Reproducing old machines with newer technology

[Chuck Guzis]

On 07/14/2015 03:42 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
>> That's true--but at the time, CDC's design made a huge amount of sense.  The
>> CPU was left to do what it did best--crunch numbers without the burden of
>> managing the I/O activity and responding to interrupts.  In that sense, the
>> CPU was treated as more of a peripheral device.  In fact, you could order a
>> CPU-less system. (6416?)
>
> What was the point of that machine? For people doing OS development only?

More aimed at expanding the I/O capabilities.  You could, for example, 
hook the 6416 up to a couple million words of ECS.  Remember too, that 
CDC thrived on QSEs.

--Chuck