23 Jan
2017
23 Jan
'17
12:52 p.m.
On 01/23/2017 12:25 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
The 7070/74 was just a member of the 7000 line. The 7030 STRETCH and
even the 7090/94 were both binary and far faster.
It's just that I bridle a bit when hearing the young 'uns refer to any
physically large machine as a "supercomputer".
It's the same feeling that I get when I see press releases today that
relate that David Gelernter single-handedly developed the parallel
computation. He's not old enough; at 61, he was still in high school
during the ILLIAC IV era.
Now, get off of my lawn!
--Chuck
On Jan 23, 2017, at 2:16 PM, Chuck Guzis
<cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 01/23/2017 11:00 AM, Steven Maresca wrote:
I suppose it could. I would apply the term to a computer that's the
fastest out there by a fair margin, and uses innovative or
distinctive bits of architecture to make it so. A CDC 6600 clearly
qualifies on that basis, as do the Cray 1 and the ILLIAC IV. I've
heard the IBM Stretch mentioned as well, I don't know it enough to
comment. It seems hard to imagine that a decimal machine could
overcome the inherent disadvantages of being decimal so successfully
that it can reach supercomputer status, but in theory I suppose it
might be possible. Just wanted to share an excerpted story just sent
to me by a
colleague, regarding an IBM 7074 supplying data to Java
middleware, ultimately feeding a modern webapp stack:
http://thenewstack.io/happens-use-java-1960-ibm-mainframe/
The 7074 was referred to as a "supercomputer". Can any decimal
machine really bear that title?