Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!torrie
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: The 68050 - end of the 680x0? (was Re: The Amiga's Future)
Message-ID: <1991Jun11.044151.17652@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: torrie@neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
References: <rkushner.6517@sycom.UUCP> <01dH!cmr@cs.psu.edu> <1991Jun10.072945.8821@neon.Stanford.EDU> <1991Jun10.083905.9329@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1991 04:41:51 GMT
Lines: 110

rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes:

>In article <1991Jun10.072945.8821@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes:
>>
>>  Actually, reading between the lines, this announcement sounds like
>>the beginning of the end for the 680x0 line.  The article says that
>>can't see how this is going to compete head-to-head with the 586.

>  Let's not engage in speculation of what the 050 will or will not be
>based on a blurb. 

  Hey, but this is .advocacy!  We're supposed to make wild speculation
here about unannounced products, aren't we?

>the 050 if it is to come out in only a year from now, will probably be
>an evolutionary upgrade like you said, 

  The information in the article is quoted from Jim Reinhart, Motorola
manager of marketing and applications for the 680x0 family.  

  "Reinhart called the 68050 an 'evolutionary' product, in that much of
its technology is derived from the '040.  But some modifications in
architecture and improvements in manufacturing will double performance
at a given clock speed, he said.  The response from customers has been
'very enthusiastic,' he said.

>however, if Intel is planning
>such drastic architecture changes the 586 may take a lot longer
>and it will be a lot more expensive (with that i860 on board).
>Intel is not the only company with RISC technology, Motorola
>could just as easily slap an 88k onboard the 050.

  Yes, except I think that unlikely.  Consider:  Intel has been
quoted in the press (specifically EE Times) as confirming that
the 80x86 will be their processor of choice for the rest of 
the 90's.  Have you heard Motorola say the same about the 680x0?
  In fact, if you look at what the 88K people at Motorola have been 
saying, it looks like they plan the 88K to be their processor 
of the 90's. 

>  Still, I don't like this sort of speculation. Motorola may only
>be discussing the 050 now, I bet designs aren't even on the board
>yet, so they could still take any path from here. 

  If Motorola plans to have the 050 out next year, I would hope that 
they have had real designs for at least the past year!  For complicated
CISC chips like these, it seems to take at least 3 years development
time.

>>  What do you think?  Will the 68050 be the last high-end member of
>>the 680x0 line?

>  I really don't think so. Intel and Motorola's bread and butter in the
>chips department come from the sales of vast quantities of the low-end
>stuff. 

  I agree, and I expect Motorola to continue to sell a lot of 68030's, 
and 68040's through the rest of this decade.  But do you think that
they will bother to do any more HIGH-END members beyond the 050?  
I have my doubts.

>I think it's dangerous to change processors on machines
>like PC's, Mac's, Amiga's, etc. You usually don't get source code
>with software on these machines, so changing the processor will probably
>fail when 100% of all previous software won't work on it. 

  Unless you add in some sort of compatibility box in the interim while
new software is being developed.

>It's the same
>effect that would happen if Apple did something like discard the MacOS
>in favor of a new one (like AmigaDOS :) , yeah it's a joke)

  Well, they're almost certainly going to do this with next years's
(??)  post-Mac generation. [but they'll retain a Mac software
compatibility until new software is developed].

>Mac is it's OS and software. If Apple enters the high-end workstation
>market with a new processor and architecture, they will be starting basically
>scratch. 

  See above.

>Besides, I think Apple might ruin the concept of
>a workstation by making it Macish. Workstations need to be
>preemptive multitasking, multiuser, memory protected, resource tracking,
>virtual memory, lots of disk space, and usuable from tty's and shells.

  Hey!  Sounds just like A/UX!

>populated with nice workstations trying to suck up more cash. I don't
>think Apple would do anything in the workstation market except
>take existing technology and chips, slap them into a new machine
>and try to sell it with a large advertising campaign as an innovative
>workstation.

  I hope Apple doesn't do this, because I don't think they'll sell a
lot of machines that way, competing as a Unix box seller.  And from
the rumours, it sounds as though they probably won't be using Unix
anyway.  I hope that they'd instead aim their RISC machines as just
high-end personal computing machines, using the increased power to
provide an even nicer user interface [e.g. voice recognition, 3-D
graphics, object-oriented operating system like PenPoint etc.]


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu   
"If it weren't for your gumboots, where would you be?   You'd be in the
hospital, or in-firm-ary..."  F. Dagg
