Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!tdonahue@bbn.com
From: tdonahue@bbn.com (Tim Donahue)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: In defense of the VAX
Message-ID: <36449@bbn.COM>
Date: 27 Feb 89 03:50:12 GMT
References: <11037@tekecs.TEK.COM> <76700073@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <324@taniwha.UUCP> <668@m3.mfci.UUCP> <501@megatek.UUCP> <1989Feb26.023058.13906@utzoo.uucp>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: tdonahue@bbn.com (Tim Donahue)
Organization: BBN Advanced Computers, Inc.
Lines: 19
In-reply-to: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)

I've liked this argument!  IMHO, the VAX made a pretty good high-end 11,
since the 11/60 was a loser and the 11/44 wasn't built yet.  I'd guess
the idea to turn the VAX into a family of computers, including
high-performance ones, was a marketeer's decision, not an architect's.

In article <1989Feb26.023058.13906@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <501@megatek.UUCP> mark@corona.UUCP (Rocket J. Squirrel) writes:
>...
>Aha, now we get down to the nitty-gritty.  The explanation that best fits
>the hardware is that pdp11 emulation mode was for running *DEC system
>software* from the 11, with customer code very much a secondary issue.
>-- 
>The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology

Henry, didn't you ever hear the saying "To the systems programmer, users
and applications serve only to provide a test load?" #)

Cheers, 
Tim