25 Oct
1999
25 Oct
'99
4:10 a.m.
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Chris Kennedy wrote:
C'mon! IBM did essentially nothing but run wires between Intel's chips.
Mike Cheponis wrote:
> See? There you go again! The 780's I/O was
no great shakes. Sure, you
> could stuff on a Fujitsu Eagle and do -pretty- good, but it was definitely
> no speed demon. Since a dx2/66 is around 20 to 30x the integer performance
> of that 11/780, I'm pretty sure the Intel part would crush an 11/780 in any
> benchmark you could name.
I note that we've ratched down from "any
vax" to "11/780". TPC-C comes to mind...
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?
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.
Why is reality so hard for some people here to comprehend?
Look, I like old junk, too; that's why we gather here.
But it is old, tired, worn-out, obsolete junk!
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.
> 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". Cheers,
Chris
-mac
p.s. Folks, help me out here: Try to actually -read- what I say, and perhaps
even quote it (In context, please!) and -then- open up your flamethrowers
and have at it. I especially appreciate thoughtul comments that prove
that I'm wrong, and show me what's right.
But I'm getting a little tired of defending things I did't say or assert.
Also, please, no public name-calling. Send me private email if you
want to call me names.
Thanks, all!