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

Groups > comp.arch > #110969

Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC

From Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
Newsgroups comp.arch
Subject Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC
Date 2025-03-05 18:08 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <vqa3u1$2hamd$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <2025Mar2.103437@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <GN1xP.50850$SZca.2573@fx13.iad> <2025Mar3.190527@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vq4vlh$1eqlm$1@dont-email.me> <2025Mar3.234146@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>

Show all headers | View raw

Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb:
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb:
>>
>>> Have TTL chips advanced between the VAX and the first HP-PA
>>> implementation?  I don't think so.
>>
>>Oh yes, they did; there were nine years between the launch of the
>>VAX and the launch of HP-PA.
>
> So what?
>
>>and you can see pictures
>>at https://computermuseum.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/dev_en/hp9000_840/
>
> Nice!  The pictures are pretty good.  I can read the markings on the
> chip.  The first chip I looked at was marked 74AS181.  TI introduced
> the 74xx series of TTL chips starting in 1964, and when I read TTL, I
> expected to see 74xx chips.  The 74181 was introduced in February
> 1970, and I expected it to be in the HP-PA CPU, as well as in the VAX
> 11/780.  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/74181> confirms my expectation
> for the VAX, and the photo confirms my expectation for the first HP-PA
> CPU.
>
> The AS family was only introduced in 1980, so there was some advances
> between the VAX and this HP-PA CPU indeed.  However, as far as the
> number of boards is concerned, a 74AS181 takes as much space as a
> plain 74181, so that difference is irrelevant for that aspect.
>
> I leave it to you to point out a chip on the HP-PA CPU that did not
> have a same-sized variant avalable in, say, 1975.

What I found intruiging are the chips that have numbers on paper
on them, like 09740-81710.  That chip has a MMI logo still sticking
out.  This is the logo of Monolithic Memories, Inc. which developed
the PAL chips of "Soul of a New Machine" and Eclipse MV 8000 fame.
At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmable_Array_Logic you can
see the logo of the company.

PALs were not available for the VAX development, and they certainly
made implemting logic far less cumbersome, and they took up far less
space than their equivalent in logic gates (again, as described in
"The Soul of a New Machine", where Tom West gambled the development
on MMI getting its act togetther).

Given a (very rough) estimate that each PAL replaced four standard
logic chips of simlar size, my guess would be that it saved
them toe equivalent of two to three circuit boards, not bad.

Another striking thing is how densely the circuit boards are packed,
compared to the VAX boards one finds.  I suspect they had access
to more layers of printed circuit board than DEC ten years earlier.

Back to comp.arch | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web