Denys Beauchemin wrote:

> Huh?  I worked on one in the late 70's and 80's.  Of course, it wasn't
> called a classeic then - these were called classics only later in
> comparison to the RISC machines, but if one of them was running today
> (a series III) it would be called a "classic".
>
> My point exactly.  When I started working on a Series II then III,
> then a 33 and so on, they were not called 3000 classic.  They were
> called HP 3000 minicomputers.  Or maybe my memory is failing me. :)

I tend to think of them in terms of architecture.  The original 3000,
Series II and III were all essentially the same architecture.  The 30/33
and beyond went into the HP-IB arena and GICs.  The 64/68/70 brought us
the multiple GIC addition and a very different backplane.  The same
continued with the RISC line - the CIO bus, the NIO bus, etc.  On the
top level, they are indeed classic vs RISC, but I look a the various
models a bit more granular than just the processor.

Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>