From: davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn)
Subject: Re: Clones = Kludges ?
Organization: Qld Dept Primary Industries
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:56:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.092801.15241@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) writes:
>
>I agree with some of what you are saying, but I do find it hard to
>fault modern PCs as kludges anymore.  

Hmmm.  Do I _really_ want to get into another "PCs are kludges" thread?  Not
really, but anyway...

>CPUs - The Intel CPUs go so damn fast (and the P5 is still coming) 
>that it is pretty irrelevant that the instruction
>set is not orthogonal/no GP registers etc.  Most people don't program
>in assembler anymore, and while it may still affect the performance
>of compiler generated code, Intel has the edge and looks like keeping it.

I recently posted here a couple of Dhrystone benchmarks I ran to try and
compare the 486 to '030/040.  I benchmarked the 486 under UNIX, so that it was
running as true 32-bit code, and that gave about 25000 on a 25 MHz machine.
Just out of interest, I also compiled the code for DOS, using MS C 6.0.  This
was 16-bit code, and running on a 486/33, I got just over 20000 d/sec.  That's
quite a performance hit when running 16-bit code on a 32-bit cpu.  This happens
because, in a 3/486, 16-bit 286 code uses only 16 bits of the 32-bit registers.
On an Amiga, you don't get such a dramatic slow down from '030 code to 68000
code running on an '030, because, even though the 68000 code isn't using all
the features of the 030, it is true 32-bit code.

As long as we need to run DOS and (16-bit) Windows applications, we won't be
making efficient use of our "damn fast" Intel cpus, simply because of the
architecture of those cpus.  I call such a cpu a kludge.

>AT Bus - On new machines, such as the Dell that Mike bought, almost
>everything you need is on a high-speed local bus (memory, video, hard
>disk).  This is enough for most people's needs.

The hard disk interface on the motherboard is generally IDE, is 16-bit, and
does not DMA.  The rest of the system has to stop while the disk is accessed.
That's a kludge.

>Local Bus Standards - The only argument I've seen against local bus
>on this group is the lack of a standard, which might prevent you from 
>sticking in a new video card from another manufacturer.  However
>this is exactly the same as the present Amiga setup!  This may be
>in the process of being rectified, but Intel and the clone manufactures 
>are currently trying to achieve local bus standards.

What they're talking about is coming up with a new standard for local bus
cards.  This is so that the user can upgrade his video to super-duper VGA, or
whatever, and still retain the speed of local bus.  They have to do that
because the AT bus isn't up to the task.  Now, that much was already obvious
back in 1987 when IBM introduced Microchannel.  Then the competition came up
with EISA to prevent domination by IBM.  Neither has succeeded in a big way,
so to overcome the problems with ISA, yet another bus is proposed.  Maybe
that's not a kludge as such, but it's certainly a mess.

As far as I'm concerned, from a pragmatic point view, these things don't
matter.  People want a fast, cheap computer that runs the software they need,
and PCs do that very well.  As you say, you can even get a decent OS for them
these days.  But, I'm still interested in the underlying technology, and I
don't want to own what I see as a kludge.  I may still end up buying a 486,
but that doesn't mean I have to like it when I do.

-- 

David Meiklejohn                  | Internet : davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au
Computer Systems Officer, QDPI    | Fax      : +61 70 92 3593
Mareeba, Australia                | Voice    : +61 70 92 1555
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy