Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 11:18:13 +0930 (CST) From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> To: rminnich@Sarnoff.COM (Ron G. Minnich) Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org, freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I2O only available under NDA? Message-ID: <199707120148.LAA27296@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970711122645.6378B-100000@terra> from "Ron G. Minnich" at "Jul 11, 97 12:27:38 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ron G. Minnich stands accused of saying: > > 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. One has to ask "how?". It strikes me that the extra software layers and the implicit serialisation involved in using a coprocessor will only _worsen_ the overall performance of the system. What I _don't_ see in their architecture are things like extra buffering DMA controllers, a decent PIC, etc., all of which would help drag the PC architecture up out of the 70's. > ron -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control. (ph) +61-8-8267-3493 [[ ]] Unix hardware collector. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707120148.LAA27296>