HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roell@informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Thomas Roell)
Subject: Re: ET4000/W32 and VESA VL-Bus
	<1992Dec20.153314.24148@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
	<BzKqwn.5vA@wimsey.bc.ca> <003g02AH30U501@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Organization: Inst. fuer Informatik, Technische Univ. Muenchen, Germany
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 09:21:01 GMT

>Don't overlook bus width in your analysis.  The W32 sounds like it is 32 bit
>wide path instead of the 8 (16?) - bit wide path of the standard ET4000.
>This would quadruple (double?) the bandwidth of any type of ram access.

Hmmm.... this would be an argument, depending on what you mean.

Normally you have TWO busses on a graphics chip, the bus to the video
memory and the bus to the host system (and if you have VRAMs, the bus
to the RAMDAC is a third one). The DRAM (video memory) bus is
traditionally 32 bit wide, since 1MB DRAM is build from 8 256x4 DRAM
chips. The host bus (read ISA/EISA/MCA) is normally 16bit wide. That
means your argument dosn't apply here directly.

BUT thet ET4000/W32 has a 32bit wide host bus interfeace which means
the path 486 -> ET4000/W32 will be faster throu the increased bus
width, but that doesn't affect the internal access time to video
memory. In fact if you assume that the VL bus has a write throuput of
33MB/sec (yes, this was actually measured, not a theoretical limit),
then the DRAM access sped of the ET4000/W32 will limit your
performance again.

- Thomas




--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Das Reh springt hoch, 				e-mail: roell@sgcs.com
das Reh springt weit,				#include <sys/pizza.h>
was soll es tun, es hat ja Zeit ...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Booting DOS or Unix optionally from the same HD?
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:18:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.234617.28222@netcom.com> ergo@netcom.com (Isaac Rabinovitch) writes:
>In <Bzxr0I.DJD@ais.org> lewis@ais.org (David T. Lewis) writes:

>>My Zenith Z-241 (6MHz AT clone) provides this service in BIOS.

>I used to have a Z248, and found the special features of its BIOS very
>nice.  (I didn't have multiple OSs, but it was handy to turn off the
>"try to boot from the floppy" feature that standard BIOSes force on
>us.)  But Zenith's many "improvements" can be a serious problem.
>For example, a Zenith replacement power supply costs $250 (vs. $50 for
>an IBM clone)!  My experience with this sort of problem made me
>permanently wary of Zenith computer products.

So you don't buy a Zenith supply - you buy a replacement.  I
recently had a client get quoted $450  for a an AT&T 6386
machine PS.       Made by Alitec in Italy.

So I found a company that makes replacements.  Not identical -
the replacement has 50W more power and comes with a 2 year
guarantee, all at $135.      

Those who made propietary power-supplies put other
manufacturers in business.   A company called Power Plus
Systems - in Salt Lake city makes them.

They have replacement 'compatible' power supplies for such
propietary names, as Compaq, AST, Zenith, IBM, NCR, Apple.

The moral, if there is one, is not to price yourself out of the
replacement market if you want to sell future machines.  Most
people don't seem to know about secondary sourcing.

