Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!dogie!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!decwrl!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!gillies
From: gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Survey of architectures was (Re
Message-ID: <76700022@uiucdcsp>
Date: 25 Apr 88 04:41:00 GMT
References: <95544@<1988Apr22>
Lines: 43
Nf-ID: #R:<1988Apr22:95544:uiucdcsp:76700022:000:1880
Nf-From: uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies    Apr 24 23:41:00 1988


>> Written 11:13 am  Apr 23, 1988 by root@mfci.UUCP (Bob Colwell)
>>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).

O.k., how about "clone" ?  or what about "shameless imitation" ?
I was just depicting bloodlines.  Please let's not get into semantics wars..

>>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.

O.k., not all RISCs have large register files, but I don't think
either of us said this....

>>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

It is a fact of history that the chip was a commercial failure.  If,
as you assert, its architecture was not a failure, then by all means
name one architecture that was influenced (in a POSITIVE way) by the
Intel 432.

Don Gillies {ihnp4!uiucdcs!gillies} U of Illinois
            {gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu}