Newsgroups: comp.arch Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: In defense of the VAX Message-ID: <1989Feb24.203711.16796@utzoo.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <4592@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> <638@m3.mfci.UUCP> <11037@tekecs.TEK.COM> <653@m3.mfci.UUCP> <2066@pembina.UUCP> <660@m3.mfci.UUCP> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 20:37:11 GMT In article <660@m3.mfci.UUCP> rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman) writes: >>One doesn't fine tune a design too much because the time is better spent >>building the next iteration. > >And then you run smack into your bad choices. For example, the 8600... If you want another example, consider the VAX 730. Compare it to the PDP-11/44, which uses the same size of box. The 730 uses semicustom ICs everywhere; the 44 is standard logic. The 730 fills almost all of the box, to the point where one or two funny multi-purpose interface boards got invented so that one could build a complete 730 system without an expander box -- there literally are only one or two slots left in the thing! -- whereas the 44 leaves half of the box empty for peripheral controllers. (The old utzoo, operational until about 9 months ago, was a very large 44 configuration with no expander box.) The 730 cost rather more than a 44. Finally, the 730 is notorious for running like a turtle, whereas the 44 is significantly faster than a *750* on raw integer CPU speed. This seems like one hell of a price to pay for more address space... -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu