well this stuff is OK but look at what we will
> have next year!" contest. Anyone for starting a "Best Announced but not
> yet available product" award? 

Well, we ordered the several Floating Point Accelerators from Sun
back in August 1985 (as soon as they were announced). We still haven't
seen them, nor heard a ship date.

I've heard that they were shipping 5 or 6 times now.

We have seen great benchmark results from Sun though....

I vote for the sun FPA, it looks great on paper. (The GKS product is
also unobtainable, despite being in the catalog for about a year. However,
it is no where near as impressive as the FPA.)

I talked to someone who actually had his hands on one, so they may
be really shipping them now.  He may have had a beta test version though.
I wouldn't call them available until you can actually get one without
waiting a year. (Hmm. A year is about what you are complaining about with
Motorola)

---rick

P.S Aside from the FPA and GKS vaporware, we are happy Sun customers.

(Although I wish they would quit gratuitiously changing the way programs
worked. My latest example is that repquota no longer prints disk usage
for people without quotas UNLESS you specify a flag. It would have been
backwards compatible to have a flag to supress printing disk usage
for people with no quotas. Oh well, it only took me an hour to
figure out way the quota system "wasn't working" anymore. I hate surprises.) 

In article <1837@well.UUCP> swalton@well.UUCP (Stephen R. Walton) writes:
>In article <2270@gitpyr.UUCP> rodney@gitpyr.UUCP (RODNEY RICKS) writes:
>>The bus data transfer rate of the 68030 is 40 Mbytes/sec.
>
>Think about this.  That's a memory access time of 25 nanoseconds, more than
>4 times as fast as the memory we use in our PC's, Macs, Amigas, and Apples.

Think about this.  Usinge a 32 bit bus, that's 100 nanoseconds access time.
(You don't expect to get full performence from a 68030 on an 8 bit bus
do you?)  From other articles, the 68030 has a memory access mode
designed for either nyble mode rams or a 128 bit bus multiplexed on
the way to the CPU.  Using these techniques, the 40 Mbytes/sec wouldn't
strain 150 ns DRAMS.

-- 
Bob Larson
Arpa: Blarson@Usc-Eclb.Arpa	or	blarson@usc-oberon.arpa
Uucp: (ihnp4,hplabs,tektronix)!sdcrdcf!usc-oberon!blarson

In article <2270@gitpyr.UUCP> Rodney Ricks writes:
>The chip is said to run software 20% to 30% faster than the 68020.

I believe I read a press release about the 68030 in which it was stated
that the 68030 was capable of 8 MIPS, approximately 8 times that of the
VAX 11/780, and 2 times that of the 80386.  This is at a clock rate
of 16-20 Mhz, I'm not sure which.  The 68020 is capable of about 1.5
MIPS at a clock rate of 14 Mhz.  This puts the 68030 at about 5 times
faster than the 68020 at the same clock rate.  Apparently the 68030
uses what is called "Harvard parallel architecture".  Now that Motorola
has released this chip, they have in *every category of chip* a far
superior chip than does Intel.  68030 > 80386, 68020 > 80286, 68010 and
68000 >> 80186, 8086, 68008 > 8088.  The 68000 series chips are in every case
more orthogonally designed, faster, more compatible with each other,
and easier to program.
				-Mitsu

>In article <2270@gitpyr.UUCP> rodney@gitpyr.UUCP (RODNEY RICKS) writes:
>>In the September 18, 1986 issue of Electronic Design magazine, there is an
>>article on page 27 describing the new microprocessor from Motorola, the 68030.
>>The chip is said to run software 20% to 30% faster than the 68020.  The chip
>>is supposed to be available in mid-1987, along with an improved math
>>coprocessor, the 68882, which will be up to 25% faster than the 68881.
>>
>
>I hope the '82 is more like twice as fast as the 68881.
>
>>The bus data transfer rate of the 68030 is 40 Mbytes/sec.
>
>Think about this.  That's a memory access time of 25 nanoseconds, more than
>4 times as fast as the memory we use in our PC's, Macs, Amigas, and Apples.
>

Um....your 8-bit uP background is showing.  If the 68030 is handling data
at 40 MBytes/sec, that's 100 nS per bus cycle time.  The '030, like the
'020 is 32-bit machine -- it does 4-bytes at a time.


>>Now, when will I be able to connect one to my Amiga?
>
>Probably soon.  But it won't be noticably faster than a CSA 68020.
>An editorial on the subject of the 68040 (yes, 40) in a recent issue of
>a small PC magazine commented that these chips are so fast that a fair
>amount of high-speed cache memory is absolutely essential to take full
>advantage of them.  And that means minicomputer pricing, not micros.
>Unless one of you hot-shot chip designers out there can put together a
>1 MB DRAM with 25 ns access which will sell for less than $100 apiece :->

Well, 1M Drams are normally 100nS, so even with the "normal" chips, it
may get by with only a few wait-states.  In any case, one of the reasons
that the '030 is supposed to be faster is that it has a built-in data-cache
in addition to the program-cache that the '020 has.

>
>			Stephen Walton, speaking for myself
>
>Dudley Moore: You must be a nut case!
>Peter Cook:  They said that about Galileo!  They said that about Einstein!
>Moore:  Yeah, well they've said it about a lot of nut cases, too.
>					-from the movie "Bedazzled"


-- 

Mike Kersenbrock
Tektronix Computer Aided Software Engineering
Aloha, Oregon

In article <1837@well.UUCP>, swalton@well.UUCP (Stephen R. Walton) writes:

> >The bus data transfer rate of the 68030 is 40 Mbytes/sec.
> 
> Think about this.  That's a memory access time of 25 nanoseconds, more than
> 4 times as fast as the memory we use in our PC's, Macs, Amigas, and Apples.

If the 68030 is anything like the 68020, you probably only need 100ns
cycle time memories, since the bus can be four bytes wide. The access time
will have to be less, though, to allow for setting up the address.

> >Now, when will I be able to connect one to my Amiga?
> 
> Probably soon.  But it won't be noticably faster than a CSA 68020...
> An editorial on the subject of the 68040 (yes, 40) in a recent issue of
> a small PC magazine commented that these chips are so fast that a fair
> amount of high-speed cache memory is absolutely essential to take full
> advantage of them.  And that means minicomputer pricing, not micros.
> Unless one of you hot-shot chip designers out there can put together a
> 1 MB DRAM with 25 ns access which will sell for less than $100 apiece :->

I think it should be possible to build a small, fast, cheap machine using
the 68030 at nearly full speed. The trick would be to not use cache memory,
just make it all fast. You only need 16 8KX8 static RAM's to make up 128K
of memory. So a *really* fast 128K Mac ought to be possible.

The question is, does anyone want one? Or would they rather have 2M of
slower memory for the same price?

     Radford Neal
     The University of Calgary

In article <262@husc6.HARVARD.EDU>, hadeishi@husc4.harvard.edu (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
> In article <2270@gitpyr.UUCP> Rodney Ricks writes:
> >The chip is said to run software 20% to 30% faster than the 68020.
> 
> I believe I read a press release about the 68030 in which it was stated
> that the 68030 was capable of 8 MIPS, approximately 8 times that of the
> VAX 11/780, and 2 times that of the 80386.  This is at a clock rate
> of 16-20 Mhz, I'm not sure which.  The 68020 is capable of about 1.5
> MIPS at a clock rate of 14 Mhz.  This puts the 68030 at about 5 times
> faster than the 68020 at the same clock rate.  Apparently the 68030
> uses what is called "Harvard parallel architecture".  Now that Motorola
> has released this chip, they have in *every category of chip* a far
> superior chip than does Intel.  68030 > 80386, 68020 > 80286, 68010 and
> 68000 >> 80186, 8086, 68008 > 8088.  The 68000 series chips are in every case
> more orthogonally designed, faster, more compatible with each other,
> and easier to program.
> 				-Mitsu


	This is all fine. I neither agree nor disagree who has the 
    better chips. However , I do protest most vehemtly about  you 
    claims!!

	Sure a 68020 is faster, better (fill in blank) than a 80286
	One is a 32 bit machine, the other is a 16 bit. What I *am*
	going to ask you to consider is that in some respects the
	68000 is better than a 286 and in some a 286 is better than
	a 68000. In motorolas' own words.. Lets compare oranges
	to oranges not some other fruit, Ok ?

    Also, lets note for the record that motorola *still* is
    not producing massive quantities of the MMU unit designed
    to work w/ the 68020. Intel, however now has a 386.  You
    can go buy one today.  I therefore suggest that the real 
    definition of MMU is "mythical management unit".

    So, if one asks "the" question. Which is the better processor ?
    One should qualify... is it in silicon yet ?

    I have so far made my choice and it is neither.. when the
    68030 appears, I will rethink my decision.

    flames to /dev/(insert your favorite device here )



DISCLAIMER: We don't kave a disclaimer: We don't need one !!

