> >My main belief is that nobody is going to keep a VAX anything running with
> >dozens of simultaneous users. So, if a VAX is to be something close
> >to "useful" today, it'll be in single-user mode. In that case, Integer
> >performance is very important.
>
> Ah, to bad you don't know what you're talking about here. I know of a
> certain major corporation that just got done putting a whole pile of new
> VAX 7000's in a brand new computer room. Said corporation has numerous
> computer rooms with VAXen, and these systems are heavily used.
Maybe I should have said "Nobody -sane- is going to....".
How fast is a Vax 7000?
http://www.digital.com/timeline/1992-3.htm
describes a little about the VAX 7000, but no hard speed data.
Incidentally, the vax 7000 was introduced 7 years ago; have there been any
upgrades since then?
The paradigm today is client on Ethernet, server cluster in the back room.
Scalable, cheap, reliable.
One Big Box In The Back Room is what people did in the 40s, 50s and 60s.....
>>Hey, I'm not saying the original IBM PC was going to outperform the VAX 6500;
>>but a modern PC will crush any VAX in any application, IMHO, with equivalent
>>h/w attached.
>
> Speed isn't everything.
You're right, speed isn't everything; it's the -only- thing! ;-)
> I'd rather have a nice VAX than a modern PC,
> you've also got to consider the fact that PC's aren't the most reliable of
> platforms, and most run an OS that totally sucks!
My PCs are damn reliable; are you buying junk? They are -waaaaaaaaaaay- more
reliable than the VAX-11/780s, VAX-11/750s and VAX-11/785s that I have
used in the past. (I run BSDI unix on a Pentium Pro, as well as NetBSD on
other machines, and they have -never- crashed.)
> Zane
-mac
Received on Sun Oct 24 1999 - 21:35:54 BST