Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Alfred Falk <aefalk@telus.net>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: The joy of FORTRAN
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 04:42:12 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: retirement home
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <vqdtf3$3cfel$1@dont-email.me>
References: <pan$96411$d204da43$cc34bb91$1fe98651@linux.rocks> <1smdnSjX3YoxgWf7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@earthlink.com> <llv30aFa6uvU3@mid.individual.net> <vde4b8$268qv$22@dont-email.me> <1396870532.749421730.052473.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> <wrapper-20241001111737@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <vpl5uk$hhk$3@reader1.panix.com> <vpl91g$25q46$1@dont-email.me> <1976765442.762208809.808387.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> <20250225130315.00004e34@gmail.com> <lhqvP.1323465$if26.592741@fx13.iad> <20250225132209.00006cdd@gmail.com> <1517019530.762216070.153616.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> <vpli68$26ur1$6@dont-email.me> <20250225151941.00007598@gmail.com> <vplkru$27ttj$2@dont-email.me> <mddfrk08b0z.fsf@panix5.panix.com> <20250227080310.0000604d@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 05:42:12 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c5471ed664da9dfbffc74857a9ee2511";
	logging-data="3554773"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19oOZYeQmLu/Xi7afRj+GGL/DF/ykhVxK0="
User-Agent: Xnews/4.06.11
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mt4L17D/XoWwvT4rTx7006h2cNg=
Bytes: 3476

John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote in 
news:20250227080310.0000604d@gmail.com:

> On 26 Feb 2025 19:51:56 -0500
> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
> 
>> >>> I wonder why DEC's 18-bit range weren't more popular; though I
>> >>> think they had less consistency between members of the range than
>> >>> DEC's other product families.  
>> 
>> >> I suspect that, in the computer market of the early '60s, they
>> >> ended up as the awkward middle child  ...  
>> 
>> Mr. Ames's suspicion is unfounded.  The 18 bit systems were neither
>> awkward nor unsuccessful. 
> 
> I yield to those with firsthand knowledge - but I do wonder about their
> eventual abandonment (per Wikipedia, the last -15 was produced in 1979,)
> when both the -8 and -10 were supported well into the early '80s.

I acknowledge that I don't have first-hand knowledge of DEC's business 
decisions,but I have some guesses. (I did have first-hand programming 
experience with PDP-9, -15, -11 and -10 - but that's not the same thing.)

There were A LOT of PDP-8's out there, particularly embedded systems that 
justified continued support and development.  However, new applications 
would have favoured PDP-11's, particularly as LSI-11 single chip processors 
became cheaper.  18-bit machines were much more expensive than the 12-bit 
line and far fewer in number, so displacement by PDP-11's would have made 
more sense.

The 36-bit line were more in the mainframe category where customers pay lots 
and demand more.  However the cost of developing and supporting multiple 
architectures eventually caught up with DEC. (A DEC salesman once told that 
all local sales staff went out and got drunk when the demise of the -10 was 
announced.  Apparently there were quite a few instatllations in the oil path 
which is a very important industry around here.)