Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch > #110876 > unrolled thread

Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC

Started byLawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
First post2025-03-01 08:09 +0000
Last post2026-10-26 22:13 +0000
Articles 20 on this page of 321 — 35 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.arch

Contents

  Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-01 08:09 +0000
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-01 11:58 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-01 18:03 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-01 20:01 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-02 09:34 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2025-03-02 15:42 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-02 18:30 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2025-03-05 15:01 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 00:24 +0000
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-06 01:01 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2025-03-02 09:03 -1000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-02 13:51 -0500
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 18:05 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-03 19:24 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-03 20:04 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 22:41 +0000
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-05 18:08 +0000
                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-05 19:04 -0500
                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-06 06:53 +0000
                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-07 14:26 -0500
                          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-08 10:52 +0000
                            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-08 13:03 -0500
                              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-08 19:42 +0000
                                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-09 10:13 -0400
                            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> - 2025-03-09 01:27 +0000
                              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-09 01:46 +0000
                                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-09 07:02 +0000
                              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-09 10:15 -0400
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-03 20:12 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-04 10:09 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-02 21:26 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 21:57 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-02 23:43 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-03 02:08 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 16:35 -0600
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-01 17:59 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-01 17:42 -0800
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-01 20:46 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-01 22:25 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 02:40 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-02 13:19 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 21:48 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 17:57 +0000
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-03 23:27 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-02 22:00 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-03 14:56 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2025-03-01 18:29 -1000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-02 20:02 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 21:50 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-02 22:40 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-03 02:58 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-03 03:36 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 07:39 +0000
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-03 14:45 +0200
                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 17:32 +0000
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-03 23:26 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-03 07:24 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 08:06 +0000
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 16:41 -0600
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC MarkC <usenet@em-ess-see-twenty-seven.me.uk> - 2025-03-03 12:43 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 16:44 +0000
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-03 17:53 +0000
                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-03 23:23 +0000
                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-04 03:04 -0600
                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-04 10:04 +0000
                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-04 23:27 +0000
                          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-05 07:36 +0000
                            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-06 02:30 +0000
                              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2025-03-06 16:11 -1000
                                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-08 07:27 +0000
                            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-07 02:27 +0000
                              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-07 04:09 +0000
                                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 05:08 -0600
                                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-07 17:34 +0000
                                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 13:27 -0500
                                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-07 20:07 +0000
                                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 15:00 -0600
                                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-07 22:51 +0000
                                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 18:40 -0500
                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 20:49 -0600
                                          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-08 03:28 +0000
                                            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-09 02:55 +0000
                                            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 17:40 -0500
                                              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-10 23:17 +0000
                                                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 19:30 -0500
                                              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-11 00:53 +0000
                                                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 22:49 -0400
                                                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 01:14 -0500
                                                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-11 18:00 +0000
                                                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-11 21:29 +0000
                                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-03-11 22:41 +0100
                                                          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2025-03-11 16:57 -0500
                                                          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 22:40 +0000
                                                            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-12 08:57 +0000
                                                              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 21:35 +0000
                                                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-11 17:44 +0000
                                                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-03-11 11:15 -0700
                                                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-11 18:56 +0000
                                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-03-11 13:46 -0700
                                                          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 22:43 +0000
                                                            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 18:52 -0500
                                                              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 00:34 +0000
                                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 18:48 -0500
                                                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2025-03-11 19:07 +0000
                                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-03-11 13:39 -0700
                                                          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 22:44 +0000
                                                            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 18:58 -0500
                                                              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 00:37 +0000
                                                                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-03-11 19:28 -0700
                                                              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-12 00:51 +0000
                                                                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 01:24 -0500
                                                                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-12 14:14 +0000
