7 Aug
2006
7 Aug
'06
8:22 p.m.
Zane H. Healy wrote:
I mean VAX mini/microcomputers. As in those that ran 4.3BSD.
--
The real problem with C++ for kernel modules is: the language just sucks.
-- Linus Torvalds
At 1:22 PM -0400 8/5/06, Segin wrote:
I never said I was "genuinely interested" in 386's. You guys just
assumed that like a bunch of mindless souls in search of substance.
Like I said, the oldest box I currently have is a 386. That's all.
Al Kossow wrote:
When will the flamewar ever end? Is x86 the magical trolling word
around here? I'm real sorry, I never knew that mentioning x86 systems
here would cause such a dicussion.
Well a couple of us were genuinely interested in why you like 386's.
This hasn't degenerated into a flamewar yet :^) Current
Macs share much more with PeeCees
than SGI IRISes and Sun SPARCs, so there is most likely a
non-insignificant
amount of suboptimal hardware that eats processor cycles
Please give concrete examples of this "suboptimal hardware" you
speculate
about, and give examples of how this is done better on SGI or Sun
DESKTOP
CLASS Hardware.
That said, does anyone happen to know when the
"newest" produced VAX
was made? My best research indicates that HP continued cranking them
out until mid-2005, but that could be wrong...
Are you talking about VAX or OpenVMS? VAX is a hardware platform, last
sale date was prior to 9/11 (IIRC either '99 or 2000). Though I think
the last chips were made prior to that. The last sale date for Alpha is
this year. For OpenVMS Itanium is the way forward. Don't let the
press, and various "experts" fool you, the current Itanium 2 is a very
nice CPU. OpenVMS runs on all three of these CPU families.
Zane