Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: The joy of FORTRAN
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:06:38 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vqer0u$4v4$2@reader1.panix.com>
References: <pan$96411$d204da43$cc34bb91$1fe98651@linux.rocks> <mddfrk08b0z.fsf@panix5.panix.com> <20250227080310.0000604d@gmail.com> <vqdtf3$3cfel$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:06:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="5092"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)

In article <vqdtf3$3cfel$1@dont-email.me>,
Alfred Falk  <aefalk@telus.net> wrote:
>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.)

VAX was really meant to unify the product line, offering PDP-10
class performance in something that was architecturally
descended from the PDP-11, which remained attractive at the low
end or embedded/industrial applications.

DEC in the 80s and 90s had a very forward-looking vision of
distributed computing; sadly they botched it on the business
side.

	- Dan C.