Publius@dg.dg.com (Publius) (05/02/90)
In article <76700193@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >Monday, April 30, 1990 Champaign-Urbana News Gazette > > JAPAN TO PUSH COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY > > TOKYO (NYT) - The japanese government is developing plans for a >concerted attack on a highly promising advanced computer technology in >which the United States now holds a substantial lead. > The technology is known as massively parallel processing, ... By the time they come up with something, the underlining technology of computers may have changed to something completely different, such as optical devices, or things made of superconducting material, and a complete revision of computer architecture may be necessary then, and the results coming out of "Sixth Generation" project most likely will turn out to be out-of-date and useless. There is no way to tell how those emerging technology will take shape and how they will have impact on the designs of computers. Thus, I do not believe the kind of grand "Sixth Generation" project will produce anything meaningful. Good design and architecture come from the "chaos" of competing designs, try-and-errors, creativity of individuals, when an underlining technology begins to take shape. And the invisible hand of Adam Smith will make sure that the best architecture comes out on top. -- Disclaimer: I speak (and write) only for myself, not my employer. Publius "Old federalists never die, they simply change their names." publius@dg-pag.webo.dg.com
ken@zeno.ACA.MCC.COM (Ken Zink) (05/03/90)
In article <76700193@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > TOKYO (NYT) - The japanese government is developing plans for a > concerted attack on a highly promising advanced computer technology in > which the United States now holds a substantial lead. > The technology is known as massively parallel processing, ... > .... > ... which may be Japan's "Sixth Generation" ? More likely, the "4.5 Generation."
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/03/90)
In article <422@dg.dg.com> publius@dg-pag.webo.dg.com (Publius) writes: >By the time they come up with something, the underlining technology of >computers may have changed to something completely different, such as >optical devices, or things made of superconducting material... More likely, actually, just faster silicon. Silicon is really pretty good stuff, and it's getting more development money than all its would-be competitors put together. >... And the invisible hand of Adam Smith will make >sure that the best architecture comes out on top. The invisible hand of Adam Smith right now is full of Intel x86 machines, and I *refuse* to believe that those are the world's best computer architecture! -- If OSI is the answer, what is | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the question?? -Rolf Nordhagen| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (05/04/90)
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >More likely, actually, just faster silicon. Silicon is really pretty >good stuff, and it's getting more development money than all its would-be >competitors put together. MIT is happily working on quantum-effect devices, seeing if 1) thay can be made to do things predictably, and 2) if they can make computers out of them. The latter is harder, methinks: they speculate about cellular automata in place of von Neuman machines. --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | "And the next 8 man-months came up like CANADA. 416-223-8968 | thunder across the bay" --david kipling
Publius@dg.dg.com (Publius) (05/04/90)
In article <1990May3.153742.9750@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >More likely, actually, just faster silicon. Silicon is really pretty >good stuff, and it's getting more development money than all its would-be >competitors put together. History tells us that it is always the case that much more money is poured into mature technologies and industries than the emerging ones. Three decades ago, the development money for semiconductor was probability less than a tiny fraction of the development money for steel, and U. S. Steel, not IBM, was the bluest among blue chips. >The invisible hand of Adam Smith right now is full of Intel x86 machines, >and I *refuse* to believe that those are the world's best computer >architecture! To say this is to ignore the segmentation of the market. It is not that segment of the market we are talking about here, or we might as well say that the world is also full of digital watches. Ware talking about the high end, high performance segment of the market. -- Disclaimer: I speak (and write) only for myself, not my employer. Publius "Old federalists never die, they simply change their names." publius@dg-pag.webo.dg.com
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (05/04/90)
> >The invisible hand of Adam Smith right now is full of Intel x86 machines, > >and I *refuse* to believe that those are the world's best computer > >architecture! > To say this is to ignore the segmentation of the market. I thought the problem was the segmentation of the *processor*! -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net> 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> @FIN Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address.