                                                                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-03-12 17:08 +0100
                                                            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-12 00:36 +0000
                                                            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-12 09:07 +0000
                                                              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 23:55 +0000
                                                          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2025-03-12 00:27 +0000
                                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-12 00:37 +0000
                                                          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2025-03-12 00:43 +0000
                                                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-11 21:26 +0000
                                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-12 00:26 +0000
                                                          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 00:38 +0000
                                                            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 04:02 -0500
                                                            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-12 09:14 +0000
                                                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 22:42 +0000
                                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-12 00:42 +0000
                                                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-12 08:02 +0000
                                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 23:58 +0000
                                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-03-13 12:08 -0700
                                                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-11 21:18 +0000
                                                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 23:49 -0500
                                                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-11 17:57 +0000
                                                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 16:20 -0500
                                                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-12 00:33 +0000
                                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 01:09 -0500
                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 20:48 -0600
                                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-07 22:25 +0000
                                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-07 22:45 +0000
                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-08 14:36 +0000
                                          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-08 17:57 +0000
                                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 17:19 -0600
                                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 13:03 -0500
                                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 16:57 -0600
                                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-08 01:02 +0000
                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-08 02:08 +0000
                                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-07 17:35 +0000
                                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-07 18:52 +0000
                                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-08 01:00 +0000
                                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-08 00:57 +0000
                                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-07 14:59 -0500
                                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-07 20:25 +0000
                                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-11 22:15 +0000
                                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 22:48 +0000
                                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-12 00:46 +0000
                                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-12 08:42 +0000
                                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-12 11:48 +0200
                                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-12 11:28 +0000
                                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-12 14:09 +0200
                                          rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove (was: Why VAX ..) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-12 16:46 +0000
                                            Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-12 17:44 +0000
                                              Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 00:03 +0000
                                                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 00:49 +0000
                                                  Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 02:34 +0000
                                                    Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-13 01:48 -0400
                                                      Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2025-03-13 05:10 -0400
                                                        Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 16:15 +0000
                                                    Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-13 16:29 +0200
                                                      Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 16:19 +0000
                                                    Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 16:10 +0000
                                              Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-13 09:40 -0400
                                                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-13 16:23 +0200
                                                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 16:24 +0000
                                                  Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-13 12:43 -0400
                                                    Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 19:35 +0000
                                                      Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-13 15:53 -0400
                                                        Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 20:59 +0000
                                                          Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-13 17:44 -0400
                                                          Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-13 23:24 +0000
                                                            Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2025-03-16 14:27 +0000
                                                      Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-13 22:55 +0200
                                                        Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-13 21:42 +0000
                                                          Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-13 17:48 -0400
                                                            Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-13 23:25 +0000
                                                              Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-14 00:19 +0000
                                                                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-14 14:35 +0000
                                                              Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-13 21:08 -0400
                                                                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-14 01:30 +0000
                                                                  Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-13 22:20 -0400
                                                          Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-14 00:16 +0200
                                                            Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-13 23:27 +0000
                                                              Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-14 12:10 +0200
                                                                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-14 11:15 +0000
                                                            Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-14 00:18 +0000
                                                              Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-14 12:06 +0200
                                                                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-14 12:25 +0000
                                                              Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-14 14:38 +0000
                                                            Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-03-14 12:52 +0100
                                                              Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-14 14:00 +0200
                                                            Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-14 13:18 +0000
                                                              Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-14 16:20 +0200
