The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: Peter Flass on 28 Mar 2007 06:44 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. I don't use any Mic$hit apps, so it shouldn't be too difficult.
From: Peter Flass on 28 Mar 2007 06:49 Quadibloc wrote: > . > Of course there isn't; RISC architectures almost by definition have > clean ISAs. > > However, some CISC architectures do not. Specifically, the x86 > architecture does not; since it is the *only* CISC architecture > broadly available at this time, the lack which I refer to exists. I think all the IBM mainframe customers would disagree with this. We're not dead yet;-)
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Mar 2007 07:16 In article <46099974$0$18859$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> And I'm telling you, again, that DEC did not have the infrastructure >> to handle that support. DEC's main business was not retail-ish. >> > >Even IBM decided they didn't want to be in this business. I've spent quite a bit of my thinking time trying to figure out how to do the single task of software support with 200 million systems. I still don't have it. Micshit is trying by using the internet and edictive practices. That's not working either. Number one rule is to not ship security holes and have a backout plan when you do. I haven't thought of any way to do this. Micshit's answer is an "as is" which was anathema to the manufacturers of the past. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Mar 2007 07:27 In article <u75cue.3mm2.ln(a)via.reistad.name>, Morten Reistad <first(a)last.name> wrote: >In article <euauli$8qk_001(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <crh9ue.mc82.ln(a)via.reistad.name>, >> Morten Reistad <first(a)last.name> wrote: >>>In article <56qh33F29t3i0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>Del Cecchi <cecchinospam(a)us.ibm.com> wrote: >>>>Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> > >>> >>>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. >> >>No. What happened with that was they sent out signals that VMS >>was going the way of TOPS-10. The customers were savvy enough >>to do their own migration plans off the platform without telling >>anybody. > >The trust was by then long gone. They had imploded once before. It had nothing to do with trust. The signals were sent. It was in the plans. The fact that the software still exists is, I believe, entirely due to the workers under the covers. Their efforts will probably never be recognized nor admired. > >>>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. >> >>Yes. It also has to do with excellence. Doing a job well does not >>guarantee longevity; there will always be somebody or something >>that will destroy it. > >It means you cannot rely on external forces from your organisation to >keep excellence. You must have control. It means that you have to have some way to get rid of those who are in control and destroying the company. We never figured out how. > >>>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. >> >>Please, please, please include software in this. You also have >>to consider the software. The computer biz is depending on essentially >>two pots for software; one of them can be expected to screw you up >>and the other still needs some evolution. > >Software is a part of it, but software goes nowhere without a >system to run it on. This is also why later software have been so >extensively based on portable compilers. > >Bliss software was dead May 18th 1983. BLISS was always dead. It was a horrible mess; I always thought this was due to having a university implementing it without the constraints of constant feedback from varied customer usages. > >>>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. >> >>People keep assuming that it was a goal to stay in business. It >>was not from all the evidence I saw. > >If the moves DEC management did were done without a goal of a >going concern the managers would have been guilty of several crimes. > >The presumption of a going concern is part of all bookkeeping and >exchange listing. You must be very careful about stating what parts >of the company you plan to liquidate or wind down. It was getting stated. All those parts that were sold off were part preparing for the Compaq deal; at least that was my assumption. Note that I was not working during that time and was watching from the outside in. All the clues were in the Wall Street Journal from their first sale of bonds to the sales of the sites that were profitable. > >>>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. >> >>And plans C, D, E, F, ...., Z, omega. >> >>You're missing software aspect in this post :-). > >Software is just a necessary part of the systems. No. I'm not writing clearly again :-(. Software is invisible. You cannot detect when something is wrong until _after_ the event. In a lot of cases (I've seen them) there isn't any going back to just before the mess began. For instance, losing sources. > >>The reason, I think, that this thread drift has happened is >>because of an assumption that, if the PDP-10 was "no good", >>one shouldn't make a new CPU architecture that includes >>it's good ideas. What people refuse to believe is that >>a company would shutdown a product line that made money >>and was wanted^Wdemanded by its customers. It happened. > >We see it happen again with MS Vista. Those customers don't >have a Plan B, and will be just as burnt as we were. > >But I have told them for a decade that it will happen. I still haven't heard much about this one. The gamers aren't bitching. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Mar 2007 07:33
In article <DZSdnaHeS49TzpTbnZ2dnUVZ8tXinZ2d(a)bt.com>, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: >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? Sigh! YES! <snip> /BAH |