From: John@boole.uucp (John Ahlstrom)
Subject: Re: Computer architects forced to change careers. NOT!
Organization: Boole & Babbage, Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:47:33 GMT



In <1992Sep9.213319.7894@fasttech.uucp> zeke@fasttech.uucp (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:

>In <1992Sep9.061933.28304@news.eng.convex.com> culter@convex.com (Brad Culter) writes:

>>	I.M. Pei is a world-renowned architect who also has
>>	a reputation for designing buildings that nearly can't
>>	be built, often requiring new technology to be invented
>>	on the spot by the construction engineers. I think if
>>	a computer architect did this, she or he would be forced
>>	to change careers.

		Seymour Cray has gone into great detail about the new
 		(cooling) technology that was required to be "invented on the 
		spot by the construction engineers" for the Cray 1.  He
		was not forced to change careers.

>Not that I can tell.

>Take a look at the history of the Intel 432. Was there ever a computer
>architecture that was a worse disaster?

		Was there any "new technology" required "to be invented on
		the spot by the" logic designers, circuit designers, process
		engineers (the analog to the construction engineers)?

		I think the problem was what was seen as the requirements
		for the machine.  Particularly very small-grained security
		and the religious refusal to use faster mechanisms (e.g. jsr
		rather than protected call) even when they existed.  Other
		things like bit addressability were so new technology (cheap
		ram) would NOT have to be invented on the site by construction
		engineers.*

>And yet, those most directly responsible were (at least initially) allowed an
>almost completely free hand to architect what eventually became the Intel 960.
>The proprietary crud that was left in the 960 after some sanity prevailed
>became the cornerstone of BiiN's non-contribution to the computer industry.

		There are at least two interesting parts to a project like 432
			Conception/Requirements and 
			Execution (Design and Implementation)
		If a group has done a great job in the Execution of mistaken
		Concepts/requirements, maybe you should let them try another
		Execution.  The 960 looks like a reasonable execution of
		reasonable requirements.  At least people are buying it for
		reasons other than a multi-billion dollar installed base of
		software.  BiiN (Billions Invested In Nothing) looks like a
		bad concept.

>Probably $100e6 down the drain between the 432 and BiiN. Not even taking into
>account whether or not the 960 is a financial success or exists simply to
>salvage SOMETHING from this whole fiasco.

		See above.

>Since this is ancient history, I mention it because:

>	The concept of reward for a job well done and punishment for an abject
>	failure doesn't exist in many high-technology companies.

		Reward for well done exists in all the successful ones I know.
		Never as much as I think is deserved, sometimes not even enough
		to keep the well doers there it is true.  If you punish for
		failure you are likely to discourage trying hard things.

>	The 432 should be studied in all engineering schools as an example of
>	how NOT to design and implement a computer architecture.
		See above.  Was it 
			a bad implementation of a good architecture to meet reasonable requirements 
			a good implementation of good architecture for reasonable requirements
			a good implementation of a bad architecture for reasonable requirements
			etc?

>	When screwups like this happen, a LOT of people get hurt in the
>	resulting layoffs that endear the company to Wall Street.

>The concepts behind RISC have helped bring some sanity back into the field.
		Some of the concepts behind RISC may have helped bring...
		Some of the insights about available technology behind RISC may have ...


John Ahlstrom
I cannot confirm or deny that my opinions are or are not
shared by anyone.
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.dsp,comp.misc,comp.graphics,comp.periphs,comp.specification,sci.electronics,sci.misc