The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Mar 2007 07:08 In article <N6CdnbheLacUuJXbnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: >Del Cecchi wrote: >> Andrew Swallow wrote: >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> In article <Vf-dnSMExMAU4JvbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)bt.com>, >>>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <rqh3ue.6m61.ln(a)via.reistad.name>, >>>>>> Morten Reistad <first(a)last.name> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>>>> The decision of May 17th 1983 couldn't have been much different. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After all, people want to upgrade their computers in the most >>>>>>>> effective way possible - and the most effective way is the one that >>>>>>>> requires them to spend the least money converting their own programs >>>>>>>> and data. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So if nobody makes PDP-10 computers any more, there's no particular >>>>>>>> benefit to their owners doing their next upgrade with DEC - and a >>>>>>>> motive not to do so, so as to punish this behavior. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Under what circumstances would abandoning their 10 and 20 >>>>>>>> customers be >>>>>>>> rational? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is where I have an issue with DEC. It was the abandonment of the >>>>>>> customers. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, no. _PDP-10_ customers. This was Bell's doing through and >>>>>> through. >>>>> >>>>> Worse DEC dropped the PDP-11 customers, >>>> >>>> >>>> Sigh! Now _when_ are you talking about. This was not true in >>>> the early 80s. When the PDP-11 product line was sold off, Bell >>>> was long gone. >>> >>> >>> There is no law that bans a company from repeating the same mistake. >>> >>>> >>>>> LSI-11 customers, PDP-8 >>>>> customers and the VAX/VMS customers. Eventually the company runs >>>>> out of customers. >>>> >>>> >>>> You are talking about the 90s when the plan was to strip the company >>>> down to its help desk, which is the only piece that Compaq wanted. >>>> >>>> What is really sad is that they trashed it and then HP seems to have >>>> completed the job. /BAH >> They probably would have run out of pdp-8 and pdp-11 customers sooner or >> later. And by the early 80's I would think those systems were in the >> down part of the lifecycle. >> >We are talking LSI-11 vs 8086. Even if DEC did not sell to the consumer >market the $1000 business computer on every desk market is enormous. And I'm telling you, again, that DEC did not have the infrastructure to handle that support. DEC's main business was not retail-ish. /BAH
From: Nick Maclaren on 27 Mar 2007 07:29 In article <euatmc$8ss_005(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: |> |> >What DEC should have done (and was told so at the time) was to produce |> >a 32-bit PDP11, specialised for such purposes, and capture the computer |> >communication market. This would have been a completely separate range |> >from the VAX, but would have needed very little software support, and |> >not all that much in the way of peripheral support. |> |> Yup. Those people were killing off the cash cows. I never understood |> why. Nor me, but see below. |> Query: Do you think the 8's could have been sold as a radio |> Shack item for you hardware kiddies who were playing back then? |> |> I always thought a child's "piano" connected to an -8 and |> the appropriate lights would have made a very popular toy. |> |> The toggles would have been the keys, of course. I wasn't one, but not as such. Too big. What DEC could have done (and was told so) was to join together with (say) Motorola or a similar manufacturer on a design, and licence it at a very low rate to anyone who would take on the home hacker market. My impression is that the DEC bigwigs were concentrating so hard on competing with IBM in the general purpose minicomputer market, and trying to break into the mainframe market, that they failed to see the wood for the trees. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Mar 2007 07:20 In article <crh9ue.mc82.ln(a)via.reistad.name>, Morten Reistad <first(a)last.name> wrote: >In article <56qh33F29t3i0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >Del Cecchi <cecchinospam(a)us.ibm.com> wrote: >>Andrew Swallow wrote: >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> In article <Vf-dnSMExMAU4JvbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)bt.com>, >>>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <rqh3ue.6m61.ln(a)via.reistad.name>, >>>>>> Morten Reistad <first(a)last.name> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>>>> The decision of May 17th 1983 couldn't have been much different. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After all, people want to upgrade their computers in the most >>>>>>>> effective way possible - and the most effective way is the one that >>>>>>>> requires them to spend the least money converting their own programs >>>>>>>> and data. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So if nobody makes PDP-10 computers any more, there's no particular >>>>>>>> benefit to their owners doing their next upgrade with DEC - and a >>>>>>>> motive not to do so, so as to punish this behavior. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Under what circumstances would abandoning their 10 and 20 >>>>>>>> customers be >>>>>>>> rational? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is where I have an issue with DEC. It was the abandonment of the >>>>>>> customers. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, no. _PDP-10_ customers. This was Bell's doing through and >>>>>> through. >>>>> >>>>> Worse DEC dropped the PDP-11 customers, >>>> >>>> >>>> Sigh! Now _when_ are you talking about. This was not true in >>>> the early 80s. When the PDP-11 product line was sold off, Bell >>>> was long gone. >>> >>> >>> There is no law that bans a company from repeating the same mistake. >>> >>>> >>>>> LSI-11 customers, PDP-8 >>>>> customers and the VAX/VMS customers. Eventually the company runs >>>>> out of customers. >>>> >>>> >>>> You are talking about the 90s when the plan was to strip the company >>>> down to its help desk, which is the only piece that Compaq wanted. >>>> >>>> What is really sad is that they trashed it and then HP seems to have >>>> completed the job. >>>> /BAH >>They probably would have run out of pdp-8 and pdp-11 customers sooner or >>later. And by the early 80's I would think those systems were in the >>down part of the lifecycle. > >LSI11 based support systems