🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec26.003022.25532@bilver.uucp> wbeebe@bilver.uucp (Bill Beebe) writes:
>In article <id.HD1W.X03@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>
>>I'd hope it'd run pretty damn well, since we've had up to 10 users on a 286
>>doing software development... which is about 30 times slower than the 486,
>>with more demanding users.
>>
>>Now I won't say I was happy with the performance on the 286, but the current
>>systems with moderately old 386es are adequate, and our 486 box screams.
>
>Maybe I *really* am dumber than a box of dirt, but why, in this day of
>networking, would anyone do team development on a single box when it would
>appear that team development on networked single-user boxes would be a lot
>more efficient? Why do we still need multi-user boxes except to support
>obsolete business practices?

What's obsolete about hanging terminals on a system that is running a
multiuser, multitasking operating system?  A 50 mhz 486 with 32 megs
of memory should easily handle 10 users doing the compile-edit-debug
cycle.  Terminals are dirt cheap.  Workstations are a little more
expensive.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	merk!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP