From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 16474 invoked from network); 10 May 2021 14:27:21 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 10 May 2021 14:27:21 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id E45509B92B; Tue, 11 May 2021 00:27:20 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456AC9B8C1; Tue, 11 May 2021 00:26:34 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="g9y2bspF"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id B8A809B8C1; Tue, 11 May 2021 00:26:31 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qk1-f179.google.com (mail-qk1-f179.google.com [209.85.222.179]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E3029B890 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 00:26:31 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qk1-f179.google.com with SMTP id i67so15463340qkc.4 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 07:26:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4PnbmUGSJzuEbwKfHWUcI+n6hljf1IYGuqqvUfTds6c=; b=g9y2bspFag6jyVywEf/psGFhc05u67b1zemi7P0FVmQxRNVwVl++IK3MvS2zCbi5q6 OrOfSkbv35S3dzr+ZsA2bjh1KlysVcXntAR1gKaR/3pwWdap5mf66KVpRxYKr32mvYvj LzuqoH3SBsemgQivPawSLalejglxnyg5FXpsc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4PnbmUGSJzuEbwKfHWUcI+n6hljf1IYGuqqvUfTds6c=; b=LEitC7JVBw0+C/nYb4GT4zEwWSOPF9y1LglZqe3W0epngIJSb8BoHP8KzfKYH5QpfW u9sfYjieJhLks9BiLYSzyk2QJu3ugTs95QJphOthxR99nvdzHheTZzsSw2uZ5Iav0DAj K+zhPQCGSW5pTG/62zs9SB1ytsKCuMLC6V7s6rGC8XoLs1ysv2hL+3XuKMf6hXq/Nt8v U8119EzYM0cDlntjx8jc+zONmWHhJq+K4818I9aNYuJcuADBiNdrp3d0eYf7OwVr/eFB h2IRVXosEuFBglj+aOnK99AXuuqWptPrmPfrIB36NRpff0COVLJVwzpNgS7e5PICYr6e X7Og== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ekELpYRphvSxJC+10K7ivq6rexqvWAonGIMjVzlH0FqbaKAki aPYtwsNvCt61Rea/ylSQC7sufreGigzthipHu802Sg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwrrIq9ndInubal/ERLJ6fiDbHSixGtlz061KgCP5AUj4z1172sPK5M6qsibWlpq54jVH1NBXlv7BgWVBSzMIE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:24b:: with SMTP id q11mr3860997qkn.25.1620656790007; Mon, 10 May 2021 07:26:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210509195745.GS2329@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20210509195745.GS2329@mcvoy.com> From: Clem Cole Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 10:26:03 -0400 Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000045880605c1fa901e" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Genix / early 80's VM variants X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list , Paul Ruizendaal Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000045880605c1fa901e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 3:58 PM Larry McVoy wrote: > Pretty sure Bill Jolitz either had a 32016 Unix or he was also selling > similar boxes. National couldn't get it together to produce bug free > chips or maybe we'd all be running that, pretty nice architecture > (in theory). > He did. It was about the size and form factor of the Compaq 'luggable.' IIRC hBill used a flavor of the multibus, which made a large power supply and more expensive peripherals (although Sun, Masscomp, and Apollo were also using Multibus in those days -- as Multibus was cheaper than the Unibus or QBUS). Bill's computer showed up at about the same times as the Sun-2, which was 68010 based. As Yale Pratt once said of the NS32016 ISA, 'it was a VAX/780 cleaned up but on a single chip'. Still technically a CISC, but did had fewer specialty features (more like PDP-10 in that what Bill Wulf used to call a 'regular and complete' architecture). Conceptually the ISA more powerful than the 68000 ISA, but it lacked a good compiler (*a.k.a.* 'production quality' compiler) that could exploit it, and as you point out, Nat Semi had a difficult time producing them. Funny, the compiler issue was SOP for the chip folks in those times as they had traditionally relied on 3rd parties to build the compiler for them - they would put out an assembler (usually written in Fortran-IV), make the assembler 'open source' and let the ecosystem go from there. Compiler houses (such as Green Hills, MCA, Frieberghouse, and PG) had to decide if they wanted to invest in that new ISA or not if they could not get someone else to pay them to write one for it. The systems folks (like DEC/DG knew that was not good enough). Sun was just awakening to that fact and I >>think<< it would have been around then that they started their real compiler team (Rob G -- you probably know more than I do here). Anyway, I always felt it was the compiler that killed them as much as Nat Semi's well-known Si production issues. Also, so many of us were ignoring the PC because it was based on the x86, that we did not realize that the PC's ISA bus was 'good enough (Masscomp never built anything with it, and Apollos did not until they finally did the DN3000 a couple of years later and I think it was not until RR that Sun tried). But in the end, the 386 'won' for economic reasons -- by being on the PC ecosystem much cheaper peripherals snd eventually got the ability to solve the addressing issues so you could run large programs on it, so the fact that it had the worst ISA did not matter. I've always wondered if a Nat Semi NS32016 based system running in a PC/AT form factor had appeared that was priced like a PC/AT if that might have had a chance. Clem =E1=90=A7 =E1=90=A7 =E1=90=A7 --00000000000045880605c1fa901e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 3:58 = PM Larry McVoy <lm@mcv= oy.com> wrote:
Pretty sure Bill Jolitz either had a 32016 Unix or he was also sellin= g
similar boxes.=C2=A0 National couldn't get it together to produce bug f= ree
chips or maybe we'd all be running that, pretty nice architecture
(in theory).
He did.=C2=A0 It was about the size a= nd form factor of the Compaq 'luggable.'=C2=A0 IIRC hBill used a fl= avor of the multibus, which made a large power supply and more expensive pe= ripherals (although Sun, Masscomp, and Apollo were also using=C2=A0Multibus= in those days -- as Multibus was cheaper than the Unibus or QBUS).=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 Bill's computer showed up at about the same times as the Sun-2, = which was 68010 based.

As Ya= le Pratt once=C2=A0said of the NS32016 ISA, 'it was a VAX/780 cleaned u= p but on a single chip'.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Still technically a CISC, but did = had=C2=A0fewer specialty features (more like PDP-10 in that what=C2=A0Bill = Wulf used to call a 'regular and complete' architecture).=C2=A0 Con= ceptually the ISA more powerful than the 68000 ISA, but it lacked a good co= mpiler (a.k.a. 'production quality' compiler) that could exp= loit it, and as you point out, Nat Semi had a difficult time producing them= .=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Funny, the compiler issue was SOP for the chip folks in thos= e times as they had traditionally relied on 3rd parties to build the compil= er for them - they would put out an assembler (usually written in Fortran-I= V), make the assembler 'open source' and let the ecosystem go from = there.=C2=A0 Compiler houses (such as Green Hills, MCA, Frieberghouse, and = PG) had to decide if they wanted to invest in that new ISA or not if they c= ould not get someone else to pay them to write one for it.=C2=A0 The system= s folks (like DEC/DG knew that was not good enough).=C2=A0 =C2=A0Sun was ju= st awakening to that fact and I >>think<< it would have been ar= ound then that they started their real compiler team (Rob G -- you probably= know more than I do here).=C2=A0 Anyway, I always felt it was the compiler= that killed them as much as Nat Semi's well-known Si production issues= .

Also, so many of us were i= gnoring the PC because it was based on the x86, that we did not realize tha= t the PC's ISA bus was 'good enough=C2=A0(Masscomp never built anyt= hing with it, and Apollos did not until they finally did the DN3000 a coupl= e of years later and I think it was not until RR that Sun tried).=C2=A0=C2= =A0But in the end, the 386 'won' for economic reasons -- by being on = the PC ecosystem much cheaper peripherals snd= =C2=A0eventually got the ability to solve the addressing issues so you coul= d run large programs on it, so the fact that it had the worst ISA di= d not matter.

I've always wondered if a Nat Semi= NS32016 based system running in a PC/AT form factor had appeared that was = priced like a PC/AT if that might have had a chance.=C2=A0

Clem

<= div>
3D""<= font color=3D"#ffffff" size=3D"1">=E1=90=A7
3D""=E1=90=A7
3D""=E1=90=A7
--00000000000045880605c1fa901e--