Are Intel advertisements on billboards as ubiquitous in other places as they are here in L.A.? Everywhere I drive I keep seeing them. A few weeks ago, they had "286" in black serif type crossed out with a spray-paint-look red X. Now, the billboards say "386" in black type with "SX" in the same spray paint red as a suffix. The new ads also display "PC technology with a future" along the bottom and include a depiction of workers painting the "SX".
I think it's pretty stylish advertising. They really caught my attention. I can't think of a case where a manufacturer has so strongly denounced its old technology and urged the acceptance of a replacement.
I wonder if Intel has a primary reason for the campaign, like say, for their UNIX effort. Have the billboards been discussed in this group?
here in the Mountain View (San Jose) area, I've seen several (no)286/386SX full-page ads in the San Jose Mercury News, a fairly widely read paper in this area.
mike
p.s. how about a "(no)486-bugs" billboard? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ michael bender - bender@sun AMA # 511250 415 336-6353 (w) 415 941-3864 (h) (SPACE AVAILABLE FOR RENT) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <CRUM.89Nov8231...@alicudi.usc.edu> c...@alicudi.usc.edu (Gary L. Crum) writes:
>I think it's pretty stylish advertising. They really caught my attention. >I can't think of a case where a manufacturer has so strongly denounced >its old technology and urged the acceptance of a replacement. >I wonder if Intel has a primary reason for the campaign, like say, for >their UNIX effort. Have the billboards been discussed in this group?
A simple reason for the campaign is that the 286 is amply second-sourced by several vendors and continues to be popular, much to Intel's dismay. The entire 386 family, including the 386SX, whatever its technical merits, is as far as I know, only being produced by Intel.
-- Steve Dyer d...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer d...@arktouros.mit.edu, d...@hstbme.mit.edu
>Are Intel advertisements on billboards as ubiquitous in other places as >they are here in L.A.? Everywhere I drive I keep seeing them. A few weeks >ago, they had "286" in black serif type crossed out with a spray-paint-look >red X. Now, the billboards say "386" in black type with "SX" in the same >spray paint red as a suffix. The new ads also display "PC technology with a >future" along the bottom and include a depiction of workers painting the "SX". >I wonder if Intel has a primary reason for the campaign, like say, for >their UNIX effort. Have the billboards been discussed in this group?
Intel has competition for the 286, but none for the 386SX. I agree that it's a bold move nevertheless.
There's a hilarious article in a recent Unix World about UNIX on the 386SX. It includes quotes from some bozos who are either completely stupid or (more likely) somehow tied to 286 manufacturing interests. One guy ("analyst" Will Zachmann of Canopus Research) says that the 386 lacks the internals for real computing. And some guy from Harris (a 286 manufacturer) says that there's no good reason to go to the 386, because the 286 already supports 76% of the SX's instructions. The article goes on and on with other observations like "...when 32-bit applications are the norm, the SX machines will still be partly usable." Quite entertaining.
-- Mike McNally Lynx Real-Time Systems uucp: {voder,athsys}!lynx!m5 phone: 408 370 2233
In article <CRUM.89Nov8231...@alicudi.usc.edu> c...@alicudi.usc.edu (Gary L. Crum) writes:
>... >I can't think of a case where a manufacturer has so strongly denounced >its old technology and urged the acceptance of a replacement.
>I wonder if Intel has a primary reason for the campaign, like say, for >their UNIX effort. Have the billboards been discussed in this group?
It's quite simple really:
1) Intel single sources the 386SX, but you can buy 286es from several sources these days.
2) Intel want to create reliance on the 386 architecture (rather than the braindead 286) to create a springboard into their 386 and 486 high end. -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: r...@philmt.philips.ca Philips Electronics Ltd. | ..!{uunet|philapd|philabs}!philmtl!ray 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext : 2347 (Phonemail) St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | FAX : (514) 744-6455 TLX : 05-824090
I always thought they shoulda put the X over the '2' rather than the '8'. The way it's done right now is ambiguous (do they mean to dump the whole x86 product line?).
I had this sudden urge to sneak out at night and spray-paint "68020" in underneath. :-> -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <pe...@ficc.uu.net> <pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson qu...@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
>I can't think of a case where a manufacturer has so strongly denounced >its old technology and urged the acceptance of a replacement.
