To: IVIE AT cc DOT usu DOT edu
Cc: opendos AT delorie DOT com
References: <01INY6SBBH9IBJU25A AT cc DOT usu DOT edu>
Message-Id: <AA5gm9qqV7@mpak.convey.ru>
Organization: International Brownian Movement
From: "-= ArkanoiD =-" <ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 97 03:17:09 +0300
Subject: Re: ClosedDos???
Lines: 36
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

nuqneH,

> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:18:48 -0600 (MDT)
> From: Roger Ivie <IVIE AT cc DOT usu DOT edu>
> Subject: Re: ClosedDos???
> To: OPENDOS AT delorie DOT com

[dd]

> >That is not true (at least). Modern MicroVAXen have performance not less
> >than Alpha systems of that size.
>
> FWIW, it's been my experience that a VAX can keep pace with an Alpha that
> is running at twice the clock rate. The fundamental difficulty is that it
> didn't take long for Alphas to start running more than twice the clock
> rate of the fastest VAXen; that is the fundamental magic of RISC.
>
> The fastest VAXen run at 166MHz or thereabout. The fastest Alphas run
> 600 MHz. Much as I love my VAXen, there's no way a top-of-the-line VAX
> can keep up with a top-of-the-line Alpha.

There are some other things:

 The machine is not bare number-crunching device. If you compare TPS numbers
for those things it is not so bad for VAXen.

 VAX applications are not so memory hungry: actually you need *1.5..*2 RAM
to run the same software on Alpha.

 VAX programs could be manually optimized: remember that Macro-11 _is_ a
valid programming language - and it is hard to imagine someone coding big
projects in Alpha assembler. (back to C vs ASM discussion on this list)
--- 
                                       _     _  _  _  _      _  _
   Must be a visit from the dead..     _| o |_ | | _|| |   / _||_|   |_ |_ |_
   CU in Hell ..........  Arkan#iD    |_  o  _||_| _||_| /   _|  | o |_||_||_|