gauging interest in VAX 6000-530

From: Dave McGuire <mcguire_at_neurotica.com>
Date: Sun Oct 24 22:46:03 1999

  Jeeeezus.

On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Mike Cheponis wrote:
>That's fascinating. Take obsolete hardware and architecture (vax), and
>keep them running! I guess I will never cease to be amazed at the weird

  Obsolete hardware? Are you aware that they're still being made? Systems
based on CURRENT technology, using CURRENT production techniques.
Keep in mind that the VAX isn't a computer...it's an architecture. There are
old implementations and new ones.

  Now, you say "obsolete architecture"...Do you honestly believe that PCs are
"new" computers? That architecture was designed in 1980. And it wasn't
designed to be scalable. The VAX was designed only a couple of years earlier,
and it *was* designed to be scalable. That's why they're still around, still
in demand, still working hard in the face of constant marketing lies by Intel
and Microsoft.

>What you failed to mention is that sgi is -only- selling NT these days,

  Wrong.

>having given up on Big Iron. Also, the market sizes for IBM, HP, and Sun's
>"big iron" exist specifically to be those back-room servers that can do lots
>of disk I/Os per second (the web, eh?).

  ...the back-room servers that you insist are obsolete, you mean?

>BUT, I would like the Vax Lover Crowd to acknowledge that they integer
>performance of their machine is pathetic.

  Old vaxen are slow. New vaxen are fast. C'mon, man. You're comparing
apples and oranges. Compare a current vax to a current PC.

  I sure would like the PC lover crowd to admit to themselves that the PeeCee
isn't the end-all-be-all of computing. It's a cheap, slow, nonscalable, poorly
designed architecture that some little ass-kisser fresh out of college came up
with to impress his boss at IBM. GET OVER IT.


                -Dave McGuire
Received on Sun Oct 24 1999 - 22:46:03 BST