gauging interest in VAX 6000-530

From: Mike Cheponis <mac_at_Wireless.Com>
Date: Mon Oct 25 01:32:15 1999

> 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.

What are the current models? What are the current specs?

What new models are being designed? When will they be released?


> 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.

Ahh, 32 bits is obsolete today. In case you hadn't noticed, even DEC figured
that out, and did the Alpha.

FACT: VAX is at end of life.


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

Enlighten me, please. If I'm wrong, let me know. But simply calling me
wrong without enlightening me is rude, IMHO.


> >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?

I -never- insisted the back-room servers were obsolete. Gee, I wish people
would actually carefully read and then respond, rather than getting all
worked up and then to respond to something that's not even claimed!


> >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.


Hey, VAXes were wonderful in their day. There! The Quintessential CISC
machine! The Best CISC there ever was! Long live the VAX!!!!!

BUT

A dx2/66 running Dhrystone 2.1 will be 2 to 3 times faster than an 6500.

        
>
> 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.


Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me! In case you hadn't noticed, there are more PCs than
every other type of computer ever made, ever! Did you notice this?

FACT: And it wasn't designed by some little ass-kisser fresh out of college; it
was designed by Intel.


>
> -Dave McGuire

-mac


p.s. Is it common on this group for people to ignore the FACTS? Do FACTS
matter, or is this a group where there are opinions and commonly-shared
versions of reality, where facts are unimportant?
Received on Mon Oct 25 1999 - 01:32:15 BST