25 Oct
1999
25 Oct
'99
5:12 a.m.
Mike Cheponis wrote:
That's fair, but for others of us the term "PC" implies a certain family of
I/O architectures. I don't consider a Sequent to be a PC, despite the fact
that they use the same processors.
C'mon! IBM did essentially nothing but run wires between Intel's chips.
I'm the last guy to defend IBM's architecture for the PC, but IMHO there's
slightly more there than just laying out something from Intel data sheets.
Maybe we should move on?
Best,
Chris
--
Chris Kennedy
chris(a)mainecoon.com
http://www.mainecoon.com
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
Chris, PAY ATTENTION: READ MY LIPS! -I- was not the
one who made the
initial comparison of dx2/66 to a 780. I -continue- to assert (until data
proves me otherwise, and getting data on obsolete machines like VAX 6500 is
apparently next to impossible or non-existent) that the dx2/66 will kick
serious VAX 6500 butt, too, -with equivalent h/w- . You -do- remember me
saying that, right?
Close. The quote I've found by dredging through the messages is the one
I quoted earlier:
Hey, I'm not saying the original IBM PC was going
to outperform the VAX 6500;
but a modern PC will crush any VAX in any application, IMHO, with equivalent
h/w attached.
That's not quite an assertion about the dx2/66; in fact it's not quite an
assertion about the x86 in general. Sure, we can postulate a 486dx2 machine
with a bunch of buses and channel processors, but that's not what was being
asserted above.
The POINT is that the busses and performance of
"modern" (that is, >1989) PCs
are BETTER than the 6500, AND that modern PCs leave EVERY VAX ever made in
the dust.
Perhaps. I'm not terribly familiar with Vaxen, but in general a machine with
a single high performance bus yeilds inferior performance in data intensive
applications in comparison with machines equipped with multiple buses.
Contention sucks.
Why is reality so hard for some people here to
comprehend?
Speaking only for myself, it's because the assertions keep changing.
Look, I like old junk, too; that's why we gather
here.
But it is old, tired, worn-out, obsolete junk!
A great deal of it, yes. I don't believe that's what people are reacting to;
while there may be a few it's not my sense that people are reacting to
your statements out of some emotional attachment to Vaxen or a physical
revulsion to x86 machines.
I think it's fascinating that people wish to keep
old PDP-9s going if
possible, 'cause their application is operationally equivalent to an
embedded processor. Great for History Lessons, I guess.
But, for me, trusting a Mission Critical application on a PDP-9 today is
business suicide.
I'd generally agree, but until something better and proven comes along you're
kinda stuck. I'm hardly thrilled with the computing technology behind the
enroute air traffic control system, but it's proving to be a bitch to
replace. The same holds for certain systems in other industries. It sucks,
but it is what it is.
> It's
a matter of understanding what "it" refers to. I took it to refer to
> the dx2/66 or its predecessors. They were built by Intel.
You've been talking about PCs as machines and
x86 processors interchangably,
so you'll understand our confusion.
I didn't make the initial comparison, mind you. As for me, PC and x86
processors -are- essentially equivalent in this context, and any distinction
is merely pedantic. IBM merely glued a pile of Intel chips together and
put 'em in a box.
Where "glued the chips together" means "designed (although I use the term
loosely) the memory and I/O architecture".