From owner-freebsd-hardware  Fri Jul 11 09:30:25 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hardware>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA18749
          for hardware-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from agora.rdrop.com (root@agora.rdrop.com [199.2.210.241])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA18742
          for <freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from terra.Sarnoff.COM (terra.sarnoff.com [130.33.11.203])
	by agora.rdrop.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA12859
	for <freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from rminnich@localhost) by terra.Sarnoff.COM (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06394; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 12:27:38 -0400
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 12:27:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@Sarnoff.COM>
X-Sender: rminnich@terra
To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
cc: deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org, freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: I2O only available under NDA?
In-Reply-To: <199707111508.AAA24459@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970711122645.6378B-100000@terra>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


On Sat, 12 Jul 1997, Michael Smith wrote:
> To be honest, I think that what can be seen of their architecture
> _sucks_.  It offers little or no parallelism, and for all that the
> '960 is reasonably quick and VxWorks a fairly nice RTOS, it simply

I think you can make a pretty strong case that I2O is there to cover for 
the performance failings of Windows/NT. 

ron