4 ms·

The IBM PC had an advantage in that most of the support parts were IIRC largely jellybean 74 series logic - could a PC-PDP have used similar COTS parts? The la

by Aloha 3y ago

The IBM PC had an advantage in that most of the support parts were IIRC largely jellybean 74 series logic - could a PC-PDP have used similar COTS parts? The larger issue with DEC was a strong NIH trend (almost as strong as IBM), I dont know if they could have bucked that trend to successfully launch a market winning PC. It probably would have looked like the DEC Professional, which I think looks like market failure. So the dreams of a 64 bit extension to the PDP-11 might be stillborn ;-)

Gibbon1 3y ago
I read an essay by a guy that worked on project to produce a DEC minicomputer using ECL logic. And there was yet another group working on the DEC Alpha. At the time the main group was using most of the companies resources betting the company on dethroning IBM in the main frame arena. And was trying to stab the Alpha and Minicomputer group in the back. So probably not. Suspect IBM's skunk work project was done as a hedge and anti-trust reasons. Personal Computers were going to take some business away from them they wanted it to be their product not someone else. Anti-trust also meant it needed to use off the shelf stuff.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Between x86 and the Alpha I much preferred the Alpha. Unfortunately it was wickedly expensive and it was hard to get. But for 64 bit work it was immediately usable and rock solid. It also beat Intel/AMD by about a decade to the market and I'm still kind of surprised that DEC managed to squander that lead.
  - Gibbon1 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure if Motorola had rolled out the 68008 at the same time as the 68000 the 0x86 would be something few people remember. The hardware people choose the 8088 because it only required 8 DRAM's instead of 16.
- varjag 3y ago
  I can't imagine Alpha and ECL based designs being done anywhere within the same decade.
  - formerly_proven 3y ago
    Alpha and VAX 9000 DEC also did a "300 MHz 125 W ECL microprocessor" in the 90s, though that seemed to be mostly about developing cooling.
  - Gibbon1 3y ago
    My memory of the 80's was most stuff was fast but power hungry NMOS. People were pushing things like GA, ECL, Silicon on Sapphire as the next thing to replace it. I might be biased but the company I worked for in the 80's switched to CMOS early[1]. I think the high end guys were ignoring CMOS despite it closing the gap relentlessly. Worse for all the other technologies as integration increased heat became a relentlessly and eventually unsolvable problem. I remember seeing ECL datasheets for simple chips that would draw a half watt. Notable volume production of CMOS grew and grew while ECL, GA didn't really. So yes, ECL for new business after 1985 was dumb. [1] CEO realized enclosures, power supplies, and fans were a large fraction of the bom.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  DEC always saw itself as the scrappy, sleek underdog in IBM's big iron market - an engineering company making relatively affordable tools for engineers, academics, and other qualified professionals. Where "affordable" meant six or seven figures instead of seven or eight. Which was fine while it lasted. But with VAX, the mini market became corporatised, inward-looking, nostalgic, even arrogant. Big-iron hardware had much higher internal prestige than VLSI - unfortunate, because DEC's VLSI people were the best in the world, and the systems software people weren't far behind. DEC had absolutely no concept of VLSI-based mass-market commodity computing - no idea how to design it, build it, distribute it, market it, or even imagine it. The Rainbow was as close as it got, and that was a disaster. So even with Alpha it had no chance. Prism would barely have changed that, because the problem was a failure of imagination in upper management. BigCos should always have an internal team of annoying curious generalists to challenge orthodoxy and report annually on "What trends and opportunities are we missing?" Sometimes the C-Suite has the talent to do that, but more often it just doesn't.
- Aloha 3y ago
  If you read the commentary from the folks who did the PC, the largest thing driving COTS was cost and time to market - while I'm sure anti-trust was a consideration at IBM, I dont think it was a primary one.

by Aloha 3y ago

Gibbon1 3y ago

I read an essay by a guy that worked on project to produce a DEC minicomputer using ECL logic. And there was yet another group working on the DEC Alpha. At the time the main group was using most of the companies resources betting the company on dethroning IBM in the main frame arena. And was trying to stab the Alpha and Minicomputer group in the back. So probably not. Suspect IBM's skunk work project was done as a hedge and anti-trust reasons. Personal Computers were going to take some business away from them they wanted it to be their product not someone else. Anti-trust also meant it needed to use off the shelf stuff.

jacquesm 3y ago
Between x86 and the Alpha I much preferred the Alpha. Unfortunately it was wickedly expensive and it was hard to get. But for 64 bit work it was immediately usable and rock solid. It also beat Intel/AMD by about a decade to the market and I'm still kind of surprised that DEC managed to squander that lead.
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure if Motorola had rolled out the 68008 at the same time as the 68000 the 0x86 would be something few people remember. The hardware people choose the 8088 because it only required 8 DRAM's instead of 16.
varjag 3y ago
I can't imagine Alpha and ECL based designs being done anywhere within the same decade.
- formerly_proven 3y ago
  Alpha and VAX 9000 DEC also did a "300 MHz 125 W ECL microprocessor" in the 90s, though that seemed to be mostly about developing cooling.
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  My memory of the 80's was most stuff was fast but power hungry NMOS. People were pushing things like GA, ECL, Silicon on Sapphire as the next thing to replace it. I might be biased but the company I worked for in the 80's switched to CMOS early[1]. I think the high end guys were ignoring CMOS despite it closing the gap relentlessly. Worse for all the other technologies as integration increased heat became a relentlessly and eventually unsolvable problem. I remember seeing ECL datasheets for simple chips that would draw a half watt. Notable volume production of CMOS grew and grew while ECL, GA didn't really. So yes, ECL for new business after 1985 was dumb. [1] CEO realized enclosures, power supplies, and fans were a large fraction of the bom.
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
DEC always saw itself as the scrappy, sleek underdog in IBM's big iron market - an engineering company making relatively affordable tools for engineers, academics, and other qualified professionals. Where "affordable" meant six or seven figures instead of seven or eight. Which was fine while it lasted. But with VAX, the mini market became corporatised, inward-looking, nostalgic, even arrogant. Big-iron hardware had much higher internal prestige than VLSI - unfortunate, because DEC's VLSI people were the best in the world, and the systems software people weren't far behind. DEC had absolutely no concept of VLSI-based mass-market commodity computing - no idea how to design it, build it, distribute it, market it, or even imagine it. The Rainbow was as close as it got, and that was a disaster. So even with Alpha it had no chance. Prism would barely have changed that, because the problem was a failure of imagination in upper management. BigCos should always have an internal team of annoying curious generalists to challenge orthodoxy and report annually on "What trends and opportunities are we missing?" Sometimes the C-Suite has the talent to do that, but more often it just doesn't.
Aloha 3y ago
If you read the commentary from the folks who did the PC, the largest thing driving COTS was cost and time to market - while I'm sure anti-trust was a consideration at IBM, I dont think it was a primary one.