[rescue] Compaq Proliant 8000

[Dave McGuire]

On Apr 28, 2004, at 3:26 PM, Joshua Boyd wrote:
>>> My understanding is that the context switch time was so high that a
>>> general purpose OS did not have good performance on the CPU.
>>
>>   ...which I suppose would be fine because it's not a general-purpose
>> CPU.
>
> I'm under the impression that Intel meant for them to be general 
> purpose
> (albeit high end workstation type) though.
>
> So, it made them a lot of money (presumably), but it didn't accomplish
> what they intended.  Does that make it a failure or a success?

   My memory may be suffering from bit rot, but I never saw it marketed 
as a general-purpose CPU.  It was generally touted as a "Cray on a 
chip".

       -Dave

--
Dave McGuire          "PC users only know two 'solutions'...
Cape Coral, FL          reboot and upgrade."    -Jonathan Patschke