In article <262@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:

>Apparently the 68030
>uses what is called "Harvard parallel architecture".  Now that Motorola
>has released this chip, they have in *every category of chip* a far
>superior chip than does Intel.  68030 > 80386, 68020 > 80286, 68010 and
>68000 >> 80186, 8086, 68008 > 8088.  The 68000 series chips are in every case
>more orthogonally designed, faster, more compatible with each other,
>and easier to program.

I agree that the Motorola chips are nicer in many ways than the Intel chips.
But to say Motorola has "released" the chip is stretching things a bit.  Not
only has the 68030 not been formally introduced as a product yet, but the
artciles I've read (e.g., Electronics, September 18, 1986) say volume
production is more than a year away.  The 80386 is here now, and actually
has a system available (Compaq) which uses it.  In other words, it's not
really fair to compare that which Intel has now with what Motorola will have
in a year.  A more fair comparison is between the 68020 and the 80386.

Rich Simoni
Center for Integrated Systems
Stanford University
simoni@sonoma.stanford.edu
...!decwrl!glacier!shasta!simoni

I can't speak for Intel, and none of this should be taken as the opinion
of Intel, but...

...Motorola's "announcement" came in the same week that they chided
Intel for the 386's non-availability; the week that Compaq introduced
their box.  Compaq must have gotten at least a few from us, since they
seem to have filled the channels of distribution pretty well, or at least
out here Computerland seems to have it, and Fry's is advertising it
(for a discount!) in their newspaper ads.

To put things in a historical sense, Motorola held the same kind of blitz
a few months after Intel came out with the 286, describing the 68020,
the 68881(?) floating point unit, and the whatever-the-number-is paged
MMU, all well before their general availiblity, or even their first
silicon.  I suppose that Intel should feel flattered in that it seems
to me that Mot, in each case, has conceeded defeat: the 68010 to the
286, the 68020 to the 386, and that in order to maintain any kind of
market share, they have to have a media blitz, rolling out their newest,
half baked, family jewels.  Its all pretty comic!

And what about the new family jewels?  Should I feel vindicated that Mot
has finally decided that on-chip memory management is a good idea?  And
what about performance?  Why would a new, ultra-high end user choose
the 68030 over, say, the Clipper, or the MIPS chips, each of which
(if you believe the numbers) should exceed the 68030's performance (with
the promise of delivering more sooner) and are available, in some semblance, 
today?
-- 
The above views are personal.

I've seen the future, I can't afford it...

Ken Shoemaker, Microprocessor Design, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, California
uucp: ...{ hplabs|amdcad|qantel|pur-ee|scgvaxd|oliveb }!intelca!mipos3!kds
csnet/arpanet: kds@mipos3.intel.com

In article <262@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:

>Apparently the 68030
>uses what is called "Harvard parallel architecture".  Now that Motorola
>has released this chip, they have in *every category of chip* a far
>superior chip than does Intel.  68030 > 80386, 68020 > 80286, 68010 and
>68000 >> 80186, 8086, 68008 > 8088.  The 68000 series chips are in every case
>more orthogonally designed, faster, more compatible with each other,
>and easier to program.

I agree that the Motorola chips are nicer in many ways than the Intel chips.
But to say Motorola has "released" the chip is stretching things a bit.  Not
only has the 68030 not been formally introduced as a product yet, but the
artciles I've read (e.g., Electronics, September 18, 1986) say volume
production is more than a year away.  The 80386 is here now, and actually
has a system available (Compaq) which uses it.  In other words, it's not
really fair to compare that which Intel has now with what Motorola will have
in a year.  A more fair comparison is between the 68020 and the 80386.

Rich Simoni
Center for Integrated Systems
Stanford University
simoni@sonoma.stanford.edu
...!decwrl!glacier!shasta!simoni

Motorola 68030 Cache Organization
---------------------------------

Can someone explain to me why the change in cache organization between
the 68020 and the 68030 is such a win? I don't need numbers, I'd just like
a rationalization that explains the mechanism.

NB. I'm not talking about the separate address/data lines to the I-cache
- that's obviously an improvement. What I refer to is the comment in 
_Electronics_ that goes like this:

    To improve the likelihood of cache hits, Motorola is also reorganizing
    the 256-byte instruction cache into 16 entries of four long words each
    with 4 bytes per word. The 68020 instruction cache consists of 64 entries
    each of one long word... The reorganized instruction cache, along with
    the new burst mode addressing methods, should double the cache hit ratio
    and reduce the number of times the 68030 must access the system bus.

First off, reducing the number of entries that can be independently
associated seems to be a loss, not a win. But, have they changed the cache
structure - is it fully associative now, where it wasn't before? Maybe they
just needed fewer entries so that they could do it fast enough for a 1-cycle
access with the separate A/D buses.

Do the entries have to be strictly aligned, on a multiple of 16 byte
boundary, or can they be skewed? I'd suspect the former. If so, this means
that there will be advantages to aligning the top of your inner loops on a
16 byte boundary. NOPs, anybody?

Why the emphasis on "four long words each with 4 bytes per word"? I assume
that the 4 long words reflect how the cache line is filled, by a Modulo 4
burst mode memory access. That's probably one of the big advantages of
this cache organization - it doesn't increase cache hit ratio so much as
decrease the time necessary to make good a cache miss, so that you can get
back to work quicker. Also, if you are sequentially accessing memory, as
you do in a linear instruction stream, you may have obtained the next word,
due to a burst mode line fill, before the processor asks for it - whereas
if you weren't prefetching you'd have another miss, and even if you were
prefetching but were using a slower memory access, you might not have it
ready in time.

The emphasis on `bytes' in the instruction cache probably means that it is
easier for the execution unit to pull funny sized instructions out of the
cache. Ahh, the joys of variable length instruction sets!

The orientation to longer lines, filled faster by burst mode, is probably
a good thing for an instruction cache, but one wonders whether it is so
good for a data cache. Probably is for floating point numbers, which by
themselves can fill up a cache line, or for matrix processing or graphics
where you do a lot of sequential access to data, but maybe not so good
for systems that use a lot of pointer accesses to random fields in
structures, picking out, say, only one byte on every cache line filled.
Could Motorola have given us a 64 entry 1 word per line data cache, like
the 68020's instruction cache?

Summing up, I see these as the tradeoffs that came into the 68030 cache:
    LOSS    fewer independent entries
    GAIN    faster association on the fewer entries?
    GAIN    faster filling using burst mode
    Longer cache lines
	GAIN	for instructions
	GAIN	for numerical and sequentially accessed data
	LOSS	for pointer/structure oriented programs?

(Oh, another thing: TLB address translation is done in parallel with
cache access. Does this mean that the cache is virtual? Does it do 
invalidations according to physical addresses off the external bus,
or what?)

Am I missing or confused about anything? 

Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.    USEnet:  ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801    ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms

In article <1837@well.UUCP> swalton@well.UUCP (Stephen R. Walton) writes:
>
>>The bus data transfer rate of the 68030 is 40 Mbytes/sec.
>
>Think about this.  That's a memory access time of 25 nanoseconds, more than
>4 times as fast as the memory we use in our PC's, Macs, Amigas, and Apples.
>...
>Unless one of you hot-shot chip designers out there can put together a
>1 MB DRAM with 25 ns access which will sell for less than $100 apiece :->
>
>			Stephen Walton, speaking for myself

Try again, just because there is a 40MB/s bus transfer rate *does not* mean
that there is a 25 ns bus cycle!  If the processor transfers 4 bytes/xfer,
then the bus transfer rate will be 40 MB/s on a **100** ns bus cycle time.
If the transfer is 2 bytes/xfer then the bus cycle would be 50ns, etc.
Additionally, your assumption does not take into account capabilities such
as those on the 68030 to support new DRAM technology (page mode, static
column, nibble mode) which allows the transfer of 4 long words (16 bytes)
in as little as 5 clock cycles.

tom johnson            inhp4!ut-sally!oakhill!tomj

Does anyone know how to modify my local inews so it rejects:
	anything from <INTEL> in net.micro.68k
	anything form <CBM> in net.micro.mac
	anything cross-posted between net.micro.mac and net.micro.amiga
	    or net.micro.atari16

The S/N is low for such articles, and the flame/content ratio is high.
-- 
	Joel West			     MCI Mail: 282-8879
	Western Software Technology, POB 2733, Vista, CA  92083
	{cbosgd, ihnp4, pyramid, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel
	joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPA

	In re: Motorola's continual announcements . . . is it fair
to compare the 68030 to the 80386, etc.?
	
	Yes.

