gauging interest in VAX 6000-530

From: Mike Cheponis <mac_at_Wireless.Com>
Date: Mon Oct 25 00:46:17 1999

On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Zane H. Healy wrote:

> >> 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....".
>
> Let's put it this way, said corporations livelyhood DEPENDS on those
> systems and thier stability and reliability.

Wow. I remain amazed.


> >> Speed isn't everything.
> >
> >You're right, speed isn't everything; it's the -only- thing! ;-)
>
> Wrong, what counts is that the computer can do the job that it needs to.
> That is why you'll still find systems such as the PDP-8 and PDP-11 still in
> service. That is also why most people don't need anything more than a
> 68k-based Macintosh.

This is dead-wrong. You assume that "the job" remains static. But the
fact of the matter is, unless your computer is embedded in your microwave
or toaster, you'll want to run new and interesting s/w on it. And, in
general, that implies that you'll want a faster computer in 18 months.



> I'll admit, with good hardware, and running UNIX, or OS/2 you've got a
> pretty reliable system. I think we'll see that reliability increase as
> time passes and you start to see real clustering on PC's. If you want TRUE
> reliability though you'll either go with one of Compaq's OpenVMS or Tandem
> systems

Oh, hey, as my model says, PCs on the desktops, servers in the back rooms.
I want my servers to be 100% 24x7. I use PCs, but I do agree that there are
way better alternatives for backroom servers.


> Then there is the question of which costs less, keeping these systems
> running, or converting to something new (this is both a hardware and
> software quesiton). If the current system does everything you need, why
> change? In some cases it makes sense to run old apps in an emulator on new
> hardware.

If you're running some accounting application or airline reservations system,
sure, keep it the same until its lifetime expires. But, does it scale?
Can you load it more?


> >What you failed to mention is that sgi is -only- selling NT these days,
> >having given up on Big Iron.
>
> And you've failed to stay current.

That may indeed be true. Could you please enlighten me?


> >BUT, I would like the Vax Lover Crowd to acknowledge that they integer
> >performance of their machine is pathetic.
>
> Yes, but the 64-bit 21264 Alpha can beat any PC out there!


WAIT!!!!! WAIT!!!! I didn't say -anything- about Alphas! I just said,
let me repeat a fact:


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ F A C T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An Intel i486DX2/66 will run Dhrystone 2.1 2 to 3 times faster than a Vax 6500.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ F A C T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Now, as for Alphas: I want one! ;-)


> with VAX. BTW, I've got a letter I found today while cleaning up from
> Compaq commiting to support the VAX hardware for a MINIMUM of 10 more years
> through 2010. It's not like this is unsupported hardware.

It's gonna cost you!


> Where the PC has it made is cost. For a few hundred dollars you can build
> a pretty good, and fairly fast system, and load UNIX on it. It's hard to
> beat that.

Right about that!

But we love the old iron, right? That's why we're all here!

-mac
Received on Mon Oct 25 1999 - 00:46:17 BST