> That's true--but at the time, CDC's design made a huge amount of sense. The > CPU was left to do what it did best--crunch numbers without the burden of > managing the I/O activity and responding to interrupts. In that sense, the > CPU was treated as more of a peripheral device. In fact, you could order a > CPU-less system. (6416?)
What was the point of that machine? For people doing OS development only? -- Will
