This is Is-the-030-040-upgrade-really-necessary? in view mode; [Up]
Date: Sun 29-Aug-1991 13:47:20 From: brunnock@athena.mit.edu (Sean Brunnock) Subject: Is the 030->040 upgrade really necessary? According to a "Friends of NeXT" newsletter that I received yesterday, NeXT intends to raise the price of the 030->040 upgrade from $1300 to $2500 by Sept 31. NeXT strongly encourages 030 owners to perform the upgrade by that date. I'm an 030 owner. I have an OD and a 40meg swap drive and I don't have a lot of money to spend. I recently purchased the 2.1 OS upgrade and I'd rather buy a hard drive, more RAM, and a printer and upgrade to the 88110 (or whatever fast board) when it is available. Am I making a mistake? From what I understand Rel. 3.0 will not run on my OD system, so I think my money would be better spent on a hard drive. On the other hand, will r3.0 run on an 030? Will NeXT offer an upgrade to 030 owners for other processors? Sean Brunnock
Date: Sun 29-Aug-1991 16:44:26 From: mcarling@leland.stanford.edu (M Carling) Subject: Re: Is the 030->040 upgrade really necessary? In article <BRUNNOCK.91Aug29094715@e52-364-5.mit.edu> brunnock@athena.mit.edu (Sean Brunnock) writes: > [about upgrading his 030 cube to 040 or waiting for a different processor] > Am I making a mistake? From what I understand Rel. 3.0 will not run > on my OD system, so I think my money would be better spent on a hard > drive. On the other hand, will r3.0 run on an 030? Will NeXT offer > an upgrade to 030 owners for other processors? > This is incredulous. Who told you that Release 3.0 won't run on your NeXT?
Date: Sun 01-Sep-1991 00:53:13 From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) Subject: Re: Is the 030->040 upgrade really necessary? In article <1991Aug29.164426.28216@leland.Stanford.EDU> mcarling@leland.stanford.edu (M Carling) writes: >In article <BRUNNOCK.91Aug29094715@e52-364-5.mit.edu> >brunnock@athena.mit.edu (Sean Brunnock) writes: >>Am I making a mistake? From what I understand Rel. 3.0 will not run >>on my OD system, so I think my money would be better spent on a hard >>drive. On the other hand, will r3.0 run on an 030? Will NeXT offer an >>upgrade to 030 owners for other processors? >This is incredulous. Who told you that Release 3.0 won't run on your >NeXT? Please forgive humor at your expense: it may or may not be incredible (*you* are incredulous, perhaps). More seriously, I have seen nothing official that any new release is pending. It's at least as reasonable to ask who's told (anyone) that 3.0 *will* run on this or that. <> "Do you know a cow was _murdered_ to make that jacket?" <> "I didn't know there were any witnesses. Now I guess <> I'll have to kill you too." <> -- Paul Crowley (aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk)
Date: Sun 01-Sep-1991 02:22:44 From: mcarling@leland.stanford.edu (M Carling) Subject: Re: Is the 030->040 upgrade really necessary? In article <1991Sep1.005313.10709@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes: > > In article <1991Aug29.164426.28216@leland.Stanford.EDU> > mcarling@leland.stanford.edu (M Carling) writes: > > >In article <BRUNNOCK.91Aug29094715@e52-364-5.mit.edu> > >brunnock@athena.mit.edu (Sean Brunnock) writes: > > >>Am I making a mistake? From what I understand Rel. 3.0 will not run > >>on my OD system, so I think my money would be better spent on a hard > >>drive. On the other hand, will r3.0 run on an 030? Will NeXT offer an > >>upgrade to 030 owners for other processors? > > >This is incredulous. Who told you that Release 3.0 won't run on your > >NeXT? > > Please forgive humor at your expense: it may or may not be incredible > (*you* are incredulous, perhaps). I see that I was being too subtle. My point was that here was a person who did not believe in NeXT i.e. did not have Faith that NeXT would do right by him. > > More seriously, I have seen nothing official that any new release is > pending. It's at least as reasonable to ask who's told (anyone) that > 3.0 *will* run on this or that. I'll take bets that 3.0 supports ODs and 030s. > > <> "Do you know a cow was _murdered_ to make that jacket?" > <> "I didn't know there were any witnesses. Now I guess > <> I'll have to kill you too." > <> -- Paul Crowley (aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk) > -- > Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin > Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson > NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc > Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Date: Sun 29-Aug-1991 16:44:15 From: roy@prism.gatech.EDU (Roy Mongiovi) Subject: Re: Is the 030->040 upgrade really necessary? Well, my personal opinion is that the 030->040 upgrade is a waste of money, especially given the current economic climate. The question is (in my particular case): When I bought my cube (one of the original, fan sucks up dust, cubes), I listened to (and believed in) Steve Jobs's fast talk about "raising the least common denominator." I also bought NeXT's fast talk about appreciating folks that believed in them enough to buy a machine with a preliminary OS (0.8) and that they wouldn't abandon us.... I've already thrown $8000 at a