Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!husc6!yale!mfci!rodman
From: rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: In defense of the VAX
Message-ID: <654@m3.mfci.UUCP>
Date: 20 Feb 89 19:16:28 GMT
References: <11037@tekecs.TEK.COM> <28200279@mcdurb>
Sender: rodman@mfci.UUCP
Reply-To: rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman)
Organization: Multiflow Computer Inc., Branford Ct. 06405
Lines: 40

In article <28200279@mcdurb> aglew@mcdurb.Urbana.Gould.COM writes:
>
>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
>
>I sure would like to be able to design such a lousy architecture
>and make so much money selling it.
>

As you point out below, there is much more to success of a computer
than architecture. As an engineer however, I can't help notice when
things are not as they should be. I don't *care* how successful the
product *is* ...I *still* know when it isn't *right*.

>Apart from the fact that the VAX was designed under entirely different
>constraints than we have today,

Exactly my point. Some of the constraints were based on
current technology, some were self-inflicted in order to do better for
a "family" of machines for the future. Some assumptions were just plain
wrong.

> maybe the fact that it was so
>horribly successful says that there are factors to success other
>than instruction set. 

I'd be the first to agree there.

>Like, software strategy, support, good
>scheduling of new hardware, etc. Isn't that a humbling thought
>for all of us aspiring computer architects?

Humbling no, but good food for thought.



    Paul Rodman
    rodman@mfci.uucp