-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill@bilver.uucp
                - ..!{peora|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:888 comp.unix.sysv386:17614 comp.unix.bsd:10604 comp.os.linux:21570
From: johnhm@russ.cc.monash.edu.au (John Morris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sysv386,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: ET4000/W32 and VESA VL-Bus
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:19:16 GMT
Organization: Monash University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Thomas Roell (roell@informatik.tu-muenchen.de) wrote:
: >does anyone already using the new ET4000/W32 chip, perhaps in an
: >VESA VL local bus version? How is the performance compared with
: >ET4000AX and does it work with XFree86 1.1?
: 
: I think nobody actually uses the ET4000/W32 currently, since I don't
: know any SHIPPING hardware yet. I do assume that the ET4000/W32 is
: much faster than the ET4000, based upon some expiriance I had with
: other DRAM based accelerators. Take for example the WD90C31 (DS24X).
: If you use the SVGA only driver you'll get around 9000 xstones, if you
: use a driver that uses the internal acceleration capablities, you'll
: get around 45000. It would assume that the latter number is the lower
: limit for the ET4000/W32s performance. 
: 
: But there are some constraints you should think of:
: 
: a) The performance of a DRAM based accellerator depends VERY much upon
:    the refresh frequency (i.e. dot-clock). Let's say you have a DRAM
:    bandwidth of 100MB/sec (let's assume it doesn't matter wether these
:    are RAS/CAS or RAS/multiple-CAS cycles). If you use a 1024x768 60Hz
:    resolution, you need about 65MB/sec for screen refresh only. This
:    leaves you with around 35MB/sec for doing graphics. If you use
:    1024x768 72Hz, you need 75MB/sec for screen refresh. That means you
:    have only 25MB/sec for doing graphics. If you consider that you can
:    use the fast page mode accesses for screen refresh only and most of
:    the graphics operation won't be able to use them (since they are
:    interruped by screen refresh cycles), this computation is in fact
:    over optimisitic.
: 
: - Thomas
: 
: --
  The ET4000AX does have support for VRAM (I have the chip manual), its
just that most ET4000 boards use DRAM because its a bit cheaper. I
assume the ET4000W32 also has VRAM support, so it will be up to board 
manufacturers to come out with VRAM designs. I also hope that the video
memory can be accessed 32 (or 24) bits at a time for 24bit colour.

				John

: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: Supporting *BIG* Drives <was: Adaptec 1742A on ISC-3.0>
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:47:54 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1992Dec19.004318.10508@twg.com>, david@twg.com (David Herron) writes:

| Our drive is "only" 600 megs and it's working fine and without problems
| even.  And we're mucho happy with the performance on this new system.  Going
| from a 16 MHz '386 (8 megs RAM and 600 megs ESDI disk) to 50 MHz '486
| on EISA (16 megs RAM and 600 megs SCSI) reduced the time to compile
| our product from 10 hours(!) to 1.5 hours...
| 
| Dunno if things is any worse with hughmungo drives like 2 gigs.
| 
| I'm still running the SCSI card in 154x mode with the above settings.
| I tried configuring it for enhanced mode, but the system refused to
| boot then.  Don't remember the problem but was along the lines of being
| unable to find the disk.  And after 1.5 weeks "wasted" in configuring
| this system I'm tired of fiddling with it...

  I'm convinced that the secret to good compilation performance is using
a cache with writeback enabled. failing in this add about 16MB of RAM
for the system to use for buffers, use the shared libraries, and put
the compiler on ramdisk.

  Use sar to watch the "queue time" of i/o requests, and add memory
until the time stops dropping like a rock.

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sysv386,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
From: bhenning@wimsey.bc.ca (Bill Henning)
Subject: Re: ET4000/W32 and VESA VL-Bus
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 02:03:50 GMT

In article <003g02AH30U501@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> gab10@griffincd.amdahl.com (Gary A Browning) writes:
>In article <BzKqwn.5vA@wimsey.bc.ca>, bhenning@wimsey.bc.ca (Bill
>Henning) writes:
>> The problem with DRAM based accelerators, even if they get 160Mb/sec
>> bandwidth out of the DRAM's is that the bandwidth is not
>> random-access,
...
>> even if the bus interface to the local bus supports it.
>> 
>> Bill
>
>Don't overlook bus width in your analysis.  The W32 sounds like it is 32 bit
>wide path instead of the 8 (16?) - bit wide path of the standard ET4000.
>This would quadruple (double?) the bandwidth of any type of ram access.
>
>-- 
>Gary Browning        | Exhilaration is that feeling you get just after a
>		     | great idea hits you, and just before you realize
>                     | what is wrong with it.

I was already assuming 32 bit bus access - otherwise performance is MUCH
worse.

Bill
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: ucrudy@socrates.umd.edu (Rudy Zulkarnain)
Subject: Question on AT&T sysv386 ?
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:36:02 GMT

Hello Everyone:

I have AT&T sysv386 version 3.2 and I am having trouble trying to install
it on my PC which has this configuration: 386 AMD - 40 Mhz, 200 Meg SCSI
drive (currently partitioned and formatted by DOS), 800x600 VGA monitor. 
When I boot my computer using the 1st disk of the base system, I get "Booting
Unix Operating System...." message.  After a while, everything stop.  No
light appear on the drive, no message appear on the screen and neither
can I do anything.  Do anyone has the same experience as I do?
Can anyone know what is the problem? Please post or E-mail me.

