Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch > #110876 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-03-01 08:09 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-26 22:13 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 321 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch
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 12 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 17 Next page →
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-02 11:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2025Mar2.124623@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #110883 |
BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes: >It almost seems like they could have tried making a PDP-11 based PC. I dimly remember that there were efforts in that direction. But the PDP-11 does not even have the cumbersome support for more than 64KB that the 8086 has (there were PDP-11s with more, but that was even more cumbersome to use). DEC also tried their hand in the PC-like business (DEC Rainbow 100). They did not succeed. Maybe that's the decisive difference from HP: They did succeed in the PC market. >DEC could have maybe had a marketing advantage in, say, "Hey, our crap >can run UNIX" and "UNIX is better than DOS". That was not what customers were interested in. There were various Unix variants available for the PC, but the customers preferred using DOS, which was preinstalled and did not cost extra. And even when you could install Unix for free in the form of Linux, most customers just used Windows which was preinstalled, and (probably decisively) for the network effects). - anton -- 'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.' Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-02 14:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vq2fmi$udn2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110896 |
On 3/2/2025 5:46 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
> BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
>> It almost seems like they could have tried making a PDP-11 based PC.
>
> I dimly remember that there were efforts in that direction. But the
> PDP-11 does not even have the cumbersome support for more than 64KB
> that the 8086 has (there were PDP-11s with more, but that was even
> more cumbersome to use).
>
I had thought it apparently used a model similar to the 65C816.
Namely, that you could address 64K code + 64K data at a time, but then
load a value into a special register to access different RAM banks.
Granted, no first hand experience with PDP-11.
> DEC also tried their hand in the PC-like business (DEC Rainbow 100).
> They did not succeed. Maybe that's the decisive difference from HP:
> They did succeed in the PC market.
>
I guess they could have also tried competing against the Commodore 64
and Apple II, which were also popular around that era.
No idea how their pricing compared with the IBM PC's, but in any case,
those who had success were generally a lot cheaper.
Well, except for the Macintosh apparently, which managed to survive with
its comparably higher costs.
Well, and the cheaper Apple IIGS, which died off, but was apparently
hindered by MOS having poor yields for the needed CPUs (but, I do
remember having messed around with a IIGS back when I was in elementary
school; though most of the PCs around the school at that time were
running Windows 3.x).
I was odd though, in middle school, rather than running Win9x, I ran
NT4, before jumping to Win2K and using this in high school (with most
PC's at this time running Win98).
But, before that, most computers were DOS + Win 3.11 or similar.
>> DEC could have maybe had a marketing advantage in, say, "Hey, our crap
>> can run UNIX" and "UNIX is better than DOS".
>
> That was not what customers were interested in. There were various
> Unix variants available for the PC, but the customers preferred using
> DOS, which was preinstalled and did not cost extra. And even when you
> could install Unix for free in the form of Linux, most customers just
> used Windows which was preinstalled, and (probably decisively) for the
> network effects).
>
Presumably they could have had freely pre-installed Unix?...
Then again, I think by this point, AT&T had started asking for licensing
fees for original Unix variants.
I think also BSD was a little later in the timeline, running on
386-based systems and them mostly competing with Linux.
There is presumably a non-zero Unix influence on Windows given that the
binaries were basically COFF with an MZ stub glued on.
Well, and my variant goes partly the other way:
Drops the MZ header and mostly LZ4 compresses the binary;
But, not using LZ to save space, but rather to increase loading speed.
Though, the Boot ROM's LZ4 decoder still isn't particularly fast (it is
up there with reading data from the SDcard; but I also need to care
about code footprint in this case). Mostly matters in Verilator (time
spent waiting for the kernel to load).
Though, ironically, did end up reworking Doom's loader code, mostly to
make it not take a whole day to load in a Verilator sim:
Rather than trying to load all of the textures and sprites up-front, it
now merely initializes placeholder arrays, and does the actual loading
lazily.
