From dew Tue Jul  3 13:37 MDT 1990
Received: by hpfclw.HP.COM; Tue, 3 Jul 90 13:37:36 mdt
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 90 13:37:36 mdt
From: Dave Willis <dew>
Full-Name: Dave Willis
To: dew@hpfclw, jwh@hpfclw, jwh@hpfclw, jws@hpfclw, mlc@hpfcrt, mlk@hpfcoll
Subject: Re:  PaWS and MACE
Status: RO


SCSI floppy:

The current SCSI system in PWS should support, without change, a SCSI
floppy driver.  However, at the time PWS 3.23 was under QA, a SCSI
floppy was not available for testing (HP had not yet produced a SCSI
floppy, and to the best of my knowledge, this is the first SCSI floppy
being produced).  If changes are required, it is my opinion they would
be superficial in nature, and should not cause a great impact to the
3.24 schedule.  The only forseeable problems would be at the O/S|driver
interface level.  It is VERY unlikely that changes would be required to
the driver proper.

VGA:

I concur with Jeff's assessment.  A large (relative to PWS) effort would
be required to provide support.  I also feel that either Jeff or myself
would require more than 12 weeks to accomplish the job, as DGL expertise
is lacking.

Since a CATSEYE display is available as an upgradeable option, perhaps
only providing support for MACE with the CATSEYE display is an
acceptable approach?  I noticed that BASIC/UX requires certain hardware
additions to the base product, such as a 68882.  Could PWS force similar
requirements?  How much revenue will be lost if we do not support the
VGA display?  What advantages (besides cost) does the VGA display
provide?  If the impact of VGA to BASIC and PWS is so great, perhaps we
should lobby to have it removed from the product, or perhaps make it the
option.

I was at B-D's customer visit when MACE was introduced to them.  After I
pointed out that VGA is not currently planned by PWS, but that MACE with
CATSEYE should work on PWS just fine, Steve McCullough readily indicated
that he would buy with the CATSEYE option.

Dave Willis

