The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Mar 2007 08:32 In article <MPG.2077890e34e0efbb98a26e(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <460d9c5a$0$1428$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>, >Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com says... >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > In article <euggeu$92m$1(a)gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, >> > nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote: >> > >> >>In article <eugf8g$8qk_003(a)s879.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> >>|> >> >>|> It could be the way DEC tracked the sales. PDP-10 product line >> >>|> never got any "credit" for all the minis it sold. >> >> >> >>I was actually thinking from the customer end, but cannot say which >> >>was the chicken and which the egg. >> > >> > >> > Neither could DEC managmeent and their bean counters. They ended >> > up ignoring that (I can never remember the correct value) somewhere >> > between 60-70% of the mini customers also had at least one PDP-10. >> > Most had more. >> > >> >> IBM had and has this problem too. Maybe there's just no way to quantify >> it sufficiently for the MBAs that look at this stuff. Many times I've >> seen them cancel a product that probably sold lots of other stuff with it. >> >We constantly were up against that problem in the crypto group. We >could point to systems that wouldn't have been sold were it not for >ICRF (take-aways from Hitachi, IIRC) but the CPU sales team claimed >them. Since our profits were minimal (intended as a differentiator) >we were up against cancelation every six months or so. When the >layoffs came to the Hudson Valley ('93) we were rather nervous (we >were spared for some unknown reason and I found a life raft to the >frozen North). > Yup. And think of all the funcking money spent trying to cancel and then justify keeping the group around. You could have "made" millions more by simply not discussing it. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Mar 2007 08:40 In article <mamq03dmqlofcpdshgm9d1j03cvm64629b(a)4ax.com>, David Powell <ddotpowell(a)icuknet.co.uk> wrote: >In article <eugdic$8qk_012(a)s879.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com in alt.folklore.computers wrote: > >>In article <9gal035ncoglbdnvkd8m7odgl59o2opg9b(a)4ax.com>, >> David Powell <ddotpowell(a)icuknet.co.uk> wrote: >>>In article <Stydndude4YPyJTbRVnygAA(a)bt.com>, >>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com> in >>>alt.folklore.computers wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> [big snip here] >>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>Neither did IBM, so IBM created a new distribution infrastructure. >>>> >>> >>>Do you remember Hamilton Rentals, or Rapid Recall? >> >>No. >> > >I wouldn't expect that you would, my comment was responding to Andrew >S, who, apparently, is not aware of how DEC sold LSI-11etc in the UK. Ah, OK. > >>> They were the two >>>distributors appointed by DEC (United Kingdom) in the early 1980s to >>>sell the small LSI-11 etc stuff. >> >>I did not say that there were none; AAMOF, I very carefully >>wrote that it wasn't our main business. > >See above. Just for the record, in UK, 1980s, DEC were interested in >VAX /VMS to the exclusion of all else. Just for the record, DEC was interested in that to the exclusion of all else in the Mill, too. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Mar 2007 08:46 In article <1aur03tql3t2v405qug9d1b0s5m646812v(a)4ax.com>, Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >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. And that should tell you something. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Mar 2007 08:50 In article <jour03h8somdd913n1f5ugrf5tt8aih6ur(a)4ax.com>, Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >fOn Thu, 29 Mar 07 12:53:25 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <eue2f9$3o5$1(a)gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, >> nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote: >>> >>>In article <460a8773$0$17152$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>, >>>Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> writes: >>>|> Jan Vorbr�ggen wrote: >>>|> >>>|> > There is one particular case where the playing ground was as even as >>>|> > possible to allow comparison of two implementations of a CISC and a RISC >>>|> > architecture: The NVAX+ implementation of the VAX architecture and the >>>|> > 21064 implementation of the Alpha architecture (IIRC) both used the same >>>|> > design tools in the same company, the same foundry and the same process. >>>|> > And there sure were competent people working all aspects of the design >>>|> > on both teams. The end result: the Alpha processor was, by most >>>|> > measures, about twice faster than the VAX. >>>|> >>>|> Is this MIPS or real-world thruput? What kind of workload? I'm not >>>|> intimately familiar with Alpha, but one VAX instruction had to often >>>|> equal three or four Alpha instructions, what with string instr, >>>|> three-address instr., etc. This would be a good test, if someone >>>|> actually did a fair comparison and published the results. >>> >>>Real-world, but your second question is very relevant. The VAX was >>>relatively constant in performance between workloads, but the Alpha >>>varied by an incredible factor (ten or more, on practical workloads). >> >>Where were the bottlenecks on the Alphas you saw? My guess would >>be disk. That would be normal in the evolution of system gear >>development. > >You stick in a lot of controllers and a lot of arms and the I/O problems >go away. You only have problems when the h/w or s/w can't handle that >number of controllers or arms. >PPoE had PDP-11/70s close to maxing out theoretical drive performance, >and with same h/w, VAX did no better, worse with multiple interactive >terminal loads, until DECservers became available, acting as outboard >muxes or FEs. > >How many FE machines could you attach to a PDP-10? The guy Abbott gave a talk at a DECUS about using the -10 to collect data from lab animals. I think they used the DC-10 (that sound like the wrong cybercrud) to hang each front end. As for comm flavored FEs, after the ethernet, the node limit, if routing was 1000 (IIRC), and if it was an end node, nobody cared how many were in the network. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Mar 2007 08:51
In article <970s03tmilpgk1503irit6169vprteghtf(a)4ax.com>, Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis(a)SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote: >On Thu, 29 Mar 07 12:39:33 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <460a8553$0$8961$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>, >> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> wrote: >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> In article <460a471e$0$28137$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>, >>>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Just watch the pain unfold when Vista cannot run your application. >>>>>>With binary-only, Microsoft products you will have a similar experience >>>>>>as we had when DEC folded on us. There is no Plan B in this scenario. > >>>>>>>>The lesson from DEC is that it can happen. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Always have a Plan B. >>>>>> >>>>>As I already said, my plan B is Linux. >>>> >>>> >>>> However, there are a lot of system owners who cannot use that >>>> as their Plan -anythings because they are not in the software >>>> biz. >>> >>>I got excited when I heard Dell was going to (again) ship retail PCs >>>with Linux. Then I contacted support and found out they're going to >>>pre-load some dumb version of DOS, and sell Linux separately. While >>>everyone here would have no trouble installing a new OS, non-M$ systems >>>will continue to lag until they're available pre-loaded and >>>pre-configured. M$ knows this, and I'm sure their fingerprintes are all >>>over everything. >> >>When JMF was dying (1994) and needed a laptop in order to speak, I >>tried to order one from Dell. I was told that it would take >>six months to install Unix. I'm an auld OS babe and smelt the >>rat. > >>I have not tested this part of the OS biz since then. > >My first Linux install was 30 minutes from opening the Slackware CD >wrapper to running the OS with an alternate boot to DOS/Windows. >It then took longer just to config a customized kernel to support needed >drivers and eliminate unnecessary ones; the kernel source rebuild took >much longer. > Sigh! Even a moby IBM install from scratch didn't take six months. /BAH |