<Right.  Total size and weight is the best indicator, at least for those o
<this list.  I think we should get back to the "my VAX weighs more than yo
<VAX" arguments and leave Intel completely out of it.

Love it ;-)

Actually all but one of the vaxen I have (3100m76 pizza box and VS2000s)
are quite small and light by PC standards and even that ba123 is not that 
bad.

Actually since few if ever have run a vax truly standalone in a real time 
OS it's hard to compare a PC to a VAX regardless of the year it was made.

I don't feel the 386 or it's faster cousins are bad, only that the PC 
archetecture is less able to exploit that speed and may even prove to 
be a bottleneck. The same has been said about Q-bus with some validity.
A BI bus cvax will clearly outrun the Q-bus counterpart.  Therein lies
one difference, performance scalability while remaining within a given 
CPU.

And while a 750 may have taken 22hours to do a compile it was likely 
servicing a lot of other tasks.  We also know that a 780 would likely 
have done it in 10-12 and a 4000 series (closer to the 386 in age) would 
have knocked it down to an hour or so.  It's the same comparison as 
saying a MMX/233 can do it faster than a 386.  My answer is, I should 
hope so but it doesn't tell me how fast run of the mill stuff may be 
expect to run.

My interest was to see if while running say netBSD on both a vax and a 
386/33 if their performance was about par between them?  It would help 
to guage VUPs to current PC performace in relative terms.  We already 
know that slowVAXen can do real work, but when the occasional question 
comes up here it's generally from people that know PC perfomance in 
either win/intel or *nix/intel terms.  It's not religion but getting 
some valid relative comparisons.   That and I have more VAXen of 
capability than PCs!


Allison