Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 07:48:29 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: StrongARM and history Message-ID: <199805192148.HAA28684@gsms01.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 18 May 1998 13:15:03 -0700 (PDT), Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> wrote: >do we have a strong-arm version of FreeBSD coming up? :-) I suspect you'll find a NetBSD version. (There was a talk at AUUG'97 on DEC's NC `DNARD', based on a SA-110. It ran an embedded version of NetBSD and XFree86. The board would have made a wonderful PC, but DEC decided not to make them available. The BOM price was USD400 including a ZIP drive - check out http://www.research.digital.com/SRC/iag). Maybe the `Itsy Pocket Computer' will reach the light of day. On Tue, 19 May 1998 09:31:10 +0100 (BST), Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> wrote: >[It still amazes me that there are so many better options than Intel and >no-one ever uses them, I agree. Bad news is that Intel have bought the StrongARM from DEC. Intel have killed or emasculated chips that threatened the x86 in the past (i432, i860, i960) - hopefully it won't happen this time. On Tue, 19 May 1998 11:20:56 -0400 (EDT), Mike <mike@ns1.seidata.com> wrote: >I've always heard (I have no motorola experience, yet) that motorola asm >blows x86 away when it comes to efficiency. I have written code for both chips. The 68k family is a dream compared to the x86. When Motorola designed it, they drew ideas from the PDP-11 and looked to the future. When Intel brought out the 8086, they looked backwards and built an enhanced 8080 (which was an enhanced 8008, which was an enhanced 4004). We've been paying the price ever since. On Tue, 19 May 1998 20:08:49 +0200 (CEST), Oliver Fromme <olli@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> wrote: >Maybe it was the biggest mistake ever made in computer history >when IBM selected the 8088 for their first PC back in 1979. Probably not from their perspective at the time. They used the newly released 8088 so that they could have a base machine with 64k RAM using the `new' 64kx1 DRAMs (the 8086 or 68000 would have meant a 16-bit bus and twice as much external RAM/ROM/drivers). They also wanted to ensure that the PC didn't compete with their low-end minis (it had roughly the same performance as an Apple II). > If they used the 68000 Actually, IBM did release a low-end machine (intended for laboratory use) based on the 68000. I recall seeing a review in BYTE. AFAIK it went nowhere. They also released an ISA-bus `370-on-a-card' that used a re-microcoded 68000 as the processor (it ran a VM/CMS variant). Apple _did_ use the 68000, but got side-lined because they insisted on a closed architecture... (And I'm getting way off line). Peter -- Peter Jeremy (VK2PJ) peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au Alcatel Australia Limited 41 Mandible St Phone: +61 2 9690 5019 ALEXANDRIA NSW 2015 Fax: +61 2 9690 5247 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805192148.HAA28684>