The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Mar 2007 08:51 In article <1173274591.042195.246470(a)8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, "Quadibloc" <jsavard(a)ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >Eugene Miya wrote: >> A step backward John. >> The high-end LISP hackers attempted a 72-bit design over 2 decades ago >> with the S-1 which was supposed to be DEC-10 compatible. Never finished. > >I was waiting for someone to point out that, yes, the perfect computer >*does* have a 36-bit word, and it is the PDP-10. So what was missing in the PDP-10 architecture? > >Of course, *my* idea is to use a 360-like instruction set, but broken >up into 18-bit pieces instead of 16-bit pieces. I thought your goal was to design a general purpose architecture? That is the only kind of architecture that can fulfill the stated goal in the subject header of this thread. One of the pluses of the PDP-10 architecture is that it was the perfect computer for anybody. It is against human nature laws to produce a computer that is perfect for everybody. I think this is your tradeoff litmus test. /BAH
From: Roland Hutchinson on 8 Mar 2007 18:39 Charlie Gibbs wrote: > In article <1173311807.109742.140780(a)h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > jsavard(a)ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) writes: > >> If DEC didn't make it, it isn't a DECsystem 20. (The PDP-10 actually >> died *before* DEC did. On the other hand, Hewlett-Packard is still >> very much alive last time I looked.) > > Yes, but today's Hewlett-Packard is much less like the HP of old > than a PDP-10-compatible computer is like an original DEC PDP-10. Today's HP is in fact what was left after they spun off the HP of old. Plus what's left of Compac, of course, which means that a bit of DEC must be in there somewhere, too. -- Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Mar 2007 07:18 In article <Q81Ih.10733$Ih.9780(a)trnddc02>, Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap(a)verizon.net> wrote: >Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> In article <1173311807.109742.140780(a)h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >> jsavard(a)ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) writes: >> > >>> If DEC didn't make it, it isn't a DECsystem 20. (The PDP-10 actually >>> died *before* DEC did. On the other hand, Hewlett-Packard is still >>> very much alive last time I looked.) >> >> Yes, but today's Hewlett-Packard is much less like the HP of old >> than a PDP-10-compatible computer is like an original DEC PDP-10. > >Today's HP is in fact what was left after they spun off the HP of old. > >Plus what's left of Compac, of course, which means that a bit of DEC must be >in there somewhere, too. I don't think so. Carlybaby fired them all. She demolished the infrastructure and only took a month or two to do so. /BAH
From: Jan Vorbrüggen on 9 Mar 2007 07:33 >>Plus what's left of Compac, of course, which means that a bit of DEC must be >>in there somewhere, too. > I don't think so. Carlybaby fired them all. She demolished the > infrastructure and only took a month or two to do so. Say what? At least VMS seems to be alive, if not even well. Jan
From: Michael Widerkrantz on 9 Mar 2007 07:35
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>Plus what's left of Compac, of course, which means that a bit of DEC must be >>in there somewhere, too. > > I don't think so. Carlybaby fired them all. She demolished the > infrastructure and only took a month or two to do so. I have a few acquaintances who started working for Digital (not when it was called DEC) who are now working at HP doing much the same thing they have also done, mostly supporting development and system administration under what is now known as OpenVMS. |