[Info-vax] [OT] Portable operating systems, was: Re: PowerX Roadmap -

[Bob Butler]

On 2016-09-20, GreyCloud <mist at cumulus.com> wrote:
> On 09/20/16 04:48, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2016-09-19 21:51, GreyCloud wrote:
>>> On 09/19/16 08:34, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>
>>>> Intel did design the 4-mode setup, they just made an error in the
>>>> design. Instead of correcting the design, they crippled it even more.

That's classic Intel alright!

>>>>
>>>> I don't know if AMD has the same problem.
>>>
>>> An interesting point you just brought up. AMD right now isn't exactly
>>> getting rich these days selling their current processors. Assuming one
>>> can, approach AMD with this particular question and see what is there.
>>> If AMD did it correctly, this may give AMD some hope of increasing sales
>>> in this particular arena.
>>
>> Nope. Totally pointless. People (comapnies) in general will not write
>> any code or OS that would only work specifically on AMD processors. If
>> AMD haven't already done the same as Intel, they will. Anything else
>> just don't make sense.

Intel couldn't get 64 bit done for their ablomination. AMD did that. So it's
not really 100% correct to say nobody would code to AMD. Basically all the
64 bit code on Intel x86_64 is coded to AMD. I understand what you meant but
I still think the argument is valid. If AMD supported enough features for
another OS to run on it and not on the competition whilst not breaking their
"Intel" support at the same time it could be worthwhile in terms of
marketing and probably actual money. But designing and fabbing new chips is
pretty costly.

>>
>> And you really do not need 4 modes. I have said that for years around
>> here. Seems like VSI understood, but a lot of people still seem to want
>> to hang on to this like a religion.
>>
>
> Not totally true on the modes.  Why did Data Generals machines have 8
> modes?

Must have been Intel-envy. If 3 or 4 are good 8 has to be at least twice as
good right? Some people view complexity as a necessary evil. Healthy people
in the engineering business view complexity as evil period. You can tell from
Intel's abominations there were and are some sick puppies "designing" their
chips. I hadn't heard that about Data General before but I'm sad I did. 8
modes to run a crappy monitor program, a few serial lines and BASIC seems like
overkill but maybe that's just me. I think they probably could have used one
mode and not even needed all of that.

> I know they went out of business, but why 8?

So they wouldn't die of complexity first? I don't know. They were clunkers. 
I don't think they could compete with DEC at all in the mini arena and
that's all there was for both companies. Probably DEC not needing all those
8 modes gave DEC enough design latitude to stomp DG into computer history.

A lot of what we have today in the Inteliverse is old, torn, moldy baggage
that stinks and stinks and never goes away. I don't think any company has
enough money and integrity and sense to straighten that out.

Bob
>