gauging interest in VAX 6000-530

From: Mike Cheponis <mac_at_Wireless.Com>
Date: Mon Oct 25 11:10:58 1999

On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Chris Kennedy wrote:

> Mike Cheponis wrote:

> > See? There you go again! The 780's I/O was no great shakes. Sure, you
> > could stuff on a Fujitsu Eagle and do -pretty- good, but it was definitely
> > no speed demon. Since a dx2/66 is around 20 to 30x the integer performance
> > of that 11/780, I'm pretty sure the Intel part would crush an 11/780 in any
> > benchmark you could name.

> I note that we've ratched down from "any vax" to "11/780". TPC-C comes to mind...


Chris, PAY ATTENTION: READ MY LIPS! -I- was not the one who made the
initial comparison of dx2/66 to a 780. I -continue- to assert (until data
proves me otherwise, and getting data on obsolete machines like VAX 6500 is
apparently next to impossible or non-existent) that the dx2/66 will kick
serious VAX 6500 butt, too, -with equivalent h/w- . You -do- remember me
saying that, right?

The POINT is that the busses and performance of "modern" (that is, >1989) PCs
are BETTER than the 6500, AND that modern PCs leave EVERY VAX ever made in
the dust.

Why is reality so hard for some people here to comprehend?

Look, I like old junk, too; that's why we gather here.

But it is old, tired, worn-out, obsolete junk!

I think it's fascinating that people wish to keep old PDP-9s going if
possible, 'cause their application is operationally equivalent to an
embedded processor. Great for History Lessons, I guess.

But, for me, trusting a Mission Critical application on a PDP-9 today is
business suicide.


> > It's a matter of understanding what "it" refers to. I took it to refer to
> > the dx2/66 or its predecessors. They were built by Intel.

> You've been talking about PCs as machines and x86 processors interchangably,
> so you'll understand our confusion.

I didn't make the initial comparison, mind you. As for me, PC and x86
processors -are- essentially equivalent in this context, and any distinction
is merely pedantic.

> > IBM merely glued a pile of Intel chips together and put 'em in a box.
>
> Where "glued the chips together" means "designed (although I use the term
> loosely) the memory and I/O architecture".

C'mon! IBM did essentially nothing but run wires between Intel's chips.


> Cheers,
> Chris

-mac

p.s. Folks, help me out here: Try to actually -read- what I say, and perhaps
     even quote it (In context, please!) and -then- open up your flamethrowers
     and have at it. I especially appreciate thoughtul comments that prove
     that I'm wrong, and show me what's right.

     But I'm getting a little tired of defending things I did't say or assert.

     Also, please, no public name-calling. Send me private email if you
     want to call me names.

     Thanks, all!
Received on Mon Oct 25 1999 - 11:10:58 BST