                                                                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-14 14:46 +0000
                                                                  Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-14 16:51 +0200
                                                                    Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-14 15:39 +0000
                                                                      Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-14 17:38 +0000
                                                              Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-14 14:44 +0000
                                                              Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-14 16:37 -0400
                                                                Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-14 22:23 +0000
                                            Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove (was: Why VAX ..) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-13 23:06 +0200
                                              Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-13 22:07 +0000
                                              Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove (was: Why VAX ..) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-14 12:43 +0000
                                            Re: rep movsb vs. simpler instructions for memcpy/memmove (was: Why VAX ..) George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-03-16 01:22 -0400
                                          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 00:03 +0000
                                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 00:01 +0000
                              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-07 13:57 +0200
                                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-03-07 15:23 +0100
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2025-03-03 22:15 +0000
                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-04 08:39 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-01 16:29 -0600
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-02 01:02 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 02:56 -0600
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-02 11:46 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 14:39 -0600
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2025-03-02 13:16 -0800
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 22:00 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-02 22:27 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 11:04 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-04 02:09 +0000
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> - 2025-03-04 11:46 -0500
                    Re: PC/IX, not, Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-04 21:00 +0000
                      Re: PC/IX, not, Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> - 2025-03-04 17:51 -0500
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2025-03-04 16:53 +0000
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-04 23:29 +0000
                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2025-03-05 09:16 +0000
                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-03-07 06:03 -0500
                        Re: PC/IX, Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-03-08 01:13 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-03-03 16:34 +0100
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-03 17:21 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2025-03-03 18:51 +0100
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-03 19:53 +0200
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-03-04 16:32 -0500
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-05 01:28 +0200
                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-05 00:05 +0000
                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-05 15:07 +0200
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-03 23:32 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 21:56 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 00:16 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-02 12:10 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2025-03-05 15:28 -0500
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-03-05 21:15 +0000
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2025-03-01 14:40 -0500
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-01 22:30 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-01 23:19 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-01 17:45 -0600
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-03-01 17:45 -0600
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-02 16:33 +0200
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-03-02 12:03 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-02 21:35 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2025-03-02 21:50 +0000
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-03-05 11:58 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 00:28 +0000
    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-10-24 00:05 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-24 19:28 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-24 20:42 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-26 18:33 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-26 19:56 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-27 06:31 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-27 16:58 +0000
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-27 20:43 +0000
                  Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-29 16:11 +0000
                    Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-29 17:54 +0000
                      Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-29 18:09 +0000
                        Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-29 20:31 +0000
                          Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-30 07:06 +0000
                            Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-30 18:34 +0000
                              Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-31 08:13 +0000
                                Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-31 18:22 +0000
                                  Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-31 19:15 +0000
                                    Re: Register windows (was: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-31 20:44 +0000
                                      Re: Register windows Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 22:45 -0500
                        Re: Register windows antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-07 16:21 +0000
                          Re: Register windows anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-11-07 18:01 +0000
                            Re: Register windows antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-08 04:37 +0000
                              Re: Register windows Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-08 04:49 +0000
                                Re: Register windows antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-08 14:19 +0000
                              call and return speed (was: Register windows) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-11-08 06:33 +0000
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-10-30 00:10 +0000
                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-30 00:33 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:20 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-24 23:33 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-10-25 12:56 -0400
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-25 18:42 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-25 20:03 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-10-25 23:36 -0400
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-26 18:46 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:29 -0700
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-26 18:19 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-27 16:41 +0000
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-27 18:16 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-27 21:01 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-27 21:14 +0000
      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-26 18:06 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-26 18:53 +0000
          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:30 -0700
            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:32 -0700
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 22:16 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 10:04 -0700
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-27 12:44 -0700
                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 13:03 -0700
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Roman Belenov <no@spam.please> - 2026-10-27 20:22 +0300
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-27 18:05 +0000
                    Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-27 20:15 +0200
                      Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-27 18:50 +0000
                        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-27 21:16 +0200
                          Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-27 12:46 -0700
                            Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-27 22:00 +0200
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 11:14 -0700
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-27 22:19 +0000
              Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-10-27 08:18 +0000
                Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-27 22:32 +0000
                  Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-10-28 08:08 +0000
        Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 22:13 +0000

