Re: Newbie question on table design.
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 00:04:09 GMT
Message-ID: <ZLu_h.156678$DE1.140221_at_pd7urf2no>
>
>
> re:
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007j.html#2 Newbie question on table design.
>
> 4341 was around mip (early models slightly less, later ones more).
>
> both vax/vms and 43xx machines appeared to drop below threshhold and
> started trend towards department machines. by the mid-80s and 4381
> time-frame ... workstations and larger PCs were started to take over
> that market segment.
>
> posting
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#15 departmental servers
> with old email reference to a customer upgrading/changing order from 20
> to a couple hundred over a period of approx. six months.
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#email790404b
>
> internally the explosion in the machines as departmental machines
> had a large number of the conference rooms (like in STL and other
> locations) being taken over for 43xx departmental machines
>
> major market segment that were early into ordering hundreds at a time
> was chip industry (for running chip design tools ... things that
> would eventually migrate to the emerging high-end workstations).
>
> old post with a decade of vax/vms machines sliced & diced by model,
> year, us/non-us
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#0 Computers in Science Fiction
>
> 43xx ... aka 4331 (follow-on to 135/138) and 4341 (follow-on to 145/148)
> shipped more in that mid-range market than DEC. both 43xx follow-on and
> dec vax/vms show the effect of workstations and large PCs starting to
> take over that mid-range market in the mid-80s.
>
> six 4341s would provide higher aggregate performance than 3033 at
> lower cost ... and were easier to justify and easier to house.
> some of the old 43xx email
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#43xx
>
> includes discussions working with the disk division on moving various
> disk design and development tools to clusters of 43xx machines ... that
> resided in various locations outside the datacenter (and off of the
> large mainframes that required extensive faciilties, cooling, and space
> requirements in large datacenters). part of the discussion was that
> there was never going to be any way that they were going to be able to
> cost justify and/or provide physical facilities ... for the amount of
> processing that was going to be needed (assuming the high-end
> mainframes).
Received on Fri May 04 2007 - 02:04:09 CEST
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 00:04:09 GMT
Message-ID: <ZLu_h.156678$DE1.140221_at_pd7urf2no>
Lynn, Thanks, have you any sales numbers?
p
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> writes:
>
>>also, not sure if you could even buy them then or around 1965 when the >>360's made their splash, the price was nominal to satisfy accountants, >>either or both corporate or governmental and leasing was the only way >>to acquire. the even bigger money was in maintenance fees and buyer >>lock-in. >> >>much smaller world then. around 1990, i asked some knowledgeable >>hardware types how many mainframes there were in the world and how >>many were sold per year, of 3033 class (speed of what was called a >>"couple of mips") and the general concensus seemed to be several >>thousand, with a big sales year for Hitachi, Amdahl and IBM consisting >>of several hundred boxes sold. i know some 4341/4381's approached >>that mip rating, but find it hard to believe that there were many >>customers who ordered hundreds of them. >> >>Multiply those numbers by a few dozen or a hundred real programmers >>for each cpu and it's not hard to see why brain-washed oldtimers wax >>nostalgic or why there is so much commercial chaos now, with hundreds >>of thousands of accomplished programmers who have an equal right to >>believe they have seen the truth.
>
>
> re:
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007j.html#2 Newbie question on table design.
>
> 4341 was around mip (early models slightly less, later ones more).
>
> both vax/vms and 43xx machines appeared to drop below threshhold and
> started trend towards department machines. by the mid-80s and 4381
> time-frame ... workstations and larger PCs were started to take over
> that market segment.
>
> posting
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#15 departmental servers
> with old email reference to a customer upgrading/changing order from 20
> to a couple hundred over a period of approx. six months.
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#email790404b
>
> internally the explosion in the machines as departmental machines
> had a large number of the conference rooms (like in STL and other
> locations) being taken over for 43xx departmental machines
>
> major market segment that were early into ordering hundreds at a time
> was chip industry (for running chip design tools ... things that
> would eventually migrate to the emerging high-end workstations).
>
> old post with a decade of vax/vms machines sliced & diced by model,
> year, us/non-us
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#0 Computers in Science Fiction
>
> 43xx ... aka 4331 (follow-on to 135/138) and 4341 (follow-on to 145/148)
> shipped more in that mid-range market than DEC. both 43xx follow-on and
> dec vax/vms show the effect of workstations and large PCs starting to
> take over that mid-range market in the mid-80s.
>
> six 4341s would provide higher aggregate performance than 3033 at
> lower cost ... and were easier to justify and easier to house.
> some of the old 43xx email
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#43xx
>
> includes discussions working with the disk division on moving various
> disk design and development tools to clusters of 43xx machines ... that
> resided in various locations outside the datacenter (and off of the
> large mainframes that required extensive faciilties, cooling, and space
> requirements in large datacenters). part of the discussion was that
> there was never going to be any way that they were going to be able to
> cost justify and/or provide physical facilities ... for the amount of
> processing that was going to be needed (assuming the high-end
> mainframes).
Received on Fri May 04 2007 - 02:04:09 CEST