Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Historical architectural advances?? Message-ID: Date: 17 Oct 90 00:25:28 GMT References: <1990Oct4.001346.4139@Stardent.COM> <8052@scolex.sco.COM> <2750@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <8139@scolex.sco.COM> <0KC6TSG@xds13.ferranti.com> <8185@scolex.sco.COM> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 32 In article <8185@scolex.sco.COM> seanf (Sean Fagan) writes: > > In article <0KC6TSG@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >What made the VAX a "supermini" was that it was 32-bit, rather than 16+ bit. > >This let you run problems on it that would previously have required a > >mainframe, albeit slowly. > Uhm... in that case, you could always run interpreted code, a la Sweet-16. > Doesn't make the 6502 a 16-bit machine, nor a mini-computer, though. Speed wasn't *completely* irrelevant... it did have to compete with timeshare services. Geeze... > Bzzt. I disagree, and quite strongly. I break things down based on > performace characteristics. Problem is, performance characteristics are a moving target. > Micro, actually, I will, for the most part, agree with you. But what about > things like the Iris family, from SGI? They are still micros, I think > (supermicros, to be sure, but micros), even though they have multiple-board > processors (CPU, graphics, etc.). Not familiar with it, but it sounds like a mini to me. Or is it a multiprocessor box? multiprocessors and coprocessors are another universe. > A mini, on the other hand, should be able to handle 10-20 users, without > slowing down. Well, we have a 68000 (yes, 000) based micro that soaks up 32 users. How about that... more than an 11/750 could ever handle. Performance figures are a moving target. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com