The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: Nick Maclaren on 29 Mar 2007 07:21 In article <tn4n03l2c0if65pkp44cg6e9fb85a2ab6c(a)4ax.com>, Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> 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. |> |> The Z80 was already in that market using Intel?/Zilog? Sync/Async comm |> chip, using that pair of chips per channel. Doubt any PDP11 could |> compete on price or performance. No, but nor could the Z80 compete on industry-quality functionality and reliability. I know quite a few people who used Z80s for that, and they never really cut the mustard for mission-critical tasks (despite being a factor of 10 or more cheaper). Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Nick Maclaren on 29 Mar 2007 07:24 In article <716n03dfp130mbs5bge8tbknp4v78sh1pa(a)4ax.com>, Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> 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. The VAX |> >was intended to capture the latter market and, in the research arena, |> >it did. |> |> They did a good commercial business with 11/70s running RSTS/E, IAS, |> RSX-11D as departmental minis, but growing companies wanting to get away |> from file processing, use databases, handle more users and functions, |> without proliferating machine counts, had no growth path with Digital. Yes, they did, but those sales had far less impact than their numbers imply. I don't know precisely why - the above may be one reason, and another may have been that a lot of them were sold into the very laid back (a.k.a. happy hacker) end of the market, which was and is very volatile. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Brian Inglis on 29 Mar 2007 07:27 fOn Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:53:35 +0100 in alt.folklore.computers, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: >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. .... and SGI, Sun, IBM, Amdahl, Fujistu, Hitachi. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis(a)CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca) fake address use address above to reply
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Mar 2007 07:58 In article <56srafF2arjf6U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Del Cecchi <cecchinospam(a)us.ibm.com> wrote: >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. Of course. IIRC, IBM had a crisis in the 80s(?); the reason it survived that one was due to having enough money to carry them through. /BAH
From: Jan Vorbrüggen on 29 Mar 2007 08:21
> It may not have helped you, but there have been a lot of occasions in > which I have needed to know where something might have been updated > NOT in the main modules. And there were a zillion reads and loads of > the address :-( VMS has a WATCH facility which lets you monitor reads or writes of given system addresses, and will report the places from where they are happening, in symbolic form. Yes, that's really a nice thing, sometimes it even helps you to diagnose those ugly race conditions. Jan |