HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cc971@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephen  C. Fitch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.unisys
Subject: U6000/51
Date: 17 Nov 1992 09:38:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cc971@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephen  C. Fitch)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



Hi, could all those Unisys UNIX gurus out there provide us with
some information on the Unisys U6000/51 computer. I would like to
know:

	a) What specification is this machine shipped with as
	standard ? i.e., What amount of RAM, disk # of processors?

	b) Is it a badged box ? ( Is is a Sequent/Solbourne ?).

	c) SPEC marks and performance indicators ? Dare I say MIPS ?



You time and effort will be appreciated.


Steve Fitch                            o          ,__o        o   /\/\
Open University                       <\        _-\_<,     []<\  /~~\ \/\
Management Services Division        __/__,     (*)/'(*)      /> /    \ \ \
Milton Keynes, England.       +44 (0908)65 2733  s.c.fitch@open.ac.uk
From: liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz (Liam Greenwood)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.unisys
Subject: Re: Unfunctionality of Sperry 5000/?? ; please help
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:39:26 GMT+12
Organization: It's Home, really...
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Antti Jarvinen (costello@tolsun.oulu.fi) wrote:
> What could be broken? As far as I can remember the problem appeared
> when a rs-cable between console-terminal and that machine was
> accidentally pulled off from the plug when machine was up and running ..
> after that the machine didn't ever boot again :-(
> I can't see how a broken rs-cable could cause something to break down
> in a computer - can it break something?
> That machine claims that I/O-controller is broken - if it is, who
> would like to sell us new one ? :-)
    If your HSIO (High Speed Serial I/O board) dies then this happens.
These seem to be fairly fragile, I've had one (and possibly a second) die
without even having terminals running on them, I think caused by bad power.
Unplugging a RS232 style cable is _always_ risky when the machine is
powered up, as the connector isn't designed for hot replacement.

--
 Liam Greenwood ------ liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz ------ Wanganui, N.Z.
                 Don't tell my Mother I'm a programmer,
               she thinks I'm a piano player in a brothel

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: rgooch@rp.CSIRO.AU (Richard Gooch)
Subject: INFO: i860 assembler sources
Keywords: i860 FFT
Organization: CSIRO Division of Radiophysics/Australia Telescope National Facility
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:56:40 GMT

  Hi, all. I am desperately looking for i860 assembler source code for
vector arithmetic operations and FFT routines.
Can anyone direct me to where I can pick them up?
Email is fine: if I receive a flood of information, I will post a
summary.

				Thanks in advance,

					Richard Gooch....
Xref: sparky comp.sys.intel:2304 comp.sys.mac.hardware:22208 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:30668
From: tmplee@TIS.COM (Theodore Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:14:17 GMT
Reply-To: tmplee@TIS.COM
Followup-To: comp.sys.intel
Organization: Trusted Information Systems


Fascinating.  I am finding it very hard to locate *any* published
cross-platform benchmarks that compare 486's to Macintosh's in
meaningfully comparable applications, such as wordprocessing.  So far
I've only located two.  Does anyone know about any others?

The first one I found is in PC Magazine for May 12, 1992, which
compares a $7,000 Quadra 700 to a $9,275 Dell PowerLine 450DE
(80486-50 cpu).  The latter has a 4MB cache in its EISA controller!
(The article says the Dell is running Windows, but the article is not
at all clear whether the applications are Windows applications or DOS
applications>.

The other is in the Dec. 23/30, 1991 issue of PC Week.  (The one
mentioned in the current Mac ads in Scientific American, for
instance.) It compares a $8,500 Quadra 900 against a Compaq 486/50L of
no specified price and few other details about the configuration.
(That one at least made clear it was using MS Word for Windows.)

Again, is anyone aware of any other published benchmarks comparing
Mac's to Intel boxes?

