NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/unix/pcclone/32bit/1320

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1320 biz.sco.general:5556 comp.unix.sys5.r3:402
Path: sparky!uunet!hobbes!xenitec!olivea!charnel!rat!usc!rpi!crdgw1!rdsunx.crd.ge.com!ariel!davidsen
From: [e-mail] (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:22:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Required for NNTP)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 63
Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.crd.ge.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:

| The real problem so far has been that to get a "real" computer was a $10k
| proposition.  Now, with the Sparc Classic, it isn't any longer.  Consider
| that the clone makers will go gunning for Sun's bacon here, and I bet we
| see $2500 Sparc compatibles within 6 months.

  I'm not sure the price will go that low, or that fast, particularly
since the one unreducible cost of a workstation is the monitor. On some
workstations the monitor is over half the cost to the vendors, and that
holds for Mac, PC, Sun, etc. The solution has been to lower the base
price by putting a small monitor on the system, like the 15 inch on the
SPARC classic. It really isn't comfortable unless you run with large
type sizes, and that reduces information on the screen.

| Pentium isn't an answer if it is a monopoly chip.  If Intel insists on
| having all the marbles they may find themselves with none of them.  Pentium
| will be fast, yes.  But a multiprocessor Sparc-based system will be
| available by that release date <on your desktop> which will make Pentium
| look like small potatoes, and will likely be cheaper as well.  Certainly the
| Sparc people can compete price-wise.

  If the rumors coming out of Intel are correct, the FP performance will
be very good, perhaps SPECfp in the 50-70 range. Of course if the rumors
are correct, Intel is not going to shut down a 486 line to make the P5
until AMD starts shipping their 486 and profit drops off.

  I don't want to start a rumor, but what I hear about the progress of
the P6 makes me wonder if the P5 will ever ship in quantity. If Intel
had a chip which was faster *and* easier to make, they might run it out
the door at 386 prices and try to grab the whole market again.
|
| That's my prediction for 1993 (if Intel ships in '93 ;-).

  You note I didn't disagree with you, I'm just speculating, too.
|
| As the world goes away from DOS to other choices the chip becomes less
| important.  Even NT will (supposedly) run on other platforms.  The <intent>,
| if you remember, was to run on the MIPS R4000 (before MIPS got bought; who
| knows what SGI will do with this)

  Have you heard anything to make you think this might change? I've read
stories of NT on R4000 and Alpha chips, so I assume the it's still going
that way.

| When it comes to floating point the PC systems just don't stand up against
| <any> of the workstation processors.  Ask anyone doing serious engineering
| work.  Their chip of choice right now is the HP PA-RISC "snake" but many of
| them will take Sparc10s if they must.

  I would rather have a Sun until someone ports UNIX to the HP, but I'm
not sure the FP advantage will be much at all on the P5. No matter how
clever you are you can always make things for less cost in higher
volume. Given that, I would expect Intel based systems to remain less
expensive to make, although the selling price may not always reflect
this. The software is still considerably cheaper for PC base, and that
keeps system cost down.

--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    A terible poker player can have a winning hand,
    A obnoxious fool can have a good idea.
    Both are winners, regardless of who has them.