What was the question? I don't see any question mark in the posts above. And how exactly did I redefine it? I pointed out that this is wrong: > Cray didn't ne

What was the question? I don't see any question mark in the posts above. And how exactly did I redefine it? I pointed out that this is wrong: > Cray didn't need to bother with parallelism to get the best performance possible at the time because Cray not only bothered with parallelism, but all Cray computers were parallel. And that this is wrong: > By committing to using ECL logic (read: cost is basically no object) because cost is hardly the only challenge when working with ECL. And that this is not only a truism, but also unenlightening from a historical perspective: > If he'd been confined to CMOS (or to a somewhat lesser extent bipolar) logic, he'd have had a very different set of trade-offs to get the performance he needed. First, ECL is bipolar logic, like anything built with BJTs. Second, that would have also been true if he'd been confined to relays or cranks. Of course you get a different set of trade-offs if you use a different technology. But no computer company at the time was building minicomputers, let alone mainframes or supercomputers, in CMOS! The most megasuperparallel computers of the time, from the C.mmp to the ILLIAC IV were ECL or TTL. Cray's empire was built on precisely the same technological basis as that of every other computer company in the seventies.