The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: Jan Vorbrüggen on 30 Mar 2007 11:00 Of course not - see my other post. I don't suffer from VMS arrogance - I worked for several years on a dual PDP-10 system, some of it in parallel with a 780, both serving a whole physics institute (about 150 users). I know what was (or is) good and bad about these two systems. _You_ are suffering from PDP-10 nostalgia. >>>>And anyway, I can't think of a problem that would have required a rebuild. >>>>Significantly upgrading a subsystem, like the batch or print job management, >>>Nah, on the -10 that was at the app level. >>Sure, but it needed some monitor support, didn't it? > Not after we shipped V1.0. Sites did not have to put up a new monitor > just to put up a new distribution of these subsystems. I said significantly upgrading, not a new distribution. > YOur definition of reboot and my defintion of reboot is two completely > different things. Our customers expected a reboot to take a few > minutes, at the _most_. Not at all. Just a more intelligent reboot. Jan
From: Jan Vorbrüggen on 30 Mar 2007 11:03 >>Anyway, after the 780 which was at the lower end of reasonable, >>performance-wise, > [spluttering emoticon wiping oatmeal off TTY screen] > > That is such an understatement, it's already 3/4 of the way to > China. No, it's a reasoned assessment. In a significantly smaller package, it offered about equal horse power than the dual KL-10 system we had. For some jobs, it was faster, especially after it had enough memory to matter relative to the KL. And it was much less susceptible for running into resourec deadlocks than TOPS-10. Jan
From: Frank McCoy on 30 Mar 2007 12:30 In alt.folklore.computers "Tarkin" <Tarkin000(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 30, 3:46 am, CBFalconer <cbfalco...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Nick Maclaren wrote: >> >> ... snip ... >> >> > 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). >> >> Nonsense. I had 8080 based communications systems that ran >> continuously (no restart) for 2 to 3 years, until brought down by a >> mains power failure. >> >> -- >> Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) >> Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. >> <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> >> >> -- >> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com > >8080 != Z80. ISTR reading from a few different >places that early Z80's were 'twitchy'; that's >also why there are 'undocumented' opcodes- >those opcodes did not work reliably until the kinks >were worked out of the (wafer production [?]) >process. > I'd differ with you about why the opcodes were undocumented. I wrote a Z-80 emulator that had to implement those opcodes (just in case). At the time I did, I figured out just why they were undocumented; and it had nothing to do with the wafer process or production. It mainly had to do with the 8080/Z-80 architecture, and the fact that to do what was originally *wanted* (a type of indirect addressing that would have been *very* useful) would have taken a major redesign of the hardware. So, it was easier to leave in what happened by default than make the opcodes do something really useful. Time constraints, money available, and management pushed the product on the market before the engineers could make the chip do what they really wanted it to. I suspect (and have heard rumors that it's true) that the Z-80 that made it to market was intended by the engineers as a trial to make sure what they had already worked; and they intended to complete the process in the next step of design ... Only the company was running out of money and if they didn't put out a processor right then, they wouldn't ever do so because the company would go under first. So, they went with what they had that worked. By the time they *could* have fixed things it was way too late; as, like in so many cases, people wanted a *compatible* product instead of a better one. In order to sell a Z-80 or replacement, you had to implement those same undocumented opcodes. They WERE useful ... Sometimes. Not *nearly* as useful though, as the true indirect addressing that was originally intended. In most cases though, the jobs you could do with the undocumented opcodes were more easily done by the documented ones. Perhaps somebody who actually worked in the project could correct this. -- _____ / ' / ™ ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_ (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
From: krw on 30 Mar 2007 12:56 In article <euivce$8qk_003(a)s976.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <MPG.2075a1a27f7217af98a25a(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <eug9l1$8qk_002(a)s879.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >> 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. > >> > >The '70s were pretty bad. > > Ah, maybe it was the 70s. I can't remember dates very well. > > > 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) > > <GRIN> Right. A lot of farmers were tech-savvy. > > > >in the '70s. The 303x came out in '80 and things were > >hopping around P'ok, at least, for the next decade. > > JMF used to spy on the productions floors, too, to get a feeling > of the real business that was getting done. I wasn't really spying, just making house calls or on my way to beatings. Kinda made me happy I was working for IBM (hadn't had a layoff in forty years). By the late '80s things had changed. I had to make many calls to Kingston final test (moved from P'ok to Kingston - since closed) for some crypto problems. I couldn't believe all the systems lined up in test. There were $20M bills as far as the eye could see. -- Keith
From: David Powell on 30 Mar 2007 14:39
In article <WIidnYPZtOApLZfbRVnyhgA(a)bt.com>, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com> in alt.folklore.computers wrote: >David Powell wrote: >> In article <Stydndude4YPyJTbRVnygAA(a)bt.com>, >> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com> in >[snip] > >> >> Do you remember Hamilton Rentals, or Rapid Recall? They were the two >> distributors appointed by DEC (United Kingdom) in the early 1980s to >> sell the small LSI-11 etc stuff. >> >>> DEC sold to the technical part of companies - so the salesmen, >>> warehouses and trucks needed in the first year existed. >>> >> >> Trucks with tail-lifts to move VAXes, LSI-11 stuff came in small >> cardboard boxes delivered by the postman on his pushbike. :) > >When delivering one at a time the post may do but 20 off LSI-20 at a >time the trucks are better. > Nit-pick. If you mean LSI-11/2, one of those in its cardboard box will fit into my jacket pocket. :) Regards, David P. |