The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: Andrew Swallow on 26 Mar 2007 12:49 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
From: Del Cecchi on 26 Mar 2007 14:18 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. -- Del Cecchi "This post is my own and doesn�t necessarily represent IBM�s positions, strategies or opinions.�
From: Nick Maclaren on 26 Mar 2007 14:26 In article <56qh33F29t3i0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Del Cecchi <cecchinospam(a)us.ibm.com> writes: |> |> 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. 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. 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. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Andrew Swallow on 26 Mar 2007 15:56 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. Andrew Swallow
From: Morten Reistad on 26 Mar 2007 18:35
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 |