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (05/06/90)
In article <1990May3.153742.9750@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>... And the invisible hand of Adam Smith will make >>sure that the best architecture comes out on top. > >The invisible hand of Adam Smith right now is full of Intel x86 machines, >and I *refuse* to believe that those are the world's best computer >architecture! Hear, hear! (Wait a second. Forgot where I worked, for a sec 8-).) Even if the x86 never existed, there are still all those VAXen out there, which kinda blows the theory out of the water. Also, how would you define "best"? Fastest? That's usually an implementation issue. Most compiler friendly? What compilers want *does* change, as compiler technology changes (although not as much as I wish it did *sigh*). Most assembly-programmer friendly? For what type of application? (VAX is ok, for that, although I still prefer PDP-11. I prefer CDC Cyber 170-state assembly to that, though.) -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "It's a pity the universe doesn't use [a] segmented seanf@sco.COM | architecture with a protected mode." uunet!sco!seanf | -- Rich Cook, _Wizard's Bane_ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
tac@cs.brown.edu (Theodore A. Camus) (05/07/90)
Various ramblings: > The invisible hand of Adam Smith right now is full of Intel x86 machines, > and I *refuse* to believe that those are the world's best computer > architecture! > Even if the x86 never existed, there are still all those VAXen out there, > which kinda blows the theory out of the water. > Also, how would you define "best"? Unbelievably, I am yet to hear to phrase "software/peripheral compatibility". If you had a software package that only ran on a x86, and the choice between a AT or a Cray 3 to run your package, which would you say would be the "best" ? All-too-often people do not consider software and peripheral availability as a factor in a machine's value. Thus a new computer company may fail, despite a seemingly better technology. CSnet: tac@cs.brown.edu Ted Camus ARPAnet: tac%cs.brown.edu@relay.cs.net Box 1910 CS Dept BITnet: tac@browncs.BITNET Brown University "An ounce of example is worth a pound of theory." Providence, RI 02912
tif@commlab1..austin.ibm.com (/32767) (05/07/90)
In article <1990May3.153742.9750@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp writes: >More likely, actually, just faster silicon. Possibly, but I shall paraphrase a favorite quote (unknown origin) of mine: We didn't come to crossing the ocean in a few hours by building faster boats. (And I'd also like to point out that the Wright Brothers were probably not very well funded in the beginning compared to boat-makers.) Paul Chamberlain tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com tif@commlab1.austin.ibm.com sc30661@ausvm6
dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) (05/08/90)
In article <1990May3.153742.9750@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >The invisible hand of Adam Smith right now is full of Intel x86 machines, >and I *refuse* to believe that those are the world's best computer >architecture! What architecture is better *right now* for all the Intel x86 customers? I don't mean what architecture would be better if only it ran the applications, or if only a mass market existed to drive the prices down, or if only Joe Smallpotatoes could get it serviced at the local compustore, or if only programmers with Henry Spencer's talents worked for nothing, etc. Pervasive technologies are almost never cutting-edge, nor particularly exciting. Mostly, they are standardized. A meaningful standard simplifies life for people who have other things to do with their time, and so it will tend to win in the marketplace over the whiz-bang "better" alternatives. "High performance" is almost always synonymous with "marginally impractical" for most people. But that is no reason for performance enthusiasts to abandon their hobby. -- Dan Mocsny Snail: Internet: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu Dept. of Chemical Engng. M.L. 171 dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu University of Cincinnati 513/751-6824 (home) 513/556-2007 (lab) Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0171
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (05/08/90)
Re: The Sixth Generation Am I to conclude that *no one* has seen this report from the japanese MITI?
alvitar@xavax.com (Phillip Harbison) (05/10/90)
In article <4698@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes: > In article <1990May3.153742.9750@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry > Spencer) writes: > > The invisible hand of Adam Smith right now is full of Intel x86 > > machines, and I *refuse* to believe that those are the world's > > best computer architecture! > > What architecture is better *right now* for all the Intel x86 > customers? I don't mean what architecture would be better if > only it ran the applications ... I'm sure a bright chap like Henry didn't mean to suggest that a better architecture exists which runs all that "wonderful" MesSDOS software. He is probably just lamenting the fact that things could have been much better. There were better microprocessors available at competitive prices when IBM chose the mediocre 8088. The volume of the market has taken quite some time to drive prices down to their current level, and Intel still holds us hostage on certain sole source parts like the 8087. Furthermore, it took hoards of developers jumping on the PC bandwagon (attracted by that sexy three letter logo, no doubt) to create the current flood of DOS applications. I believe there were only three applications available at the time of the PC introduction. Other operating systems were available that were clearly superior to DOS. UNIX, OS/9, Uniflex, and Xenix were all available at that time, and I condider all four options to be far superior to MSDOS. I guess Henry is just lamenting over what might have been. What if IBM had chosen a decent OS or processor? Would they have found a way to screw things up anyway? Probably so. -- Live: Phil Harbison, Xavax, P.O. Box 7413, Huntsville, AL 35807 Uucp: alvitar@xavax.com Bell: 205-539-1672, 205-880-8951
stanh@meyerhof.bcm.tmc.edu (Stan Hanks) (05/10/90)
In article <1990May10.012327.16931@xavax.com>, alvitar@xavax.com (Phillip Harbison) writes: > What if IBM had chosen a decent OS or processor? Would they have found a way > to screw things up anyway? Probably so. Assuredly so. Look at the the RIOS line if you don't believe it. SIGH. I was so hoping I wasn't going to be right about that..... Stanley P. Hanks Director, Information Technology Planning and Development Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston TX 77030, Mail Stop: IR-3 e-mail: stanh@bcm.tmc.edu voice: (713) 798-4649 fax: (713) 798-3729