	Firstly, it is clear that Motorola's architecture is a lot
cleaner than Intel's.  Certainly their chips may be a year or so behind
Intel (i.e. 68020 and 80286, 68010 and 80186, etc.); but their chips are
far superior.  Even if you insist on comparing the 68010 to the 80286
it is not clear at all that the 80286 wins hands down;  the '010 has an 
architecture more well-suited to implementation of multi-level interrupt
multitasking systems.  The fact is that for implementation of real
systems the 68010 in many cases is a far more appropriate choice than
the 80286.  (about Unix implementation, see BYTE article last month.)
And of course the 68020 is far and away the superior chip compared
to the 80286, and the '020 has been available in real computer systems
for some time.  From this point of view it seems reasonable to compare the
'286 to the '020 rather than the '010, and here the comparison is clear.
'020s are used (as you all know) in Sun workstations, TurboAmigas, etc.
'286s are used in ATs.  There is really no comparison between the two
classes of machine.

	Another important point to make is that operating systems implemented on
the 68000 series chips will run fairly well on the higher-grade chips;
UNIX, AmigaDos/Intuition, Mac Operating System, ST GEM/TOS, et cetera are
all capable of taking advantage of the higher-level chips' capabilities
(especially UNIX and AmigaDos/Intuition), although some optimization
wouldn't hurt.  From the point of view of the Intel chips, the 8088-based
MS-DOS is nothing more than a kludge on the 80286 and 80386; for that
operating system to take advantage of those chips a complete re-write
must be done, and is in the process of being completed as we speak.
This new operating system however will most likely be incompatible to
a great degree with the old, 8/16-bit MS-DOS and will contain major bugs
for some time.  AmigaDOS/Intuition has been running on the 68000 for
about a year now, and Unix implementations for the 68000/68010 chips have
been floating around for at least 3 or more years.  To compare the 80386
with the 68020 is absurd; the '020 has been around for some time now and
has a lot of debugged software/operating systems running on it; the
'030 will inherit that software and blaze with it whereas what will the
'386 do?  Run character-stream UNIX and 640K MS-DOS?
				-Mitsu (hadeihi@husc4.UUCP)

P.S. BTW, have you guys heard about the 78000 (!?)  See Nanobytes in
the latest BYTE (the //GS issue).  This is a RISC uprocessor with a
rated speed of 20 (VAX-equivalent?) MIPS . . . this kind of speed
totally blows away the RT PC (note: the RT PC performed just a hair
better than an PC AT in benchmarks . . . see PC World or PC magazine
of a month ago. . . not very impressive . . .)

[]

Gee, that was to much to ignore...

Can anybody point me to the numerous powerful multi-user super-boxes that
are using the '286 or '386 (AT doesn't count since it is actually used
by single users, and in 8088 emulation mode, primarily)?  As far as I can
tell, designers that are not REQUIRED by their employers to use Intel
chips have long used the 68K family for that purpose!

If you want REALLY high-end computing power, you get a CRAY and such.
If you want a real big bang per buck, you get a 68K personal machine.
Unless, of course, you only feel comfortable in the crowd, the crowd
that will use 8080 software forever (they think).

- Moshe Braner

BTW: the ST + 32081 math coprocessor beats (for number crunching) the
portion of the power of the VAX I work on that actually labors for me.
Price?  still < $1000

In article <200@mipos3.UUCP> kds@mipos3.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker ~) writes:
>I can't speak for Intel, and none of this should be taken as the opinion
>of Intel, but...
>...Motorola's "announcement" came in the same week that they chided
>Intel for the 386's non-availability; the week that Compaq introduced
>their box.
>
>To put things in a historical sense, Motorola held the same kind of blitz
>a few months after Intel came out with the 286...
>....  I suppose that Intel should feel flattered in that it seems
>to me that Mot, in each case, has conceeded defeat: the 68010 to the
>286, the 68020 to the 386, and that in order to maintain any kind of
>market share, they have to have a media blitz, rolling out their newest,
>half baked, family jewels.  Its all pretty comic!
>
>And what about the new family jewels?  Should I feel vindicated that Mot
>has finally decided that on-chip memory management is a good idea?  And
>what about performance?  Why would a new, ultra-high end user choose
>the 68030 over, say, the Clipper, or the MIPS chips, each of which
>(if you believe the numbers) should exceed the 68030's performance (with
>the promise of delivering more sooner) and are available, in some semblance, 
>today?

Normally, I to stay away of Intel vs Motorola wars (it's more fun watching the
missiles go overhead!), but since MIPS' name got dragged in,
and since there have been an awful lot of fuzzy performance claims thrown
around lately in this newsgroup, and in advertising, I couldn't resist.

Several recent Intel and Moto ads have cited Dhrystones to prove performance:

1) The Intel ad claimed that the 386 was faster than any other 32-bit micro,
and was a 4-VAX-MIP machine because it did 6133 Dhrystones at 16Mhz, versus a
VAX 11/780's 1662.

2) Then, a Moto ad appeared that complained about the unreality of the
Intel hardware environment used to get those numbers, versus reality of
using a 25Mhz 68020 in a SUN-3/200.  (This was the apples-to-oranges ad that
appeared lots of places). Some of this was pretty reasonable, but they did
fudge a little, claiming that Dhrystone writes had to go to main-memory DRAM.
The SUN-3/2xx boxes use a big 64K write-back cache, with a well-designed
memory subsystem, i.e., a pedal-to-the-metal, all-out design.
This got 6362 Dhrystones.

3) Now: *REALITY*:
	a) Dhrystones aren't all that good indicator of overall performance.
	An 8600 gets about 5,000-6,000 Dhrystones, and people (accurately)
	characterizes an 8600 as about 4-4.2X an 11/780 performance.  The
	benchmark randomly happens to correlate with reality, somewhat.
	b) Small, individual benchmarks just don't mean a whole lot. Dhrystone
	can chew up to 30% of the total time in strcpy().  We certainly don't
	use it for serious performance characterization.
	c) People who talk about "this chip is an N-Mips chip" are missing
	the boat: you have to say "This chip, at XMhz, with specified memory
	system, and specified software environment, runs at some speed
	relative to other machines."  There have been some wild commetns in
	this newsgroup and some other ads that are nearly meaningless.
	d) Ignore "peak mips" claims that you see in ads: I've recently seen
	that a 25Mhz 68020 averages 5Mips and does 12.5Mips peak. Likewise,
	a 16.67Mhz 68020 (as in a SUN-3/1xx) is 8.3Mips peak. An 8Mhz MIPS R2000
	does 8Mips peak, but is typically 2-3 times faster doing real stuff
	than the 16Mhz 68020. Peak rates in non-real environments have little
	to do with reality.
	c) (to Moto): I'm not sure SUN-3/2xx's are shipping yet, but they are
	at least real machines.
	d) (to Intel): although Compaq 386's are shipping (fair), it will
	be interesting to see if their memory system lets them equal 8600s,
	as seems to be claimed.

4) Finally, like I said, I don't believe in Dhrystones, but since
I & M keep using it to show how fast they are, in self-defense, see:

11/780		 1632	(in-house 4.3BSD)
68020	16.6Mhz	 3243	(registers, -O, in-house SUN-3/160, 4.2BSD)
80386	16.6Mhz	 6133	(from an Intel ad in last month)
68020	25Mhz	 6362	(from a Moto ad, citing SUN 3/200, with 64K writeback
			cache).
8600		 5132-6423	(ULTRIX or 4.3BSD)
Clipper	33Mhz	 ????	(This is claimed as 5Mips, but I haven't seen
			any numbers published. Can somebody supply them?)
R2000	8Mhz	10350	(MIPS M/500 development system, 16K I- + 8K D-cache,
			4.3BSD, release 1.0, 8MB memory, 4-way interleaved,
			up-to-rev produciton, boards. We use them and we're
			shipping systems to customers; i.e., REAL, if not
			yet in huge quantities.) WE CALL THIS AN HONEST
			5X 11/780 SYSTEM FOR REAL STUFF, NOT 6.5X.
R2000	8Mhz	12300	As above, but with global optimization. [I can't tell
			what versions I & M are citing.]
			This part was also designed to run at 12.5Mhz and
			16.67Mhz, and you can draw your own conclusions
			on the performance. [No: they don't scale exactly,
			but Dhrystone is so cache-resident that they come
			close].

Bottom line: what counts is real benchmarks on real machines; it is
difficult to characterize machines without a lot of hard work; specifying
a machine by a single nebulous "Mips-rating" (except within same-architecture/
same-software families, perhaps) doesn't work very well.

Finally, if anybody believes that the Dhrystone numbers above mean that,
for example, that 16Mhz 386s and 25Mhz 68020s are REALLY generally as fast
as VAX 8600s, or that an 8Mhz R2000 is close to a an IBM 3083, then.......
I own this great bridge back East that I could let go at a good price!....
-- 
-john mashey	DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc>
UUCP: 	{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!mash, DDD:  	408-720-1700, x253
USPS: 	MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086

In article <> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
>[random discussion about 68030]... Now that Motorola
>has released this chip [well, no, they will release it in a year from
>now.. -wsr], they have in *every category of chip* a far
>superior chip than does Intel.  68030 > 80386, 68020 > 80286, 68010 and
>68000 >> 80186, 8086, 68008 > 8088.  The 68000 series chips are in every case
>more orthogonally designed, faster, more compatible with each other,
>and easier to program.

