Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer
From: Magnus Paterson <mjp@roe.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Post Mortem
Organization: Royal Observatory, Edinburgh
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:58:44 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <34E85423.5E14@roe.ac.uk>

NewsMan wrote:
>  I wonder
> though if anyone has performed a detailed business analysis of
> why the product failed. 

I was a systems designer/user of transputers from '87 until about
'94, and what struck me was the _lack_ of a systems approach to 
my favourite processor.  The T seemed to be a solution that hadn't
properly identified the problem it was trying to address. I built
a couple of hundred transputers into high-performance astronomical
instruments, but all interfaces had to be built in-house or produced
by third-party companies such as Sunnyside and Sundance. Many
business customers want to buy turnkey solutions and one failing
of Inmos and SGS/STM was in not offering the turnkey.

That was never a problem for me in specialist applications (how
many 1-5 micron cooled grating astronomical spectrometers do you
really need?), but it may have suppressed the tranny market in
business applications.

We're maybe asking the wrong folks here.  I'm still in touch with
Pete Highton (Rapid/MMd), and he may be able to offer a view on
apps, despite being a Motorola person these days. I'll ask him.

-- 

Cheers,
Magnus