MicroVAX help

<> Despite their possible historical significance, I've never been able <> to justify keeping a Microvax I around. The 11/730 - which for most < <I suppose it'd be a relatively UN-power-sucking way to enjoy or learn <VAX assembly language. Microvax-I uses more power than a microvax-II. The lowest power VAXen of the lot may be the vs2000 or the 3100m38s as they are in the PC power use range and performance is good(maybe the best!) on a per watt basis. The microvax-I was historically significant as the first q-bus vax and smallest of the lot with the shortest production lifetime. Performance wise it was the bottom of the barrel. Most uVAX-Is were upgraded to uVAX-IIs (about 3x faster!) shortly after introduction. The uVAX-II offered 1meg of ram on card, FPU and a faster memory interface(PMI) along with denser 1mb, 2mb, and 4mb (and later 8/16mb) cards. This made a 5mb microvax-II possible in two cards instead of 7 using uVAX-I! Typical uVAX-IIs were 5 or 9mb with DEQNA, DHV11 and varying disk systems including the RA60, RA80 and RA81. This forced the phaseout of the 730 in favor of a smaller, lower cost, slightly better performing system with lower power needs. Allison