1. Laptop computers. These will be replaced by interfaces that are driven by a personal compute device and work compute devices.
2. Desktop Computers. These will be replaced by interfaces that are driven by work compute devices, and personal compute devices.
Compute device will continue to shrink. The reality is all interfaces can be driven by the compute that is carried by a standard human today, and that capability will only continue to exponentially increase.
There is one mini architecture that (kind of) lives on to this day. The TI-990 mini became the TMS9900 microprocessor, and the architecture then found its way into millions of MSP430 microcontrollers.
So though the mini form factor has kind of* disappeared there's at least that one case of a mini architecture surviving into the present - even if it's ridiculous that it's powering things like the control system of an electric toothbrush.
* Arguably the form factor also lives on in 'size of a refrigerator' rack scale systems like VxRack or Oxide.
I think pinning failure of that era to CISC is very difficult. DEC also had two operating systems that failed, and as you wrote a RISC chip that didn’t last. It’s true for other OSes like Be, OS/2, Amiga, etc., and it was true for other RISC chips, most notably the POWERpc.
My point is that DEC was much more than the VAX cpu, and many others failed in those other arenas too. x86, Windows, Office, the technologies and the marketing were a very special and well-controlled combination that left many companies in its wake.
Workstations are still around and have for the most part absorbed the useful aspects of the mini computer, for example a thread ripper pro Workstation like:
"Indeed, DEC would put considerable effort into developing RISC architectures rather than putting that development effort into VAX."
VAX 9000 says "hold my beer". (arguably, DEC never recovered from that debacle; they literally started with the still-smoking remains of the Trilogy Systems moonshot)
Worked for a company that "skipped" the transition cycle from proprietary Sperry 77, Sperry 620s upgrade because the division was being bought/sold/becoming an independent company.
Arguably the upgrade would have been Mini workstation VMS servers. When they finally did the transition.
PCs 486 architecture was advance enough & cheap to perform the job.
Just wait the cycle will began again just like when Ross Perot use to park a trailer filled with digital equipment performing payroll services for companies. Someone using a quantum computer the size of a truck, will perform Material Science, Medical research, Extreme cases of Structural integrity, etc. for companies willing to pay.
No, that wasn't likely the case, it was primarily the case that specially the sales and marketing folks at the "mini-makers" for far too long thought that only with big computers, you could make big money. And then we're left in the dust cloud when the PC and networking market exploded. I know, as I was working at that time for a company that was still trying to sell DG Nova clones and jumped ship well before they went under.
Sure, the TI-990 spawned the TMS9900 family (similar to the way the PDP-11 spawned the F-11 and J-11 parts; T-11 doesn't count here), but there's only superficial architectural similarity between the MSP430 and TMS9900. In particular, the MSP430 lacks the fast-context switch of the 9900. It's no less accurate (and no more useful :-)) to suggest the MSP430 was influenced by the PDP-11.
In particular, Texas Instruments themselves describe the MSP430 as the descendant of the TSS400, a relatively obscure 8-bit MCU with on-chip interpreter for a macro language, completely unlike the 990/9900/99000 families (https://www.ti.com/sc/data/msp/databook/chp8.pdf).
Also, in chapter 1 of that databook, they mention the PDP-11 in glowing terms:
"The 27 core instructions combined with these special features make it easy to program the MSP430 in assembler or in C, and provide exceptional flexibility and functionality. For example, even with a relatively low instruction count of 27, the MSP430 is capable of emulating almost the complete instruction set of the legendary DEC PDP-11."
I think they just re-used mnemonics as companies are wont to do .
It's true, DEC would have put a lot of effort into developing the RISC architecture rather than putting that development effort into the VAX. When it became clear that RISC architectures were a good idea, then the days of VAX as an architecture were numbered. This also had commercial advantages which is large because it has the scale to support large investments, both in architectural development and the manufacturing process to build it. You may protest that x86 is a CISC architecture. For clearer information, you can visit our website https://furloughedfoodieslondon.co.uk/
It seems the author of that article was born in the 90s, maybe, and never actually worked with a mini computer. Or the question why there are no minicomputers anymore wouldn't present itself to begin with.
Two simple reasons: For one, the computing power of "micro-computers" increased dramatically in the early '80s that they reached the same processing power than those estate fridge sized boxes. And on top of that, PC networking evolved dramatically and LAN setup simply eliminated the use for multi-user machines connected via serial terminals....
Another reason why minicomputers vanished, instead of evolving (as they should have) into the low-cost market segment, is the willingness of businesses, including [very] many who should have known [much] better, to run their business on consumer-grade toys. Bill Gates's defining insight was that financialized business does not need the right answers: they just need to look good.
It's worth noting that MS supported the Alpha processor. I remember that NT setups came on two distinct folders: Intel and Alpha.
Categories of devices that are doomed.
1. Laptop computers. These will be replaced by interfaces that are driven by a personal compute device and work compute devices.
2. Desktop Computers. These will be replaced by interfaces that are driven by work compute devices, and personal compute devices.
Compute device will continue to shrink. The reality is all interfaces can be driven by the compute that is carried by a standard human today, and that capability will only continue to exponentially increase.