Page 16 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17  Next page →

#118843

Fromanton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Date2026-10-26 18:06 +0000
Message-ID<2026Oct26.190604@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
In reply to#118803
quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) writes:
>Shall we then conclude that DEC did everything right, because later on
>after the VAX, DEC came up with the Alpha, which was RISC, and which
>was the highest-performing chip of its day?

If DEC did everything right, why is there no DEC now?

>Well, not everything. The Alpha was so expensive as to be a dismal
>failure in the market.

They did not sell as many as they needed, and they were more expensive
than Intel-based PCs, and eventually Intel and AMD ate all the RISCs
in general-purpose computing, except, probably thanks to iSeries,
Power.  Price may have had to do with it.

The fact that Intel and AMD could ramp up the speed faster than Alpha
probably was the nail in the coffin.

- anton
-- 
'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.'
  Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118846

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2026-10-26 18:53 +0000
Message-ID<mkNDS.7703$Hik6.1880@fx04.iad>
In reply to#118843
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) writes:
>>Shall we then conclude that DEC did everything right, because later on
>>after the VAX, DEC came up with the Alpha, which was RISC, and which
>>was the highest-performing chip of its day?
>
>If DEC did everything right, why is there no DEC now?
>
>>Well, not everything. The Alpha was so expensive as to be a dismal
>>failure in the market.
>
>They did not sell as many as they needed, and they were more expensive
>than Intel-based PCs, and eventually Intel and AMD ate all the RISCs
>in general-purpose computing, except, probably thanks to iSeries,
>Power.  Price may have had to do with it.
>
>The fact that Intel and AMD could ramp up the speed faster than Alpha
>probably was the nail in the coffin.

Alpha's weak memory model didn't help sell chips, either.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118853

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2026-10-26 14:30 -0700
Message-ID<11bogp8$vugm$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#118846
On 10/26/2026 11:53 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>> quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) writes:
>>> Shall we then conclude that DEC did everything right, because later on
>>> after the VAX, DEC came up with the Alpha, which was RISC, and which
>>> was the highest-performing chip of its day?
>>
>> If DEC did everything right, why is there no DEC now?
>>
>>> Well, not everything. The Alpha was so expensive as to be a dismal
>>> failure in the market.
>>
>> They did not sell as many as they needed, and they were more expensive
>> than Intel-based PCs, and eventually Intel and AMD ate all the RISCs
>> in general-purpose computing, except, probably thanks to iSeries,
>> Power.  Price may have had to do with it.
>>
>> The fact that Intel and AMD could ramp up the speed faster than Alpha
>> probably was the nail in the coffin.
> 
> Alpha's weak memory model didn't help sell chips, either.
> 

Alpha was a little too weak...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118854

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2026-10-26 14:32 -0700
Message-ID<11bogu0$10307$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#118853
On 10/26/2026 2:30 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/26/2026 11:53 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>>> quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) writes:
>>>> Shall we then conclude that DEC did everything right, because later on
>>>> after the VAX, DEC came up with the Alpha, which was RISC, and which
>>>> was the highest-performing chip of its day?
>>>
>>> If DEC did everything right, why is there no DEC now?
>>>
>>>> Well, not everything. The Alpha was so expensive as to be a dismal
>>>> failure in the market.
>>>
>>> They did not sell as many as they needed, and they were more expensive
>>> than Intel-based PCs, and eventually Intel and AMD ate all the RISCs
>>> in general-purpose computing, except, probably thanks to iSeries,
>>> Power.  Price may have had to do with it.
>>>
>>> The fact that Intel and AMD could ramp up the speed faster than Alpha
>>> probably was the nail in the coffin.
>>
>> Alpha's weak memory model didn't help sell chips, either.
>>
> 
> Alpha was a little too weak...

It was interesting to me that Windows can run on an Alpha:

https://betawiki.net/wiki/Draft:Installing_Windows_NT_on_DEC_Alpha

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118859

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-10-26 22:16 +0000
Message-ID<11bojga$10aqu$9@dont-email.me>
In reply to#118854
On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 14:32:48 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> It was interesting to me that Windows can run on an Alpha:
>
> https://betawiki.net/wiki/Draft:Installing_Windows_NT_on_DEC_Alpha

All part of the original plan, didn’t you know? NT was designed at the
beginning to be a portable OS, able to run on a range of architectures
-- development actually started, not on x86, but on MIPS. It even had
a “personality” system, where the Win32 API was just one “personality”
that could be exposed to userland; there were plans to support others.

