9 Aug
1999
9 Aug
'99
6:26 a.m.
Another classic computer maker "bites" the dust.
See: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,40250,00.html
Which is a news.com story about how EMC (makers of storage products mostly)
will buy Data General for 1.1 billion in stock. This was the last of the
great mini-computer companies that had been left standing after DEC was
bought by Compaq.
I'm looking for other examples, but I believe this leaves IBM (System 360)
and Sun (SPARC) as the last two companies who designed their own computer
architecture still standing under their own name. (I don't count Xerox
since they don't sell their D-series machines any more).
Companies known to have gone away:
DEC
Data General
Tandem
Prime
--Chuck
9 Aug
9 Aug
6:42 a.m.
Chuck McManis wrote:
Another classic computer maker "bites" the
dust.
See: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,40250,00.html
Which is a news.com story about how EMC (makers of storage products mostly)
will buy Data General for 1.1 billion in stock. This was the last of the
great mini-computer companies that had been left standing after DEC was
bought by Compaq.
I'm looking for other examples, but I believe this leaves IBM (System 360)
and Sun (SPARC) as the last two companies who designed their own computer
architecture still standing under their own name. (I don't count Xerox
since they don't sell their D-series machines any more).
Companies known to have gone away:
DEC
Data General
Tandem
Prime
What about MIPS recently de merged from SGI. Then there is ARM,
Motorola, Intel if you count microprocessors (you listed Sparc) as
opposed to microcontrollers which would add a whole slew of other
companies like National, Microchip, Atmel...
_---_--__-_-_----__-_----_-__-__-_-___--_-__--___-__----__--_--__-___-
Hans B Pufal Comprehensive Computer Catalogue
<mailto:hansp@digiweb.com> <http://digiweb.com/~hansp/ccc>
7:25 a.m.
At 08:42 PM 8/9/99 +0200, Hans wrote:
What about MIPS recently de merged from SGI. Then there
is ARM,
Motorola, Intel if you count microprocessors (you listed Sparc) as
opposed to microcontrollers which would add a whole slew of other
companies like National, Microchip, Atmel...
The distinction (arbitrary I know) is companies that designed their own
architecture and built systems around it, not companies that adopted
someone elses architecture. People like ARM, Motorola, and Intel are chip
companies, not computer companies (although each has provided a computer
based around their architecture at one time.) SPARC, while it may be
considered a microprocessor with the advent of the "Tsunami" chip, prior to
that it was a multiple chip architecture and from the F8 discussions we all
know that a microprocessor is by definition a single chip :-)
Anyone else catch the benchmarks of the latest Athlon chip from AMD?
Dhrystone clocks it at 1974 MIPS (aka 1.974 GIPS!) Truely it boggles the
mind. I had to explain to our sysadmin how the uVAX 3900 sitting in my
office was about the speed of a 386/25 and he nearly choked.
--Chuck
7:32 a.m.
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Chuck McManis wrote:
The distinction (arbitrary I know) is companies that
designed their own
architecture and built systems around it, not companies that adopted
someone elses architecture. People like ARM, Motorola, and Intel are chip
companies, not computer companies (although each has provided a computer
based around their architecture at one time.) SPARC, while it may be
considered a microprocessor with the advent of the "Tsunami" chip, prior to
that it was a multiple chip architecture and from the F8 discussions we all
know that a microprocessor is by definition a single chip :-)
I understand the distinction. It's basically companies that were computer
manufacturers mainly, not just piece-part manufacturers like Motorola,
ARM, etc. Comapnies that sold entire computer systems, and installation,
and support, etc. Like DEC, Data General, Burroughs, Sperry-Rand, etc.
Anyone else catch the benchmarks of the latest Athlon
chip from AMD?
Dhrystone clocks it at 1974 MIPS (aka 1.974 GIPS!) Truely it boggles the
mind. I had to explain to our sysadmin how the uVAX 3900 sitting in my
office was about the speed of a 386/25 and he nearly choked.
I read an article today in the business section about their new strategy
to compete with Intel. I truly hope they succeed.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 05/25/99]
7:44 a.m.
Chuck McManis wrote:
At 08:42 PM 8/9/99 +0200, Hans wrote:
OK, do I get any points for HP with the PA-RISC?
