Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [midatlanticretro] Why old tech keeps kicking

Expand Messages
  • schwepes@moog.netaxs.com
    Actually, most new technology has been enhancements and not really new tech. The computer itself whether realized in switches as the English did or with
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Actually, most "new" technology has been enhancements and not really new
      tech.
      The computer itself whether realized in switches as the English did or
      with vacuum tubes as ENIAC in America represented a new technology.
      The change from discrete elements to integrated chips represents new
      tech as does the conceptual change that permitted both personal computers
      and internet communications. All else are merely refinements within
      a paradign. Granted that the speeds we take for granted were thought
      impossible when we were so proud of our 8086's, but that change is
      evolution and not revolution.
      bs being a stickler for semantics.

      On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:

      > Christian Liendo wrote:
      > > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/technology/23digi.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
      >
      > I wouldn't call the z10 "old technology". That would be like calling a
      > brand new nVidia graphics card "old technology" because it maintains
      > compatibility with the CGA. Incidentally, that picture of a warehouse
      > is less than 500 feet from where I'm sitting at the moment.
      >
      > Also, when articles like that postulate that mainframes are now based on
      > microprocessors, they are (strictly speaking) correct, but they're still
      > missing the point. 1 mainframe processor != 1 microprocessor. There's
      > an array of microprocessors acting as a single mainframe processor. It
      > was the way the designers came up with of cost-effectively using
      > microprocessors to achieve the same resilience and reliability that was
      > expected from the track-record of previous mainframe processors. And
      > IBM isn't the first to use the idea of using multiple microprocessors to
      > create a single mainframe processor. Tandem (now HP NonStop, I guess)
      > has been doing it for a number of years.
      >
      > BTW, I also wouldn't call the BladeCenter a "mainframe". Mainframes
      > have been modular for a number of years, but they aren't nearly as
      > modular as a BladeCenter. The thing that impresses me most about the
      > BladeCenter is that nowadays you can make a very dense IBM SP
      > supercomputer out of POWER6 blades and Myrinet or InfiniBand. That just
      > kicks ass.
      >
      > Peace... Sridhar
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.