Thank you.

Rudy
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Employment generated by GNU versus Bill Gates
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:19:08 GMT

In article <BURLEY.92Dec25133453@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu> burley@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes:

>I've read that even IBM was unaware of the splash the PC would make,
>and had intended MS-DOS and such as a short-term way to "measure" the
>market's response to this new and strange little product, the idea being,
>I think, that they'd later come out with something "real" if the market
>test proved successful.  Apparently it proved successful far beyond their
>imagining, so much so that later coming out with something much cheaper
>but that didn't meet with people's expectations of IBM keyboard quality and
>that didn't seem fully compatible with the "standard" PC (I'm referring to
>the PCjr), it failed.

Comment to the last item first.   The PC jr was not the first nor the
last of their 'failures'.   

What is known as the PC today, was actually IBM's 3rd attempt at
building a "personal computer".    Sales expectations were hoped to be
50,000/year - and I seem to remember that was for a 5 year life.

The sales were abysmal at first.   PC's were starting to be noticed but
there were many who said "I won't buy a computer until IBM makes one.".

Believe me, that was an oft heard comment in those days.   I remember
playing/examing one of the first units out.  It was about 30 days after
the first showing, and you can be assured that DOS 1.0, with 160k
single sided floppies, 64k max on the motherboard, using 16k chips, and
a monochrome monitor, all in the close to $3000 price range was nothing
to write home about.

The industry wasn't sure whether it was going to happen or not.   And
only when DOS 2.0 came out, did things start to happen.  And after a
few manufactureres started offering 5 Meg add-on external hard-drives
for $2500 did it start to become a serious machine.   That interest
begat the XT, which is really the machine sparked the revolution.
Sales finally started to get serious about then.   And with the advent
of the AT with it's 'blazing speed', did the IBM architecture start to
make impact.  Up until then many people were sneering at the PC/XT
machines because their Z80 and 8080 based systems would run rings
around the IBM based product.

I waited until '83 to get a PC, because 2.0 looked like a decent OS
from what I could see.    Boy was I fooled :-).  Looked good on the
surface but was limited IMO.   Within a year I had given up the
wonderful world of PC-DOS, and moved to the *IX side of things.
Life has been nicer since then :-)

-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill@bilver.uucp
                - ..!{peora|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: PC-Clone UNIX Hardware Buyer's Guide
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:11:29 GMT

In article <1780@ocpt.ccur.com> pechter@ocpt.ccur.com (Bill Pechter) writes:
> In article <id.4SOV.6D2@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
> >Remember, an FPU was an extra cost option on the PDP-11.

> Sure was and System III (or was it SysV R0 on the 11/70) wouldn't run without
> one.

Funny... Version 7 did fine. I was actually surprised when I started using
DOS that it *didn't* have an FPU emulator.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                            `-_-'
Ferranti International Controls Corporation                'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012 USA
+1 713 274 5180                            "Zure otsoa besarkatu al duzu gaur?"
From: newsman@stein.u.washington.edu (Christian Ricci)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Does the new Linux SLS ........
Date: 23 Dec 92 06:23:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec23.062307.14866
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Does the new Linux SLS distribution include a version of X11 that will run
on generic VGA or is it still ET4000 specific(practicaly)?  

Thanks!
Chris
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: ergo@netcom.com (Isaac Rabinovitch)
Subject: Re: Booting DOS or Unix optionally from the same HD?
Organization: UESPA
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 23:46:17 GMT

In <Bzxr0I.DJD@ais.org> lewis@ais.org (David T. Lewis) writes:

>In article <1992Dec26.231830.2301@weyrich.UUCP> 
>uunet.uu.net!weyrich!orville writes:

>. . .

>>I have never seen a BIOS that provides boot manager services -- although
>>I am sure that it could be done. 

>My Zenith Z-241 (6MHz AT clone) provides this service in BIOS.  I use it
>to boot either DOS or Microport System V/AT.  It also permits booting
>from a partition on the second hard drive.  I don't know if Zenith still
>supports this feature in current machines.

