🚀 go-pugleaf

tonyrich@titanic.cs.wisc.edu (Anthony Rich) writes in article <9534@spool.cs.wisc.edu>:
      
      This is a good point.  Multiuser, multitasking OS's like Unix were
      designed to keep the *machine* productive, occasionally at the expense
      of wasting an interactive user's time.  That made sense when hardware
      and machine time were (or seemed) more expensive than people's time.
      
      Now it's the other way around, and the Mac is a good example; its goal
      is to keep the user productive, not to keep the processor busy.  (In
      fact, processors on single-user machines are "idle" virtually ALL the time.
      But who cares?  As the old saying goes, "Better to have it and not need it
      than to need it and not have it."


An interesting approach in future would be to consider CPU power with
the same methaphor as electrical power.  I.e.  if you need additional
crunch in order to create that ultimate 3D-multimedia spreadsheet, you
could make use of idle CPU time on machines connected to the same
backbone network. 

Industry standards like NCS and the new OSI approach to Distributed
Computing will eventually lead to this new computing environment.  IMHO
the key to acceptance would be a totally transparent environment, where
a) the end user does not need to care about assigning tasks, defining
priority levels or scheduler parameters and b) where the system does not
give networking CPU access if the end user suddenly starts working on
his/her own workstation. 

/ksand
-- 
Kent Sandvik, Network Ninja         --  Apple Australia Developer Tech Support
{uunet,mcvax,enea}!munnari!appleoz.oz!ksand, ksand@appleoz.oz.au (OR ksand@apple.com)
AppleLink: AUSTAUX    Disclaimer: "Opinions expressed are not Apple's opinions"