Actually, what's getting denounced here is the old technology of Harris and AMD :-). Intel is trying to steer everybody away from the 286, where they have to compete with Harris and AMD for business, to the 386sx, which they have exclusive rights to. I do admit however that the 286 starting sprouting turkey feathers some time ago... -- Ray Berry kb7ht uucp: ...ole!ray CIS: 73407,3152 /* "inquire within" */ Seattle Silicon Corp. 3075 112th Ave NE. Bellevue WA 98004 (206) 828-4422
In article <CRUM.89Nov8231...@alicudi.usc.edu> c...@alicudi.usc.edu (Gary L. Crum) writes:
>I wonder if Intel has a primary reason for the campaign, like say, for >their UNIX effort. Have the billboards been discussed in this group?
You don't suppose the fact that 286 chips are made by a zillion second sources but 386sx chips are all made by Intel would have anything to do with it? -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 jo...@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl Massachusetts has over 100,000 unlicensed drivers. -The Globe
In article <5...@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> d...@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: >The entire 386 family, including the 386SX, whatever its technical merits, >is as far as I know, only being produced by Intel.
At a seminair an Intel man told me that there is a company who has the rights to be a second source supplyer but that manufacturer did not want to produce any chips (yet) . No names were mentioned.
-- Peter Brouwer, # Philips Telecommunications and Data Systems, NET : p...@idca.tds.philips.nl # Department SSP-P9000 Building V2, UUCP : ....!mcvax!philapd!pb # P.O.Box 245, 7300AE Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. PHONE:ext [+31] [0]55 432523, # Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
From article <CRUM.89Nov8231...@alicudi.usc.edu>, by c...@alicudi.usc.edu (Gary L. Crum):
> Are Intel advertisements on billboards as ubiquitous in other places as > they are here in L.A.? Everywhere I drive I keep seeing them. A few weeks
Here in Silicon Valley they are everywhere!!!! In the news paper, in magazines, on billboards. I guess it is working because we noticed them
> I think it's pretty stylish advertising. They really caught my attention. Me too.
> I wonder if Intel has a primary reason for the campaign, like say, for > their UNIX effort.
I don't think most people realize that the 386SX is only slightly more expensive that the 286, I guess they are trying to make that fact known. It must be cheaper to manufacture the 386SX.
-- ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] TIM SIMMONS (408)434-2843 Unisys Network Computing Group - San Jose CA t...@starfish.convergent.com
IMHO it can be safely assumed that IBM has production rights for all INTEL microprocessor chips extant. -- E-mail: feus...@well.sf.ca.us HOME 1-219-484-5705 {ucbvax,apple,hplabs,pacbell}!well!feustel
The i860 and i960 families are rather nice general-purpose RISC machines. It's interesting that Intel insists on referring to them as "embedded processors". Presumably this is to avoid annoying the marketing people who are putting up all the "386" billboards. In many ways, the 860 is a better machine than the 386. It has lots of registers, almost too many. There are 32 integer registers (32 bits each), 32 floating point registers of 32 bits each, and ten other special-purpose registers. At last, Intel has a part with lots of homogeneous registers. There's on-chip floating point, an on-chip paged MMU, user/supervisor mode, and a 32-bit flat address space. Special instructions for Z-buffered graphics are provided.
Then there's the i960. This isn't a faster 860. It's a completely different architecture. Again, a flat 32-bit address space, and user/supervisor mode, but no on-chip MMU except in a special model "designed for Ada multitasking applications." The register model is different from the 860; there are "local" and "global" registers, and upon procedure call, the local registers are saved, on the stack if necessary and on-chip if possible. The instructions are different from those in the 860, and not just trivially so.
There's no visible commonality between the two families. It looks like Intel had two projects underway to build a fast RISC machine, and they both succeeded. Would someone from Intel care to comment?
Both are very fast machines. Numbers like 66 to 99 MIPS appear in the documentation. I look forward to seeing numbers from third parties. You could certainly build a workstation around either part, and it would be much faster than a '486-based workstation.
These machines are the future. The '86 line is the past.
In article <CRUM.89Nov8231...@alicudi.usc.edu> c...@alicudi.usc.edu (Gary L. Crum) writes:
Stuff deleted.
>I wonder if Intel has a primary reason for the campaign, like say, for >their UNIX effort. Have the billboards been discussed in this group?
The motive is simple: profit. There are second sources for 286's so if you buy a 286 system, Intel may not get any of the money. There is no licensed second source for the 386 so if you buy a 386 system, Intel will profit.
The main problem I see with the 80386SX is that it doesn't have a clear market. For DOS and OS/2, a fast 80286 will provide better performance, and the 80386 mode is inaccesible. For UNIX, the 80386SX is shortchanged in horsepower... The figures I've seen indicate that an 80386 UNIX and an SX is less than a happy marriage.
Now should OS/3 come out, that'd be different. But you can get a fast 286 now and change the chip if OS/3 comes out before the "486SX" :->.
Who is using 80386es? And what are you using them for? -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <pe...@ficc.uu.net> <pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson qu...@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
In article <6...@ficc.uu.net> pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>The main problem I see with the 80386SX is that it doesn't have a >clear market. For DOS and OS/2, a fast 80286 will provide better >performance, and the 80386 mode is inaccesible. For UNIX, the 80386SX >is shortchanged in horsepower... The figures I've seen indicate that >an 80386 UNIX and an SX is less than a happy marriage. >Who is using 80386es? And what are you using them for?
The 80386SX is exactly like an 80386 except for several differences. It only has a 16 bit data path (not 32) and consumes much less power as its small size (by comparison) would indicate. Where I work, we have several 386/386SX machines. The 386es are used by people who need the speed for large software development. The 386SX are used by people who don't need as much speed, in fact, we have on up as a file server on the LAN. The 386SX, we believe, is an affordable solution to the 386 architecture, which I believe is quite superior to the 286 architecture because of better multi-tasking and virtual memory abilities. In fact, as a Beta Site for Windows 3.0, the new Windows 3.0 will run in either 286 mode or 386 protected mode. But Windows preforms much, much better in 386 mode since it can acquire much more memory and handle tasks more efficiently. OS/2, I believe, must also have a 386/386SX to run. Not to mention the benefits of the new 32 bit ABIOS coming out in the new PS/2 line and other clone lines. I agree that the 386SX is not suited well for UNIX, but Intel just announced the 385SX cache which should boost its speed considerably to about that of a 25MHZ 386 (compared to a 16 MHZ 386SX w/ 385SX).
-Thomas J. Dimitri tom...@cs.arizona.edu "I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the type of person that I'm preaching to!" J.R. Bob Dobbs
In article <1...@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> tommyd@caslon (Thomas J. Dimitri) writes:
> .... The 386SX, >we believe, is an affordable solution to the 386 architecture, which I >believe is quite superior to the 286 architecture because of better >multi-tasking and virtual memory abilities...
The 80286 represents the STONE AGE in CPU technology...
> ..... OS/2, >I believe, must also have a 386/386SX to run...
Wrong! That is the biggest problem with OS/2; it was designed specifically for the 16-bit, segmented-architecture of the 80286. No paging, no virtual 86 mode, no 4Gbyte segments... :-( You'll have to wait awhile until the developers at Microsoft finish OS/2, so it can use those things. But then, why wait - UNIX gives you that and more TODAY! (Couldn't resist... :-)
DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are mine and not those of my employer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Braaten | "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Internet: e...@imuse.intel.com | Lord', will enter the kingdom of heaven, EUnet: unido!imuse!ed | but only he who does the will of my Subnet: e...@braaten.UUCP | Father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an Intel shareholder, I find the billboards to be a transparently offensive attempt to keep users locked into a proprietary, single-source architecture.
Microsoft, Intel and IBM are working it from the software side, too, via a thing called OS/2.
The 386SX chip may not cost much more than the 286, but the final price of 386SX systems are substantially higher. I think the 386SX exists in order to keep the price unreasonably high for the 386.
Anyone see that article in Business Week where an Intel VP (David House?) said that the American RISC chip designer/manafacturers licensing those designs to the Japanese was criminal? While he may have a point in that the agreements do give the Japanese more capability to compete in the high-performance microprocessor market, it is fairly obvious that the extra clout it puts behind the various non-Intel RISC chips may give one of them enough strength to supercede the currently dominant proprietary Intel CISC architecture -- and Intel would clearly view that more directly as a threat to Intel itself, despite that VP's trying to present it as an America vs. Japan issue.
As long as I'm rambling, here's something that I find really amazing: Apple is a four billion dollar a year company, while Intel does only three billion a year. How may products does Apple have total? One, in a way... the Mac and its derivitaves. How many does Intel have? Thousands, probably. It's little wonder Apple is trying to use the legal system to stake out substantial protection for concepts and ideas they more or less got from Xerox, since that's about the only thing they have to differentiate themselves from everybody else. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first." -- Pascal