_---_--__-_-_----__-_----_-__-__-_-___--_-__--___-__----__--_--__-___-
Hans B Pufal Comprehensive Computer Catalogue
<mailto:hansp@digiweb.com> <http://digiweb.com/~hansp/ccc>
What about MIPS recently de merged from SGI. Then
there is ARM,
Motorola, Intel if you count microprocessors (you listed Sparc) as
opposed to microcontrollers which would add a whole slew of other
companies like National, Microchip, Atmel...
The distinction (arbitrary I know) is companies that designed their own
architecture and built systems around it, not companies that adopted
someone elses architecture. People like ARM, Motorola, and Intel are chip
companies, not computer companies (although each has provided a computer
based around their architecture at one time.) SPARC, while it may be
considered a microprocessor with the advent of the "Tsunami" chip, prior to
that it was a multiple chip architecture and from the F8 discussions we all
know that a microprocessor is by definition a single chip :-) 
7:47 a.m.
On Mon, 09 Aug 1999, Chuck McManis wrote:
Anyone else catch the benchmarks of the latest Athlon
chip from AMD?
Dhrystone clocks it at 1974 MIPS (aka 1.974 GIPS!) Truely it boggles the
mind. I had to explain to our sysadmin how the uVAX 3900 sitting in my
office was about the speed of a 386/25 and he nearly choked.
Yeah but did you explain that you can pile 30 users on that 3900 and it'll
still perform about the same? That's not even possible with current Wintel
hardware.
"There's more to computer performance than clock speed, folks."
-Dave McGuire
8:20 a.m.
>Dhrystone clocks it at 1974 MIPS (aka 1.974 GIPS!)
Truely it boggles the
>mind. I had to explain to our sysadmin how the uVAX 3900 sitting in my
>office was about the speed of a 386/25 and he nearly choked.
First I think that is quite in error. First the clock on the 3900 is well
above 25mhz and the CISC impmentation of the VAX used there is easily
more of the 486dx/early Pentium class.
Yeah but did you explain that you can pile 30 users
on that 3900 and it'll
still perform about the same? That's not even possible with current Wintel
hardware.
"There's more to computer performance than clock speed, folks."
Bigtime!
back when pc and Vaxen were being pitted, the 386/16 was on par with
a Vax750 if it had the FPU chip. Otherwise the vax could out math it.
A real compare would be a NT box running many xterms and thin clients
against a VAX... it would show how weak the PCs are. Vaxen with the high
throughput IO for storage and all has all the advantages.
Allison
9:02 a.m.
At 03:47 PM 8/9/99 -0400, Dave McGuire wrote:
Yeah but did you explain that you can pile 30 users
on that 3900 and it'll
still perform about the same? That's not even possible with current Wintel
hardware.
I'd have to disagree Dave, we've got some P133's acting as servers with
FreeBSD on them and they often get more than 30 users. The 3900 definitely
does a better job at _balancing_ 30 users since there is a lot more compute
power distributed throughout its I/O channels, which is the greatest
failing for PCs. However, if either the NGIO of Future I/O groups succeed
in displacing PCI off the motherboards of "Wintel" architectures that
advantage will go away.
--Chuck
9:13 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1247 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990809/b61ee4cd/at…
10:10 a.m.
At 11:26 AM 8/9/99 -0700, you wrote:
Another classic computer maker "bites" the
dust.
See: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,40250,00.html
Which is a news.com story about how EMC (makers of storage products mostly)
will buy Data General for 1.1 billion in stock. This was the last of the
great mini-computer companies that had been left standing after DEC was
bought by Compaq.
I guess that makes the DG Nova down here that needs rescuing an instant
classic. Someone should grab it and put in on E-OverPay with a big pitch
about how rare it is!
Joe
10 Aug
10 Aug
4:01 p.m.
I'm looking for other examples, but I believe this
leaves IBM (System 360)
and Sun (SPARC) as the last two companies who designed their own computer
architecture still standing under their own name. (I don't count Xerox
since they don't sell their D-series machines any more).
Amongst the old guard (and in this case, probably the oldest), NEC still
stands with their SX monsters. Fujitsu and Hitachi almost count, but they
are not really that old.
William Donzelli
aw288(a)osfn.org
9267
days inactive
9268
days old
12 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
allisonp＠world.std.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
aw288＠osfn.org -
cmcmanis＠freegate.com -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
dastar＠ncal.verio.com -
hansp＠digiweb.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net -
ss＠allegro.com