[Info-vax] Vaxes shutting off this week

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <0001840a$0$2158$c3e8da3 at news.astraweb.com>,
	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> writes:
> Neil Rieck wrote:
> 
>> I was sad to see Digital switch from VAX go to Alpha until I worked on
>> Alpha. While VAX was only 32-bit, addressing hardware extended the
>> memory range to 40-bits (and maybe even higher?). Alpha addressing
>> allowed for 64-bits of addressing. The Alpha CPU added other important
>> features including IEEE floating point.
> 
> Remember that initially, VMS was still 32 bit on Alpha. And there are
> still parts (RMS?) that are 32 bits.
> 
> Of all the major OS around, I think that OSF/Digital Unix/true 64 was
> the only operating system that started off native 64 bits.  All the
> others started life on architectures of less than 64 bits. (With windows
> having roots on 16 bit machines with segment registers)

And, unless you think OSF/Tru64 was written in a vacuum, its roots are
just as much in the 32bit (and probably the 16bit) world as well.  It
is (was) nothing but Unix warmed over, just like Linux.

> 
> To me, the only significant difference is IEEE. If you get data from the
> outside world in IEEE format, you can process it on Alpha "raw", whereas
> on VAX, you need to call routines to convert it to VAX floating point
> format.

And what was to prevent adding hardware IEEE FP to the VAX?  FP was
added to the PDP-11.  FP was added to the 8088/8086.  There really
is no reason I can think of that, once having IEEE FP became important,
it could not have been added to the VAX repertoire.

> 
> Digital could have built VAX based machines with COTS components if it
> had wanted to.  They could have added support for PCI bus if they had
> wanted to etc etc.

See my comments on the Strobedata Osprey.  The need for custom hardware
was primarily because of the custom bus but that is reaally easy to get
around.  Oh yeh, and for those not familiar with the Osprey, even though
it is ISA or PCI it can access devices on UNIBUS or QBUS using an adapter
that connects them to the PC.  

> 
> Also, remember that at the VMS levels, the many improvements that we
> have seen aren't due to Alpha per say, but rather the fact that Digital
> slowed VAX development and did not implement all features on VAX-VMS.
> But it doesn't mean that they couldn't have been implemented.

I see no reason why the VAX architecture could not have been continued,
just like IBM has done with the 360 architecture.  The only thing that
stopped it was its owners desire to kill it.  And for those who might
argue that it was not economically feasable, how many very old VAX
systems do we still hear about here that are still viable commercial
operation?
 
bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>