Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!att!pacbell.com!pacbell!rtech!ingres!ingres.com!jpk
From: jpk@ingres.com (Jon Krueger)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Historical architectural advances??
Message-ID: <1990Oct13.035313.174@ingres.Ingres.COM>
Date: 13 Oct 90 03:53:13 GMT
References: <8139@scolex.sco.COM>
Lines: 26

From article <8139@scolex.sco.COM>, by seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan):
> The 750 and 780 had horrible performance;
> most current micros can outperform them

Micros have an impressive history of performance improvements.  Their
architectures, however, are better termed retreats than advances.  They
skimped on address bits.  And committed other abominations.

VAX processor speed wasn't impressive.  Ever.  Its large flat virtual
address spaces were.  Particularly ten years ago and for a price that
departments could afford.  For that reason it could be considered an
architectural advance.

If "most current micros" means boxes sold, you're referring to a class
of machines whose small physical spaces and ancient operating systems
get diminishing returns on increased processor speed.  In some cases
negative returns.  "Outpeform" is at best misleading in this context.

If "most current micros" means a majority of architectures currently
available for sale in microprocessor implementations, you're absolutely
right.  And it took ten years.  In computing, that's history.

-- Jon
--

Jon Krueger, jpk@ingres.com