Maps generally only use a subset of the textures and enemies, so it
works out faster to load them as they are encountered (though, does add
a certain amount of jitter as things are loaded in, *). A possible
"ideal" way could be to "prefetch" things at map startup, but with Doom
this would add complexity.
*: The first time the player "sees" a given sprite or a linedef with a
particular texture, it gets demand loaded. Not taking a full day of
simulation to start up beats having a certain amount of demand-load jitter.
Likely "fix" here would be to add something to go at map load-time, and
for every linedef texture, probe that it is loaded, and for every
"thing", check if sprites have been prefetched for that type, and if
not, prefetch them.
Could maybe also add something to demand-load the sound effects.
Can note that Quake had used a different strategy:
It loads everything used for a given map, for every map load, with no
caching of game assets whatsoever. So, it uses a sliding, stack like
"Hunk" allocator, mostly relegating the Doom style "Z_Malloc" allocator
mostly to handling HUD graphics and similar.
Though, Z_Malloc did have the notable limitation that it needs to
reserve all of its memory up-front, rather than growing the heap in
chunks like most other "malloc" style allocators.
The TestKern malloc also has some overlapping features with Z_Malloc,
but one feature that plays a role in Doom is absent:
With Z_Malloc, memory allocations could be tied to a pointer, where if
the alloc is freed, this pointer is NULL'ed automatically.
Though, in theory, it can be faked:
It can assign type-tags to memory allocations, and can register
finalizer callbacks for these type tags.
So, one could make an object type that has this pointer-to-pointer and
NULL's the associated pointer if the finalizer is called (and then
possibly breaks stuff if the memory holding the pointer manages to get
freed before the finalizer gets called).
Though, generally, in TestKern, auto NULL'ing on zone-freeing was not
really a thing.
Then, random occurrence:
I often use VLC as a background music player;
Whenever it changes songs/videos, it momentarily grabs keyboard input;
Last night, it managed to capture input as I was typing something, it
did something, but happened quickly enough that I didn't see what exactly...
Then, it seems apparently, it had gone and added all the "Sonic Rush"
music to my playlist. Encountered it, was like, "OK, whatever, haven't
heard this in a while, will let it play."
After a little while, was getting a bit old, checked it; seems it was
set to loop the same song for a good part of an hour (of which I had sat
through a little over 10 minutes).
But, yeah, can note that there are different properties for songs that
are "listen once, and done" vs "works well if played in a loop". If one
has too many "catchy" features, this can work well in a one-off song,
but can quickly become annoying if it is played in a loop.
Say, for general suitability to looping background music:
Poor:
Hip-Hop
Swing Jazz
Meh bad:
Disco style
Rap
Neutral:
Butt metal
Lounge Jazz
Better:
A lot of classical;
Instrumental;
Rave or EDM.
Stuff works OK between 120 and 180 BPM, probably better off not going
too much over 200 BPM. Also preferable if things like vocals or other
"distinguishing elements" are avoided, ...
So, yeah, probably better off just getting some super generic rave beats
or similar and going with that.
Well, or failing this, the sound of over-driven speakers going "thump
thump thump thump", which is seemingly sufficient to imply that loud
music is being played, without any actual music being played (like, say,
it is a 1 second looped stock sound effect, but no one really notices...).
Though, this is maybe going to far in the opposite direction.
> - anton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-02 13:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vq2hs5$ub6t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110906 |
On 3/2/2025 12:39 PM, BGB wrote: > On 3/2/2025 5:46 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: >> BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes: >>> It almost seems like they could have tried making a PDP-11 based PC. >> >> I dimly remember that there were efforts in that direction. But the >> PDP-11 does not even have the cumbersome support for more than 64KB >> that the 8086 has (there were PDP-11s with more, but that was even >> more cumbersome to use). >> > > I had thought it apparently used a model similar to the 65C816. > > Namely, that you could address 64K code + 64K data at a time, but then > load a value into a special register to access different RAM banks. > > Granted, no first hand experience with PDP-11. > > >> DEC also tried their hand in the PC-like business (DEC Rainbow 100). >> They did not succeed. Maybe that's the decisive difference from HP: >> They did succeed in the PC market. >> > > I guess they could have also tried competing against the Commodore 64 > and Apple II, which were also popular around that era. > > No idea how their pricing compared with the IBM PC's, but in any case, > those who had success were generally a lot cheaper. > > > Well, except for the Macintosh apparently, which managed to survive with > its comparably higher costs. Yes, but . . . Its earlier, more expensive incarnation, the Lisa did not survive, which shows there is a limit to how much more people are willing to pay. And Macintosh was initially successful as a sort of niche machine for "creative types", as opposed to "business users" who used PCs. -- - Stephen Fuld (e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-02 22:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vq2kda$v1q6$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110907 |
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 13:16:52 -0800, Stephen Fuld wrote: > And Macintosh was initially successful as a sort of niche machine > for "creative types", as opposed to "business users" who used PCs. Desktop publishing! That was the killer new market that was basically created by/on the Macintosh (together with the Apple LaserWriter), and which it dominated for many years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-02 22:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vq2m1f$19od$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #110906 |
According to BGB <cr88192@gmail.com>: >I had thought it apparently used a model similar to the 65C816. > >Namely, that you could address 64K code + 64K data at a time, but then >load a value into a special register to access different RAM banks. Not really. The low end PDP-11's were 16 bit, 64K was it. The larger ones had memory mapping with 8K pages, a size carefully chosen to be too large for paging, but too small to map whole programs. There were three modes, user, supervisor, and kernel, with 64K instruction and data in each. The kernel changed the maps by poking values into I/O addresses, so it's not something a normal program could do. Unix only used user and kernel so for our early bitmap terminals, I mapped the screen's video memory into supervisor data and set the mode bits so you could access it with MOVE TO/FROM PREVIOUS DATA SPACE. C didn't generate those so we had some little assembler routines. Given the way the PDP-11 was set up, it's hard to think of a memory expansion scheme that wasn't a grotesque kludge so I think it was the right decision for VAX to have a new instruction set with a mode to run PDP-11 code, sort of like the 386's virtual 86 mode for real mode 8086 code. >> That was not what customers were interested in. There were various >> Unix variants available for the PC, but the customers preferred using >> DOS, which was preinstalled and did not cost extra. ... Yup. PC/IX was a really nice Unix port for the IBM PC and nobody was interested. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-03 11:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vq4jrl$1cguk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110917 |
On 3/2/25 5:27 PM, John Levine wrote: > According to BGB <cr88192@gmail.com>: >> I had thought it apparently used a model similar to the 65C816. >> >> Namely, that you could address 64K code + 64K data at a time, but then >> load a value into a special register to access different RAM banks. > > Not really. The low end PDP-11's were 16 bit, 64K was it. > > The larger ones had memory mapping with 8K pages, a size carefully > chosen to be too large for paging, but too small to map whole programs. > There were three modes, user, supervisor, and kernel, with 64K instruction > and data in each. The kernel changed the maps by poking values into > I/O addresses, so it's not something a normal program could do. > > Unix only used user and kernel so for our early bitmap terminals, I > mapped the screen's video memory into supervisor data and set the > mode bits so you could access it with MOVE TO/FROM PREVIOUS DATA > SPACE. C didn't generate those so we had some little assembler > routines. > > Given the way the PDP-11 was set