NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/arch/8408

Text File | 1992-07-28 | 3.4 KB | 71 lines

Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: sparky!uunet!ftpbox!mothost!white!sapphire.rtsg.mot.com!declrckd
From: [e-mail] (Dan J. Declerck)
Subject: Re: Productivity != SPECmarks, crap-compatibility - what for? (Was: Re: What's in a name?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: marble
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:06:28 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carl Wuebker) writes:
>
>> ... this need to constantly purchase "newer, faster, better" processors is
>> created by the media and salescritters... they prey upon the emotions of the
>> consumer, convincing him that unless he upgrades his antiquated system, a
>> horrible fate awaits him.  Their chant is well known: "no longer in
>> production", "no longer supported", "too slow to run your software".  The
>> bottom line is that the customer is held hostage to the very machine that
>> was supposed to set him free.
>
>     I agree... in some cases.  In my HP location, we have several killer
>applications (PC board routing, digital simulation & manufacturing [digital]
>test generation) that faster processors really help.  As an example, we had
>one PC board route which needed 48 hours with an older machine, but which
>completes in 3 hours on a HP9000 s750 [Snakes] system (Disclaimer: I can
>demonstrate this one real example, but your speedup may vary :-).  If you
>factor in the PC layout designer idle time and extra "time until the PC board
>is done" using the old system, the Snakes system pays for itself very quickly.
>
>Thanks,
>    Carl Wuebker * HP Roseville * [e-mail] * [phone]

Ideally, we need emulation software or hardware assist that has minimal cost,
but provides for an incremental increase in speed. As a side benefit, it can run
native, re-compiled code even faster. Didn't the early HP-PA MPE boxes do
this? How about "Soft-PC" for various RISC vendors running UNIX??

I think the problem lies in the following things:

1) Most desktop computer users use DOS, some with MS-Windows. This is
    easy to administrate, and is not really complex, until you
   a) make it do things beyond it's design criteria
      (like go beyond 640K of flat addressability)
       ( do workgroup computing with email , etc)

2) So far the migration path requires a higher knowledge.
   I'd like to see a lotus speadsheet user administrate
   Unix Sys5R4 with NFS and a UUCP connection!!
   a) Case-in-point : my brother needed more performance out of his
      CADKEY (tm) software than his 386 DOS machines could deliver.
      He migrated to a SUN 4, and now has to hire outside help to
      administrate his system until he gets up to speed.
      (BTW: He's an ME and no computer jock)

Ideally, we need a system that is easy to use (administrate) yet
has more power than DOS, OS/2 was supposed to be this, but it
seems anemic in it's effort (and a bloated cow with respect to features)

If this does not come to be, the entire RISC effort seems to be
a niche market..

-Dan

--
=> Dan DeClerck                      |  EMAIL: [e-mail]<=
=> Motorola Intl Subscriber Group    |                                    <=
=>                                   |  Phone: [phone]             <=
----------------------------------------------------------------------------