>From the meagre bits of information in the PC Week article, I conclude
that the current mid-range Mac (the IIvx) is of roughly equal or
better price/performance than all of the current 486DX2/50's, using
the exhaustive (and very informative) benchmarks of 24 of the latter
in the Oct. PCWorld.  The price/performance ratios of the 24
platforms, not counting the PS/2, but counting the Mac, have a 2:1
range, whereas the prices have a 3:1 range. (If you plot price vs.
performance you see very little correlation.) 21 of the 486's have a
worse p-p-ratio than the Mac, and it is only 12% worse than the best.
(The only 486 in the 24 faster than the Mac was only 5% faster but 30%
more expensive; nearly half of them were more expensive than the Mac)

To make the price comparisons fair I included a "works" package
(Microsoft or Claris) and WordPerfect, since most of the PC's come
with the former & I need the latter.  But I'm not confident in the
analysis since I computed the Mac's relative performance on the
assumption that the Compaq 486/50L in PC Week has roughly the same
performance as the Compaq Deskpro 486/50M in PC World and that the
Quadra 900 & 950 have roughly the same performance.  *If* the 50L is
the same or faster than the 50M, and if the 950 is the same or faster
than the 900, then the IIvx is at least as good as I've figured;
otherwise I could be all wet. (I've seen one anecodotal report claiming
the 950 is 30% faster than the 900, and if the 486/50L is a true 50MHz
machine and not a DX2 it would very likely be faster than the 50M.  Time
for a return trip to the library.)

Ted Lee <tmplee@TIS.COM>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: vencill@iastate.edu (Tony Vencill)
Subject: Re: Intel 8051 .
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:32:25 GMT

I too am very interested in finding a C compiler for the 8051 (or 8096).
Please post a summary if you get any answers!  Thanks.

                                        Tony Vencill

                                           vencill@iastate.edu

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: oestline@maui.qualcomm.com (Ofer Estline)
Subject: Re: Intel 8051 .
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:11:27 GMT

In article <By0AE5.FrK@news.iastate.edu> vencill@iastate.edu (Tony Vencill) writes:
>I too am very interested in finding a C compiler for the 8051 (or 8096).
>Please post a summary if you get any answers!  Thanks.
>
>                                        Tony Vencill
>
>                                           vencill@iastate.edu
>

	I have been using Archimedes' C compiler.  Franklin has one too.
	There are none (and I have searched hard) available for free.

	You can reach Franklin @408-296-8051.  The prices:
		Cross compiler $1195.00
		Simulator+cross compiler $1845.00
	This is as of 10-92.  
	Hope this helps,
	--Ofer
From: chbl@sbustd.rz.uni-sb.de (Christian Blum)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Microcontroller
Date: 16 Nov 92 12:37:09 GMT
Organization: Studenten-Mail, Rechenzentrum Universitaet des Saarlandes

eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (Tan Jin Meng) writes:
> Does INTEL have a microcontroller (ie UART, A/D IO ports etc) that comes
> with a x86 core? The x86 core should be a relatively high performance
> one (386+ ?).
> 
> jin meng

NEC offers several microcontrollers with x86 core, eg. the V40 (internal
name: 70208; a 16bit version of this chip is called V50 / 70216),),
a V20 (which contains the full 80286 real mode instruction set and is
able to emulate 8080 code) with interrupt controller, wait state generator,
timer, serial port and DMA controller in a 68 pin PGA or PLCC.
There is another one called V53 (said to be much faster, with nearly the
performance of an intel 386), but I've never used it.

They've got a nice paperback reference manual on those chips, but it
doesn't even contain any timings...

Chris

P.S. Respond via email, I don't check this group regularly... lack of time.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Blum                   Universitaet des Saarlandes, Germany
Friedrich-Ebert-Str. 50          chbl@stud.uni-sb.de
W-6685 Heiligenwald              chbl@sbustd.rz.uni-sb.de
Germany                          Tel (+49) (0) 6821 67476
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: ken@mri.com (Ken Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Microcontroller
Organization: Microtec Research Inc., Santa Clara, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:50:09 GMT

eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (Tan Jin Meng) writes:

>Does INTEL have a microcontroller (ie UART, A/D IO ports etc) that comes
>with a x86 core? The x86 core should be a relatively high performance
>one (386+ ?).

>My reasons are this,

>1) I have a requirement for a microcontroller (small board space).

>2) I have extreme budget requirements.

>3) (related to 2) I want to be able to use standard PC software tools
>(ie compilers/assemblers).

>I'm not a VLSI design guy but I shouldn't think it'd be difficult for
>INTEL to produce such a chip from stock stuff. The question is - have they?

>Thanks

>jin meng


Intel has a family of such parts based on the 80186 processor, which is the
member of the x86 family targeted at embedded applications. There is an
interesting Windows program called ApBUILDER that lets you interactively
design systems at a block level, selecting an appropriate member of the
family for your application. I got this package for free in July. It may
still be available, at least in the US, from Intel. Their number is 
1 800 468-8118. Or, talk to your Intel distributor if you have one.