There is one mini architecture that (kind of) lives on to this day. The TI-990 mini became the TMS9900 microprocessor, and the architecture then found its way into millions of MSP430 microcontrollers.
So though the mini form factor has kind of* disappeared there's at least that one case of a mini architecture surviving into the present - even if it's ridiculous that it's powering things like the control system of an electric toothbrush.
* Arguably the form factor also lives on in 'size of a refrigerator' rack scale systems like VxRack or Oxide.
They had their own OS, compilers, utilities, etc.
No windows, no common unix.
Restricted peripherals, memory, comm
PC eventually beat them out on all counts including maintenance costs.
Brief time at IBM? Do tell! (yes, I read the footnotes)
this is making me want to pay a repeat visit to the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, btw
I think pinning failure of that era to CISC is very difficult. DEC also had two operating systems that failed, and as you wrote a RISC chip that didn’t last. It’s true for other OSes like Be, OS/2, Amiga, etc., and it was true for other RISC chips, most notably the POWERpc.
My point is that DEC was much more than the VAX cpu, and many others failed in those other arenas too. x86, Windows, Office, the technologies and the marketing were a very special and well-controlled combination that left many companies in its wake.
Workstations are still around and have for the most part absorbed the useful aspects of the mini computer, for example a thread ripper pro Workstation like:
Edge AI – EDAI-5975WXQR6 AI Workstation
$47,850.00
AMD Threadripper PRO 5975WX
256GB RAM
4x NVIDIA RTX A6000
2TB PCI Express SSD, 6x 2.5" 2TB SSDs
"Indeed, DEC would put considerable effort into developing RISC architectures rather than putting that development effort into VAX."
VAX 9000 says "hold my beer". (arguably, DEC never recovered from that debacle; they literally started with the still-smoking remains of the Trilogy Systems moonshot)
Worked for a company that "skipped" the transition cycle from proprietary Sperry 77, Sperry 620s upgrade because the division was being bought/sold/becoming an independent company.
Arguably the upgrade would have been Mini workstation VMS servers. When they finally did the transition.
PCs 486 architecture was advance enough & cheap to perform the job.
Just wait the cycle will began again just like when Ross Perot use to park a trailer filled with digital equipment performing payroll services for companies. Someone using a quantum computer the size of a truck, will perform Material Science, Medical research, Extreme cases of Structural integrity, etc. for companies willing to pay.
And MIPS, too. NT was originally developed on MIPS-based machines.
Evocative piece. Brought back early 80's memories of my spell with a Microdata (McDonnell Douglas) Reality, and its Richard Pick OS.
No, that wasn't likely the case, it was primarily the case that specially the sales and marketing folks at the "mini-makers" for far too long thought that only with big computers, you could make big money. And then we're left in the dust cloud when the PC and networking market exploded. I know, as I was working at that time for a company that was still trying to sell DG Nova clones and jumped ship well before they went under.
Sure, the TI-990 spawned the TMS9900 family (similar to the way the PDP-11 spawned the F-11 and J-11 parts; T-11 doesn't count here), but there's only superficial architectural similarity between the MSP430 and TMS9900. In particular, the MSP430 lacks the fast-context switch of the 9900. It's no less accurate (and no more useful :-)) to suggest the MSP430 was influenced by the PDP-11.
In particular, Texas Instruments themselves describe the MSP430 as the descendant of the TSS400, a relatively obscure 8-bit MCU with on-chip interpreter for a macro language, completely unlike the 990/9900/99000 families (https://www.ti.com/sc/data/msp/databook/chp8.pdf).
Also, in chapter 1 of that databook, they mention the PDP-11 in glowing terms:
"The 27 core instructions combined with these special features make it easy to program the MSP430 in assembler or in C, and provide exceptional flexibility and functionality. For example, even with a relatively low instruction count of 27, the MSP430 is capable of emulating almost the complete instruction set of the legendary DEC PDP-11."
I think they just re-used mnemonics as companies are wont to do .
It's true, DEC would have put a lot of effort into developing the RISC architecture rather than putting that development effort into the VAX. When it became clear that RISC architectures were a good idea, then the days of VAX as an architecture were numbered. This also had commercial advantages which is large because it has the scale to support large investments, both in architectural development and the manufacturing process to build it. You may protest that x86 is a CISC architecture. For clearer information, you can visit our website https://furloughedfoodieslondon.co.uk/
It seems the author of that article was born in the 90s, maybe, and never actually worked with a mini computer. Or the question why there are no minicomputers anymore wouldn't present itself to begin with.
Two simple reasons: For one, the computing power of "micro-computers" increased dramatically in the early '80s that they reached the same processing power than those estate fridge sized boxes. And on top of that, PC networking evolved dramatically and LAN setup simply eliminated the use for multi-user machines connected via serial terminals....
Another reason why minicomputers vanished, instead of evolving (as they should have) into the low-cost market segment, is the willingness of businesses, including [very] many who should have known [much] better, to run their business on consumer-grade toys. Bill Gates's defining insight was that financialized business does not need the right answers: they just need to look good.