Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pyrdc!pyrnj!rutgers!gatech!hubcap!fpst From: fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu (Steve Stevenson-Moderator) Newsgroups: comp.parallel Subject: Transputer related note Summary: 1 -- performance. 2 -- Whyis not using transputer. Message-ID: <3027@hubcap.UUCP> Date: 23 Sep 88 12:08:27 GMT Sender: fpst@hubcap.UUCP Lines: 42 Approved: parallel@hubcap.clemson.edu I found this on comp.arch. Since we have some folks who are not on use net but to whom I mail our news group, I am including it for everyone. While strictly speaking we are not a transputer oriented group ( see comp.sys.transputer), the transputer and occam are certainly prototypical of our interest. ================ article 1 ======= cut here ===================== From: bs@linus.UUCP (Robert D. Silverman) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Transputer based systems. Keywords: transputer, inmos, unix 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