someone smarter than Dave Cutler
in [Device Drivers]
|
From: Charles Richmond on 1 Apr 2010 20:20 Patrick Scheible wrote: > jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> writes: > >> Mark Crispin wrote: >>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jim Stewart posted: >>>> Anyone that takes the time to leaf through some >>>> Datamation magazines of that era would be lucky >>>> to find any reference to PDP-10's. >>> Using Datamation as an historical reference is like using the National >>> Enquirier. >> ROTFLMAO. Much better answer than the one I just wrote. > > The National Enquirer just makes stuff up for (dubious) entertainment > value. Datamation didn't. Datamation just concentrated on the > corporate data processing market, where IBM did indeed dominate. But > the academic and research markets were a lot more fun and interesting, > and they were dominated by PDP-10s. > > -- Patrick Didn't Xerox Data Systems (nee Scientific Data Systems) have any sort of impact on academic and research markets??? ISTM that Xerox fumbled this market too, but there were a lot of systems out there before Xerox gave up. -- +----------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | | | | plano dot net at aquaporin4 dot com | +----------------------------------------+
From: Lawrence Statton/XE1-N1GAK on 1 Apr 2010 20:29 In article <w19tn.962024$L8.407411(a)news.usenetserver.com>, scott(a)slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > Mark Crispin <mrc(a)panda.com> writes: > > > >Columbia was also a big DEC-20 shop starting in the mid 1970s. > > > >Clearly the IBM gear did not address all their computing needs. > > > > The second doesn't follow from the first. > Well, in a tautological way, it does. P: Columbia bought computers other than IBM Q: IBM Gear did not address all of Columbia's computing needs That IBM gear COULD not have addressed their needs cannot be inferred. Another thing that can't be inferred is WHY did IBM gear not address all of their needs. One possible interpretation, perhaps that favored by MRC is "IBM Gear was so bletcherous and cretinous that it could not have possibly met their needs" Another interpretation is "Columbia's computing needs include exposure to non-IBM kit" Yet another is: "The PDP-10 Architecture was so clearly and obviously winning that not having it around was inconceivable", or, less spun "There were things afoot in the PDP-10 community that Columbia had to be a part of" A combination of the second and third seem (in my arrogant opinion) the most salient.
From: Scott Lurndal on 1 Apr 2010 21:29 Mark Crispin <mrc(a)panda.com> writes: >On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Scott Lurndal posted: >> No. I visited a large number of schools in the 70's in the midwest >> and none of them had PDP-10's. > >OK, so Uncle Bob's Pig Farm and College of Swineology couldn't afford >anything else after the lease payments for a 360/25 to RJE to some 360/90 >in a real school. > >That in no way changes the fact that PDP-10s dominated computing at real >colleges and universities in the 1970s. > Your bigotry is shining brightly today. FWIW, the school I chose _invented_ the digital computer. It also has a very well respected Vet Med college. Have a nice day (Barb often uses a less polite response). scott
From: Scott Lurndal on 1 Apr 2010 21:30 Mark Crispin <mrc(a)panda.com> writes: >On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Scott Lurndal posted: >>>> And on the other hand, IBM has a long history of putting its boxes in >>>> universities - so this really comes down to a question of which >>>> university you attended. The Watson Lab at Columbia was established in >>>> the '40s, I think, and they had a 360 back in 1968. >>> Columbia was also a big DEC-20 shop starting in the mid 1970s. >>> Clearly the IBM gear did not address all their computing needs. >> The second doesn't follow from the first. > >Only to the witless. > >If the pre-existing IBM gear addressed their computing needs, then they >wouldn't have subsequently needed to buy (multiple) DEC-20 systems. I can think of a dozen reasons, right off hand, that would lead to buying a DEC-20. First being a better deal from DEC than the competition. scott
From: Scott Lurndal on 1 Apr 2010 21:31
Lawrence Statton/XE1-N1GAK <yankeeinexile(a)gmail.com> writes: >In article <w19tn.962024$L8.407411(a)news.usenetserver.com>, > scott(a)slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >> Mark Crispin <mrc(a)panda.com> writes: >> > >> >Columbia was also a big DEC-20 shop starting in the mid 1970s. >> > >> >Clearly the IBM gear did not address all their computing needs. >> > >> >> The second doesn't follow from the first. >> > >Well, in a tautological way, it does. > >P: Columbia bought computers other than IBM >Q: IBM Gear did not address all of Columbia's computing needs > >That IBM gear COULD not have addressed their needs cannot be inferred. > >Another thing that can't be inferred is WHY did IBM gear not address all >of their needs. > >One possible interpretation, perhaps that favored by MRC is "IBM Gear >was so bletcherous and cretinous that it could not have possibly met >their needs" > >Another interpretation is "Columbia's computing needs include exposure >to non-IBM kit" > >Yet another is: "The PDP-10 Architecture was so clearly and obviously >winning that not having it around was inconceivable", or, less spun >"There were things afoot in the PDP-10 community that Columbia had to be >a part of" > >A combination of the second and third seem (in my arrogant opinion) the >most salient. A fourth is 'DEC gave us a good deal' and 'IBM didn't'. scott |