Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!info-vax From: info-vax@ucbvax.ARPA Newsgroups: fa.info-vax Subject: Re: uVAX busses Message-ID: <8438@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 15:41:34 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8438 Posted: Mon Jun 24 15:41:34 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Jun-85 03:41:56 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 21 From: hadron!jsdy@seismo (Joseph S. D. Yao) In article <7774@ucbvax.ARPA> you write: >From: Art Berggreen> >I am under non-disclosure so I can't say much, but look for a >future uVAX whose primary bus in not a QBUS or UNIBUS or CIbus. BOO! Why am I going to have to invest in hardware for yet another bus which will remain proprietary to yet another single vendor for a while to come? I objected to the Q-Bus for this reason when it came out (although, by now, there are enough technically good reasons for it to stay, and enough second sources). I will be annoyed at this one, unless it significantly pushes forward the state of the art. Or, perhaps they will use some "industry standard"? Sorry about the flame ... it's like sneezing; you have to do it every once in a while. ;-) Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{ARPA,UUCP}