melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (12/19/90)
How about SpecMarks for the 68040 NeXT? They have been shipping for a week or two. Is the personal workstation a reality? -Mike
mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires) (12/19/90)
In article <F+gp#&x3@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >How about SpecMarks for the 68040 NeXT? They have been shipping for a >week or two. Is the personal workstation a reality? Please define "personal workstation" - is it simply a matter of CPU throughput? Is it running some form of UNIX? Is it a state of mind? If a "workstation" is simply UNIX box that is comparable in CPU throughput to what Sun, et al, are selling as "workstations" then the personal workstation appeared some time ago - a 386 running 386 UNIX, 030 NeXT, others. -- Mike Squires (mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu) 812 855 3974 (w) 812 333 6564 (h) mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408 Under construction: mikes@sir-alan@cica.indiana.edu
suitti@ima.isc.com (Stephen Uitti) (12/20/90)
In article <1990Dec19.150649.9647@news.cs.indiana.edu> mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires) writes: >In article <F+gp#&x3@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>How about SpecMarks for the 68040 NeXT? They have been shipping for a >>week or two. Is the personal workstation a reality? >Please define "personal workstation" - is it simply a matter of CPU >throughput? Is it running some form of UNIX? Is it a state of mind? > >If a "workstation" is simply UNIX box that is comparable in CPU throughput >to what Sun, et al, are selling as "workstations" then the personal >workstation appeared some time ago - a 386 running 386 UNIX, 030 NeXT, >others. It depends on what work you want to do. I know someone who does reasonable quality document generation. She has a PC clone with a daisy wheel printer with a carbon ribbon. No fancy fonts, or size changes, but bold and underlining are available. The printer has a wide carriage, and can print in landscape mode on legal sized paper. Very crisp, clear work. It isn't even an XT. 4.77 MHz 8088, 256KB RAM, twin 360K floppies. There are more than adequate resources available at all times. The system wasn't horrifically expensive. The software and hardware are mature. The software does not run faster on faster hardware, since there are no noticeable delays. She just had the printer fixed. It was worth it. Upgrade? Out of the question. It works, and she knows how to use it. I'd say workstations have been around for quite awhile. Stephen Uitti suitti@ima.isc.com
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (12/20/90)
In article <1990Dec19.150649.9647@news.cs.indiana.edu> mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires) writes:
Please define "personal workstation" - is it simply a matter of CPU
throughput? Is it running some form of UNIX? Is it a state of mind?
If a "workstation" is simply UNIX box that is comparable in CPU throughput
to what Sun, et al, are selling as "workstations" then the personal
workstation appeared some time ago - a 386 running 386 UNIX, 030 NeXT,
others.
I would define a personal workstation to be Unix(memory protection,
virtual memory, networking, etc -- i.e. a "real" OS), workstation
performance, and a GUI(and apps) as friendly as the Mac's GUI(and
apps). There has always been a significant gap between the
performance of personal computers and workstations, especially in
floating-point performance. While workstations (and Unix) are
notorious for having a huge learning curve("raw" Unix is not for the
masses), and until recently they were expensive. The 040 NeXT could
finally be the bridge b/w the two markets. It's a Unix box with
horsepower, and a user-friendly GUI at a reasonable price. Just want
mom always wanted; no need to buy her a MacinToy for Christmas now.
You could argue that the 030 NeXT was the first "personal
workstation", but it was a bit pricey, and it did lack in performance.
Anyway, I hope that it's the machine that will finally get the world
out the confines of 640K, TSR programs,... There are a lot of people
who are really looking forward to DOS 5.0 :-(.
-Mike
BTW: Are there any SpecMarks available on the 25 MHz 68040? I might
be getting exited over nothing.jamiller@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Jim Miller) (12/21/90)
>I would define a personal workstation to be Unix(memory protection, **** >virtual memory, networking, etc -- i.e. a "real" OS), workstation >performance, and a GUI(and apps) as friendly as the Mac's GUI(and >apps). > >-Mike Mike puts in a definition for Unix, but many people say "Unix" and mean it. So I'm going to comment on the use of Unix, if people always said "a real OS" instead of "Unix", the following would not be valid. That said, I say: While "...Unix" may seem true, I seems to me like defining a car as a 4-cycle gas piston driven Ford that ... which by definition eliminates steam, electric, or desiel "cars" from being a car. If YOU define a workstation as "Unix", I believe you are going to be very supprised at all the "stupid" people who will someday be buying workstations that aren't workstation (because they don't run Unix) -- they will be buying CAD/CAM/etc on a hot machine that supports standards. Question: for what reason does a customer/end-user care if it's Unix or not? Answer(?) because he's a techie with more interest in the tool that the job it's supposed to do? I.E.: it has to be a 4-cycle gas car because I don't believe in ... or .. because it can't do x ... or ... The other night I was debugging korn shell scripts on my PC (MKS's toolbox) Does that make my DOS box under WINDOWS Unix? Why do I care? If the tools I want work on my machine, *I* say, I don't care what it is. I think by misdefining what a workstation is will only bring grief and ridicule. jim - the winner of the Unix-OS/2 wars will be: MS-DOS 7.0 ! - miller jamiller@hpmpeb7.cup.hp.com (a.k.a James A. Miller; Jim the JAM; stupid; @!?$$!; ... ) Anything I say will be used against me ... But my company doesn't know or approve or condone anything of mine here.
gates@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Bill Gates) (12/21/90)
>I guess a lot of people are interested in seeing those SPECmarks and comparing >them too, including myself. Unfortunately HP for some reason has not been >releasing any of those numbers despite the fact that they are a member >supporting SPEC's unified benchmarking effort. Interesting indeed. Not so interesting, I think. The lateness and bugginess of 68040 parts has delayed putting final hardware together and completing tuning efforts (this is just a guess, but I think it has its basis in fact). I don't think many computer manufacturers are particularly anxious to release performance numbers based on preliminary or untuned systems. Bill Disclaimer: this is my opinion only. I speak only for myself and not for the Hewlett-Packard company.