Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!bigsur!bnr-rsc!bcarh185!schow
From: schow@bcarh185.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: machines with some loadable microcode are easier to fix
Message-ID: <3867@bnr-rsc.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jan 91 18:16:47 GMT
References: <1991Jan04.035359.12547@kithrup.COM> <777@TALOS.UUCP>
Sender: news@bnr-rsc.UUCP
Reply-To: bcarh185!schow@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 38
Summary:
Followup-To:
Keywords:

In article <777@TALOS.UUCP> jerry@TALOS.UUCP (Jerry Gitomer) writes:
>
>Sorry guys, but the ability to fix bugs wasn't even a consideration in
>deciding to use loadable microstore -- it was economics.  The computer
>users demanded "families of computers", that is computer systems that
>could run the same programs and varied only in price and performance. 
>These demands were based on a desire to reduce the software costs
>associated with upgrading to a faster machine.

I must confess that I wasn't around in those days, but I recall reading
that it was IBM that pushed the concept. The users didn't even conceive
of compatible families. After all, that is one of the major reasons for
IBM getting so big and hated - people kept buying their compatible
computers even though the architecture was obsolete.

>
>Things were different when the first microcoded computers were built. 
>Computer generations were five years apart.  By today's standards the
>hardware was simplistic and slow.  Operating systems (and all the other
>system software for that matter) were written in assembly language.  

Depends on what you mean by "today's standards". If you mean the main-
frames and supercomputers, certainly the old computers are simple by
comparsion. If you mean today's microprocessors, especially RISC chips,
then the reverse is true. For example, almost every single processor
chip on the market now is still catching up to the IBM Stretch computer,
some of the newer yet-to-be-announced chips are probably about equal
to the Stretch. We are talking a 30 year gap here.

I don't know how old your "old days" are, but COBOL, Fortran and Algol
were all around in the 50's. They predate most (if not all) of what
most people call the "Old MainFrame Computers". Burough did their OS
in Algol in the 60's.

Stanley Chow        BitNet:  schow@BNR.CA
BNR		    UUCP:    ..!uunet!bnrgate!bcarh185!schow
(613) 763-2831               ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.