Up to now I have always hated intel chips. In general they are *so*
contorted/poorly thought out, (some would even say buggy). Up to
now that is. I'm ready to to believe in 80386's. Lets face it, the
lack of *usable* memory management for the 68000 is laughable. The
68020 mmu is still vapor-hardware. When it finally arrives, one gets a
chip that has to have *lots* of logic around it just to allow it to
work in the same circuits that the 68020 used to work in. It will run
*much* slower than the 68020 however. 

Remember, the 68020 is in the same generation as the 80386. (lets hear
some applause for intel.)
-- 
Wolfgang Rupprecht	{harvard|decvax!cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!wsr

In article <280@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
>
>'020s are used (as you all know) in Sun workstations, TurboAmigas, etc.
>'286s are used in ATs.  There is really no comparison between the two
>classes of machine.
That's true - there's over 10 times as many '286 machines out there.  There
really ISN'T a comparison...
>
>	Another important point to make is that operating systems implemented on
>the 68000 series chips will run fairly well on the higher-grade chips;
>UNIX, AmigaDos/Intuition, Mac Operating System, ST GEM/TOS, et cetera are
>all capable of taking advantage of the higher-level chips' capabilities
Depends entirely on the foresight and ability of the systems programmer (about
whom, in most cases, I have grave doubts).  Mac OS dies on anything higher than
a 68000...
>
>'386 do?  Run character-stream UNIX and 640K MS-DOS?
You betcha.  At the same time.  Quickly.  With graphics additions as hardware/
software becomes available.

I have said before and I will say again now - religious chip wars are useless
and S*T*U*P*I*D.  All of the debate and struggle gains you not one thing.  
Personally, I'd rather be aware of and comfortable with as many of the 
different architectures/chips/systems available - it makes me that much more
employable (and that much more affluent).  When I look at what power I have
sitting on my desk now, IBM *OR* Amiga or whatever, and compare it with the
most powerful computers available when I started in this business, I find it
really hard to bitch too much about a chip - even, god help me, the 6502.


-- 
----------------
                 "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness
Mike Farren      that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..."
hoptoad!farren       Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"

> I can't speak for Intel, and none of this should be taken as the opinion
> of Intel, but...
> followed by a couple pages of Motorola bashing on the part of an Intel
> employee...


    Look, after all the Amiga-vs-Mac stuff we've had around here the last
    thing we need is another "My dog's better than your dog" "debate" on this
    net.

    Maybe we need a net.penis.length to contain these discussions.


						--- das

    "Let's try to keep our reginalistic emotions under our big, ugly hats,
    shall we?"

						--- Milo Bloom

In article <1837@well.UUCP>, Stephen R. Walton (swalton@well.UUCP) writes:

>> The bus data transfer rate of the 68030 is 40 Mbytes/sec.
> 
> Think about this.  That's a memory access time of 25 nanoseconds, more than
> 4 times as fast as the memory we use in our PC's, Macs, Amigas, and Apples.

Whoa!!!!!  The 68020 (and presumably the 68030) transfers long words (32 bits,
4 bytes) on its 32-bit data bus.  What you are tripped up by is specmanship!
40 Mbytes/sec is 10 Mlong-words/sec.  This comes to 100 nsec, which is fast,
but doable.

					Steve Rice

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
{decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever

Uh oh, it's the CPU wars again...[Warning -- 68000 partisan]

It seems to me that the 68030, not the 68020, competes with the '386.  Isn't
this right?  Intel seems proud of the fact that they have arrived first in
the market at each 'generation' (8086 vs. 68000, 80286 vs. 68020, 80386 vs.
68030).  But what do they think of the relative power of the competing
devices?  I note that Commodore Amiga (and other vendors) sell software
emulators for the 8086 that have reasonable performance on the 68000.  What
about this?  What about relative floating point performance of the
comparable chips when an application cannot afford the expensive 8087
coprocessor?  What about the disastrous tradeoffs that must be made when a
program must access large data arrays?  Even the lowly 68010 could operate
in a true virtual memory environment, but Intel has only recently arrived at
this performance level.

Now I agree that Mot. has jumped the gun substantially in their announcement
of the 68030, and are therefore sinking to a rather low level of marketing.
They join another company at that level, one who has a longstanding
reputation for bogus benchmarks, late deliveries, non-functional production
silicon, and offensive marketing.  

[I am affiliated with neither Intel nor Motorola.  Opinions are my own.]

In article <783@oakhill.UUCP> tomj@oakhill.UUCP (Tom Johnson) writes:
>In article <1837@well.UUCP> swalton@well.UUCP (Stephen R. Walton) writes:
>>
>>>The bus data transfer rate of the 68030 is 40 Mbytes/sec.
>>
>>Think about this.  That's a memory access time of 25 nanoseconds, more than
>>4 times as fast as the memory we use in our PC's, Macs, Amigas, and Apples.
>>...
>>			Stephen Walton, speaking for myself

>
>Try again, just because there is a 40MB/s bus transfer rate *does not* mean
>that there is a 25 ns bus cycle!  If the processor transfers 4 bytes/xfer,
>then the bus transfer rate will be 40 MB/s on a **100** ns bus cycle time.
>...
>tom johnson            inhp4!ut-sally!oakhill!tomj

The 68020 (and presumably, the 030) has input lines asking the external
device (memory, peripheral, etc) how wide it is.  That way the processor
can ask for a long from a byte-wide device and do 4 reads after the device
says "but I'm only a little bitty byte wide".  But I would be frightened
away from an architecture where a true 32 bit processor has byte-wide main
memory.  Still, you build the machine with the fastest memory you can afford,
and if it ain't fast enough, use wait states.  Faster processor speed is still
significant, especially in a processor with an on-chip cache.  Remember:
memory halfs in cost and doubles in speed every n years (where n used to be
5, and seems to be approaching 1).  I realize there is a theoretical limit,
until we all wise up and start using transphasors (transistors that switch
laser light).  

This brings up an interesting point.  In the mid-70's, everyone started
making processors with MORE instructions that do MORE processing each.  This
was, in part, due to memory bandwidth limitations.  The new genre of RISC
machines is going exactly the other way:  processors with FEWER instructions,
each of which does LESS processing, because memory bandwidth has improved.
The RISC concept allows more specific manipulation of processing power (and
therefore requires more intelligent compilers, to take advantage of the
quantization of the processing unit).  When's the 78000 due out?

-Eric

In article <280@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
>
>	In re: Motorola's continual announcements . . . is it fair
>to compare the 68030 to the 80386, etc.?
>	
>	Yes.
>
>	Firstly, it is clear that Motorola's architecture is a lot
>cleaner than Intel's.  Certainly their chips may be a year or so behind
>Intel (i.e. 68020 and 80286, 68010 and 80186, etc.); but their chips are
>far superior.  Even if you insist on comparing the 68010 to the 80286
>it is not clear at all that the 80286 wins hands down;  the '010 has an 
>architecture more well-suited to implementation of multi-level interrupt
>multitasking systems.  The fact is that for implementation of real
>systems the 68010 in many cases is a far more appropriate choice than
>the 80286.  (about Unix implementation, see BYTE article last month.)
>And of course the 68020 is far and away the superior chip compared
>to the 80286, and the '020 has been available in real computer systems
>for some time.  From this point of view it seems reasonable to compare the
>'286 to the '020 rather than the '010, and here the comparison is clear.
>'020s are used (as you all know) in Sun workstations, TurboAmigas, etc.
>'286s are used in ATs.  There is really no comparison between the two
>classes of machine.

Of course, there is no comparison between the two classes of machines, because
you in here introduce more than two classes of machines.  I would not
put Sun workstations and Turbo Amigas in the same class of machine simply
because the Amiga does not support any kind of memory management.  If you
want to have a grown-up machine, one that supports multi-user/multi-tasking
you really need to have this.  I have used 68k boxes without that have
tried to do it, and it works, but you are just asking for trouble.  That
the same 286-based box can support an unprotected os like ms-dos and
a protected os like Unix means that it can function in either of these
two classes.  Not until you have the 68030, or you make an entire subsystem
plug in with a 68020 and an mmu, can you claim to have upgraded your Amiga 
the way plugging a 286 upgrades a pc.

