Conference ricks::dechips

    Gee, I thought everybody understood what I meant by "largest customer",
    it implied an entity which buys most of your products, not the entity
    which happens to send man to the moon.
    
    Who buys most of the DS's products?
    
    - Vikas

Path:
pa.dec.com!news1.digital.com!data.ramona.vix.com!sonysjc!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.c
com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!news.ecn.
.uoknor.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.uwa.edu.au!alpha8.curtin.e
edu.au!alpha3.curtin.edu.au!zrepachol
From: "Paul Repacholi (prep)" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec
Subject: Re: 21164 chips OS specific?
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 02:21:18 +0800
Organization: Curtin University of Technology	
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <Pine.PMDF.3.91.970530021831.633376169D-100000@alpha2.curtin.edu.au>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: alpha3.curtin.edu.au
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: [email protected]
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> 

On Thu, 29 May 1997, Anders Blicher Petersen wrote:

> Marko Havu wrote:
> > 
> > How come 21164 chips be OS specific? I have been told that the NT
> > version of the chip runs only NT and free unices while the
> > Unix/VMS version runs only Digital Unix/OpenVMS. There is a major
> > difference in pricing of these two versions.
> > 
> > What exactly is the difference between these two?
 
> There are NO differences between the 21164 core of NT vs. UNIX chip,
> except for the rev. number.
> 
> I believe, that making two lines of 21164 chips', is purely marketing
> strategy.
> 
> I also believe that the DEC UNIX SRM-Console, is checking the
> processor's ID, and refuses to run on a NT-ID.

I can't find any difference in the 164hrm, but there *IS* in the
064A chips. The NT only part has different paging :(

Yes, DEC it seems is back to it's good old fucked in the head marketing
crippleware ways... Again!

~Paul

    
    Ah they blew the fused links.  Sigh.
    
    

re .80 huh?

: <<< Note 596.81 by WRKSYS::SCHUMANN >>>
: -< who blew what? >-
:re .80 huh?

   See replies circa 596.63 for information on the NT-only fusable link.
   This link disables part of the �CPU necessary for OpenVMS and UNIX...

re .82, 

Yes but .80 seems to claim that Hudson is actually shipping *some* product
to *some* customers in which the links have actually been blown. 

Is this so? What are the details?

--RS

>Yes but .80 seems to claim that Hudson is actually shipping *some* product
>to *some* customers in which the links have actually been blown. 
>
>Is this so? What are the details?


Nope, this is a spec only issue - we have not shiped parts with the fuses
blown.

/mike

    Having worked with one, I can tell you that their is something
    different about a 500Mhz (NT part no) and non-NT specific part.
    
    Digital UNIX will not install on the NT only variant. I've tried.
    
    Cheers,
    
    -Brock

We still do not blow the NT fuse.

.69 still applies.

re -.1: Product engineering has run samples with the fuse blown. Is the system 
your using a prototype or engineering system? 

ML

    
    The early message implied that the chip itself had been changed
    (implying the fuse), up till now, as far as I had knwn it was only the
    SROM inhibiting the SRM console...  sorry, it just sounded like we had
    finally taken the next step.
    
    

    It's been a few months but it was the DS board that were selling to
    clone makers. It might be what .87 is describing. But to resolve the
    situation the clone maker had to get a different 500Mhz chip (different
    part no) from DS to get the board to boot and work with Digital UNIX.
    
	Just tellin' ya what I saw,
    
    	- Brock