[rescue] Blade 100 - X86 CPU option?
Andrew M. Hoerter
amh at POBOX.COM
Sat Feb 3 11:17:30 CST 2018
On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 11:31:50AM -0500, Dave McGuire wrote:
> That reminds me of a fun conversation with a guy at the museum a few
>weeks ago. We were talking about VAXen, and he asked why the product
>failed. Now...in the museum, we adopt a very formal manner, and I would
>never call an idiot an idiot to his/her face in there. (as opposed to
>outside the museum, where I do so with glee) But I had to explain, as
>patiently as possible, that with hundreds of thousands of systems
>shipped (some of which cost in the six digits) over nearly thirty years,
>with some still in production use today, by what possible metric could
>that be considered a "failed product"?
I'd hazard a guess that the true thrust of his question was, why did
the VAX "lose" in the broad marketplace, such that the average
computer on a desk today is a PC and not a VAX. Not a totally dumb
question for someone who lacks historical context: RISC v. CISC, the
rise of workstations, the explosion of the microcomputer market
(mostly postdating the VAX's development), etc.
Obviously, as a product the VAX is most certainly not a failure. In
some ways it's the evolutionary apex of one branch of hardware design.
But I can understand how the modern perspective would dismiss it as
being some old, "failed" thing from the 70s. The current x86 dark age
tends to obscure all that came before.
More information about the rescue