In the end, the portability of a proprietary OS proved too expensive
to maintain. A few non-x86 ports did ship for a while, but none lasted
for long.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118874

FromJohn Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com>
Date2026-10-27 10:04 -0700
Message-ID<20261027100450.00004a02@gmail.com>
In reply to#118859
On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:16:43 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> All part of the original plan, didn’t you know? NT was designed at the
> beginning to be a portable OS, able to run on a range of architectures
> -- development actually started, not on x86, but on MIPS. It even had
> a “personality” system, where the Win32 API was just one “personality”
> that could be exposed to userland; there were plans to support others.
> 
> In the end, the portability of a proprietary OS proved too expensive
> to maintain. A few non-x86 ports did ship for a while, but none lasted
> for long.

Yeah, multiarchitecture NT was a neat idea, but they whiffed on some
essentials, the time wasn't really right, and they never gave it quite
the effort it needed, or the marketing push. The core work of getting
it up and running on the various RISC platforms was handled well; 2k
RC1 runs as stably on Alpha as it does on a comparable P2 rig...

...but AFAIK Alpha was the only architecture they developed an x86
translation layer for ('til ARM64, decades later.) So on e.g. PPC or
MIPS you were limited to the set of applications whose developers felt
like providing a native build, which wasn't helped by the fact that M$
sold separate RISC editions of Visual Studio. (I still have the copy of
VB5 from the brief period where $EMPLOYER toyed with Alpha support.)

Moreover, they didn't provide anything like the "fat binary" formats
used by e.g. Apple or NeXT, so even shipping native builds for multiple
architectures was a non-trivial thing; nor was there a shared virtual-
machine platform developers could target UCSD-style, even though MS had
experience with that since the first versions of Visual Basic.

(Granted, performance on VM platforms was even more lackluster in those
days, before the advent of JIT techniques etc., but a slower version of
an application is, in most cases, better than none at all.)

It's also a good question how much demand there was for cross-platform
RISC support at the time - how many Windows users *really* needed to be
on the bleeding edge of performance that bad? - but MS's attitude that
their job was done when the OS was up and running sure didn't help.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118891

FromPeter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com>
Date2026-10-27 12:44 -0700
Message-ID<11bquvf$1r0bm$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#118874
On 10/27/26 10:04, John Ames wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:16:43 -0000 (UTC)
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> All part of the original plan, didn’t you know? NT was designed at the
>> beginning to be a portable OS, able to run on a range of architectures
>> -- development actually started, not on x86, but on MIPS. It even had
>> a “personality” system, where the Win32 API was just one “personality”
>> that could be exposed to userland; there were plans to support others.
>>
>> In the end, the portability of a proprietary OS proved too expensive
>> to maintain. A few non-x86 ports did ship for a while, but none lasted
>> for long.
> 
> Yeah, multiarchitecture NT was a neat idea, but they whiffed on some
> essentials, the time wasn't really right, and they never gave it quite
> the effort it needed, or the marketing push. The core work of getting
> it up and running on the various RISC platforms was handled well; 2k
> RC1 runs as stably on Alpha as it does on a comparable P2 rig...
> 
> ...but AFAIK Alpha was the only architecture they developed an x86
> translation layer for ('til ARM64, decades later.) So on e.g. PPC or
> MIPS you were limited to the set of applications whose developers felt
> like providing a native build, which wasn't helped by the fact that M$
> sold separate RISC editions of Visual Studio. (I still have the copy of
> VB5 from the brief period where $EMPLOYER toyed with Alpha support.)
> 
> Moreover, they didn't provide anything like the "fat binary" formats
> used by e.g. Apple or NeXT, so even shipping native builds for multiple
> architectures was a non-trivial thing; nor was there a shared virtual-
> machine platform developers could target UCSD-style, even though MS had
> experience with that since the first versions of Visual Basic.
> 
> (Granted, performance on VM platforms was even more lackluster in those
> days, before the advent of JIT techniques etc., but a slower version of
> an application is, in most cases, better than none at all.)
> 
> It's also a good question how much demand there was for cross-platform
> RISC support at the time - how many Windows users *really* needed to be
> on the bleeding edge of performance that bad? - but MS's attitude that
> their job was done when the OS was up and running sure didn't help.

