[Info-vax] BOINC for VMS

[David Froble]

Michael Kraemer wrote:
> David Froble schrieb:
> 
>>
>> Well, you did mention "rules of economy".
>>
>> The problem was, Alpha did not have anyone in the chip business who 
>> wanted it to survive.  HP had come up with their rather stupid design, 
>> and got Intel to also support it.  IBM, well, they were and still are 
>> IBM.
>>
>> If DEC had been able to make a deal with Intel to mfg and develop the 
>> Alpha, we'd still be running them (new CPUs) today.
> 
> It wasn't intel's job to do Alpha, nor was it anyone else's task,
> it was DEC's job in the first place.
> Sure, DEC would have needed assistance by other dedicated chip makers,
> but those were probably sensible enough not to join that adventure.
> At least this is what the "Alasir" site suggests.
> 
>> The technology was good, but that is not enough. 
> 
> It also wasn't good enough, compared with other RISCs.
> It was just different and very expensive to make.

I'm going to be kind and just ask WHAT ???

While it was still being actively developed, the Alpha was the #1 CPU.  Nothing could 
touch it.  Fact.  IBM was close, and nobody else was even in the running.

Now, after it was decided that the architecture would be discontinued, yes, the last 
versions were caught by the competition.  But that's because there was no new development, 
just churning out some chips.

As for expensive, yes, it was.  Could it have been better in that department, I have no 
idea.  But the concept that people will not pay for "the best" is bullshit.  Intel's 
latest x86 CPUs seem to be stronger than AMD's best.  But they cost 3-4 times as much. 
Regardless, Intel is selling them.  So, people WILL pay for "the best".

>> You need need dedication to a product. After Ken Olson, it seemed that 
>> DEC had no dedication in top management. 
> 
> Well, it was Olsen who was reluctant to bring Alpha to market
> (if, for example, that Apple story is true).
> It didn't happen until Palmer took over.

I would not attribute "dedication" to Palmer.

>> Their mistakes didn't help much either.  As for Compaq, I doubt they 
>> had any dedication to anything.
>>
>> What is interesting is that the latest itanic designs seem to be 
>> moving away from "do everything in the compiler" and a bit toward 
>> OoO.  At least, if what I read has any substance.
> 
> As far as I can see, the Itanic is backpaddling towards RISC concepts,
> i.e. increase clock speeds and throw oodles of cache onto the chip.

The only reason the itanic performs so much better than the old Alphas is die size.  The 
process size is the single biggest reason for speed improvements.  But i've also heard 
that Alpha might have been having some trouble being shrunk, don't really know.

>> The problem now is, "rules of economy" aren't on the itanic's side ....
> 
> well, of course this chip is facing the same problems as Alpha,
> but intel+HP have way deeper pockets than DEC and so far it didn't
> broke their neck.
> 

It's never a good idea to pour money into a bottomless hole.  That's how deep pockets 
become empty pockets.