The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: CBFalconer on 31 Mar 2007 00:12 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > CBFalconer <cbfalconer(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>.... snip ... >>> >>> Neither would matter. Look if you increase your "CPU speed" by >>> twice, your system will then be constantly waiting on I/O becaues >>> the CPU got its job done faster. YOur system software and usage >>> had been tweaked over the years to accomodate the behaviour of a >>> VAX with its peripherals (this includes memory). Now you replace >>> the CENTRAL processing unit with something that goes twice as fast. >> >> And the system simply switches to another process while waiting for >> i/o. No problem. > > It is a problem because the monitor has run every job that was > runnable and _all_ are now waiting on I/O to complete. Look. > We saw this. It was part of our business cycle. Systems were > I/O bound so we built a faster I/O. The same jobs were now > CPU bound so we built a faster CPU. The same jobs were now > I/O bound so we built a faster I/O..... You simply go to IL [1] for your logic modules, and to FTL [2] for your disk drives. :-) [1] Instantaneous Ltd. [2] Faster Than Light Inc. -- 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 from http://www.teranews.com
From: Brian Inglis on 31 Mar 2007 01:37 fOn 29 Mar 2007 14:40:24 -0400 in alt.folklore.computers, Rich Alderson <news(a)alderson.users.panix.com> wrote: >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. They wanted an enterprise database platform and "Digital had it all" bar that and a few dozen other pieces available from other vendors on other platforms. -- 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: Brian Inglis on 31 Mar 2007 01:41 On 29 Mar 2007 11:21:18 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote: > >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). We had a few interface boxes based on Z80s that ran longer than the company that purchased them. -- 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: Brian Inglis on 31 Mar 2007 01:58 On Thu, 29 Mar 07 13:29:12 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <tl7n03h8uppujai6ck0ap794okqulb9i71(a)4ax.com>, > Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >>fOn Wed, 28 Mar 07 11:16:23 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Ahem, manufacturers didn't do software support: they did production and >>maintenance. > ><ahem> But DEC did do software support for the products it did >ship. This was part of our corporate folklore. It would ahve >been unthinkable to sell millions of _systems_ with no followup. >It simply was not in our blood to do this. If the customers >wanted us to leave them alone, we did. However, the reverse >was never true. > >>A few inhouse staff did the software support, complained to the >>manufacturer occasionally, mostly got some response, rarely got changes >>made, if it followed the strategic direction (on the mini products). >>The same model would have worked for personal workstations, with the >>customer being responsible for most support. > >That implies that all sources are shipped with the toy. You >people are talking about a product line that made acquiring sources >a miracle. DEC did not ship sources for their popular PDP-11 OSes, we had to work with the documented system interfaces, but they were pretty good for most purposes. >>DEC FE supported their terminals > >Terminals did not run OSes. We knew how do hardware in that >number but not systems. Do you understand the difference >between a piece of gear and a _system_? Do you understnad the difference between supporting hundreds of mainframe systems on a few hardware bases and thousands of mini systems on a variety of hardware bases? IMHO the mini people really had to have had their ducks in a row to deal with the volume. Remember there were independent industry mags for at least some of the popular mini OSes. -- 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: Brian Inglis on 31 Mar 2007 02:03
On Thu, 29 Mar 07 12:31:51 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ih8n03puv0jbp4i04l9vh225qa96luaf94(a)4ax.com>, > Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >>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. > >VAX was not an alternative. It was shortterm. VAX was the only system ever marketed by Digital. -- 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 |