Wasn't there an NT release for the PowerPC?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118894

FromJohn Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com>
Date2026-10-27 13:03 -0700
Message-ID<20261027130349.00004b41@gmail.com>
In reply to#118891
On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 12:44:47 -0700
Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:

> Wasn't there an NT release for the PowerPC?

Yup - only 3.5/3.51, and AFAIK it only ran on IBM hardware, but it did
exist, briefly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118877

FromRoman Belenov <no@spam.please>
Date2026-10-27 20:22 +0300
Message-ID<m2mrrzxdmf.fsf@Mac.lan>
In reply to#118859
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> All part of the original plan, didn’t you know? NT was designed at the
> beginning to be a portable OS, able to run on a range of architectures
> -- development actually started, not on x86, but on MIPS.

Wasn't it i860?

Regards, Roman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118878

Fromcross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Date2026-10-27 18:05 +0000
Message-ID<11bqp4m$hu2$1@reader2.panix.com>
In reply to#118877
In article <m2mrrzxdmf.fsf@Mac.lan>, Roman Belenov  <no@spam.please> wrote:
>Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> All part of the original plan, didn’t you know? NT was designed at the
>> beginning to be a portable OS, able to run on a range of architectures
>> -- development actually started, not on x86, but on MIPS.
>
>Wasn't it i860?

Yes.  i860 was the first architecture to boot NT.

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118880

FromMichael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Date2026-10-27 20:15 +0200
Message-ID<20261027201539.00001cb0@yahoo.com>
In reply to#118878
On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 18:05:10 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:

> In article <m2mrrzxdmf.fsf@Mac.lan>, Roman Belenov  <no@spam.please>
> wrote:
> >Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> >  
> >> All part of the original plan, didn’t you know? NT was designed
> >> at the beginning to be a portable OS, able to run on a range of
> >> architectures -- development actually started, not on x86, but on
> >> MIPS.  
> >
> >Wasn't it i860?  
> 
> Yes.  i860 was the first architecture to boot NT.
> 
> 	- Dan C.
> 

Wikipedia claims that the first architecture to boot NT was i860
emulator. They don't say what was the hardware host of the emulator.
The first boot on bare metal most likely happened on MIPS R3000.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118887

Fromcross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Date2026-10-27 18:50 +0000
Message-ID<11bqrqi$2c1$1@reader2.panix.com>
In reply to#118880
In article <20261027201539.00001cb0@yahoo.com>,
Michael S  <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 18:05:10 -0000 (UTC)
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
>
>> In article <m2mrrzxdmf.fsf@Mac.lan>, Roman Belenov  <no@spam.please>
>> wrote:
>> >Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>> >
>> >> All part of the original plan, didn’t you know? NT was designed
>> >> at the beginning to be a portable OS, able to run on a range of
>> >> architectures -- development actually started, not on x86, but on
>> >> MIPS.
>> >
>> >Wasn't it i860?
>>
>> Yes.  i860 was the first architecture to boot NT.
>>
>> 	- Dan C.
>>
>
>Wikipedia claims that the first architecture to boot NT was i860
>emulator. They don't say what was the hardware host of the emulator.
>The first boot on bare metal most likely happened on MIPS R3000.

Believe what you want, but I have this first-hand from an
engineer who was there.

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118890

FromMichael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Date2026-10-27 21:16 +0200
Message-ID<20261027211641.00000065@yahoo.com>
In reply to#118887
On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 18:50:58 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:

> In article <20261027201539.00001cb0@yahoo.com>,
> Michael S  <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 18:05:10 -0000 (UTC)
> >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
> >  
> >> In article <m2mrrzxdmf.fsf@Mac.lan>, Roman Belenov
> >> <no@spam.please> wrote:  
> >> >Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> >> >  
> >> >> All part of the original plan, didn’t you know? NT was
> >> >> designed at the beginning to be a portable OS, able to run on a
> >> >> range of architectures -- development actually started, not on
> >> >> x86, but on MIPS.  
> >> >
> >> >Wasn't it i860?  
> >>
> >> Yes.  i860 was the first architecture to boot NT.
> >>
> >> 	- Dan C.
> >>  
> >
> >Wikipedia claims that the first architecture to boot NT was i860
> >emulator. They don't say what was the hardware host of the emulator.
> >The first boot on bare metal most likely happened on MIPS R3000.  
> 
> Believe what you want, but I have this first-hand from an
> engineer who was there.
> 
> 	- Dan C.
> 


