more on the 386!
Ken Shoemaker
for this note being a little late, I was out of town for a while, but as
a result, unix has now been running on the 386 on 3 continents!
Second, I'm sorry that the information number posted doesn't work outside
the US. If you want the info, and cannot call the number, just drop me
a note, and I will call it for you. Please do this only if you can't call,
as I have a life to get on with, too! If you've already sent me a note,
I have already called. If you don't get your stuff within a few weeks,
send another, your note probably ended up in someone's bit bucket!
There has been a bit of confusion about plugging the 386 into an AT. While
it is possible, it requires an interface card, since at 132 pins, the
386 isn't drop-in, pin compatible with the 286. What the 386 does provide
is a 16-bit bus option, which makes running the 386 into the AT socket
(or any other 286 socket) pretty simple. While the card that I have here
uses 7 chips to do it, I've heard that some of our customers get away
with as few as 3. Also, with the simple minded interface cards we use,
we introduce a wait state over the 286, and run at the same speed as the
286. This makes us incredibly bus bound, and what this means is that you don't
get much of a performance improvement with this interface card running
straight 286 code. In fact, depending on the application, yet another
wait state can lead to a slight performance degradation. Of course, if
you wanted to go all out, make an asynchronous card, and run the 386
at 16 MHz, you'd probably get more of an improvement. And, again, if
you were to re-compile your programs to take advantage of the architectural
enhancements of the 386, you could also get more of a performance improvement.
For us, the main idea of the interface card was to allow us to run as much
software as early as possible to check out the chip. Being able to plug
the 386 into the PC-ATs out there and still have a functional PC-AT (you
really still can run Lotus, Wordstar, Flight Simulator, whatever) is
a great way to check out the 386 and to allow early software development
for the 386, but it isn't a real good way to benchmark the part for
performance.
As to the operating system that we are running here, this is a modified
version of xenix 286, release 3 for the Intel 286/310 box. Using the same
interface card as is used in a PC-AT, I have plugged the 386 into the
286 socket on the 286/10 card. This is a fully protected mode 286
operating system, using the integrated memory management and protection
hardware of the 286, and now the 386. While it would be possible to
compile and execute programs on the box (in fact, it has been done),
this is not an appropriate showcase for the 386 performance, since the
compiled code would also run on a 286, and because we are running over
a 16-bit bus at 1/3 the clock rate of the 386 with (I think) 3 wait
states. I am working right now on being able to run 386 code on
a 386 system. This entails adding a loader to xenix to handle the
32-bit programs, and porting xenix 286 over to the 386/20 card I have
right here (and a few other modifications to the kernel, which could
be major or minor, depending on how carried away I get). I really don't
know when this will be done, since I am going to be away again in a few
days for a few weeks. In the interum, others here are looking for alternate
ways to run benchmarks. Their results should be available shortly.
If you are looking for other information about the 386, you can look in
the October 17th issue of Electronic Design, wherein is contained our
intro article, which is the first of a three-part series. Of course,
most any other electronic magazine, newspaper, what have you, has had
some mention about the 386. We even made the Wall Street Journal and
the London Times.
And finally a correction. Pete Kaiser at DEC notified me that the
MicroVAX II was running Ultrix on the net before they announced it.
I guess that puts us in good company!
-------------------
Ken Shoemaker, 386 design team, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, California
{hplabs,pur-ee,qantel,amdcad,dual}!intelca!i80386!kds
{hplabs,pur-ee,qantel,amdcad,dual}!intelca!kds
Dave Brownell
> First, thanks for all the offers of congratulations! Second, an apology
> for this note being a little late, I was out of town for a while, but as
> a result, unix has now been running on the 386 on 3 continents!
***** FLAMES ON MEDIUM
Looks like there's now a USENET machine dedicated to deluging us with
i80386 ADVERTISING. I've seen at least TWO of the EIGHT postings from
that machine. They've been almost ALL ADVERTISING. (Neat trick, using
thousands of dollars of other people's money to keep your advertising
budget down.)
To summarize key points of the posting:
0) UNIX (?? XENIX ??) is running on the 386 in 3 continents.
1) The 800 number is good only in the US.
2) Please not so much USENET mail, I have work to do.
3) There's a small '386 card that plugs into a '286 socket.
4) XENIX rel 3 runs on the '386 using '286 code.
5) See 10/17 Electronic Design for one of three articles on '386.
6) Also see WSJ & London Times.
THERE IS NO REASON FOR THIS TO TAKE 69 LINES. See the above summary.
THERE IS NO REASON FOR MOST OF IT TO BE ON USENET. Only numbers 3 & 4
are technical. Number 5 is also of interest to technoids. But the rest,
and the size, are suitable only for marketing pronouncements. The prose
was the sort of breathless rave I'm more used to hearing from
soon-to-be-heartbroken adolescents.
Of what technical interest is it that Intel has delivered boxes on two
other islands? OR that they have a good PR staff? OR that there is no
international 800 service? OR that too much EMAIL keeps you from your job?
(None of this can be a surprise to those of us born with heads.)
Here's one vote for net.dev-null.intel.
> And finally a correction. Pete Kaiser at DEC notified me that the
> MicroVAX II was running Ultrix on the net before they announced it.
> I guess that puts us in good company!
TALK ABOUT PUBLIC BACK-PATTING ...
***** FLAMES OFF
Yes there's no doubt that the '386 is significant, given PCs and Clones.
But the sort of netiquette displayed by the advertising I've seen here
makes me ill. Please, folks at Intel, provide only REAL TECHNICAL INFO
using REAL TECHNICAL PROSE. Even if you are (justifiably) proud at
getting your product out the door.
