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