Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer From: Conor O'Neill Subject: Re: Post Mortem Organization: Home Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 19:33:28 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: In article , NewsMan <2021@please.dont.send.email> writes [ deleted ] >SOFTWARE - GENERAL >* No clear identification of target market. Two markets emerged: Ultra high >performance computers and embedded systems. >* Software support was lacking. >* Turnkey system required. >* Operating system required. Helios, when it came, was too pricey. >* No self-configuring loader. Some have written their own loaders to >overcome this deficiency. At least one per-CPU manager was written. >Again, this should have been part of the operating system. >* Unix or another operating system could have been written or ported to >deal with multiple CPUs transparently as part of a turnkey system. > >MARKETING >* Inmos tried to ignore C. >* Inmos required purchase of occam and TDS with transputer. >* Inmos didn't respond to users' requests for changes. >* Inmos tried to do too many different things at the same time. They tried >to be a semiconductor company, a compiler company and a systems company Here you've criticised INMOS for doing too little software, and then criticised INMOS for trying to do too much! It was my feeling while I worked at INMOS that we desperately wanted _more_ third party software produced. We didn't produce 'self configuring loaders', Unix, and such things because we wanted other companies to do so instead. However, I agree that we then made it difficult for them to actually do this! -- Conor O'Neill, at home in Bristol, UK "It's state of the art." "But it doesn't work". "That is the state of the art!"