[Info-vax] [OT] Portable operating systems, was: Re: PowerX Roadmap -

[GreyCloud]

On 09/20/16 13:27, Bob Butler wrote:
>
> Intel couldn't get 64 bit done for their ablomination. AMD did that. So it's
> not really 100% correct to say nobody would code to AMD. Basically all the
> 64 bit code on Intel x86_64 is coded to AMD. I understand what you meant but
> I still think the argument is valid. If AMD supported enough features for
> another OS to run on it and not on the competition whilst not breaking their
> "Intel" support at the same time it could be worthwhile in terms of
> marketing and probably actual money. But designing and fabbing new chips is
> pretty costly.

And a lot of testing time looking for bugs as well.

>
>>>
>>> And you really do not need 4 modes. I have said that for years around
>>> here. Seems like VSI understood, but a lot of people still seem to want
>>> to hang on to this like a religion.
>>>
>>
>> Not totally true on the modes.  Why did Data Generals machines have 8
>> modes?
>
> Must have been Intel-envy. If 3 or 4 are good 8 has to be at least twice as
> good right? Some people view complexity as a necessary evil. Healthy people
> in the engineering business view complexity as evil period. You can tell from
> Intel's abominations there were and are some sick puppies "designing" their
> chips. I hadn't heard that about Data General before but I'm sad I did. 8
> modes to run a crappy monitor program, a few serial lines and BASIC seems like
> overkill but maybe that's just me. I think they probably could have used one
> mode and not even needed all of that.

The DGs were for corporates that wanted internal security from each user.
If I recall, there were some users that just loved to play pranks on 
each other in that setting.  And these were made in the 70s.  I can only 
guess that later they just didn't want to change anything.  Too much OS 
software changes to handle a few less modes, so I think they left it as 
it were.
I remember the cheaper 16-bit Novas, but still didn't buy into them.
The DECs at that time were still better, not only in the documentation, 
but also published a lot of educational material that helped sell machines.


>
>> I know they went out of business, but why 8?
>
> So they wouldn't die of complexity first? I don't know. They were clunkers.
> I don't think they could compete with DEC at all in the mini arena and
> that's all there was for both companies. Probably DEC not needing all those
> 8 modes gave DEC enough design latitude to stomp DG into computer history.
>

I thing DG went down the tubes first.

When NAVSEA let us go shopping for a new machine back then, DG set up a 
nice huge buffet table, but only three of us showed up.  I just didn't 
like how their fortran worked compared to what DEC showed us.

> A lot of what we have today in the Inteliverse is old, torn, moldy baggage
> that stinks and stinks and never goes away. I don't think any company has
> enough money and integrity and sense to straighten that out.
>

I believe that around the early 1990s they figured that 32-bit was 
enough and didn't even bother to change the architecture.  I always 
viewed them as quite slow and lacked the general purpose registers that 
could've sped up things a lot.