someone smarter than Dave Cutler
in [Device Drivers]
|
From: Mark Crispin on 1 Apr 2010 13:32 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Dave posted: >> IBMs were leased. Would IBM continue to support a computer that had >> some academics' experimental hardware hooked up to it? Could new and >> experimental device drivers be added to IBM's OS? These might be as >> important as the machine's architecture. > Well post anti-trust they had too. That wasn't until the 1980s IIRC. -- Mark -- http://panda.com/mrc Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
From: Mark Crispin on 1 Apr 2010 13:51 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Jim Stewart posted: > I guess I wasn't clear. Suppose that IBM was willing > to supply machines with roughly the same performance > as a PDP-10, under the same terms and conditions as > DEC would. And assume the machines would be given to > the CS department where they would be available to > the students and researchers under the same conditions. ROTFL! I remember quite well what IBM's "equivalent" for a DEC-20 was: the 4341. We had one in our computer room. It made a great table. We used it to spread out print sets, listings, etc. on it, pile manuals on it, etc. I sometimes would sit on it. The PHBs yelled at us for doing that, but we did so anyway. We finally compromised on clearing off the 4341 when IBM dignitaries would show up, and putting it all back once they left. The 4341 was otherwise totally useless and unused. The only reason that it was there was that IBM gave it to us to try to convince us to switch from the DEC-20. I still have my "IBM Virtual Machine Facility/370: Quick Guide for Users", GX20-1926-6. It's a hoot to read. IBM at that time had no clue. -- Mark -- http://panda.com/mrc Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
From: Patrick Scheible on 1 Apr 2010 14:04 "Dave" <g8mqw(a)yahoo.com> writes: > "Patrick Scheible" <kkt(a)zipcon.net> wrote in message > news:w9zfx3fktul.fsf(a)zipcon.net... > > Jim Stewart <jstewart(a)jkmicro.com> writes: > > > >> Mark Crispin wrote: > >> > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Pat Farrell posted: > >> >> Jim Stewart wrote: > >> >>> Setting that aside, and it's a big set-aside, I question > >> >>> how much the PDP-10 was responsible for building the > >> >>> internet. My understanding is that PDP-11's, Vaxen and > >> >>> IMP's built the early internet. > >> > > >> > When it comes to Internet history, Jim Stewart is blowing farts out his > >> > anus and claiming that they are facts. > >> > > >> > I was there in the 1970s. > >> > >> Yeah, but I try hard not to be an arrogant > >> jerk. > >> > >> And if you'll reread my post, you'll see that > >> it might be my understanding is incorrect, not > >> my claim of fact. > >> > >> In any case, I thought about this whole thread > >> long and hard last night. What really mattered > >> was the people, not the processor. Was the PDP-10 > >> itself critical to the the accomplishments that > >> you listed, or was it clever people that had easy > >> access to good computing hardware? > >> > >> Could the AI groups have done their work on a > >> pair of 360/67's? > > > > IBMs were leased. Would IBM continue to support a computer that had > > some academics' experimental hardware hooked up to it? Could new and > > experimental device drivers be added to IBM's OS? These might be as > > important as the machine's architecture. > > Well post anti-trust they had too. But that was in 1982, well after the work inventing Arpanet. -- Patrick
From: Patrick Scheible on 1 Apr 2010 14:15 Jim Stewart <jstewart(a)jkmicro.com> writes: > Patrick Scheible wrote: > > Jim Stewart <jstewart(a)jkmicro.com> writes: > > > >> Mark Crispin wrote: > >>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Pat Farrell posted: > >>>> Jim Stewart wrote: > >>>>> Setting that aside, and it's a big set-aside, I question > >>>>> how much the PDP-10 was responsible for building the > >>>>> internet. My understanding is that PDP-11's, Vaxen and > >>>>> IMP's built the early internet. > >>> When it comes to Internet history, Jim Stewart is blowing farts out his > >>> anus and claiming that they are facts. > >>> > >>> I was there in the 1970s. > >> Yeah, but I try hard not to be an arrogant > >> jerk. > >> > >> And if you'll reread my post, you'll see that > >> it might be my understanding is incorrect, not > >> my claim of fact. > >> > >> In any case, I thought about this whole thread > >> long and hard last night. What really mattered > >> was the people, not the processor. Was the PDP-10 > >> itself critical to the the accomplishments that > >> you listed, or was it clever people that had easy > >> access to good computing hardware? > >> > >> Could the AI groups have done their work on a > >> pair of 360/67's? > > > > IBMs were leased. Would IBM continue to support a computer that had > > some academics' experimental hardware hooked up to it? Could new and > > experimental device drivers be added to IBM's OS? These might be as > > important as the machine's architecture. > > I guess I wasn't clear. Suppose that IBM was willing > to supply machines with roughly the same performance > as a PDP-10, under the same terms and conditions as > DEC would. And assume the machines would be given to > the CS department where they would be available to > the students and researchers under the same conditions. Possibly... but an IBM that would be willing to supply computers on that basis would be so different from the real IBM as to be unrecognizable. Much of DEC's competitive advantage in the 1960s and 1970s was in making and supporting computers for experimental applications. So the computers were less expensive, field service was more accomodating about experimental hardware being attached. The people are important -- but that means the people working for the vendor as well as the researchers. IBM's competitive advantage was in highly reliable data processing. Businesses going with IBM paid a premium for that reliability. -- Patrick
From: Mark Crispin on 1 Apr 2010 14:17
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Patrick Scheible posted: > The National Enquirer just makes stuff up for (dubious) entertainment > value. Datamation didn't. The counter-argument is that (quite rarely) the National Enquirer actually publishes a factual story, and that (rather more commonly) total nonsense appeared in Datamation (and I'm not talking about the obvious humor articles). > Datamation just concentrated on the > corporate data processing market, where IBM did indeed dominate. True. But even in that market, Datamation frequently got a lot wrong. It was quite dismissive of the personal computer revolution until it became impossible for even them to ignore. > But > the academic and research markets were a lot more fun and interesting, > and they were dominated by PDP-10s. Again true. -- Mark -- http://panda.com/mrc Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. |