Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!tekecs!frip!andrew From: andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: In defense of the VAX Message-ID: <11037@tekecs.TEK.COM> Date: 19 Feb 89 01:01:24 GMT References: <4592@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> <638@m3.mfci.UUCP> Sender: andrew@tekecs.TEK.COM Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon Lines: 19 Paul Rodman at Multiflow (rodman@mfci.UUCP) writes: "Personally, I think the vax has about the worst possible archtecture one could come up with ... Byte aligned instructions make the hardware more difficult and buy you nothing. So many instructions that serve no purpose, etc, etc. Blech, what a mess. And so many minds worked *hard* to create it! Ha!" The disrespect expressed here is disturbing. The VAX design was an excellent job for the project's objectives. The measure of this is the outstanding customer acceptance that the VAX architecture has achieved over the last decade. To stand here, ten years later, and take pot shots at the VAX is rather like criticizing Henry Ford for leaving radios out of the model T. -=- Andrew Klossner (uunet!tektronix!orca!frip!andrew) [UUCP] (andrew%frip.wv.tek.com@relay.cs.net) [ARPA]