--
David Brownell
EnMasse Computer Corp
...!{harvard,talcott,genrad}!enmasse!dave
Roger Klorese
>In article <8...@i80386.UUCP> k...@i80386.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker) writes:
>> First, thanks for all the offers of congratulations! Second, an apology
>> for this note being a little late, I was out of town for a while, but as
>> a result, unix has now been running on the 386 on 3 continents!
>
>***** FLAMES ON MEDIUM
>
>Looks like there's now a USENET machine dedicated to deluging us with
>i80386 ADVERTISING.
>
>are technical. Number 5 is also of interest to technoids. But the rest,
>and the size, are suitable only for marketing pronouncements.
This is not a TECHNICAL network. It is a USER'S network. I use
UNIX-based machines in a technical AND marketing role - I'm a customer
support representative. It's of interest to me. Get your head
out of your white socks and penholder. Information is information,
and for a poor merely-semi-techie like myself, it's more memorable
and of more use sugar-coated than as YASSS (Yet Another Stupid
Spec Sheet).
Besides which, it should be the role of impartial folks - Livermore,
Jack Dongarra, etc., to publish benchmarks. Anyone who believes
vendor generated performance numbers deserves what they get.
(Which, at the risk of over-marketing-hyping you, Celerity supplies
the Livermore Loops and Argonne numbers, as well as a copy of
Whetstone you can run YOURSELF on our system.)
LIGHTEN UP. We don't ALL live in a world of MIPS, FIPS, WHIPS, DRIPS,
and (most of all) dips.
--
... "What were you expecting, rock'n'roll?"
Roger B.A. Klorese
Celerity Computing, 40 Speen St., Framingham, MA 01701, (617) 872-1772
UUCP: seismo!harvard!bu-cs!celtics!roger
ARPA: celtics!ro...@bu-cs.ARPA
Erik Freed
> UNIX-based machines in a technical AND marketing role - I'm a customer
> support representative. It's of interest to me. Get your head
> out of your white socks and penholder. Information is information,
> and for a poor merely-semi-techie like myself, it's more memorable
> and of more use sugar-coated than as YASSS (Yet Another Stupid
> Spec Sheet).
>
flames, I take some of the blame for the rather non-useful nature of
this discussion. It has however brought about at least my awareness
of a gross mis-understanding of the netiquette of a *TECHNICAL* newgroup.
This net is a forum for technical imformation and dialogue. There are a
lot of people (me included) who read it with great interest and spend the
*TIME* to read it because it has something which is not readily available
in the HYPE we are bombarded with day and night by salesman and the media.
In the article in question, there were gross violations of that spirit,
most of the article could have been cut out. All of us can call Intel and
get glossy brochures if we want to. Just as we, as Usenet readers, can
object to poorly written and unverified articles, we can object to
articles which should have been less hype and more insiders info. I don't
care whether one person or 20 find it interesting. I for one can not stand
*MORE* hype in my life. So if this kind of stuff is okay, you all are going
to find the really knowledgable people unsubscribing and it will be your loss.
They usually can barely justify the time as it is. I am sure that there are
others that feel the same way. If we let Intel direct that stuff here then It
is a precedent that will ruin what we have!
So to the person from Intel; please keep on posting, just watch your
hype we don't need it. We do however welcome insider's info with great glee.
Sorry for the waste this discussion has called.
imformed, just keep it relevant and
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik James Freed
Aurora Systems
San Francisco, CA
{dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed
Phil Ngai
>> First, thanks for all the offers of congratulations! Second, an apology
>> for this note being a little late, I was out of town for a while, but as
>> a result, unix has now been running on the 386 on 3 continents!
>***** FLAMES ON MEDIUM
>Looks like there's now a USENET machine dedicated to deluging us with
>i80386 ADVERTISING. I've seen at least TWO of the EIGHT postings from
>that machine. They've been almost ALL ADVERTISING.
Hey, Ken was the guy who ported Xenix to the first silicon of a device
which is among the most complicated ever designed. I would think
people would be pleased to hear from such a primary source. It's not
as though he were marketing slime. He's a real engineer/programmer.
And I think he has a right to be proud of this accomplishment.
Would you be upset if Dennis Ritche posted an article about Unix
on USENET?
>thousands of dollars of other people's money to keep your advertising
>budget down.)
The question is whether members of this net want to hear such things.
The answer seems to be, for the most part, yes. And it isn't as though
the postings were that many bytes. Try reading net.flame or net.audio
as a comparison.
And intelca does more than its share for the net, they aren't just a
free-loading leaf node.
It would be a shame if postings such as yours inhibited the good
technical people like Ken Shoemaker from sharing with the network.
--
The California Lottery may be a tax on the stupid, but at least
some of the proceeds are used for education.
Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!ph...@decwrl.dec.com
Mike D McEvoy
>using REAL TECHNICAL PROSE. Even if you are (justifiably) proud at
>getting your product out the door.
>--
>David Brownell
>EnMasse Computer Corp
Dave
A very wise man - Lazurus Long (Time Enough For Love, Robert Heinlien)
once wrote:
"One mans religion is another man's belly laugh".
To slightly paraphrase, one man's marketing BS is another man's technical
description. Marketing/management people usually can't help the fact that
they take four times the needed (minimum) time to express their thoughts.
I think if you would run a survey, you would find that the majority of the net
enjoyed INTEL's description more than your summary.
Big Mac
PS Hope you've recovered from your INTEL induced illness.