home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1371 biz.sco.general:5663 comp.unix.sys5.r3:442 comp.unix.sysv386:17932
- Path: sparky!uunet!hobbes!xenitec!news.byu.edu!gatech!emory!nigel.msen.com!math.fu-berlin.de!news.th-darmstadt.de!adams
- From: adams@pdv2.fmr.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de (Adams)
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
- Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
- Date: 28 Jan 93 02:16:10
- Organization: TH-Darmstadt
- Lines: 91
- Message-ID: <ADAMS.93Jan28021610@PDV2.pdv2.fmr.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de>
- References: <1993Jan18.193031.971@compu.com>
- <ADAMS.93Jan23013219@PDV2.pdv2.fmr.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de>
- <2B62D876.3982@tct.com>
- <ADAMS.93Jan25234455@PDV2.pdv2.fmr.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de>
- <2B66DBDF.3964@tct.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: pdv2.fmr.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de
- In-reply-to: chip@tct.com's message of Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:00:47 GMT
-
- To:
- In article <2B66DBDF.3964@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
-
- > >microSPARC by Ti integrates ALL onto ONE dice. Period.
- > Even the hard disk? Please enumerate what "ALL" means.
-
- I was referring to your previous mail. All mentioned components,
- CPU, FPU, Cache, DRAM and expansion bus controller are integrated.
-
- > >>And common peripheral boards for the ISA bus are
- > >>so cheap you can practically give them away.
- > >
- > >Right. Some vendors give necessary peripheral interfaces away
- > >all on a mother board. Why should I pay additionally for SCSI,
- > >ISDN, UART ?
-
- > Because when you need eight serial ports, Sun will charge an arm and
- > a leg, because they're the only ones with an inside track on the
- > development of peripherals for their own custom busses. Or are
- > third-party serial boards a thriving market in the Land of SPARCs and
- > I haven't heard about it?
-
- We need 8 lines very seldom, and if so, we buy a terminal server for
- about 1200,-- DM. Much cheaper than the [proposed] 8*SIO card
- by Technosoft,Niederlenz, Switzerland for AT for about 3800,--DM,
- which is a kind of standard here around.
-
- > >>PC UNIX rides that wave of good and cheap hardware,
- > >
- > >Given price/performance ratio a GSX board by SUN is competitive to
- > >video cards of a PC.
- We need them. And for industrial application, it is even meanwhile
- forced by law. ( Or why do think sell the expensive NOKIA monitors
- like sliced bread.)
- [ pixel jitter less than 0.05%, contrast of black/white/black strips,
- one pixel wide, at least 1:30, 71 Hz refresh rate for b/w monitors
- up to 15", 83HZ for b/w up to 17", ... colour is suggested to have at least
- 100 HZ refresh rate. Taken from faulty memory without ECC ...]
-
- > But most people don't need the performance. I don't care if a Ferrari
- > has good price/performance if I can't afford it.
-
- It depends, whether it is taken to be tool (for hard work) or toy
- (recreation). If you are going to earn enough with your Ferrari,
- why bother?
-
- > >NO. It is the add-on policy. To set up a competitive workstation
- > >for CAD [...]
- >
- > CAD is always highest-of-high-end. Talk more typical usage, please.
-
- It is typical usage here. Please have a look at my mailheader.
- "maschinenbau" stands for "mechanical engineering". I will not
- talk about a "more typical usage", as I know nothing about such.
-
- > >>>Window NT is targeted to processors like Mips R3000/R4000 and DEC/alpha.
- > >>
- > >>And the 486.
- > >
- > >Window NT developments are done on R3000, as Olivetti provides a
- > >special development station for Windows NT at better than usual
- > >conditions. All I know about Windows NT on 486: It is said to be
- > >unusable slow.
- >
- > Oh, now _there's_ a good reason to sell Intel stock. NOT!
- > There is _no_way_ that Microsoft will pass up the huge market that
- > the 486 presents. If NT is too slow, Microsoft will speed it up.
-
- Why? Microsoft did give up the Z80 market rather fast, as they
- focussed on 8088 and IBM.
-
- Are you sure they will speed it up considerably? Might it be,
- that Intels architecture does not fit well on a message passing kernel?
- In cycles, how expensive is a context switch, how expensive
- is a page remap? You know, how many descriptor tables you have to reload.
-
- > >>OS/2, microkernel or no, will run on the 486 for the forseeable future.
- > >
- > >OS/2 development is done by IBM, and IBM told the world, that
- > >OS/2 is regarded to be an "intermediate step to Distributed Computing
- > >Environment (DCE)" (Hope to have cited correctly.)
- >
- > What, you have the impression that DCE won't work on a 486?
-
- Up to now, there is no vendor. MS will do Windows, IBM will run RS/6000
- and PoweRisc. SUN may provide an aproach by Solaris4.1. OSF themselves
- are not willing.
-
- that's it, adams
-
-
-