🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan3.235327.13718@qb.rhein-main.de>, vhs@rhein-main.de (Volker Herminghaus-Shirai) writes:
> A decent workstation has IMHO *at least* the following items of which the
> software can and does take advantage of:
> 	a high-resolution screen
> 	a pointing device
> 	an ethernet connection (or token ring if your management was bribed ;-)
> 	a UN*X operating system with TCP/IP support and a C compiler
> 	a boot prom that allows for interactive diagnosis etc.
> 	a decent amount of RAM and hard disk space
> 	a tape drive for backups and data exchange as opposed to floppy disk
> 	other items I may have forgotten (it's already tomorrow...;-)

Yes, this gets its for me..

A workstation doesn't *have* to run UNIX. Any good OS will do. bye bye MSDOS,
TOS, etc etc...

A workstation has high-resolution graphics and lots of colours per pixel and
the graphics card does perform quickly. Not strictly true, since some people
like mono screens (I edit on a mono screen, but I don't test my code on one).

On a workstation, software does not worry about how much memory it has; just
page it out to disk. Microsoft windows can release memory and re-read it from
the disk, but it can't page memory *out* to the disk (not unless it changed
recently).

and as someone else said:
With a workstation, none of your money goes to Microsoft or Bill Gates. This 
must be the best definition of a workstation yet.

> Looks good on the outside, but -
> 	intel inside

Oooooo, so right!
-- 
snail@lsl.co.uk      

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless
 means to side with the powerful, not to be Neutral."
                                                     Quote by Freire.
                                                     Poster by OXFAM.

Motorola inside.