Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mfci!root
From: root@mfci.UUCP (SuperUser)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Survey of architectures was (Re
Message-ID: <362@m3.mfci.UUCP>
Date: 23 Apr 88 17:13:59 GMT
References: <29220@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <76700015@uiucdcsp>
Reply-To: mfci!colwell@uunet.UUCP (Robert Colwell)
Organization: Multiflow Computer Inc., Branford Ct. 06405
Lines: 35

In article <76700015@uiucdcsp> gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>I hope it's o.k. for me to ammend your list:
>
>PDP-11:  The addressing modes of this mini even influenced a major
>	 language (C).  Now that's influence!!!  Notable ripoffs are
>	 the 68000, and the Vax-11 (the 32032 is a Vax-11 ripoff).

I object to your using the term "ripoff".  We're all using boolean
algebra here; are we all ripping off George Boole?  I think it's 
sufficient to say that the PDP-11 series was very influential in
the minicomputer design space (and that's probably a big
understatement).

>
>CRAY-1:	 Introduced vector processing, and the idea of having huge
>	 numbers of registers in a machine (later copied by RISCs).

No, later copied by the RISC-I, but not by the IBM-801 nor Stanford's
MIPS.  The debate about the connection between large numbers of
registers and RISCs has been beaten to death here, and has long ago
passed beyond the point of useful rational discussion.  But we may as
well be historically accurate where possible.
>
>Intel 432: The ultimate CISC == Horrible failure.

(as I climb back on one of my soapboxes...)
You must mean a failure in the commercial marketplace.  So what?  Are
you attributing that failure to its CISC nature?  If so, I contend
you are wrong, and if not, then what's your point?

Bob Colwell            mfci!colwell@uunet.uucp
Multiflow Computer
175 N. Main St.
Branford, CT 06405     203-488-6090