🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1427@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> tim@tomcat.UUCP (Tim Kay) writes:
>Ted Holden (IMS) writes:
>>Tim Kay (Caltech) writes:
...
>>army ants EAT.  What is important is the servers reach a certain level of
>>power and sophistication, which they have, and the state of the control soft-
>>ware for the army (e.g. Novell's Netware).  These are good enough for such
>>PC armies to eat VAX class machines today and I can't believe they won't be
>>eating IBM mainframes in another year or two.

"Speed" is relative.  A PC is fast for balancing a checkbook.
For drawing a complex image you'll want a faster processor if you don't want
that PC on your desk busy for sixteen hours.  Ditto for data crunching, as
PC disk data paths are not fast.

...
>So, let's build a version of the IBM PC with I/O processors, high bandwidth
>point-to-point communications, additional, higher bandwidth busses, the
>ability to handle many disk drives, etc., to overcome the difficulties that
>I have just mentioned.  For the CPU, we'll use an 80386, which I agree could be
>adequate.  What you now have is a machine somewhere between today's
>minicomputers and a mainframes.  You have lost your cost advantage,
>and the machine I just described is no longer a personal computer.
>But I'll agree that this machine could do what you are claiming.

The above is currently called a "supermicro".  It's a multiuser machine
because for many applications it's cheaper to put dumb terminals on it than
for each user to have a networked PC.  As long as networking costs more
than dumb terminals ($400 ASCII) that break-even point will be important.

Micro *processors* are replacing larger processors, by being used to build
larger computers, and will continue to push upward the lower limit of the
"mainframe" and "supercomputer" ranges.  A 30-processor 32032 or 680x0 machine
with I/O processors packs a hefty punch, pulls a lot of data, and is only
horrendously expensive when comparing it to a computer for your home.  More
power in a single processor is only needed for single-thread
compute-intensive jobs (there will always be supercomputers).

>I have already conceded that smaller computers
>might eventually replace lots of mainframes.  But I think
...
>And, don't get me wrong.  I love PCs, and I am fascinated by what they
>can do.  I can't imagine why anybody would buy something like a
>System 36, when you could have an AT or three that are just as powerful
>(more powerful?) and costs a fraction as much.

Why is a System/36 not called a micro?  Because the box is too big.
-- 
Scot E. Wilcoxon   Minn Ed Comp Corp  {quest,dayton,meccts}!mecc!sewilco
(612)481-3507           sewilco@MECC.COM       ihnp4!meccts!mecc!sewilco
   
  National Enquirer seers: 4 		Reality: 360