Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!csinc!rpeglar From: rpeglar@csinc.UUCP (Rob Peglar) Newsgroups: comp.sys.super Subject: Re: Supercomputer ROI Summary: We're getting closer here.. Message-ID: <205@csinc.UUCP> Date: 9 May 90 16:56:34 GMT References: <201@csinc.UUCP> <253@garth.UUCP> <202@csinc.UUCP> <292@garth.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: Control Systems, Inc., St. Paul MN Lines: 39 Marty has written good postings pointing out the difficulties about starting/operating/maintaining a "supercomputer business" (I'm starting to wonder just what that phrase means, however :-)) He points out the seemingly iron-clad assumption that if your product (a supercomputer, say) has a life cycle of n years, having an R&D cycle of n*2 years is fiscally impossible, and (more or less) points to ETA as an example. First, I won't get into the business of predicting life cycle, either in terms of costs or product longevity. Either is a crap shoot, as witnessed by many real examples. I can think of MS/DOS, the IBM 370 architecture, and the CDC 6600 as examples of product which have had unusually long product lifetimes for mysterious reasons. Point here is that Marty's conclusion that the product life of the ETA-10 is four years cannot be drawn de jure, reasonable as it may be de facto. Second, although I agree in principle with the above n vs. n*2 assumption, one of my points in postings before was that this applies only to the first product (viz. the Cray-1). The second product has, more likely, (using x here) of n/2