🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <127@csinc.UUCP> rpeglar@csinc.UUCP (Rob Peglar x615) writes:
>In article <35825@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, brooks@maddog.llnl.gov writes:

>that point for almost a generation.  I believe that it will take at least
>one more generation - those who weaned on machines from CDC, then CRI -
>before a more reasonable approach to machine procurement comes to pass.

In my experience, gov't labs are very cost conscious.  I could tell a lot of
stories on this.  Suffice it to say that many people who have come to gov't labs
from private industry get frustrated with just how cost conscious the gov't can
be (almost an exact quote: "In my last company, if we needed another 10GBytes,
all we had to do was ask, and they bought it for us."  That was when 10 GBytes
cost $300 K.)  The reason supercomputer are used so much is that they get the 
job done more cheaply.  You may question whether or not new nuclear weapons 
need to be designed, but I doubt if the labs doing it would use Crays 
if that were not the cheapest way to get the job done.  Private industry 
concerns with the same kinds of jobs also use supercomputers the same way.  
Oil companies, for example.  At various times, oil companies have owned more
supercomputers than govt labs.

>Thus, I disagree that there will *always* be a market for this sort of
>thing.  Status symbols may be OK in cars, but for machines purchased with
>taxpayer dollars, the end is near.  Hence, Brooks' "attack of the killer
>micros".

I will make a reverse claim:  People who want status symbols buy PC's for their
office.  These PC's, the last time I checked, were only 1/1000th as cost
effective at doing scientific computations as supercomputers.  Talk about 
*waste*...  :-)


  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center  ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035     
  Phone:  (415)694-6117