>	Another important point to make is that operating systems implemented on
>the 68000 series chips will run fairly well on the higher-grade chips;
>UNIX, AmigaDos/Intuition, Mac Operating System, ST GEM/TOS, et cetera are
>all capable of taking advantage of the higher-level chips' capabilities
>(especially UNIX and AmigaDos/Intuition), although some optimization
>wouldn't hurt.  From the point of view of the Intel chips, the 8088-based
>MS-DOS is nothing more than a kludge on the 80286 and 80386; for that
>operating system to take advantage of those chips a complete re-write
>must be done, and is in the process of being completed as we speak.
>This new operating system however will most likely be incompatible to
>a great degree with the old, 8/16-bit MS-DOS and will contain major bugs
>for some time.  AmigaDOS/Intuition has been running on the 68000 for
>about a year now, and Unix implementations for the 68000/68010 chips have
>been floating around for at least 3 or more years.  To compare the 80386

In the first place, msdos, while not taking advantage of the functionality
of the 286 or the 386, is certainly not a kludge when run on them.  In
addition, when you go from one type of 68* based box to another, you also
need to rewrite the operating system, because the memory management systems
are incompatible.  People have also generated 286-based cards that plug
into plain old IBM pcs and have gained a significant performance upgrade, while
running their old software.  I'm sure the same thing can and will happen
with the 386.  And Unix implementations for 8086-based chips have been
floating around for at least 5 years.  MS-DOS already is a 16-bit os, and
always has been.  When going from a 68020 to a 68030, you will have to
rewrite the os to take advantage of the memory management that the 68030
provides...otherwise you just have a little faster 68020, much like you
can use a 286 as a faster 8086.  How about if we compare apples to apples?
Can you say "incoherency?"

>P.S. BTW, have you guys heard about the 78000 (!?)  See Nanobytes in
>the latest BYTE (the //GS issue).  This is a RISC uprocessor with a
>rated speed of 20 (VAX-equivalent?) MIPS . . . this kind of speed
>totally blows away the RT PC (note: the RT PC performed just a hair
>better than an PC AT in benchmarks . . . see PC World or PC magazine
>of a month ago. . . not very impressive . . .)

Oh, this is great.  Yet another paper product.  This one, they haven't
even had a press release on!  I guess it must be more than a year 
away (:-)).
-- 
The above views are personal.

I've seen the future, I can't afford it...

Ken Shoemaker, Microprocessor Design, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, California
uucp: ...{ hplabs|amdcad|qantel|pur-ee|scgvaxd|oliveb }!intelca!mipos3!kds
csnet/arpanet: kds@mipos3.intel.com

U>


>>In article <262@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) 
writes:
>>Now that Motorola
>>has released this chip, they have in *every category of chip* a far
>>superior chip than does Intel. 

>I agree that the Motorola chips are nicer in many ways than the Intel chips.
>But to say Motorola has "released" the chip is stretching things a bit.  Not
>only has the 68030 not been formally introduced as a product yet, but the
>artciles I've read (e.g., Electronics, September 18, 1986) say volume
>production is more than a year away.  The 80386 is here now, and actually
>has a system available (Compaq) which uses it.  In other words, it's not
>really fair to compare that which Intel has now with what Motorola will have
>in a year.  A more fair comparison is between the 68020 and the 80386.

To say that Compaq has "released" an 80386 based computer is stretching
things a bit too, don't you think.  They announced it, but said it would
be available after January.  This is similar to what Motorola announced.
By the way, IBM is said to be readying an announcment in January for
their 80386 based machine, which will be available in June.  And don't
forget that a multitasking operating system won't be available until
around June either.  Until then, these 80386 machines are just big
fast PC's.  Meanwhile, Apple is readying a 68020 based machine for
release early next year.

Isn't vaporware fun!

-----------------------
David Shayer @ the Well

"Most of the time, for most programmers, what a compiler produces
is not object code, but error messages."

["The Knights who say Letni demand.....A segment register!!!"]

>I agree that the Motorola chips are nicer in many ways than the Intel chips.
>But to say Motorola has "released" the chip is stretching things a bit. 
>...
>The 80386 is here now, and actually
>has a system available (Compaq) which uses it.  In other words, it's not
>really fair to compare that which Intel has now with what Motorola will have
>in a year.  A more fair comparison is between the 68020 and the 80386.

I agree that you cannot "fairly" compare the 68030 to the 386 by chip. 
You should compare the system as a whole.  For example, Compaq does have
a 386 box, but try one (I have).  You get a copy of 8088 MS-DOS that has been
hacked just enough to boot, so Bill Gates could get his picture in
Infoworld. :-)  The debugger supplied doesn't even know about the 386
32 bit registers or opcodes!  The "386/286" version of MS-DOS that really
uses the hardware is a year away also.  Same thing for XENIX-386 from
Microsoft, which will be available to OEM's sometime in 1987.  (See Microsoft
announcements in Infoworld for their estimates.)

Now when the 68030 part becomes available and is put in a system,
golly gee, it should work with little or no hacking, and all the
assemblers and compilers out there will already work with those
32 bit instructions and registers.  All of the operating systems
out there might, at worst, have to be recompiled.  Sure, the assemblers
and compilers might be modified to take advantage of any new instructions
that pop up, but from what I read, most of the new items are for supervisor
mode, so you wouldn't put too many of them in the compiler. 

So you have the 68030 with a long lead-time till the hardware is
available, but a short (or non-existant) port time for software,
and the 386 which is relatively available now, but has a long lead-time
to get any software (to say nothing of a real 386 assembler or compiler)
that actually uses more than the 8/16 bit part of the CPU.  How soon are
Lotus and DBase going to report their packages to use 32-bit mode?

When you compare the point when you get a functional system that actually
USES the power you paid for, the 68030 and 386 are really tied, with more
risk of delay on the 386 side because EVERYTHING has to be recompiled
(even awk) to take advantage of the 32 bit arch.  (I don't know a single
XENIX/UNIX programmer who isn't ready to recode his/her stuff WITHOUT
segments!)  On the 68030, application programs should not have to do
anything to take advantage of the performance boost.

<The above is the opinion of me and not that of my employer (who thinks
 Intel invented Happy Hour) or my Golden Retriever (who ate all of my x86
 manuals long ago).  Until the EPCA becomes law, one can still have
 opinions in the US.  OPPOSE THIS BILL!!!!>
						
						"Thank you, Uh Clem."
						Frank Durda IV
						@ <trsvax!uhclem>

The 386 is a registered trademark (I guess) of Intel Corp and not NEC or IBM.
The 68030 is a registered trademark (should be patented too :-)) of Motorola
and comes from Austin, which is nearer to "Where the best begins", Ft. Worth.

In article <1165@hoptoad.uucp> farren@hoptoad.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes:

>Mac OS dies on anything higher than
>a 68000...

This isn't true.  The Prodigy 4, a Mac running a 16 MHz 68020 w/68881 FPC
works just fine.  Some things want to run with the cache off (because they
contain self-modifying code).  I'm not sure whether the 128K Mac ROMs are
a requirement for this, but, most definitely, the Mac WILL RUN ON A 68020.

-Eric

In article <200@mipos3.UUCP>, Ken Shoemaker writes:
>                                        Should I feel vindicated that Mot
> has finally decided that on-chip memory management is a good idea? 

Yes.

>                                                                     And
> what about performance?  Why would a new, ultra-high end user choose
> the 68030 over, say, the Clipper, or the MIPS chips...

Good question.  Why would they choose the 80386 over these chips?
It's probably a very similar set of reasons.
(you get extra bonus credit if you just THINK about this and don't POST!)
-- 
John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu   jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa
		     May the Source be with you!

In article <1870@well.UUCP> das@well.UUCP (David Shayer) writes:
>
>To say that Compaq has "released" an 80386 based computer is stretching
>things a bit too, don't you think.  They announced it, but said it would
>be available after January.  This is similar to what Motorola announced.

hardly.  They are advertised, and are being sold, at least in this area
by Businessland, Computerland, and Fry's.  Talking to salesmen at the
stores, they are going like hotcakes, but they are getting them in, and
selling them to real-live people.
-- 
The above views are personal.

I've seen the future, I can't afford it...

Ken Shoemaker, Microprocessor Design, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, California
uucp: ...{ hplabs|amdcad|qantel|pur-ee|scgvaxd|oliveb }!intelca!mipos3!kds
csnet/arpanet: kds@mipos3.intel.com

In article <glub@Well.UUCP> David Shayer writes:
>Until then, these 80386 machines are just big
>fast PC's.  Meanwhile, Apple is readying a 68020 based machine for
>release early next year.

	Although the Prodigy 4 and Turbo Amiga boxes are available NOW
(read: faster than a VAX.)  And C-Amiga is readying the Ranger, a
68020-based machine for release early next year as well (to also use
a 2-megabyte version of the custom chips, supporting much higher
graphics resolutions, non-interlaced hi-res color, AND a 4K per blit
limit (up from 1K).)

>Isn't vaporware fun!

	Yup.

					-Mitsu

In article <1870@well.UUCP> das@well.UUCP (David Shayer) writes:
>By the way, IBM is said to be readying an announcment in January for
>their 80386 based machine, which will be available in June. And don't
>forget that a multitasking operating system won't be available until
>around June either. Meanwhile, Apple is readying a 68020 based machine
>for release early next year.
>
>Isn't vaporware fun!
>

Making predictions is difficult, especially about the future.

keith

In article <1134@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> M. Braner writes:
>
>Gee, that was to much to ignore...
>
>Can anybody point me to the numerous powerful multi-user super-boxes that
>are using the '286 or '386 (AT doesn't count since it is actually used
>by single users, and in 8088 emulation mode, primarily)? 
>
  Are you trying to say that the 68xxx series are never used by single users
and therefore are not tainted by mundane but commercially profitable uses?

  In the world of multi-user, multi-tasking super-micro operating systems,
I believe Xenix for the AT has gone through several versions over the last
couple years, and is probably the most widely distributed version of Unix
in terms of numbers of systems. It unfortunately process swaps, but then so
does the Perkin-Elmer series of Mini's and Cray's COS. MicroPort SV/AT is
full System V Release 2 with demand-paged virtual memory, and on an 8Mhz,
no wait state, AT compatible with 4Mb of memory and a reasonably fast hard
disk delivers 2/3 the power of a SUN 3 for most applications. One of the
12Mhz AT's would probably approach the performance of a 16.67 Mhz SUN 3.
At 1/3 the price of the SUN's coupled with the 'added' ability to run 8088
software (with third party software for some OS' like Venix, as a subtask
under the Unix operating system), there is no lack of reasons for their
attractiveness in the marketplace.

  However flames based on religious tunnel-vision are not particularly
interesting. Could we reduce the volume of traffic to a more factual level?
I really do enjoy the well articulated descriptions of various chips and
their strengths and weaknesses. I use SUN's, AT's, Atari ST's and VAXen,
and find all of them superb machines in comparison to what was available
10 years ago. Moreover by having the choice of several different machines
for a given job, I think I am far further ahead than if computers were
restricted to a single monopoly.

BTW: Has anyone out there played with the new 25 Mhz SUN 3-260's? What are
     they REALLY like?

Ross W. Wetmore			| rwwetmore@water.NetNorth
University of Waterloo		| rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1	| {clyde, ihnp4, ubc-vision, utcsri}
(519) 885-1211 ext 3491		|   !watmath!rwwetmore

[ followups to net.micro.68k please! ]

In article <1870@well.UUCP> das@well.UUCP (David Shayer) writes:
>
>To say that Compaq has "released" an 80386 based computer is stretching
>things a bit too, don't you think.  They announced it, but said it would
>be available after January.  This is similar to what Motorola announced.

The Compaq machine may not be available yet, but the 80386 is.  For now,
the 68030 is just something to be aware of when you design a 68020 system
so that you will be able to upgrade when the '30 becomes available.

-- 
member, all HASA divisions              POELOD  ECBOMB
					--------------
					       ^-- Secret Satanic Message

Tim Smith       USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim   Compuserve: 72257,3706
		Delphi or GEnie: mnementh

In article <1870@well.UUCP>, das@well.UUCP (David Shayer) writes:
> To say that Compaq has "released" an 80386 based computer is stretching
> things a bit too, don't you think.  They announced it, but said it would
> be available after January.  This is similar to what Motorola announced.

Nope.  Fry's Electronics (and supermarket) here in Sunnyvale had one in
already and sold it (I *think* the salesman said $5995).  They said they
were expecting "several" more in "any day now".

They may not be widely available yet, but they aren't "vaporware" either!

/kim

-- 
UUCP:  {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,ihnp4}!amdahl!kim
DDD:   408-746-8462
USPS:  Amdahl Corp.  M/S 249,  1250 E. Arques Av,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086
CIS:   76535,25

[  Any thoughts or opinions which may or may not have been expressed  ]
[  herein are my own.  They are not necessarily those of my employer. ]

> Uh oh, it's the CPU wars again...[Warning -- 68000 partisan]
> 
> It seems to me that the 68030, not the 68020, competes with the '386.  Isn't
> this right?  Intel seems proud of the fact that they have arrived first in
> the market at each 'generation' (8086 vs. 68000, 80286 vs. 68020, 80386 vs.
> 68030).  But what do they think of the relative power of the competing
> devices?  I note that Commodore Amiga (and other vendors) sell software
> emulators for the 8086 that have reasonable performance on the 68000. 

	Obviously, a non-amiga-owner. Anyone who has had experience whith
	the "Down's Syndrome" PC emulator (Transformer) realizes that software
	emulations (interpretive ones) are absolute SH*T.  Don't get me wrong,
	I think the 386 is gonna lose in the CPU wars.


	COME ON GUYS!! KEEP THIS DISCUSSION IN net.micro.68k or net.micro.pc

	OK??

Ed Chaban
Plexus Computers Inc.
Phone: (408) 943-2226
Net: sun!plx!ed

In article <205@mipos3.UUCP> kds@mipos3.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker ~) writes:
>              Not until you have the 68030, or you make an entire subsystem
>plug in with a 68020 and an mmu, can you claim to have upgraded your Amiga 
>the way plugging a 286 upgrades a pc.

Actually, one can easily support this claim.  In both cases, you still have
the same level of memory protection as before.  Correct me if I'm wrong (and
I know you will :-)), but MSDOS doesn't work in the 80286 protected mode, does
it?  Since this is this case, upgrading to a 286 does not give any more
protection when using the standard OS.  Sure, you have memory protection for
UNIX and its clones, but if that's what you're talking about, then you're
comparing apples and oranges (which is quickly becoming a very popular term
in this discussion).

>>P.S. BTW, have you guys heard about the 78000 (!?)  See Nanobytes in
>
>Oh, this is great.  Yet another paper product.  This one, they haven't
>even had a press release on!  I guess it must be more than a year 
>away (:-)).

According to the BYTE article, it is due in the first quarter of next year.


Rodney Ricks,
   (Not officially respresenting...)    The 64 Store.  Atlanta, Georgia 30339

UUCP: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!rodney
 or :                                                   !gatech!gt-oscar!rodney
Mail: 4265 Hidden Valley Dr.  College Park, Ga. 30349

In article <200@mipos3.UUCP>, kds@mipos3.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker ~) writes:
> silicon.  I suppose that Intel should feel flattered in that it seems
> to me that Mot, in each case, has conceeded defeat: the 68010 to the
		. . .
> market share, they have to have a media blitz, rolling out their newest,
> half baked, family jewels.  Its all pretty comic!

I enjoy just watching the competition!  The one-upmanship of Motorola
and Intel makes for a furious rate of advance in technology.  Let's
just have a clean, fair fight and we all benefit.
-- 
Stuart D. Gathman	<..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>

> And what about the new family jewels?  Should I feel vindicated that Mot
> has finally decided that on-chip memory management is a good idea?  ...

Only when Intel decides that on-chip caches are a good idea.  The 68030
has *both*.  So does the Clipper, by the way.  The MIPS chip set likewise
does the MMU and half (the hard half) of the cache.  Where's Intel?


> ...what about performance?  Why would a new, ultra-high end user choose
> the 68030 over, say, the Clipper, or the MIPS chips, each of which
> (if you believe the numbers) should exceed the 68030's performance (with
> the promise of delivering more sooner) and are available, in some semblance, 
> today?

Probably no particularly good reason except compatibility.  I notice,
however, that the line of argument has shifted slightly:  we don't hear
the word "Intel" any more.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

[==> Followups have been redirected to net.micro.68k <==  If you care
about this topic, please start reading about it there.  The mac/amiga/atari
users have enough to talk about without Intel/Motorola flames.  I'm just glad
nobody has tried including net.micro.pc, then the flames would really start!]

I believe it is correct to compare the 80386 with the 68020, on a feature
by feature basis.  They are both the first 32-bit processor from each
company, have similar cycle and instruction times, addressing capabilities,
etc.

In the past Intel has been first to market each level of chip.
However, they spent too much time at the 16-bit level (on the 186 and
286, both of which took longer than expected), and Motorola worked hard
to get out of the gate first at the 32-bit level.  (My favorite "why
IBM chose the 8088" rumor is that Motorola couldn't build them 1/4
million chips the first year and Intel could since they had been
ramping up longer.  Be interesting to see if Motorola's taking the lead
at 32 bits makes any difference now.)

My impression is that the relative power of each chip relates strongly
to its design date.  Thus, Motorola chips have tended to be more
powerful than the corresponding Intel chips, because they were designed
slightly later.  The 80386 should be faster than the 68020, since it is
coming out about a year later.  They made a big mistake in leaving out
the cache, though they did put in a neat feature for interleaved memory
access, so it probably runs in roughly the same speed range unless you
give it a fancy memory subsystem.  (If a fancy memory is assumed,
though, then the faster possible clock rate on the 68020 comes into
play, maybe making it an even heat again.)  The 68030 will be faster
than both, since it will be yet another year later.  And so on...