I used to have a Z248, and found the special features of its BIOS very
nice.  (I didn't have multiple OSs, but it was handy to turn off the
"try to boot from the floppy" feature that standard BIOSes force on
us.)  But Zenith's many "improvements" can be a serious problem.
For example, a Zenith replacement power supply costs $250 (vs. $50 for
an IBM clone)!  My experience with this sort of problem made me
permanently wary of Zenith computer products.

-- 

	ergo@netcom.com 			Isaac Rabinovitch
        {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!ergo	Santa Cruz, CA
	
	Abstinence makes the heart grow rounder.
		-- Prescot Gooberstein
From: reich@unlinfo.unl.edu (stephen reichenbach)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: FAQ? i486 with Unix and X
Date: 21 Dec 1992 22:44:36 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: global
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

If there is an FAQ to answer these questions, please point the way.
Otherwise, I ask your advice.

I am going to purchase a i486-based system and plan to run both Unix/Xwindows
MSwindows.  I would like to get some feedback with regard to what I should or
should not buy (esp., what might make it difficult or impossible to run Unix
with Xwindows).  I am a computer scientist, but have expertise in software
not hardware and don't know much about the ix86 machines.  For about 6 years,
I have had a Televideo 386 on which I ran Microport SysV Unix (neither company
has prospered), but it died.

Anyway, some specific questions:

0) What are the considerations of which Unix to use (386bsd, linux,
etc.)?  With my current system, I like being able to bring up either
Unix or DOS, to have the hard disk partitioned between DOS and Unix,
and to copy files between partitions.  Will I be able continue to do that?

1) What do I need to know when buying hardware?  In particular:
        a) Is 8MB RAM enough to get run X86?
        b) Which color SVGA graphics cards are supported and which are not?
                Which work best with X86?
        c) Is the Paradise Window Accelerator card any use with X86?
        d) Can I use a "local video bus architecture"?  (The guy at
                the store says he uses "G series".)
        e) What should I know about hard drive support?  How much disk
                is required for the various Unixs and for X86?
        f) Is there anything about the mouse support I should know?
        g) Is there support for Colorado tape backup units?
        h) Are high-speed modems supported?  What about fax modems?
        i) Is there support for the multi-media kits---CDRom,
                Soundblaster, etc.?
        j) What about laser printers, both HP-compatible and Postscript,
                are they supported?
        k) What about scanners?

I will be glad to receive specific suggestions (e.g., "You should get . . . .")
understanding that people have differing opinions.  Thank you for your help.

Steve Reichenbach (reich@cse.unl.edu)
From: kevin@ais.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Caps Lock problem with ISC
Date: 29 Dec 92 11:24:21 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

I'm running Interactive X11 and despite all attempts to correct the
problem with xmodmap I am unable to generate uppercase when the
Caps Lock key is on.  Does anyone know what might be happening?

Thanks,
Kevin Mooney          Applied Information Systems, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
Subject: Employment generated by GNU versus Bill Gates
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:23:33 GMT

Some time back, in the midst of a discussion regarding the evil Bill Gates,
the GNU project, and what each had done in the way of providing jobs,
Sean Eric Fagan wrote:

> Cygnus Support, on the two coasts of the US, Wingnut (in Japan?), and some
> company with a strange name (Crwynnr, something like that), all support Free
> Software.  PrimeTime Freeware and Walnut Creek CDROM both make money (not
> inconsiderable money, either!) selling CD-ROMs with free software.
> 
> All told, I would not be surprised if more than a thousand people make a
> living, provide for their families, and support the economy thanks to free
> software (including the likes of RMS and Linus, as well as a few thousand
> other people, some of whom are nameless, some of whom are very well known,
> and lots of whom are somewhere inbetween).

I just wanted to note that this is exactly the kind of totally worthless
and nonsensical uninformed speculation you get when you read netnews.
Reading netnews, you get the good with the bad... the real information
with the total unmitigated horseshit.

Let me tell you in all seriousness that there is just no f***ing way that
there are anywhere near 1000 people making a living from free software.

On the other hand, according to an article recently published in the
San Jose Mercury News, Bill Gates' little company employs over 6,000
people in the Seattle area alone... and over 10,000 worldwide.

