From: microcode at
zoho.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:22 AM
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:08:11AM -0500,
Christian Gauger-Cosgrove
wrote:
> In the former case the TOAD-1 is most
definitely "big iron" as it is
> a descendant of the KL-10, which is most assuredly a mainframe.
DEC never made a mainframe and nobody from DEC
ever asserted they did
AFAIK. It's odd to see posts claiming DEC made mainframes or that VAX
is big iron from a group where calling a DE9 a DB9 produces a
500-thread post ;-)
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The PDP-6/PDP-10
family of 36-bit systems was clearly mainframe big iron, with a physical
memory space larger and performance better than a 360/50.
Further, in 1989, the VAX 9000 was introduced to the world as "Digital's
First Mainframe" (at which the PDP-10 customers laughed derisively).
Stop the hysterical revisionism. DEC made minis.
Minis are not big
iron.
Agreed. DEC made minis, which are not big iron. The revisionism on
your part is in claiming that DEC did not make mainframes.
One could look at this another way: machines like the larger VAXen
challenge classification as minis. Many were clearly intended to be large
timeshared systems. The PDP-10s clearly weren't minis, with the possible
exception of the KS-10. Some of DG's larger Eclipse machines push the
line, too.
I must ask: is this at all important? -- Ian