🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <18702@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>, oyej@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU writes:
> I am looking for information as to why the micro VAX I is unpopular.
> I believe that a major hardware design flaw is the reason that one doesn't
> hear about it anymore.

I haven't heard of any major hardware design flaws in the MicroVAX I
unless you count being S-L-O-W as being a flaw ...

> I am thinking of trading in a PDP 11/23 for a micro VAX I.
> Any words of advice?

You might not find the MicroVAX I much faster than a 23 except that,
of course, the software can have more buffering and room to be more
intelligent (which means fewer disk I/O operations) - for some
applications this can be quite significant (even the dominant factor)
even though the basic CPU isn't really tremendously faster.  Of course,
if you are doing 32-bit arithmetic the MicroVAX I does better than the
23 (not that that's so hard when the 23 doesn't have 32 bit instructions).

Any MicroVAX I's out there are also likely to be sold with small amounts
of memory and small, slow disk drives.

If you can afford it, and don't mind the proprietary hardware setup, you
may do better to try to locate a used MicroVAX 2000.  These are machines
based on the MicroVAX II chipset, but with a proprietary architecture
that you can't plug standard QBUS devices into.  DEC does sell a few
things for it at only slightly outrageous prices, if you're lucky you
might be able to get one that's reasonably configured without having to
go to DEC at all.  It's only slightly slower than a standard MicroVAX II.

						Bruce C. Wright