company to buy a computer with a 300 meg hard disk and a 256 meg optical drive only to find that the optical drives are being fazed out. Now it appears that I'm being forced to fork over $500 for an external floppy disk drive because some of the software I'm interested in (particularly Mathematica) is only being distributed on floppy disk. Now I'd have thought that the least they could do would be provide an external floppy, from NeXT, at a reasonable cost ($500 for a floppy just doesn't cut it in my book). So now they want me to throw another $1000 their way? Over my dead body. CPU speed isn't my problem. For what I do the machine is plenty fast. I also feel that the 68040 NeXT is slighty misdesigned (it feels like an interim design; half the old cube, half a new machine). The 25 MHz DSP went very nicely with a 25 MHz 68030; it seems to me that the same speed DSP with a 68040 is useless. Why use the DSP when the CPU is faster? Why not just forget the DSP and go with a multi-processor 68040? Anyway, I feel like I was dropped on the floor when they went to using floppies, and as long as I'm abandoned I don't see why I should spend any more money on the machine.
Date: Sun 04-Sep-1991 17:10:03 From: kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) Subject: Re: Is the 030->040 upgrade really necessary? In article <35625@hydra.gatech.EDU> roy@prism.gatech.EDU (Roy Mongiovi) writes: >Well, my personal opinion is that the 030->040 upgrade is a waste >of money, especially given the current economic climate. > >The question is (in my particular case): When I bought my cube (one >of the original, fan sucks up dust, cubes), I listened to (and believed >in) Steve Jobs's fast talk about "raising the least common denominator." >I also bought NeXT's fast talk about appreciating folks that believed in >them enough to buy a machine with a preliminary OS (0.8) and that they >wouldn't abandon us.... > >I've already thrown $8000 at a company to buy a computer with a 300 meg >hard disk and a 256 meg optical drive only to find that the optical >drives are being fazed out. Now it appears that I'm being forced to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ They aren't being dropped. You can still buy them, software (OS) from NeXT comes on them and the make great backup devices. The OD has saved me more than once. >fork over $500 for an external floppy disk drive because some of the >software I'm interested in (particularly Mathematica) is only being >distributed on floppy disk. Call Tulin Corp. in San Jose, Ca. (area code 408, don't have the number handy) you can get a drive in the $300 range. Just tell them you want a SCSI floppy drive. > >Now I'd have thought that the least they could do would be provide an >external floppy, from NeXT, at a reasonable cost ($500 for a floppy >just doesn't cut it in my book). > >So now they want me to throw another $1000 their way? Over my dead body. > >CPU speed isn't my problem. For what I do the machine is plenty fast. Then don't buy the upgrade. Play with an '040 and you might change your mind. >I also feel that the 68040 NeXT is slighty misdesigned (it feels like >an interim design; half the old cube, half a new machine). The 25 MHz >DSP went very nicely with a 25 MHz 68030; it seems to me that the same >speed DSP with a 68040 is useless. Why use the DSP when the CPU is faster? >Why not just forget the DSP and go with a multi-processor 68040? The DSP is a lot different from the '040. The DSP can still execute specific code faster than the '040. Ask someone to show you the first Mandlebrot generator that came with the NeXT that ran on both the 56K and the '030. Run it on an '040 system. The DSP is still faster. The DSP at 25MHz can execute multiple instuctions per clock, the '040 can't. The DSP can access two memory spaces, the '040 can't. The DSP can do a FFT in real time on audio data, the '040 can't. The DSP has serial communication channels built in, along with a clock/baud rate generator, the '040 doesn't. The DSP is for, well, digital signal processing, like the name says. The '040 is a general purpose microprocessor. They are designed to do different things. The '040 was not supposed to be a new machine but a faster version of the old machine. That is why an upgrade is not totally necessary unless you want more speed. As far as going with a multiprocessor '040 system, that would be fine. Leave my DSP alone though. You also need to rewrite Mach. A multiprocessor system is no trivial task. Hardware and software will change dramatically. Expense will also go way, way up. > >Anyway, I feel like I was dropped on the floor when they went to using >floppies, and as long as I'm abandoned I don't see why I should spend any >more money on the machine. Since when are you abandoned??? The OD is still supported by NeXT, its the outside companies that don't support OD, but some do because if you send them an OD they will install the software for you at a small additional charge. >-- >Roy J. Mongiovi Systems Support Specialist Office of Computing Services >Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0275 (404) 894-4660 > uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!roy > ARPA: roy@prism.gatech.edu
