Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!gatech!udel!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!sunybcs!boulder!unicads!les
From: les@unicads.UUCP (Les Milash)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer
Subject: Re: Transputer vs. i860
Message-ID: <563@unicads.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jul 89 19:45:35 GMT
References: <8907150609.AA01452@sdsu.edu> <2238@qiclab.UUCP>
Reply-To: les@unicads.UUCP (Les Milash)
Lines: 12

In article <2238@qiclab.UUCP> neighorn@qiclab.UUCP (Steven C. Neighorn) writes:

>I certainly don't want to start another processor war, but I am curious
>as to what was meant by Transputer being the best design for parallel
>machines.

I will be happy to explain why people who make this claim do so, although
I won't "argue" with you in the usenet "style" about it.  SCN and anybody
else are welcome to e-mail me if you'd like to start round 1.

Les Milash
RISC (Reduced Investor Satisfaction Corp :-)