Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hacgate!luke.rsg.hac.com!lee
From: lee@luke.rsg.hac.com (C. Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Crimson (Was: Kubota Announcement?)
Message-ID: <30523@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>
Date: 15 Apr 93 02:47:21 GMT
References: <29542@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> <115072@bu.edu>
Sender: news@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM
Organization: Hughes Transportation Simulation Center, HAC; Culver City, CA
Lines: 30

In article <115072@bu.edu> kiki@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (Keith Baccki) writes:
>C. Lee (lee@obiwan.rsg.hac.com) wrote:
>:  Did you say DEC Alpha?  Upgrade path from [...]
>:  6xx0: replace.  Upgrade path from VAX 66x0 to Alpha: replace the system.

>	Not totally fair - you haven't mentioned the DECstation
>series. I think if SGI made CISC mainframes they wouldn't provide
>an upgrade path to an Onyx.

I agree with you about the upgrade path; but I think I was fair.

The original posting complained (1) about SGI coming out with newer (and
better) architectures and not having an upgrade path from the older ones,
and (2) that DEC did.

On statement (1), I merely attempted to point out that all computer
companies are constantly attempting to improve their product (& market
position/share).  In so doing, they eventually come to a point where they
have a new architecture, and the only upgrade path is to replace the
system.  And the particular system he was complaining about was (in
computer lifetimes) relatively old.

On statement (2), I felt DEC's history of providing upgrades was not far
superior than the industry "average", and that, in my opinion, SGI's
history is better than DEC's.

(And what is DEC doing with it's MIPS based DECstation line?  Are they
going to "abandon" it for their Alpha based line, or provide an upgrade
path to R4400's and TFP's and R5's?)
--
