Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!ncifcrf!lhc!usenet
From: usenet@nlm.nih.gov (usenet news poster)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Speed Kills
Message-ID: <1990Jun27.032824.5138@nlm.nih.gov>
Date: 27 Jun 90 03:28:24 GMT
References: <447@garth.UUCP> <4040@taux01.nsc.com> <YH:3MQC@xds13.ferranti.com> <502@garth.UUCP>
Reply-To: states@tech.NLM.NIH.GOV (David States)
Distribution: comp
Organization: National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Md.
Lines: 19

In article <502@garth.UUCP> fouts@bozeman.ingr.com (Martin Fouts) writes:
>
>The underlying point behind the original posting was ... to try to get 
>some conversation going towards architectures which scale over time.
>
>It has been done once or twice in the past.  IBM got a lot of milage
>out of the 360 and Moto has done a reasonable job with the 68K.  How
>can we make those cases more common, rather than the exception?

DEC has gotten 15 years out of VAX/VMS.  How about the 8008/8088/80x86
line?  SPARC and MIPS will be around for quite a while.  The key seems 
to be achieving market success with an innovative design and then
supporting upward compatability.  Once you have a body of third party
software depending on your architecture, it will live a long life.
 
>--
>Martin Fouts

David States