The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: Steve O'Hara-Smith on 27 Mar 2007 05:25 On 26 Mar 2007 18:26:24 GMT nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote: > Unclear. PDP11s dominated the (computer) communications in the early > 1980s, even in many sites with System/370 mainframes! Yeah I seem to recall there being a couple of PDP11s hooked to a 370 in the early 1980s (and late 1970s) not far from you. -- C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see | http://www.sohara.org/
From: Nick Maclaren on 27 Mar 2007 09:40 In article <20070327102529.10d625dd.steveo(a)eircom.net>, Steve O'Hara-Smith <steveo(a)eircom.net> writes: |> |> > Unclear. PDP11s dominated the (computer) communications in the early |> > 1980s, even in many sites with System/370 mainframes! |> |> Yeah I seem to recall there being a couple of PDP11s hooked to a |> 370 in the early 1980s (and late 1970s) not far from you. Yup :-) And we weren't the only such site, because those mainframes were dire for single-character interactions and related communications work and peripheral driving. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler on 27 Mar 2007 09:50 nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes: > Unclear. PDP11s dominated the (computer) communications in the early > 1980s, even in many sites with System/370 mainframes! They were run > for many years after their official demise, because they were just SO > much better for the purpose than anything else. also perkin-elmer as telecommunication clone ... grew-out of interdata/3 work that four of use worked on when I was undergraduate in the 60s. i ran into somebody in the 90s ... who said that they sold a lot of such boxes, especially into gov. agencies well thru the 80s (also said that they never got around to redesigning the channel interface board ... appeared to be the wire-wrap board that had been done at the univ. in the 60s) ... and within this decade ran into one handling the point-of-sale terminal lines in a tour of a large transaction processing datacenter. lots of past posts mentioning having done telecommunication clone with interdata/3 in the 60s ... and getting blaimed for some part of the clone controller business http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm
From: Nick Maclaren on 27 Mar 2007 09:54 In article <m38xdin6c1.fsf(a)garlic.com>, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn(a)garlic.com> writes: |> |> > Unclear. PDP11s dominated the (computer) communications in the early |> > 1980s, even in many sites with System/370 mainframes! They were run |> > for many years after their official demise, because they were just SO |> > much better for the purpose than anything else. |> |> also perkin-elmer as telecommunication clone ... Thanks for the reminder. That was a slightly different use from the one that I was envisaging, but was definitely one that a 32-bit PDP-11 could have targetted. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Del Cecchi on 27 Mar 2007 11:24
Morten Reistad 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > -- mrr Note that IBM damn near folded in the early 90's as well during the last days of the reign of John Akers. -- Del Cecchi "This post is my own and doesn�t necessarily represent IBM�s positions, strategies or opinions.� |