🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <798@dgis.dtic.dla.mil>, jkrueger@dgis.dtic.dla.mil (Jon) writes:
> brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks) writes:
> 
> >You will be completely shocked to see how
> >low the processor utilization of single user work stations are.  The
> >small size of the utilization factor completely negates the cost performance
> >edge of the Killer Micro inside it.
> 
> This is quite correct, and therefore we should stop using personal
> automobiles, too.  Instead we should use taxis, car pools, and
> other forms of better sharing the same basic hardware.  This will
> increase the <10% utilization of most cars.

All depends on where you live.  In New York or Tokyo, you should stop
using personal cars;  in my experience, anyone in those two cities who
uses one is nuts.  Take the public transport.  

That aside, you're missing Eugene's point.  I can't fathom your leap from
KM's to cars.  The whole point here is that a powerful KM on someone's desk
is now becoming a wasted resource at times.  This is evolution.  One
wouldn't (not to mind couldn't) have an CDC 6600 on the desktop;  now, we're
down to KM's.  Again, it all depends on the situation.  The scenario at
LLNL and many other R&D houses is this;  lots (hundreds, thousands) of 
engineers and programmers.  It is economically infeasible to have each
person with a 10% utilized KM.  

For those who can utilize at 50 % or so, by all means buy it.  However,
at 10%, it becomes much harder to justify single-user KM's.

> 
> OK, ob. smiley.  Yes, we like having our own cars, and we like having
> our own local source of computation, and we're going to continue
> to choose this whenever we have a choice.  It's a fact of life.

True.  But, many people don't have such choices.

(stuff deleted)

> decision, it's a policy decision.  The ability for the individual
> to have 100% of his local computational power available to him
> on demand is a policy widely favored by individuals.  The ability
> to get the most computation per dollar is a policy widely favored
> by central planners.
> 
> No one argues that these policies are in any way compatible.  They both
> exist, and each drives a different kind of purchase decision.  Neither
> has anything to do with how you build technology.  Both have much to do
> with you how you buy it, and rather little to do with computer
> architecture, at this late date.

I disagree.  Architecture is forcing the hand of many a buyer.  KM's are
becoming easier and easier to justify (or should I say single-user WS  :-)
But Eugene's point is still valid.  Even just sharing with another person
("dual-user WS" ?) allows, at the asymptote, a factor of 2 savings for
the big R&D houses.  To those with finite resources (dollars), this is
significant.  Applying it across the board, however, is still a mistake,
one that Jon points out.  One size does not fit all.

Rob
-- 
Rob Peglar	Control Systems, Inc.	2675 Patton Rd., St. Paul MN 55113
...uunet!csinc!rpeglar		612-631-7800

The posting above does not necessarily represent the policies of my employer.