On November 17, Stan Sieler wrote:
> PA-RISC is dead/dying ... HP has said so. IA-64 killed it.
[knee-jerk reaction to a pet peeve follows]
Well, as long as "dead" can be defined as "salespeople don't want to
sell you a new one". For me, it can't. I can pick up the phone and
buy PDP8 equipment from a commercial vendor. How long ago was THAT
architecture discontinued?
For me, something is "dead" (or "obsolete" or whatever you want to
call it) when it can no longer do its job adequately and
cost-effectively. When Ford or Chevrolet discontinue a model of a
car, does every owner of that model of car go throw them away and buy
brand new cars?
This industry is absurd, and its practices and philosophies are
repulsive at best. I wish I didn't like computers so much. *grumble*
> (Indeed, PA-RISC was originally scheduled to be dead by now, but it had to
> be extended due to the lateness of IA-64.)
>
> Do I like this? Nope. But, it's as much "legacy" as Z80, 68000, and
> (probably) all x86 chips.
...all of which can be bought new today, and are being built into
systems (though not mainstream suits-doing-powerpoint-presentations
type of systems, but is that really what this crowd cares about?)
every day. "something new came out" != "this is now useless".
Now, Stan...I apologize if it seems as if I'm jumping down your throat
with this, and believe me I do get the impression that I'm precahing
to the choir. But I also believe that the vast majority of the folks
here understand that computers don't stop processing data when the
manufacturer no longer wants to sell new ones of the same type. This
group is likely the most enlightened of any on this subject. So why
go along with it?
Respectfully,
-Dave McGuire
--
Dave McGuire
St. Petersburg, FL
Received on Sat Nov 17 2001 - 15:51:09 GMT