up, it's hard to think of a memory > expansion scheme that wasn't a grotesque kludge so I think it was > the right decision for VAX to have a new instruction set with a mode > to run PDP-11 code, sort of like the 386's virtual 86 mode for > real mode 8086 code. > >>> That was not what customers were interested in. There were various >>> Unix variants available for the PC, but the customers preferred using >>> DOS, which was preinstalled and did not cost extra. ... > > Yup. PC/IX was a really nice Unix port for the IBM PC and nobody was interested. > As this (the kernel part) was my project, it was very disappointing. I think IBM priced such that with DOS being "free", it had no chance. Brian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 02:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vq5nc0$lob$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #110931 |
According to Brian G. Lucas <bagel99@gmail.com>: >>>> That was not what customers were interested in. There were various >>>> Unix variants available for the PC, but the customers preferred using >>>> DOS, which was preinstalled and did not cost extra. ... >> >> Yup. PC/IX was a really nice Unix port for the IBM PC and nobody was interested. >> >As this (the kernel part) was my project, it was very disappointing. I think >IBM priced such that with DOS being "free", it had no chance. Nobody knew what the market for PC/IX was supposed to be beyond some handwaving "if 5% if PC users buy it we'll be rich." PC/IX could do anything a PDP-11 running Unix could do, give or take peripherals, but the PC market was very different from the PDP-11 market and by that time the PDP-11 was rather long in the tooth. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 11:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vq7alc$1ukpf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110950 |
On 3/3/25 9:09 PM, John Levine wrote: > According to Brian G. Lucas <bagel99@gmail.com>: >>>>> That was not what customers were interested in. There were various >>>>> Unix variants available for the PC, but the customers preferred using >>>>> DOS, which was preinstalled and did not cost extra. ... >>> >>> Yup. PC/IX was a really nice Unix port for the IBM PC and nobody was interested. >>> >> As this (the kernel part) was my project, it was very disappointing. I think >> IBM priced such that with DOS being "free", it had no chance. > > Nobody knew what the market for PC/IX was supposed to be beyond some > handwaving "if 5% if PC users buy it we'll be rich." PC/IX could do > anything a PDP-11 running Unix could do, give or take peripherals, > but the PC market was very different from the PDP-11 market and by > that time the PDP-11 was rather long in the tooth. > Maybe everyting except for lack of memory protection. IBM sold it as a single user system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 21:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, not, Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC |
| Message-ID | <vq7pmb$1jkc$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #110955 |
According to Brian G. Lucas <bagel99@gmail.com>: >> Nobody knew what the market for PC/IX was supposed to be beyond some >> handwaving "if 5% if PC users buy it we'll be rich." PC/IX could do >> anything a PDP-11 running Unix could do, give or take peripherals, >> but the PC market was very different from the PDP-11 market and by >> that time the PDP-11 was rather long in the tooth. >> >Maybe everyting except for lack of memory protection. >IBM sold it as a single user system. The lack of memory protection turned out not to matter very much. Didn't we once get a bug report for something that only failed after the system had been up continuously for a year? It didn't help that PC/IX and Unix in general had very few applications for non-technical users. There was document processing with nroff and troff, with our INed screen editor, but what else? -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 17:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, not, Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC |
| Message-ID | <vq801d$22jsc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110957 |
On 3/4/25 4:00 PM, John Levine wrote: > According to Brian G. Lucas <bagel99@gmail.com>: >>> Nobody knew what the market for PC/IX was supposed to be beyond some >>> handwaving "if 5% if PC users buy it we'll be rich." PC/IX could do >>> anything a PDP-11 running Unix could do, give or take peripherals, >>> but the PC market was very different from the PDP-11 market and by >>> that time the PDP-11 was rather long in the tooth. >>> >> Maybe everyting except for lack of memory protection. >> IBM sold it as a single user system. > > The lack of memory protection turned out not to matter very much. Didn't we once > get a bug report for something that only failed after the system had been up > continuously for a year? > I don't remember that one. > It didn't help that PC/IX and Unix in general had very few applications for > non-technical users. There was document processing with nroff and troff, with > our INed screen editor, but what else? > Which is kinda ironic since Unix was originally funded to be used by "secretaries" in the Bell Labs patent department. But you are correct, Unix was mostly used by programmers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 16:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <memo.20250304165316.8812y@jgd.cix.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #110931 |