Looked further and found this:
https://x.com/davepl1968/status/2103977673425047588

Sounds like Wikipedia story is not complete.
The complete story was:
1. First boot - i860 emulator running on i386 under OS/2
2. First boot on bare metal - i860 XR. Unsatisfactory performance.
3. Boot on MIPS 3 months thereafter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118892

FromPeter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com>
Date2026-10-27 12:46 -0700
Message-ID<11bqv3h$1r0bm$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#118890
On 10/27/26 12:16, Michael S wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 18:50:58 -0000 (UTC)
> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
> 
>> In article <20261027201539.00001cb0@yahoo.com>,
>> Michael S  <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 18:05:10 -0000 (UTC)
>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
>>>   
>>>> In article <m2mrrzxdmf.fsf@Mac.lan>, Roman Belenov
>>>> <no@spam.please> wrote:
>>>>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>>>>   
>>>>>> All part of the original plan, didn’t you know? NT was
>>>>>> designed at the beginning to be a portable OS, able to run on a
>>>>>> range of architectures -- development actually started, not on
>>>>>> x86, but on MIPS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't it i860?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.  i860 was the first architecture to boot NT.
>>>>
>>>> 	- Dan C.
>>>>   
>>>
>>> Wikipedia claims that the first architecture to boot NT was i860
>>> emulator. They don't say what was the hardware host of the emulator.
>>> The first boot on bare metal most likely happened on MIPS R3000.
>>
>> Believe what you want, but I have this first-hand from an
>> engineer who was there.
>>
>> 	- Dan C.
>>
> 
> 
> Looked further and found this:
> https://x.com/davepl1968/status/2103977673425047588
> 
> Sounds like Wikipedia story is not complete.
> The complete story was:
> 1. First boot - i860 emulator running on i386 under OS/2
> 2. First boot on bare metal - i860 XR. Unsatisfactory performance.
> 3. Boot on MIPS 3 months thereafter.

What would "satisfactory" performance for Windows have looked like?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118893

FromMichael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Date2026-10-27 22:00 +0200
Message-ID<20261027220058.000049a9@yahoo.com>
In reply to#118892
On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 12:46:56 -0700
Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:

> On 10/27/26 12:16, Michael S wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 18:50:58 -0000 (UTC)
> > cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
> >   
> >> In article <20261027201539.00001cb0@yahoo.com>,
> >> Michael S  <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:  
> >>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 18:05:10 -0000 (UTC)
> >>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
> >>>     
> >>>> In article <m2mrrzxdmf.fsf@Mac.lan>, Roman Belenov
> >>>> <no@spam.please> wrote:  
> >>>>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> >>>>>     
> >>>>>> All part of the original plan, didn’t you know? NT was
> >>>>>> designed at the beginning to be a portable OS, able to run on a
> >>>>>> range of architectures -- development actually started, not on
> >>>>>> x86, but on MIPS.  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wasn't it i860?  
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes.  i860 was the first architecture to boot NT.
> >>>>
> >>>> 	- Dan C.
> >>>>     
> >>>
> >>> Wikipedia claims that the first architecture to boot NT was i860
> >>> emulator. They don't say what was the hardware host of the
> >>> emulator. The first boot on bare metal most likely happened on
> >>> MIPS R3000.  
> >>
> >> Believe what you want, but I have this first-hand from an
> >> engineer who was there.
> >>
> >> 	- Dan C.
> >>  
> > 
> > 
> > Looked further and found this:
> > https://x.com/davepl1968/status/2103977673425047588
> > 
> > Sounds like Wikipedia story is not complete.
> > The complete story was:
> > 1. First boot - i860 emulator running on i386 under OS/2
> > 2. First boot on bare metal - i860 XR. Unsatisfactory performance.
> > 3. Boot on MIPS 3 months thereafter.  
> 
> What would "satisfactory" performance for Windows have looked like?