everywhere could have made the mainframes >last until the 8600 was out, and could have assisted in a transition. > >Perhaps. Prime tried this strategy, but got bought out and gutted midway >in the process. > >DEC _did_ come back with the alpha, just as soon as they had managed >to deVAXify their brains. Except, by then the trust in the company had >evaporated. No. What happened with that was they sent out signals that VMS was going the way of TOPS-10. The customers were savvy enough to do their own migration plans off the platform without telling anybody. > >Snake oil, may 17th and all that. > >We keep harping on this. I have wondered why. I think this is a discussion >of today's dangers by proxy. Yes. It also has to do with excellence. Doing a job well does not guarantee longevity; there will always be somebody or something that will destroy it. > >The important lesson from the events is that you should never, ever >have a single source for the equipment that runs your business critical >systems. Even if it is DEC, IBM, HP or a similar blue-chip giant. Please, please, please include software in this. You also have to consider the software. The computer biz is depending on essentially two pots for software; one of them can be expected to screw you up and the other still needs some evolution. > >Because even DEC folded on us. Not as spectacularly as International >Harvester a century before, but enough to shake us all. > >DEC was a company with a reputation far ahead of today's HP or Microsoft. >Somewhat like a reconsituted IBM of today, or Intel, or Apple. These companies >are/were blue-chip giants that constitute a core of IT technology. > >But the lesson is that if DEC can implode, so can they. People keep assuming that it was a goal to stay in business. It was not from all the evidence I saw. > >The lesser ones all imploded. Wang, Prime, Norsk Data, ICL, Honeywell, >NCR, Siemens, DG and more all imploded in that decade. In our guts, >we kind of expected somesuch to happen. It was DEC that shook us. > >Today we wouldn't be much shaken if HP/Compaq, Dell, Lenovo, TCI, Via, Sun, >or even AMD implodes. It will be momentarily painful for us as customers, >but we will migrate elsewhere. Workers and PHB's can follow the business >that moves without too much trouble. > >It is when outfits like Apple, IBM, Intel or Microsoft folds that we >are shaken, all of us. > >The lesson from DEC is that it can happen. > >Always have a Plan B. And plans C, D, E, F, ...., Z, omega. You're missing software aspect in this post :-). The reason, I think, that this thread drift has happened is because of an assumption that, if the PDP-10 was "no good", one shouldn't make a new CPU architecture that includes it's good ideas. What people refuse to believe is that a company would shutdown a product line that made money and was wanted^Wdemanded by its customers. It happened. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Mar 2007 07:23 In article <MPG.207232a6c80b03d198a251(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <fqWdnV-JLsRJ_ZXbRVnyiAA(a)bt.com>, >am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com says... >> Morten Reistad wrote: >> [snip] >> >> > >> > DEC _did_ come back with the alpha, just as soon as they had managed >> > to deVAXify their brains. Except, by then the trust in the company had >> > evaporated. >> >> The only sensible use for the Alpha was to run microcode as a VAX. >> When chip manufacturing technology allowed CISC CPUs on a single chip >> the cost advantages of RISC were over. > >I think you'll find there are a few people who will disagree with >you. Just a few? ;-) The poster is showing his ignorance w.r.t. who was buying and using Alphas. AFAICT, DEC was getting back to providing hard/software needs of the research and educational communities again. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Mar 2007 07:29
In article <4608678f$0$1410$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> >> We keep harping on this. I have wondered why. I think this is a discussion >> of today's dangers by proxy. >> >> The important lesson from the events is that you should never, ever >> have a single source for the equipment that runs your business critical >> systems. Even if it is DEC, IBM, HP or a similar blue-chip giant. > >Perhaps. I think the lesson is "never f&ck with your customers." Wrong. DEC stopped shipping sources. That means that they stopped playing _with_ their customers. DEC's customers were used to having a say in what they ordered and having 98% influence in what DEC developed. Please look at all the agendas of all the DECUSes that were ever held. > >> >> Because even DEC folded on us. Not as spectacularly as International >> Harvester a century before, but enough to shake us all. >> >> DEC was a company with a reputation far ahead of today's HP or Microsoft. >> Somewhat like a reconsituted IBM of today, or Intel, or Apple. These companies >> are/were blue-chip giants that constitute a core of IT technology. > >Probably ahead of Apple. M$ isn't even in the same league. DEC was the >anti-IBM - their computers were simple and fun to use (like Apple, >perhaps), inexpensive (not like Apple), and easily interfaced to a >variety of equipment (not like anybody). People could buy DEC's stuff outright and then do anything they wanted with them. That was how DEC became a billion dollar company as the "ant-IBM". > >> >> But the lesson is that if DEC can implode, so can they. >> >> The lesser ones all imploded. Wang, Prime, Norsk Data, ICL, Honeywell, >> NCR, Siemens, DG and more all imploded in that decade. In our guts, >> we kind of expected somesuch to happen. It was DEC that shook us. > >I think the problem is that it appeared totally unnecessary. Barb >blames individuals in management. And in development. But that was in the late-1970 and early 1980s time line. > I don't know enough to comment, but I >do know that they had a very competitive product line, and obviously >loyal customers. Perhaps, to those in the know, the decisions that were >made were the only ones possible, but it seems stupid in hindsight. > >> >> Today we wouldn't be much shaken if HP/Compaq, Dell, Lenovo, TCI, Via, Sun, >> or even AMD implodes. It will be momentarily painful for us as customers, >> but we will migrate elsewhere. Workers and PHB's can follow the business >> that moves without too much trouble. >> >> It is when outfits like Apple, IBM, Intel or Microsoft folds that we >> are shaken, all of us. > >I refrain from commenting with reghard to Microsoft. All you have to do is remember that Microsoft's main business is distribution. /BAH |