From: sting@intelhf.hf.intel.com (Joe Bennett)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp., Hillsboro, OR
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 01:45:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.154430.26236@umr.edu> mcastle@mcs213d.cs.umr.edu (Michael R Castle) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.180028.13061@phillip.edu.au> t9014201@phillip.edu.au writes:
>>I get the impression that the future of Operating Systems is in them being
>>designed to be Hardware independent.  
>
>Very TRUE!
>
>>NT has the Kernel concept - You don't totally rewrite the OS for a different
>>Chip,  just the comparitively small Kernel.
>>I think this will be the true power of NT.  It will allow the user and
>>manufacturer to have more freedom choosing their hardware.  The "tyranny" of
>>8086 dependence will be broken.  NT will run on DECs Alpha chips and others.
>>Will Pink ONLY run on PowerPC chips?  If so, then thats a shame.
>
>Pink will probably run on any 'decent' platform (read 32-bit and up).
>>Oh yeah, I USE OS/2 and I love it,  but i think it will die in the long run 
>>if its limited to only 8086 machines.
>
>Huh?  From what I understand (and I may be misinformed here), is that os/2 2.0
>was designed to run on multiple platforms.  Just try to find ANY machine 
>specific commands documented in c-set/2.  It's a tad difficult.  Can't even 
>generate a hardware interrupt.
>
>The problem will be getting users to switch over to a 'better' platform when
>they have tons of binaries that will only run on a certain machine.  Joe User
>will ask, "Will this new PowerPC run my WordStar editor?"
>
>Through emulation, yes.  Won't that be slow.  Not for an interactive
>environment like an editor.  Well, I don't know, I think I'll stick with an
>intel based machine....

Let me first say this disclaimer:  I work for Intel, but that in *no* way
means I am speaking for them.  I don't even work anywhere *near* the processors.

Okay.

I have to agree with Mike about running old software.  As stupid as it may seem
to run Lotus 1-2-3 Version 1.0 on a P5, some people will want to do it.  And
apparently enough people will want to run archaic (sp) stuff because PC makers
(i.e. Dell, Gateway, etc) are building P5 systems with ISA.  That to me seems like
a waste, but apparently they believe people will buy it.

Another argument I'd like to throw my company's way is the PC infrastructure.
PC costs are kept down because it seems like everybody and their grandmother makes
PC clones.  You can go into PACE Wherehouse (one of those bulk stores) and pick
up a 386 system for under a grand.  Sure, it ain't all that powerful, but then
again, it *will* run Lotus 1-2-3 Version 1.0 much faster than your old 8088 and
be guaranteed to work.

So while NT will run on the MIPS, I would think that Micro$oft has made damn sure
that it will work with absolutely *no* bugs on an Intel box.  The market share
of the R4000 is so small that they could probably afford some bugs in NT for
those boxes for a while.

Also, how many people make peripherals for the R4000 box?  Not very many.  There
will be some that will start making stuff for the R4000 when NT comes out, but
it will take quite a bit of investment, and more than a few companies will be
more than happy to stay at home with the Intel boxes, because they know they can
build stuff for it.  So you have a few companies building stuff for the R4000,
and simple economics says that prices for those peripherals will be higher.
And if MIPS decides to keep everything in house and not license technology, then
the R4000 architecture will gain little to no market share at all.  That type
business practice does not work any more in the computer industry.

But all this is just speculation from a guy who hopes Intel stays on top, because
it guarentees him a job. :)

Joe