Re: Gould NP1 (really where are we going?)

Article View: comp.arch

Article #13415

#13415

From: tihor
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1987 06:40

10 lines
942 bytes

But remember many of the nice things that fall into category B
are just spiffy at eating cycles while being friendly.

Which I think is a perfectly fine investment but doesn't imply that we
need to think about closing the computer hardware section of the patent 
office.

Passim: Note that the classic existance proof of need for cycles is the 
need to simulate the next generation of (bigger/faster/friendlier) systems
on the current generation.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <12780003@acf4.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!tihor

References: <1201@ames.UUCP>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!tihor
From: tihor@acf4.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Gould NP1 (really where are we going?)
Message-ID: <12780003@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Apr-87 01:40:00 EST
Article-I.D.: acf4.12780003
Posted: Tue Apr  7 01:40:00 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Apr-87 06:29:29 EST
References: <1201@ames.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 10

Reply to Parent Message