Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!dartvax!linus!bs From: bs@linus.UUCP (Robert D. Silverman) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Transputer based systems. Keywords: transputer, inmos, unix Message-ID: <40211@linus.UUCP> Date: 22 Sep 88 14:36:21 GMT References: <253@uceng.UC.EDU> Reply-To: bs@linus.UUCP (Robert D. Silverman) Distribution: na Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA Lines: 28 In article <253@uceng.UC.EDU> rsexton@uceng.UC.EDU (robert sexton) writes: >being a fan of parallel system and their advantages, I was wondering why >the transputer has not gotten off the ground as a viable system. It seems >pretty feasable, as well as very cost-effective. I imagine a machine with >several transputers, each running unix. When the machine is lightly loaded, stuff deleted. We have just been though a major decision process where we chose a parallel computer. We discarded the transputer for several reasons: (1) SLOW communication, relative to the IPSC/2 and AMETEK (2) Lack of software; e.g. good debugging tools, compilers, etc. (3) Too heavy a dependence on OCCAM (4) Speed. The IPSC/2 and AMETEK have faster processors and allow for MERCURY type floating point vector boards as nodes (5) Uncertainty as to whether the transputer will last as a viable product. (6) Lack of third party software. These are just a few of the reasons. Bob Silverman