The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: Nick Maclaren on 29 Mar 2007 14:11 In article <MPG.2075a1a27f7217af98a25a(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: |> |> > 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. |> > |> The '70s were pretty bad. I remember walking out to the P'ok |> production floor and seeing only one or two processors in final test |> with "Departent of Agriculture" (going to a three-letter government |> agency, sure) in the '70s. The 303x came out in '80 and things were |> hopping around P'ok, at least, for the next decade. That was a bit misleading. IBM was outsourcing quite a lot of its actual production by then - to places like Glasgow (if I recall), though still IBM subsidiaries. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Andrew Swallow on 29 Mar 2007 14:15 Jan Vorbr�ggen wrote: [snip] > They do, and VMS is still being actively developed. AFAIK, even the > Alpha is not only being supported but being actively developed. Even > VAX/VMS was being updated, not just supported, just a few years ago. A > significant number of people a running VMS virtual machines on their PCs > because they never ported their applications to something else. It seems > likely that these VMs are the fastest VAXen ever built 8-). > > Jan Hmmm. If the VAX and ALPHA instruction sets are now public source then clones can be made. Using a PC or Apple bus permits off the shelf ram modules and disk drives can be purchased. Writing the CPUs in C or VHDL will allow them to be tested on a FPGA and manufactured as ASICs. Recompiling the ASIC every 18 months will permit the processor board to speed up as the chip foundries reduce gate sizes. A CPU on an ASIC will be able to match block move instructions performed by the emulator, other instruction should be 5 to 10 times faster. To keep the general public happy running programs by clicking a mouse will be needed. Someone is going to have fun converting clerical software like OpenOffice. New native mode device handlers will need writing to support the standard peripherals. A way of emulating the PC which allows device handlers written in X86 to run thereby permits users to buy other hardware modules in the shops. VAX/VMS the reliable alternative to Windows PCs. Andrew Swallow
From: Rich Alderson on 29 Mar 2007 14:40 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <716n03dfp130mbs5bge8tbknp4v78sh1pa(a)4ax.com>, > Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >> fOn 27 Mar 2007 08:43:47 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, >> nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote: >>> In article <byrnsj-FDFD08.19484226032007(a)newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, >>> John Byrns <byrnsj(a)sbcglobal.net> writes: >>>|> I always thought DEC should have extended the PDP-11 to 32 bits and >>>|> skipped the VAX. The PDP-11 was a very elegant design whose fatal flaw >>>|> was its 16 bitness, while the VAX seemed overly complex to me. >>> 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. > Of course they did. Why do you think we sold PDP-10s? I had those conversations with -11 folks at DECUS. From the point of view of PDP-11 users, the PDP-10 was *not* a viable replacement. They wanted 8-bit bytes and power-of-2 words, and nothing was going to change their minds about that. -- Rich Alderson | /"\ ASCII ribbon | news(a)alderson.users.panix.com | \ / campaign against | "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime." | x HTML mail and | --Death, of the Endless | / \ postings |
From: krw on 29 Mar 2007 14:42 In article <eugvg6$a78$1(a)gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk says... > > In article <MPG.2075a1a27f7217af98a25a(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: > |> > |> > 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. > |> > > |> The '70s were pretty bad. I remember walking out to the P'ok > |> production floor and seeing only one or two processors in final test > |> with "Departent of Agriculture" (going to a three-letter government > |> agency, sure) in the '70s. The 303x came out in '80 and things were > |> hopping around P'ok, at least, for the next decade. > > That was a bit misleading. IBM was outsourcing quite a lot of its > actual production by then - to places like Glasgow (if I recall), > though still IBM subsidiaries. No system final test was being "outsourced" to anyone. The '70s were dire times for IBM. I've been told they were as bad as the early '90s, but covered it somewhat better. -- Keith
From: krw on 29 Mar 2007 14:50
In article <Mu2dnV2jQ7yzn5HbnZ2dnUVZ8ternZ2d(a)bt.com>, am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com says... > Jan Vorbrüggen wrote: > [snip] > > > They do, and VMS is still being actively developed. AFAIK, even the > > Alpha is not only being supported but being actively developed. Even > > VAX/VMS was being updated, not just supported, just a few years ago. A > > significant number of people a running VMS virtual machines on their PCs > > because they never ported their applications to something else. It seems > > likely that these VMs are the fastest VAXen ever built 8-). > > > > Jan > > Hmmm. If the VAX and ALPHA instruction sets are now public source then > clones can be made. Using a PC or Apple bus permits off the shelf ram > modules and disk drives can be purchased. Writing the CPUs in C or VHDL > will allow them to be tested on a FPGA and manufactured as ASICs. > Recompiling the ASIC every 18 months will permit the processor board to > speed up as the chip foundries reduce gate sizes. You make processor development sound so simple. Why do you need to make an FPGA model? Simulations tell you everything you need to know, likely faster for less money. There will things that simulations may not find but there is no reason to believe that an FPGA model will find them any faster/better. > A CPU on an ASIC will be able to match block move instructions performed > by the emulator, other instruction should be 5 to 10 times faster. ASIC is the wrong answer. AFAIK all processors today are custom chips. > To keep the general public happy running programs by clicking a mouse > will be needed. Someone is going to have fun converting clerical > software like OpenOffice. New native mode device handlers will need > writing to support the standard peripherals. A way of emulating the PC > which allows device handlers written in X86 to run thereby permits users > to buy other hardware modules in the shops. > > VAX/VMS the reliable alternative to Windows PCs. You're dreaming. That bus left a long time ago. -- Keith |