Now don't get me wrong.  I detest Microsoft as much as the next guy, and
I happen to also be one of the people who make a living working on free
software, but among the many things I detest are people who pass off
uninformed opinions as if they were facts.

I keep waiting for a "truth filter" program to show up in alt.sources.

-- 

// Ron ("Loose Cannon") Guilmette    uucp: ...uunet!lupine!segfault!rfg
//
//      "On the one hand I knew that programs could have a compelling
//       and deep logical beauty, on the other hand I was forced to
//       admit that most programs are presented in a way fit for
//       mechanical execution, but even if of any beauty at all,
//       totally unfit for human appreciation."
//                                              -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
From: shwake@nearside.UUCP (Raymond Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: Demise of Starserver line?
Keywords: AT&T Starserver SYSVR4
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:48:47 GMT
Organization: A/C International

In article <1992Dec16.231617.39888@spillman.uucp> bruce@spillman.uucp (Bruce Hunsaker) writes:
>I heard a rumor that AT&T was discontinuing it's Starserver line of
>UNIX computers in favor of NCR hardware.  Is this true? Will AT&T 
>no longer have a line of  80386/80486 based UNIX machines?

	This has proved a nagging issue since the AT&T buyout of NCR and NCR's
	assumption of Computer Systems authority. I have copies of official
	memoranda (intended for public reassurance) that the StarServer E had
	a long-term place in the NCR product mix, but (here's the catch) their
	continued support for the platform was contingent on continued *demand*
	for same. And if NCR prefers to push the 3000 line, we can expect such
	demand to weaken over time.

bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:

>The NCR machines are now primarily 80386/80486 boxes.  (There
>are some Motos left, but all new boxes are Intel oriented).

>The NCRs have some pretty impressive specs too!  

That they do. We were at one time considering the StarServer E, but once we
accepted NCR's assurances that the 3450 had caught up in SMP support, and
viewing the more comprehensive OSI/GOSIP offerings available for the NCR box,
we gradually shifted our preference. I also expect NCR to support Pentium
upgrades. Ironically, according to one of my sources, StarServers were used
in much of the design/testing of Pentium.

Sadly (for me) some correspondence I'd established with the product manager
of the 3450 were lost between system backups. Without name/address, I can't
even contact him for the latest scoop.
-- 

uunet!media!irscscm!nearside!shwake			shwake@rsxtech
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sysv386,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
From: pim@cti-software.nl (Pim Zandbergen)
Subject: Re: ET4000/W32 and VESA VL-Bus
Organization: CTI Software BV, The Hague, The Netherlands
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 12:57:37 GMT

roell@informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Thomas Roell) writes:

>It has a full blown graphics engine, from the set of possible things
>compareable to the S3 chips, but more tuned for MS-Windows.

What makes a chip be tuned for either X or MS-Windows ?
-- 
Pim Zandbergen                      domain : pim@cti-software.nl
CTI Software BV                     uucp   : uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!ctisbv!pim
Laan Copes van Cattenburch 70       phone  : +31 70 3542302
2585 GD The Hague, The Netherlands  fax    : +31 70 3512837
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: Question about ISA/IDE disk throughput (pc newbie)
Keywords: speed bus IDE EISA ISA SCSI VESA
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:09:30 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1992Dec21.220009.12403@utagraph.uta.edu>, turbo@cse.uta.edu (Chris Turbeville) writes:

| 200kB/s sounds about right for IDE (save the newer caching controllers)
| and it is terribly slow.  486dx's make no improvement on disk transfer
| speed.  It is your 16bit 8Mhz ISA bus which is limiting it.  I don't
| think full blown vmunix would live well in such an environment.

  Oops! Better backspace and reread that one in low density... assuming
a worst case transfer time of six clocks per transfer, you get 1.33M
transfers/sec, of 2 bytes each, or over 2.6M/sec. A Reasonable
controller can up that to 4M/sec, but no matter how you slice it the bus
speed is at least an order of magnitude faster than the rate quoted.

  I see transfer rates of 800-1200kB to a controller on an ISA bus,
oddly enough about the same as I get using the same SCSI disk on a Sun.

  I you posit that many IDE controllers and disks have poor transfer
rates, I would agree, but the supposition about the ISA bus fails on
both theoretical grounds and by experience.

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd,comp.windows.x