I'm not going to argue the merits of Intel versus Motorola.  It is clear
to me that both have learned from each other.  Now it is up to us, the
users, to learn to write our stuff portably so we can move it to the machine
of whoever is learning the fastest at each point in time.
-- 
John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu   jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa
		     May the Source be with you!

> ...  When going from a 68020 to a 68030, you will have to
> rewrite the os to take advantage of the memory management that the 68030
> provides...otherwise you just have a little faster 68020, much like you
> can use a 286 as a faster 8086.  How about if we compare apples to apples?

Okay, we'll compare apples to apples:  how's the 32-bit-mode code generator
for the 386 coming?  If you don't have that, you just have a little faster
80286.  Rewriting the code generator and recompiling everything strikes me
as rather more work than hacking up the MMU section of the kernel.

*Especially* since the 286->386 conversion is also going to mean hacking
up the MMU stuff to cope with 32-bit addresses.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

In article <205@mipos3.UUCP> kds@mipos3.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker ~) writes:
>In article <280@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
>>P.S. BTW, have you guys heard about the 78000 (!?)  See Nanobytes in
>>the latest BYTE (the //GS issue).  This is a RISC uprocessor with a
>>rated speed of 20 (VAX-equivalent?) MIPS . . . this kind of speed
>>totally blows away the RT PC (note: the RT PC performed just a hair
>>better than an PC AT in benchmarks . . . see PC World or PC magazine
>>of a month ago. . . not very impressive . . .)
>
>Oh, this is great.  Yet another paper product.  This one, they haven't
>even had a press release on!  I guess it must be more than a year 
>away (:-)).

Ken has a right to be skeptical on this one! It also illustrates the silly
ways in which 3rd and 4th-hand information propagate around.  I quote what
the Byte issue says: "Sources with Motorola's microprocessor group (Austin, TX)
confirm that two new central processing units will be released by that
company in the near future. (Stuff on 68030)...Due in the first quarter of
next year is the 20-MIPS 78000 CPU.  Sources said the 78000 is a RISC processor
that represents an evolutionary progression of the 68020."

What we have is: a) Somebody from Moto talking off-the-record to somebody
on the Byte staff. It is possible that not all Moto people would agree.
b) Byte prints this, so now it looks official-looking.  c) Somebody else
mentions it in the net, and now, a chip that (I'd guess) hasn't yet been
taped out "totally blows away the RT PC." Now it sounds like it exists right
now...  No wonder people get confused between claims and reality!

One has to wonder what even the 2 sentences in the article actually MEAN?
"Due in the first quarter.."  Does that mean:
	a) Appears in a machine you can login on?
	b) Appears in a board?
	c) Production quantities?
	d) Sample quantities?
	e) First silicon?
	f) Announcement of when any of a-e will happen?

"20-MIPS 78000 CPU"  Does that mean?
	a) Runs at 20Mhz, and can do peak 1 instruction per cycle?
	b) Is 20X a VAX 11/780 doing real work?
Note that the conversion from peak MIPS to VAX-equivalent MIPS (or any other
kind of real-live MIPS) can take on radically different factors: for example,
on 68020s, the division factor seems like 4 (i.e., 16.67Mhz designs gives
8 peak Mips (2 cycles/instr) ==> 2 VAX mips. Clippers have a factor of
about 6.6 (33 peak Mips ==> 5 Mips (according to published claims)).
Depending on what the 78000 really will be, it might be as low as a 5Mips
part (one would expect it to be higher).

"RISC processor that represents an evolutionary progression of the 68020."
What does this mean?
	a) Does it run 68020 object code?
	b) Does it run a subset of the 68020 instructions?
	c) Is it different object code, but "philosophically like the 68020"?

Sigh.  As one can see, if one reads the literature uncritically, things
that sound like information can be found to be rather content-free,
i.e., "real" information is found to be "virtual."

Note: none of this is meant as an attack on the 78000, but on the weird
process by which information leaks around and is jumbled up.  As far as I
know, the 78000 hasn't been announced by anyone for the record, and is mostly
discussed with Moto customers (existing or potential) who want to do high-end
systems and show signs of picking other vendors' micro-processors.
Perhaps someone from Motorola might care to comment on the original article:
one can choose to believe a vendor or not, but nobody should ascribe high
credibility to 3rd-hand off-the-record comments, or knock the vendor for
such "information".
-- 
-john mashey	DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc>
UUCP: 	{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!mash, DDD:  	408-720-1700, x253
USPS: 	MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086

In article <205@mipos3.UUCP> kds@mipos3.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker ~) writes:
>In article <280@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
>>
>>	In re: Motorola's continual announcements . . . is it fair
>>to compare the 68030 to the 80386, etc.?
>>	
>>	Yes.
>
>Of course, there is no comparison between the two classes of machines, because
>you in here introduce more than two classes of machines.  I would not
>put Sun workstations and Turbo Amigas in the same class of machine simply
>because the Amiga does not support any kind of memory management.  If you
>want to have a grown-up machine, one that supports multi-user/multi-tasking
>you really need to have this.  I have used 68k boxes without that have
>tried to do it, and it works, but you are just asking for trouble.  That
>the same 286-based box can support an unprotected os like ms-dos and
>a protected os like Unix means that it can function in either of these
>two classes.  Not until you have the 68030, or you make an entire subsystem
>plug in with a 68020 and an mmu, can you claim to have upgraded your Amiga 
>the way plugging a 286 upgrades a pc.

Your assertion about classifying 68k based machines is more or less correct;
I wouldn't want to lump the Amiga and the Sun together.  Yet.  But sooner or
later Commodore will get their act together, and you can bet on the existence
of an MMU in Atari's TT box next year, and that whatever design one uses, it
will be infinitely easier to live with than the Intel segmentation design.
A simple matter of extracting limited function from a limited design.

>>	Another important point to make is that operating systems implemented on
>>the 68000 series chips will run fairly well on the higher-grade chips;
>>UNIX, AmigaDos/Intuition, Mac Operating System, ST GEM/TOS, et cetera are
>>all capable of taking advantage of the higher-level chips' capabilities
>
>In the first place, msdos, while not taking advantage of the functionality
>of the 286 or the 386, is certainly not a kludge when run on them.  In
>addition, when you go from one type of 68* based box to another, you also
>need to rewrite the operating system, because the memory management systems
>are incompatible.

You just walked down the wrong alley for an Intel person.  I dare say that
there are far more diversified and completely alien implementations of the
MS-DOS BIOS and kernal than there ever have been 68k implementations of Unix.
In fact, the amount of dirty work needed to port Unix memory management from
one 68k system to another pretty much is based on only two variables: which
version of Unix, and whether or not you're demand paged.  The minimum
functionality required to run Unix well is easily accomodated by just about
every 68k MMU design I've ever seen.  What's a '386 user to do, use the
warped `MMU' inherent in its predecessors?  No...you need a rewrite.  Motorola
passed that trial years ago when the '010 was introduced.

>  People have also generated 286-based cards that plug
>into plain old IBM pcs and have gained a significant performance upgrade, while
>running their old software.  I'm sure the same thing can and will happen
>with the 386.

What a coincidence!  Just about everybody else in the world has too!  And if
you're not convinced, I have some Apple-II+ accelerator boards I'd like you
to meet.

>  And Unix implementations for 8086-based chips have been
>floating around for at least 5 years.

Amazing.  Commercial Unix implementations for 68000-based machines have been
floating around for well over 5 years; check the ads in your old Byte issues.

>MS-DOS already is a 16-bit os, and always has been.

What are you trying to say?  "And it always will be?"  We're not discussing
6502's here.  The 68k family is already a 32-bit processor, and always has
been.  Bus sizing is just another one of its strengths, if you will.

>  When going from a 68020 to a 68030, you will have to
>rewrite the os to take advantage of the memory management that the 68030
>provides...otherwise you just have a little faster 68020, much like you
>can use a 286 as a faster 8086.  How about if we compare apples to apples?
>Can you say "incoherency?"

Can you say "Yes, you are becoming incoherent"?  When going from a 68020 to a
68030, you will have to throw away that PMMU chip you had sitting next to it.
Code changes?  Motorola claims you won't need any.  I'll be more than happy
to throw away another large power-sucking chip; I need the real-estate anyhow.
When going from a '286 to a '386, you will have to rewrite the OS to take
advantage of a real MMU.  You guys DO have a real MMU, don't you?  Otherwise,
you have a little faster '286.  As for improvements in Motorola's performance,
a large number of programs benefitted wonderfully from the DBxx change in the
'010, and that's the name of the game.  Otherwise, why would NEC try to market
the V20/V30 family?

>-- 
>The above views are personal.
>
>I've seen the future, I can't afford it...
>
>Ken Shoemaker, Microprocessor Design, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, California

Yes, the good people of Oakhill are jumping the gun a bit, but it isn't going
to bother me a bit.  As far a Joe Blow is concerned, his computer suddenly
became faster and less power grubbing with a minimum of hardware redesign on
my behalf.  As far as I'm concerned, I just won an MMU and a data cache and
saved myself a lot of money.  Keep your iAPX toys, guys; I might look you over
if you start running circles around Vax 8800's.  If.