You may find that the 186 based parts provide adequate performance for
your application, and you don't really need a 386 based controller.

Any information I have about future plans is under non-disclosure with
Intel, so I can't pass that on - sorry.

-- 
Ken Greenberg (ken@mri.com)        |      "Never let judgment get in
Director, Technical Marketing      |      the way of procedure."
Microtec Research, Inc.            |       - Nick Tredennick, discussing USAF practice.
From: bohlkejh@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Date: 23 Nov 1992 15:39:44 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: bohlkejh@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: manager.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <9211231414.AA26779@TIS.COM> tmplee@TIS.COM (Theodore Lee) writes:
> 
> Fascinating.  I am finding it very hard to locate *any* published
> cross-platform benchmarks that compare 486's to Macintosh's in
> meaningfully comparable applications, such as wordprocessing.  So far
> I've only located two.  Does anyone know about any others?
> 
> The first one I found is in PC Magazine for May 12, 1992, which
> compares a $7,000 Quadra 700 to a $9,275 Dell PowerLine 450DE
> (80486-50 cpu).  The latter has a 4MB cache in its EISA controller!
> (The article says the Dell is running Windows, but the article is not
> at all clear whether the applications are Windows applications or DOS
> applications>.
> 
> The other is in the Dec. 23/30, 1991 issue of PC Week.  (The one
> mentioned in the current Mac ads in Scientific American, for
> instance.) It compares a $8,500 Quadra 900 against a Compaq 486/50L of
> no specified price and few other details about the configuration.
> (That one at least made clear it was using MS Word for Windows.)
> 
> Again, is anyone aware of any other published benchmarks comparing
> Mac's to Intel boxes?
> 
> >From the meagre bits of information in the PC Week article, I conclude
> that the current mid-range Mac (the IIvx) is of roughly equal or
> better price/performance than all of the current 486DX2/50's, using
> the exhaustive (and very informative) benchmarks of 24 of the latter
> in the Oct. PCWorld.  The price/performance ratios of the 24
> platforms, not counting the PS/2, but counting the Mac, have a 2:1
> range, whereas the prices have a 3:1 range. (If you plot price vs.
> performance you see very little correlation.) 21 of the 486's have a
> worse p-p-ratio than the Mac, and it is only 12% worse than the best.
> (The only 486 in the 24 faster than the Mac was only 5% faster but 30%
> more expensive; nearly half of them were more expensive than the Mac)
> 
> To make the price comparisons fair I included a "works" package
> (Microsoft or Claris) and WordPerfect, since most of the PC's come
> with the former & I need the latter.  But I'm not confident in the
> analysis since I computed the Mac's relative performance on the
> assumption that the Compaq 486/50L in PC Week has roughly the same
> performance as the Compaq Deskpro 486/50M in PC World and that the
> Quadra 900 & 950 have roughly the same performance.  *If* the 50L is
> the same or faster than the 50M, and if the 950 is the same or faster
> than the 900, then the IIvx is at least as good as I've figured;
> otherwise I could be all wet. (I've seen one anecodotal report claiming
> the 950 is 30% faster than the 900, and if the 486/50L is a true 50MHz
> machine and not a DX2 it would very likely be faster than the 50M.  Time
> for a return trip to the library.)
> 
> Ted Lee <tmplee@TIS.COM>

Try running the matlab set of benchmarks on both of them.....

Jon
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Floating point performance of 486 vs 386/387?
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:00:54 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1992Nov19.041856.19934@mercury.cair.du.edu>, plim@diana.cair.du.edu (PATRICK M LIM) writes:
| Is the floating point performance better for a 386/33 387
| combination or a 486/33?
| Thanks in advance

  At least double with the 486, for all except transcendental functions.
The Cyrix 387 seems to be far faster then the 486 in that area, although
unless you do a lot of it you will never notice.
-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: markg@pdx820 (Mark Gonzales)
Subject: Re: Request for OverDrive technical details
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:16:02 GMT

In article <Bxz7Jo.Ip6@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> rbhardin@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Ron Harding) writes:
>A co-worker has informed me that there was some discussion here a while ago
>about the OverDrive chip.  As I understand it, an OverDrive is really a
>fully functional CPU which just shuts off the original CPU, but requires
>that the original be left in place.

No, it does not REQUIRE that the original be left in place. In many
cases, the OverDrive(tm) CPU will be upgrading a system with a 486SX CPU
which is normally soldered to the motherboard. If your motherboard is
like that, it is much easier to leave the 'SX in place and plug the
OverDrive CPU into a socket.