Date: Sun 05-Sep-1991 00:38:04 From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) Subject: Re: Is the 030->040 upgrade really necessary? <450Q02cS0boL01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> In article <450Q02cS0boL01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) writes: The '040 was not supposed to be a new machine but a faster version of the old machine. That is why an upgrade is not totally necessary unless you want more speed. The 040 NeXT is unquestionably a new machine! As far as going with a multiprocessor '040 system, that would be fine. Leave my DSP alone though. You also need to rewrite Mach. A multiprocessor system is no trivial task. Hardware and software will change dramatically. Expense will also go way, way up. Mach is a multiprocessing operating system. What exactly is missing from NeXTs version of Mach? -Mike
Date: Sun 05-Sep-1991 01:50:07 From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) Subject: Re: Is the 030->040 upgrade really necessary? "comp.sys.next.misc" is an invalid distribution. In article <hgdHhxyc2@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >Mach is a multiprocessing operating system. What exactly is missing >from NeXTs version of Mach? Purportedly, it was compiled without the multiprocessing locks. This does speed up the single-processor version, I'm told in measurable amounts. (Unfortunately, my measured amounts are in a UseNIX book that I can't seem to find anymore; I think it was two years old.)
Date: Sun 05-Sep-1991 15:44:08 From: kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) Subject: Re: Is the 030->040 upgrade really necessary? In article <hgdHhxyc2@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <450Q02cS0boL01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) writes: > > The '040 was not supposed to be a new machine but a faster version of the > old machine. That is why an upgrade is not totally necessary unless you > want more speed. > >The 040 NeXT is unquestionably a new machine! The '040 cube and the '030 cube are basically the same. The whole system did not need a redesign. It still runs old software. So to me it's just a newer version of the old machine, not a completely new one. The slab was new but base on the design of an older machine. Don't get me wrong, I like the machine but putting a more up-to-date processor in a system and changing the serial ports and packaging does not make a new machine. > > As far as going with a multiprocessor '040 system, that would be fine. > Leave my DSP alone though. You also need to rewrite Mach. A > multiprocessor system is no trivial task. Hardware and software will > change dramatically. Expense will also go way, way up. > >Mach is a multiprocessing operating system. What exactly is missing >from NeXTs version of Mach? The kernal that NeXT runs does not support scheduling on multiprocessor systems. Since that is the case just putting two processors in the system gets you nothing until the kernal is rewritten. That means that fulling a cube with processors doesn't get you anthing more than the ability to run the OS on each processor and network the boards together for a very loosely coupled system. A tightly coupled system would only require one copy of the OS and processes would be dynamically allocated to each processor. Currently this is not possible on a NeXT. > >-Mike >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >N N X X TTTTTTT | melling@cs.psu.edu >NN N eeee X X T | melling@vivaldi.psu.edu (NeXT mail) >N N N e e X X T |---------------------------------------------- >N N N eeeee X X T |"Medicine will cure death and government will >N NN e X X T | repeal taxes before Steve [Jobs] will fail." >N N eee X X T | Guy Kawasaki
Date: Sun 06-Sep-1991 14:49:00 From: songer@ei.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) Subject: Re: Is the 030->040 upgrade really necessary? In article <hgdHhxyc2@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <450Q02cS0boL01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) writes: > > The '040 was not supposed to be a new machine but a faster version of the > old machine. That is why an upgrade is not totally necessary unless you > want more speed. > >The 040 NeXT is unquestionably a new machine! > > As far as going with a multiprocessor '040 system, that would be fine. > Leave my DSP alone though. You also need to rewrite Mach. A > multiprocessor system is no trivial task. Hardware and software will > change dramatically. Expense will also go way, way up. > >Mach is a multiprocessing operating system. What exactly is missing >from NeXTs version of Mach? > >-Mike Lots is missing! External paging is missing, support for task to processor assignment is missing. Do an "nm" on the kernel sometime and look what's there. Then look at the CMU documentation for mach and you will see many missing functions. Further some functions are there, but empty -- look in your Next docs and some of the low-level calls are marked as un-implemented. -Chris
These are the contents of the former NiCE NeXT User Group NeXTSTEP/OpenStep software archive, currently hosted by Marcel Waldvogel and Netfuture.ch.