The opinions expressed within are entirely mine, and may not reflect the views
of the University of Maryland.  But a hell of a lot of my friends share them.

-dave
-- 
David Hsu  (301) 454-1433 || -8798 || -8715	"I know no-thing!" -eneevax
Communications & Signal Processing Laboratory	/ EE Systems Staff
Systems Research Center, Bldg 093		/ Engineering Computer Facility
The University of Maryland   -~-   College Park, MD 20742
ARPA: hsu@eneevax.umd.edu    UUCP: [seismo,allegra,rlgvax]!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu

"Hoy?"

In article <7183@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> And what about the new family jewels?  Should I feel vindicated that Mot
>> has finally decided that on-chip memory management is a good idea?  ...
>
>Only when Intel decides that on-chip caches are a good idea.  The 68030
>has *both*.  So does the Clipper, by the way.  The MIPS chip set likewise
>does the MMU and half (the hard half) of the cache.  Where's Intel?
>
>
>> ...what about performance?  Why would a new, ultra-high end user choose
>> the 68030 over, say, the Clipper, or the MIPS chips, each of which
>> (if you believe the numbers) should exceed the 68030's performance (with
>> the promise of delivering more sooner) and are available, in some semblance, 
>> today?
>
>Probably no particularly good reason except compatibility.  I notice,
>however, that the line of argument has shifted slightly:  we don't hear
>the word "Intel" any more.
>-- 
>				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

	Hi, I just would like to bring up a new topic to think about.
I find that working at the chip level can be a great joy but *most* consumers
do not. They mostly run programs and only care if they run -fast enough-.
As far as writing programs go the compiler is where the real sweet occurs
yet compiler writers are *few* compared to end users. Then we have
to weigh just how many *good* applications can be addressed with only
a compiler rather then an assembler. This problem is more complex
-to be sure- but I would say that the compiler that is most mature
is the winner (at the time). That is because a buggy compiler can
cause much pain to developers... Market competition has to occur
to 'debug' the compilers etc.... What I am getting at is by no means the
fault of hardware design -just the first in high volume to market wins-...
I have a 68K and an 8086! but I can use both... Ok everybody -
lets here it for 'to each his own' (any cheers?). I think most people
don't get down to the hardware level like the rest of us. Well for now I'll
think about getting so sleep and dream of some *real* cpu's not like
the toys we have today but say in 10 years. (You know 10 years from
now when we have the computing power of a CRAY in a kid's toy.....:-)


# Mike Gore 
# Institute for Computer Research.
# These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.

[ The following is a uuencoded program that will kill the line eater: ]


	   > > >  O F F I C I A L   A N N O U N C E M E N T  < < <

	At the risk of contributing further to the problem, I hereby make
the following announcement:

	This line of discussion has ceased to be interesting.  As a result,
the signal-to-noise ratio has gone way down.

	Talking about vaoprware, after I think about it a while, only
depresses me.  I'm interested in what I can do now, not next year.  Waiting
is not my thing, doing neat stuff is.

	We already went through The Boing Wars once already.  Face it:
designers will create wonderful ideas and stupid mistakes.  Some have more
of one than the other (I will privately mail my opinions to anyone who's
interested; I don't think there will be a big response, do you?).  This is
the point:  If machine 'x' really is sh*t, then why did person 'y' buy it?
Furthermore, why did person 'y' keep machine 'x' after "seeing for himself"
that it was sh*t?  One machine will not please everyone, and that's why
there are all different kinds.  This is one of the advantages of living in
America.

	Please redirect followups to these threads of thought to the
appropriate news group; I'm getting tired of sorting through 50 articles a
day, only half of which are remotely interesting.  To get an idea of what
it's like, visit net.jokes sometime ("There are 320 new messages in
net.jokes, only 7 of which are funny.  Read now [ynq]?").

	Don't followup to this article, as talk.bizarre might get annoyed
(snicker, snicker...).

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 ________		 ___
	   \		/___--__		Leo L. Schwab
  ___  ___ /\		    ---##\		ihnp4!ptsfa!well!ewhac
      /   X  \_____    |  __ _---))			..or..
     /   /_\--    -----+==____\ // \  _		well ---\
___ (   o---+------------------O/   \/ \	dual ----> !unicom!ewhac
     \     /		    ___ \_  (`o )	hplabs -/       ("AE-wack")
 ____ \___/			     \_/
	      Recumbent Bikes:			"Work FOR?  I don't work FOR
	    The _O_n_l_y Way To Fly!		anybody!  I'm just having fun."

	The point has been raised that 68k compilers can be simply ported
from 68k to 68030 because of the compatibility. Therefore when we do have
the 68030 chip we will be -all set and ready- to move into the
new generation.... Well this is true!.... It's also true that
the number of bug free C compilers out for the 68k at the consumer
level (Mark Williams is perhaps *1* bug free compiler) is low... <What
I am saying is look at the bug reports in this news group....> I would
shutter to think that (those) compilers would be the foundation
for the next generation! But even the lowly 8086 has MANY good C
compilers at the consumer level... The only good 68k C compilers
in volume are at the commercial level (in unix systems etc) with
little competition to make them better across the market.
	Least anyone misunderstand I like the 68k! Which is why I
point out this concern.... In this area of bugs the 68k support
has a long way to go - It's like benchmarks you have to weigh *all*
of the factors - not just how good the system *could* be - I know
many people know this - I just thought I would condense the thoughts
here .....

# Mike Gore 
# Institute for Computer Research.
# These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.

The continuing debate on the relative merits of the MC68030 / 80386 seems to
be a bit pointless.  The computer industry is famous for the speed at which
equipment is designed, introduced, used and falls obsolete.  Of course
Motorola's product is superior to the 80386 because there is an almost
1.5 year difference in technology.  Doubtless the 80486 (which is probably
under development right now) will be superior to the MC68030.  What most
people seem to forget is that processors are chosen for a particular
product for a variety of reasons, only one of which is their programming
characteristics.  Interfacing requirements, # of support chips, price, 
etc. are all important characteristics for a manufacturer.  I'm sure that
for given applications either Motorola or Intel win.  Instead of these
pointless `A is > B because B is built by 3 toed sloths' arguments, why
not try to restrict postings to actual specific comparisons between the
two or information which may not yet be generally known.

				Terry Ingoldsby

...ihnp4!alberta!calgary!ingoldsby

In article <1870@well.UUCP> das@well.UUCP (David Shayer) writes:
>>>In article <262@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) 
>writes:
>>>Now that Motorola
>>>has released this chip, they have in *every category of chip* a far
>>>superior chip than does Intel. 
>
[some lines deleted]

>To say that Compaq has "released" an 80386 based computer is stretching
>things a bit too, don't you think.  They announced it, but said it would
>be available after January.  This is similar to what Motorola announced.

	Hmmm. According to my brother ( a tech at microsoft ), Microsoft
	just installed over 40 of the Compaq 386 machines. His comments:

		1.	Makes an AT look sick.

		2.	Extremely fast MS-DOS.

>By the way, IBM is said to be readying an announcment in January for
>their 80386 based machine, which will be available in June.  And don't
>forget that a multitasking operating system won't be available until
>around June either.  Until then, these 80386 machines are just big
>fast PC's.  Meanwhile, Apple is readying a 68020 based machine for
>release early next year.

	I have heard (from SCO) that SCO will be releasing Xenix 386 soon. They
	may already have it running internally. When last I spoke to them
	they mentioned that Xenix 286 research was being held back in favor
	of the 386 based machine. An example, they informed me they would
	never release a large model kernel for the 286.

>Isn't vaporware fun!
	
	Yes, but in this case a multi-tasking OS will probably come
	available sooner than most people think. Porting anything written
	for the 286 is a piece of cake. 
>-----------------------
>David Shayer @ the Well

In article <427@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> ingoldsby@calgary.UUCP writes:
>The continuing debate on the relative merits of the MC68030 / 80386......
>....try to restrict postings to actual specific comparisons between the
>two or information which may not yet be generally known.
>
>				Terry Ingoldsby

Agreed. But there is no need to cross-post to all the various pc groups!!
Enough is enough. Lets have more of the useful discussions, relative to
the specific groups, that had  given the net its reputation for an excellent
source of fast and pertinent information and news.

-- 
John VanMunster         (512) 440-2015
Motorola Inc., OakHill, Tx. 78735-8598
path:...{harvard,ihnp4,seismo,gatech,nbires}..!ut-sally!oakhill!jmvm   (uucp)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: The views contained herein are my own, not those of my employer or
the administration of any computer sytem which I may be currently using.
_____________________________________________________________________________
"Computers aren't inhuman - Only humans can be inhuman"..Revenge of the Nerds.