4 ms·

I worked on the ST and helped evaluate the NS32032/32016. We started counting clock cycles for various operations and got some bad vibes, and then we started fi

by kabdib 5y ago

I worked on the ST and helped evaluate the NS32032/32016. We started counting clock cycles for various operations and got some bad vibes, and then we started finding out about chip bugs (definitely not pretty, and National was coy about them and just said stuff like "we're working on it"), we so decided to use the 68K. The NS parts were really a due-diligence affair, and we looked at them just to make sure we weren't missing out on something really great (we weren't). Definitely a prettier architecture than the 68K, with better toolchains and development support at the time. Didn't make up for the bad, though.

cmrdporcupine 5y ago
Thanks, I always appreciate it when you chime in. Looking back, did Atari Corp actually build any hardware (prototype, wirewrap, etc.) with the 320xx? Or was it just evaluation from the POV of reading datasheets and the like? I've heard conflicting stories around this. That and the story about Atari talking with Microsoft about an early version of Windows for their hardware.
- kabdib 5y ago
  Whether or not anyone wire-wrapped a board (pretty sure no one did), we didn't write a single line of code for the National parts. There were a number of visits by National sales reps and they dropped a lot of documentation on us, though. We were generally doubtful that the chip would be fast enough, and needed to make a processor decision very quickly; in late July 1984 we were talking about it, and I don't recall anything past August or so. By October the software folks were mostly in Monterey with a bunch of 68K-based systems. Another factor in the 68K's favor was that it was pretty easy to buy off-the-shelf 68K-based workstations (e.g., Motorola VME-10, the Apple Lisa), which let us do 4-5 months of software development while waiting for the actual ST hardware.
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    This might bring back some flashback memories for you :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDruBwysYoc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDruBwysYoc
    - kabdib 5y ago
      We really didn't run GEM that way. And the ROM-based version booted without any commandline, in under a second. I miss 1980s boot times.

by kabdib 5y ago

cmrdporcupine 5y ago

Thanks, I always appreciate it when you chime in. Looking back, did Atari Corp actually build any hardware (prototype, wirewrap, etc.) with the 320xx? Or was it just evaluation from the POV of reading datasheets and the like? I've heard conflicting stories around this. That and the story about Atari talking with Microsoft about an early version of Windows for their hardware.

kabdib 5y ago
Whether or not anyone wire-wrapped a board (pretty sure no one did), we didn't write a single line of code for the National parts. There were a number of visits by National sales reps and they dropped a lot of documentation on us, though. We were generally doubtful that the chip would be fast enough, and needed to make a processor decision very quickly; in late July 1984 we were talking about it, and I don't recall anything past August or so. By October the software folks were mostly in Monterey with a bunch of 68K-based systems. Another factor in the 68K's favor was that it was pretty easy to buy off-the-shelf 68K-based workstations (e.g., Motorola VME-10, the Apple Lisa), which let us do 4-5 months of software development while waiting for the actual ST hardware.
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  This might bring back some flashback memories for you :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDruBwysYoc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDruBwysYoc
  - kabdib 5y ago
    We really didn't run GEM that way. And the ROM-based version booted without any commandline, in under a second. I miss 1980s boot times.