Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!pacbell!ames!hc!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!nsc!stevew
From: stevew@nsc.nsc.com (Steve Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC vs CISC on Low-End Processors
Message-ID: <5141@nsc.nsc.com>
Date: 3 Jun 88 15:29:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: nsc.5141
References: <1521@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1532@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <476@pcrat.UUCP> <9561@sol.ARPA> <1658@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1035@astroatc.UUCP> <10074@sol
3 Jun 88 15:29:28 GMT
Reply-To: stevew@nsc.UUCP (Steve Wilson)
Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale
Lines: 19

In article <2838@louie.udel.EDU> rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) writes:
>   I realize now in hindsight that the company was slowly withdrawing
>resources from the divisions (like mine) that built stack machines. 
>It looks like a good decision to me ....
>
>-- 
>ron (rminnich@udel.edu)
I don't want to start any religious wars about comparing a Burroughs
MCP against IBM's JCL that was available in the late 1970's.  But 
I didn't find it that hard to use, and they did support multi-programming
in a fairly robust way per my experience. 

As for Burroughs(aka Unisys) not being interested in stack machines 
anymore, well they sure seem to be concentrating pretty hard on the
A-series boxes.  Last time I checked, this series was stack based. 

Steve Wilson
National Semiconductor

[ Universal disclaimer goes here! ]