jmleonar@CRDC.ARPA ("Dr. Joseph M. Leonard") (03/07/86)
I currently have a large scientific software system running on a VAX-11/730
(yes, I know I'm crazy) and am looking to add additional hardware to
improve the situation. What I am interested in is any comments on the
relative merits of the uVAX vs. the 8200 - I am forced by budgetary
restrictions to limit myself to the low-end machines.
The types of programs that run most ofter are essentially compute bound
(with some I/O to the terminal, but not a significant fraction). Monitoring
the 730 indicates that all is well, except for the 100% usage. As there
HAS to be some reason for DEC to have two machines in the same price
range (I think), there MUST be something that distinguishes the two...
If I get a bunch of useful responses, I'll summarize them to the net. I
am forced to stick to a VMS machine (no flames, please) by initial
design and implementation.
Thanks in advance,
Joe Leonard
<jmleonar@crdc.arpa>
P.S. The differences can include the ability to network the machines
together, as well as the availability of peripherals.lucas@A.PSY.CMU.EDU (pete lucas) (03/09/86)
Well, here's one thing to consider when choosing between a uVAX and an 8200: The third-party Q-bus market is large, mature, and wonderfully competitive. Building a board for an 8200 requires the complex, DEC-proprietary BI interface chip. DEC has made no bones about their plans to license this technology only to manufacturers of "complimentary products". Don't expect it to be reverse-engineered quickly. When the uVAX II was announced, DEC's price for a 4mb memory array was $12K. Within 6 months, the going price for 3rd party equivalents was not much more than one-tenth that. Don't hold your breath waiting for the same to happen with BI memory. -pete lucas (lucas@a.psy.cmu.edu)