From: Milind Bhandarkar Newsgroups: comp.parallel Subject: Re: What Ever Became of the "Transputer" ??? Date: 5 May 1999 13:38:51 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Approved: bigrigg@cs.cmu.edu Message-Id: <7gphlb$p4e$1@goldenapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu> Originator: bigrigg@ux6.sp.cs.cmu.edu Xref: ukc comp.parallel:15562 Eugene Miya wrote in message news:7g7uhd$ag4@darkstar.ucsc.edu... > Basically, they got trounced by Intel. Lack of software, too. > Could not keep up with the technology curve. Some shortsightedness > on the part of Americans. Certain proprietary things about the architecture. > Processors alone are not enough. T800 was a good processor. It was a contemporary of i386, and I have gotten better performance on it than on a 386. However, 486 DX, which came immediately after, was much faster, and the next generation transputer (T9000) got delayed. I think inmos was taken over or something by SGS Thompson (from what I remember, its been years since then). > >several ultra-highspeed "serial" links through which > >data could be exchanged between processors. If anything, > "ultra-high" is your term. It was hardly "ultra-high". There were 4 links that could communicate at 10 Mbps bidirectional b/w. The only advantage was that they were within the processor, so it saved some space for additional communication hardware. > I want to try to pick up a SUPRENUM machine for The Computer Museum. > I think there was also an Israeli machine also using Transputers. > We should try to pick one of those up, too. India's first successful attempt at making a 256 processor supercomputer was based on T800 transputer. It was developed at Center for Development of Advanced Computing, in Pune, India. The name of this machine was PARAM. Later they switched to Sparcs. Milind -- Articles to bigrigg+parallel@cs.cmu.edu (Admin: bigrigg@cs.cmu.edu) Archive: http://www.hensa.ac.uk/parallel/internet/usenet/comp.parallel