Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!watvlsi!smcmahon
From: smcmahon@watvlsi.waterloo.edu (Scott H. McMahon)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 64 bits
Summary: I agree totally..
Message-ID: <4150@watvlsi.waterloo.edu>
Date: 22 Dec 88 06:22:13 GMT
References: <28200249@mcdurb> <451@babbage.acc.virginia.edu> <1951@scolex>
Reply-To: smcmahon@watvlsi.waterloo.edu (Scott H. McMahon)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 24

In article <1951@scolex> seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes:
>bit like a 64-bit VAX; everybody should buy one 8-)).  Cybers (my favorite
>machines 8-)) are 60-bits in 170-state, and 64-bit in 180-state.  
>

I agree totally.. CYBERs (especially the 180 product line) is my favourite
architecture among the heavy duty 64bit frames. I believe the 180 is a good
clean design that too many people are unaware of (not necessarily their fault).
Part of this "ignorance" of the 180 line is CDC's fault. I  have architectural
specs for the VAX, MIPS R/2000, etc. which were all bought from various
publishers at the school bookstore, BUT any knowledge I have about the 180's
comes from a summer job I had. 

It is neat to hear how some people on the net consider CDC machines to pretty
good, but depressing when they all refer to the 170 line. Does anyone out there
have an opinion re: the 180 line??

-Scott McMahon ......... humble computer geek and student slave.
 (no disclaimers necessary.. student says it all..  :-)
-- 
 S.H. McMahon - 4A Electrical Engineering - University of Waterloo
 UUCP  : {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde,uunet}!watmath!watvlsi!smcmahon
 BITNET: smcmahon@watvlsi.UWaterloo.ca
 CDNnet: smcmahon@watvlsi.waterloo.cdn