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 -- Why  is 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