Some motherboards put the original processor in a socket instead of
soldering it directly to the board.  In this case, you can easily remove
the old CPU when you install the OverDrive CPU.

>
>I'm particularly interested in a description of how an OverDrive chip knows
>that the original is in place.  Is it just a matter of a couple pins shorted,
>or is there some complex handshake between the two chips?

The OverDrive CPU does not care if the original is in place or not.

Mark
--not speaking for Intel
From: x92chai@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: difference in 286 and 486 architecture?
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:40:05 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

hi, i have recently purchase a 486slc machine....and i was wondering
why is it some software that i run in my 286 without any problem
will hang in my new 486 machine? the problem is when i run those program
it will hang immediately and some program will hang half way.
i did not encounter such problem in my old 286 machine until i
have those few program running on a 486.

is it true that those software is not portable to a better performance machine?
or is it something else?
thanks in advance for your advice.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: vagle@hsr.no (James Bond)
Subject: Intel rules...
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:35:06 GMT

Hello all you Intel fans,

I have never seen any comparings like Intel vs. Motorola.
I talk to a lot of Mac and Amiga users, but how is the Motorola 
processors 68000,68020,68030,68040 compared with Intel 286, 
386sx/dx,486dx,sx ?        Especially 486DX vs. 68040.

I would really like to see some pure facts,  BENCHmark tests, whatever.

And I guess all you Intel fans reading this can show me that Intel IS BEST.

What is actually 486SL and 486SLC, who makes processors similar to Intel`s 486 ?

-- 
           _/      _/_/   _/_/_/   _/_/
          _/     _/  _/  _/  _/  _/
         _/     _/_/_/  _/_/    _/_/
        _/     _/  _/  _/ _/      _/
       _/_/_/ _/  _/  _/  _/  _/_/ 

    Lars Vagle, Rogaland University Center.
       
    E-mail: vagle@hsr.no  vagle@hauk.hsr.no
From: jwreilly@mipos2.intel.com (Jeffrey Reilly)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Floating point performance of 486 vs 386/387?
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:48:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA

In article <1992Nov19.041856.19934@mercury.cair.du.edu> plim@diana.cair.du.edu (PATRICK M LIM) writes:
>Is the floating point performance better for a 386/33 387
>combination or a 486/33?
>Thanks in advance

The SPECfp92 for the i386DX-33 w/ floating point unit is 3.
The SPECfp92 for the i486SX-33 w/ FPU is 9.0.

Jeff

Jeff Reilly			Performance Benchmarking And Analysis
jwreilly@mipos2.intel.com	Intel Corporation
(408) 765 - 5909		Santa Clara, California
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: perelet@avignon.wri.com (Oleg Perelet)
Subject: Re: Intel rules...(BENCHMARKS)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:05:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.173506.19012@hsr.no> vagle@hsr.no (James Bond)  
writes:
> Hello all you Intel fans,
> 
> I have never seen any comparings like Intel vs. Motorola.
> I talk to a lot of Mac and Amiga users, but how is the Motorola 
> processors 68000,68020,68030,68040 compared with Intel 286, 
> 386sx/dx,486dx,sx ?        Especially 486DX vs. 68040.
> 
> I would really like to see some pure facts,  BENCHmark tests, whatever.
> 
> And I guess all you Intel fans reading this can show me that Intel IS  
BEST.
Here are some results of raytracing. (RAYSHADE).
command line: (pool.ray is part of rayshade distribution)

> rayshade -R 512 512 -O out.rle pool.rle

Eye rays:                       860928
Shadow rays:                    849308
Reflected rays:                 45149
Refracted rays:                 0
Total rays:                     1755385
Intersecting rays:              1016930 (57.932%)
Shadow cache hits:              108770 (2083 misses)
Total shadow hits:              110853 (13.052%)
Supersampled pixels:            74784
B.V. intersection tests:        22632410
Plane intersection tests:       9879690 (1739083 hit, 17.602607%)
Box intersection tests: 8604836 (629806 hit, 7.319210%)
Sphere intersection tests:      69997 (22786 hit, 32.552824%)
Total prim. intersection tests: 18554523 (2391675 hit, 12.889983%)

