The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Mar 2007 07:38 In article <k8idnfPPHuSawZTbRVnyjAA(a)bt.com>, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: >krw wrote: >> In article <DZSdnaHeS49TzpTbnZ2dnUVZ8tXinZ2d(a)bt.com>, >> am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com says... >>> krw 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. >>>> >>> Probably but were they customers of DEC? >> >> Every Alpha ran VAX microcode? Dunno, never seen a real live Alpha. >> > >The Alpha was the replacement for the VAX, so a lot of the software >running on the Alpha was VAX/VMS software. The software was either >recompiled or run using a software emulators. I have a plaque given to JMF for his Alpha work. It is customary for applications to be recompiled when going from one architecture to another. This is a fact today. > So a 500 MHz Alpha >ran like a 50 MHz VAX with expensive ram. YOu are grasping at straws. The emulator was a method to help customer go from one architecture to the other. I'm coming to the conclusion that you are not interested in learning a damned thing. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Mar 2007 07:41 In article <eubp25$628$1(a)gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote: > >In article <DZSdnaHeS49TzpTbnZ2dnUVZ8tXinZ2d(a)bt.com>, >Andrew Swallow <am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com> writes: >|> krw wrote: >|> > In article <fqWdnV-JLsRJ_ZXbRVnyiAA(a)bt.com>, >|> > am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com says... >|> >> Morten Reistad wrote: >|> >> >|> >> 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. >|> > >|> Probably but were they customers of DEC? > >Yes. What is it with this kid? I had so many woe-is-mes from customers about having to move to Micshits' stuff at that time. And I was not privy to the insides. These were people who I'd met on the newsgroups. /BAH
From: Andrew Swallow on 28 Mar 2007 07:53 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <eubp25$628$1(a)gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, > nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote: >> In article <DZSdnaHeS49TzpTbnZ2dnUVZ8tXinZ2d(a)bt.com>, >> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com> writes: >> |> krw wrote: >> |> > In article <fqWdnV-JLsRJ_ZXbRVnyiAA(a)bt.com>, >> |> > am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com says... >> |> >> Morten Reistad wrote: >> |> >> >> |> >> 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. >> |> > >> |> Probably but were they customers of DEC? >> >> Yes. > > What is it with this kid? I had so many woe-is-mes from customers > about having to move to Micshits' stuff at that time. And I > was not privy to the insides. These were people who I'd met on > the newsgroups. The alternatives to the Alpha were VAX/VMS and PDP-11s not X86. Andrew Swallow
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Mar 2007 07:45 In article <mdd7it2xsdl.fsf(a)panix5.panix.com>, Rich Alderson <news(a)alderson.users.panix.com> wrote: >nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes: > >> The PDP-11 never made much impact as a 'general' computer, especially >> in the commercial arena, whereas the PDP-10 and PDP-20 did. > >Point of order: There is no such thing in the DEC/Digital product line as a >"PDP-20". The highest number in the PDP series was the PDP-16. > >Some people believe that if the PDP-10 ran Tops-10, then a machine running >Tops-20 must be a PDP-20, but the reasoning is flawed. Modulo some differences >in I/O, I can't think of any; what were you thinking of? >either operating system will run on the same hardware. I call to your >attention the bright orange box labeled "DECSYSTEM-20" on which I run Tops-10 >for the PDPplanet project (http://www.pdpplanet.org/). > We used the same machine for stand alone for both OSes. The same was true for the KS CPU model. This was done on purpose. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Mar 2007 07:49
In article <460a471e$0$28137$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> >> >> Just watch the pain unfold when Vista cannot run your application. >> With binary-only, Microsoft products you will have a similar experience >> as we had when DEC folded on us. There is no Plan B in this scenario. >> >> >>>>The lesson from DEC is that it can happen. >>>> >>>>Always have a Plan B. >> > >As I already said, my plan B is Linux. However, there are a lot of system owners who cannot use that as their Plan -anythings because they are not in the software biz. This is a chink that is going to be blocked up when more people are able to hire experts at retail prices. You can't do that yet. There is no gas station equivalent for any Unix maintenance yet. > I don't use any Mic$hit apps, so >it shouldn't be too difficult. If the outside world of unix went away, would you be able to continue? That is what you need to think about. /BAH |