In article <vq4jrl$1cguk$1@dont-email.me>, bagel99@gmail.com (Brian G. Lucas) wrote: > On 3/2/25 5:27 PM, John Levine wrote: > > Yup. PC/IX was a really nice Unix port for the IBM PC and nobody > > was interested. > As this (the kernel part) was my project, it was very > disappointing. I think IBM priced such that with DOS being "free", > it had no chance. Also, timing. According to Wikipedia, PC/IX cost $900 and was released in 1984. By that time, there was a lot of business software and games available for DOS, but presumably, very little for PC/IX? John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 23:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vq82c8$232tl$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110956 |
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 16:53 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), John Dallman wrote: > According to Wikipedia, PC/IX cost $900 and was released > in 1984. By that time, there was a lot of business software and games > available for DOS, but presumably, very little for PC/IX? How would you have done games without being able to directly address screen memory? I’m sure PC/IX, being a Unix-type system, would have disallowed that. And X11 hadn’t even been developed yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-05 09:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <memo.20250305091604.8812z@jgd.cix.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #110962 |
In article <vq82c8$232tl$7@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence D'Oliveiro) wrote: > How would you have done games without being able to directly > address screen memory? I'm sure PC/IX, being a Unix-type system, > would have disallowed that. How? There's no memory management hardware in an 8088, and PC/IX ran on a basic PC/XT. John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-07 06:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <veklsjpgk02qdqtbc35jvjui5ufjc2dm6h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #110965 |
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 09:16 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) wrote: >In article <vq82c8$232tl$7@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence >D'Oliveiro) wrote: > >> How would you have done games without being able to directly >> address screen memory? I'm sure PC/IX, being a Unix-type system, >> would have disallowed that. > >How? > >There's no memory management hardware in an 8088, and PC/IX ran on a >basic PC/XT. Programmatically - the compiler (and/or assembler) could disallow it. Programmatic isolation works quite well as long as everyone plays by the rules. [Which, of course, is hard to enforce.] >John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-08 01:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC |
| Message-ID | <vqg5kn$so6$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #110983 |
According to George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net>: >>There's no memory management hardware in an 8088, and PC/IX ran on a >>basic PC/XT. > >Programmatically - the compiler (and/or assembler) could disallow it. > >Programmatic isolation works quite well as long as everyone plays by >the rules. [Which, of course, is hard to enforce.] The PC/IX C compiler generated small model code so it was fairly hard to smash anything outside your data segment by accident. If you wanted something that ran the programs you could run on a PDP-11 with Unix, it did a really good job. Unfortuantely, there weren't very many people who wanted that. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-03 16:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vq4i6a$1c8k9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110896 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes: >> It almost seems like they could have tried making a PDP-11 based PC. > > I dimly remember that there were efforts in that direction. But the > PDP-11 does not even have the cumbersome support for more than 64KB > that the 8086 has (there were PDP-11s with more, but that was even > more cumbersome to use). > > DEC also tried their hand in the PC-like business (DEC Rainbow 100). When I was hired as the PC guy in Hydro (that Fortune-100 corporation with 77K employees in 130+ countries) in 1984, I took over all PC-related stuff (HW/SW/OS/add-on HW etc) while the guy who hired me kept his belowed DEC Rainbow which he felt had the better architecture: For one thing they did not break Intel's rules about where to place the interrupt vectors. In hindsight this was a bad decision since 100% compatibility with Microsoft Flight Simulator was an absolute requirement at the time. > They did not succeed. Maybe that's the decisive difference from HP: > They did succeed in the PC market. For some definition of success, i.e they were sufficiently worse at PCs to later merge with Compaq who was the first significant vendor in the PC Compatible marketplace. Columbia beat both of them by half a year or so, but faded away a bit later. Terje -- - <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no> "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-03 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2025Mar3.182132@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #110930 |
Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes: >Anton Ertl wrote: >> They did not succeed. Maybe that's the decisive difference from HP: >> They did succeed in the PC market. > >For some definition of success, i.e they were sufficiently worse at PCs >to later merge with Compaq who was the first significant vendor in the >PC Compatible marketplace. Pfeiffer got Compaq into trouble by buying DEC and not being able to digest it. HP then bought Compaq and was able to digest all the parts, leading to a successful PC business (I have no idea how much Compaq contributed to that and how much HP did) and a successful HPE; pretty much all of the stuff coming from/through DEC went away (I think the Tandem legacy may still be identifiable), but maybe they managed to keep the customers. >Columbia beat both of them by half a year or >so, but faded away a bit later. I don't think I ever heard about Columbia. At what did they beat Compaq and HP? - anton -- 'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.' Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-03 18:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vq4q76$1dpo9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110933 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes: >> Anton Ertl wrote: >>> They did not succeed. Maybe that's the decisive difference from HP: >>> They did succeed in the PC market. >> >> For some definition of success, i.e they were sufficiently worse at PCs >> to later merge with Compaq who was the first significant vendor in the >> PC Compatible marketplace. > > Pfeiffer got Compaq into trouble by buying DEC and not being able to > digest it. HP then bought Compaq and was able to digest all the > parts, leading to a successful PC business (I have no idea how much > Compaq contributed to that and how much HP did) and a successful HPE; > pretty much all of the stuff coming from/through DEC went away (I > think the Tandem legacy may still be identifiable), but maybe they > managed to keep the customers. > >> Columbia beat both of them by half a year or >> so, but faded away a bit later. > > I don't think I ever heard about Columbia. At what did they beat > Compaq and HP? Columbia created the first ever PC compatibles (at least afaik), I bought a pair (one desktop and one luggable) at the same cost as a single IBM PC in order to develop SW for my father-in-law. Terje -- - <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no> "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-03 19:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20250303195312.00000bf8@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #110933 |
On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 17:21:32 GMT anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes: > >Anton Ertl wrote: > >> They did not succeed. Maybe that's the decisive difference from > >> HP: They did succeed in the PC market. > > Digital sold solid PCs in the 1990s. Some under brand DECpc, others under brand DEC Station. Later on (after 1994) the used yet another brand that I can not recollect. Wikipedia says that most of this machines were not manufactured on DEC factories, but I would think that as reseller they still got some profit. > >For some definition of success, i.e they were sufficiently worse at > >PCs to later merge with Compaq who was the first significant vendor > >in the PC Compatible marketplace. > > Pfeiffer got Compaq into trouble by buying DEC and not being able to > digest it. HP then bought Compaq and was able to digest all the > parts, leading to a successful PC business (I have no idea how much > Compaq contributed to that and how much HP did) My impression is that Compaq contribution prevailed. > and a successful HPE; > pretty much all of the stuff coming from/through DEC went away (I > think the Tandem legacy may still be identifiable), but maybe they > managed to keep the customers. > They preserved VMS. Sold it some 15+ years later. > >Columbia beat both of them by half a year or > >so, but faded away a bit later. > > I don't think I ever heard about Columbia. At what did they beat > Compaq and HP? > > - anton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 16:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <erresjphlvmcels3njsf7vnl8jics4an65@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #110935 |
On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 19:53:12 +0200, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 17:21:32 GMT >anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > >Digital sold solid PCs in the 1990s. Some under brand DECpc, others >under brand DEC Station. Was there an Intel based DECstation? The only ones I ever saw were MIPS based. <searches> Ahh! Wikipedia says there were 3 different DECstation lines: one based on PDP-8, annother based on MIPS, and yet another based on Intel. Naturally one has to scan/read the entire article to find the Intel references.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch
csiph-web