04025   :Total CPU time (sec):           2141.4 (NeXT)
48633   :Total CPU time (sec):           2289.0 (486 CLONE)
04033   :Total CPU time (sec):           1681.1 (NeXT turbo)
48650   :Total CPU time (sec):           1574.0 (DELL)
38633+W :Total CPU time (sec):           1307.3 (386 CLONE + Weitek)
SPARC2  :Total CPU time (sec):           1161.2 (SUN SSII)
R3000   :Total CPU time (sec):            589.6 (DEC 5000 240)
SPARC10 :Total CPU time (sec):            575.6 (SUN SS10)
PA-RISC :Total CPU time (sec):            439.8 (HP 730)

enjoy.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: hm@opus40.ix.de (Harald Milz)
Subject: re: Intel internet addresses
Organization: iX-Redaktion
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:09:20 GMT


In article <1992Nov13.221753.5078@nas.nasa.gov>, fineberg@win31.nas.nasa.gov (Samuel A. Fineberg) writes:
|> In article <1e0muoINNcja@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, rrn@po.cwru.edu writes:
|> |> 
|> |> When is the latest word from the money grubbers at intel as to when
|> |> the P5 is due out?
|> |> 
|> |> Thanks
|> |> BOB
|> Never.  However, the Pentium (TM) CPU is due some time next year (after
|> their 486DX2-66 sales start to flatten out).
|> 
|> Sam

Respectively after or coincident with AMD presenting their 486 clone. I bet this to happen at or around the CeBit fair in Hannover, Germany in March 1993.

Beat me.

-- 
|Dipl.-Ing. Harald Milz                   |    EMail:		hm@ix.de |
|iX - Multiuser Multitasking Magazin      |    FAX:    +49 511 547 47 33 |
|D-3000 Hannover 61, Helstorfer Str. 7    |    Tel.:   +49 511 547 47 66 |
None of the above statements are intended to be coincident with opinions
From: pshuang@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Ping Huang)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 68000 vs Intel Hardware Costs
Date: 22 Nov 92 08:31:41 GMT
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
NNTP-Posting-Host: freeside.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: fbaglew@cs-acad-lan.Lakeheadu.Ca's message of 20 Nov 1992 04:06:46 GMT


 > I am attempting to quantify the difference in hardware costs to outfit 
 > administrative assistants with PCs/Macs of `equal' power.
 > 
 > Is it reasonable to assume that I can compare Motorola & Intel driven 
 > systems on the usual sorts of things - MHz, cache size, w/wo FPU, bus 
 > widths, etc?

No. You cannot compare across different CPU lines and different computer
architectures by using simplistic measures like Mhz, cache size, etc.
You can't say that a PC compatible using a 386 CPU at 33Mhz is "clearly"
twice as fast as a Macintosh LC-II at 16Mhz, because that is not
necessarily the case. How much benefit you get from cache sizes even
within the same CPU line depends greatly on the operating system and the
kind of applications you are running, and PC's and Macintoshes are
disparate in those respects. I suppose the presence and lack of FPU's is
something you can consider to make equivalent amount of difference,
relatively speaking, for both PC's and Macintoshes, but that doesn't
mean that you'll obtain the same amount of performance boost by adding
an FPU in both cases. And with respect to the expansion bus, comparing
ISA, EISA, MCA, and PCI- and VL-local buses on the PC side with Nubus,
SCSI, and Direct Processor Expansion slots on Macintoshes would be
comparing apples and oranges, for the most part.

Think about what you are trying to do. I won't try to argue that
"administrative" assistants don't need powerful machines, but they, like
most computer users, are interested in how much productive throughput
they get from the machine for the kind of software that they run and not
the raw specs (yeah, the raw specs are easier to compare and get --
speaking of which, I've never seen any "SPECmarks" published for Macs
for A/UX). Unfortunately, there are no studies I know of which try to
document how much of a difference the "speed" of your machine makes in
your productivity, given the same product line and software/OS (e.g. it
might be the case that for Macintoshes, doubling the raw speed would
nearly double user throughput, but on PC's doubling raw speed would only
improve user throughput by 1.5, *OR* vice versa). This information would
allow you to understand how much value you get for your money as you get
spluftier and spluftier models within each line, and then you would have
to establish some cross-platform baseline.

It also seems to me that extensive discussion of this issue doesn't
really belong in this newsgroup, but I don't know where to redirect.

--
| Ping Huang (INTERNET: pshuang@martigny.ai.mit.edu) speaking for himself.
| "One Thing to name them all, One Thing to define them,
|  One Thing to place them in environments and bind them..."