How would I possibly know? My guess is, something like "100 context
switches per second reduce performance (relatively to 0 switches) of
CPU-bound tasks by less than 5%." But that's just my wild guess.
Anyway, since MIPS, x86 and few months later Alpha versions of NT
shipped, I would guess that they all were considered satisfactory.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118879

FromDave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com>
Date2026-10-27 11:14 -0700
Message-ID<oS5ES.34$Zy1.12@fx05.iad>
In reply to#118877
Roman Belenov wrote:
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> All part of the original plan, didn’t you know? NT was designed at the
>> beginning to be a portable OS, able to run on a range of architectures
>> -- development actually started, not on x86, but on MIPS.
>
> Wasn't it i860?
>

I remember a Byte article about OS/2 NT v3 first boot (cmd line) on MIPS.
Quite possible they developed on multiple architectures.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118904

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-10-27 22:19 +0000
Message-ID<11br80m$1uehc$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#118877
On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 20:22:16 +0300, Roman Belenov wrote:

> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> All part of the original plan, didn’t you know? NT was designed at
>> the beginning to be a portable OS, able to run on a range of
>> architectures -- development actually started, not on x86, but on
>> MIPS.
>
> Wasn't it i860?

Probably.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118866

Fromjgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman)
Date2026-10-27 08:18 +0000
Message-ID<memo.20261027081819.2644L@jgd.cix.co.uk>
In reply to#118854
In article <11bogu0$10307$1@dont-email.me>, chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com
(Chris M. Thomasson) wrote:

> It was interesting to me that Windows can run on an Alpha:
> 
> https://betawiki.net/wiki/Draft:Installing_Windows_NT_on_DEC_Alpha

It worked fine. My employers supported it for several years. It had
customers because it was the fastest Windows platform, for a while. It
lost that position when Intel and AMD were competing on raw clock speeds
and running through their growth space much faster than they'd wanted to.


Once Compaq bought DEC, there was little development funding for Alpha.
Once HP bought Compaq there was none, because HP was focused on Itanium,
and sold the Alpha IP to Intel. 

John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118905

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-10-27 22:32 +0000
Message-ID<11br8pl$1uehc$5@dont-email.me>
In reply to#118866
On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 08:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), John Dallman wrote:

> In article <11bogu0$10307$1@dont-email.me>, chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com
> (Chris M. Thomasson) wrote:
>
>> It was interesting to me that Windows can run on an Alpha:
>>
>> https://betawiki.net/wiki/Draft:Installing_Windows_NT_on_DEC_Alpha
>
> It worked fine. My employers supported it for several years. It had
> customers because it was the fastest Windows platform, for a while.

Never took advantage of 64-bit addressing, though; ran the Alpha in
32-bit-only “TASO” mode.

Of the four OSes I can think of that were ported to Alpha, the one
from Microsoft was 32-bit-only, DEC’s homegrown one (OpenVMS) was a
32/64-bit hybrid, and the only fully 64-bit ones were DEC UNIX and
Linux.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118907

Fromjgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman)
Date2026-10-28 08:08 +0000
Message-ID<memo.20261028080844.2644M@jgd.cix.co.uk>
In reply to#118905
In article <11br8pl$1uehc$5@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence
D_Oliveiro) wrote:

> Of the four OSes I can think of that were ported to Alpha, the one
> from Microsoft was 32-bit-only, DEC's homegrown one (OpenVMS) was a
> 32/64-bit hybrid, and the only fully 64-bit ones were DEC UNIX and
> Linux.

VMS was initially 32-bit only. The 32/64 hybrid came in at VMS v7.0. The
Itanium and x64_64 versions are still 32/64 hybrids. 

John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 16 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.arch

csiph-web