cazier@mbunix.mitre.org (Cazier) (05/31/91)
I would like to get a feel for what netters consider a "workstation." Since the DOS and Mac's have increased in power with the development of the '386 and 030's, it would appear that the PC vs. workstation lines are a bit blurred. Would a good definition of a workstation include or exclude the PC and Mac's? Can a workstation be a server or multiuser system and still be considered a workstation? Would the following definition adequately fit "workstation"? A configuration of a high performance, microcomputer-based hardware and software functional unit providing an integrated desktop service to one or more users at a time. Does "workstation" include the IBM 3270 terminals? Are workstations only single-user systems, although capable of multi-user use?
mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse) (06/02/91)
In article <1991May31.143233.25042@linus.mitre.org>, cazier@mbunix.mitre.org (Cazier) writes: > I would like to get a feel for what netters consider a "workstation." > Since the DOS and Mac's have increased in power with the development > of the '386 and 030's, it would appear that the PC vs. workstation > lines are a bit blurred. Quite so. As far as I can tell, a workstation is anything that's sold as a workstation. Nothing more complicated than that. The technical differences between a workstation and a personal computer are slight and getting smaller all the time; the only remaining difference I can see is that one is sold as a personal machine for $1200 and the other as a workstation for $5000. > Would a good definition of a workstation include or exclude the PC > and Mac's? Macs - and most "workstation"s - are PC. A high-end workstation can support multiple users without bogging down, but the low-end ones sure can't. If you really want technical differences...I would say that a workstation generally has a better display (typically a million pixels for a low-end workstation, which is high-end as PC displays go), more I/O bandwidth (though that distinction is going away), and more storage (both core and disk), typically isn't even offered without some sort of network interface, and does multitasking out-of-the-box. Hmmm, that $1200 versus $5000 begins to make sense. Oh yes, the personal computers are generally better documented, since the third-party software developers demand it. der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
pd@pd@x.co.uk (Paul Davey) (06/05/91)
>>>>> On 31 May 91 14:32:33 GMT, cazier@mbunix.mitre.org (Cazier) said: Cazier> Originator: cazier@mbunix.mitre.org Cazier> Nntp-Posting-Host: mbunix.mitre.org Cazier> I would like to get a feel for what netters consider a "workstation." Cazier> Since the DOS and Mac's have increased in power with the development of the Cazier> '386 and 030's, it would appear that the PC vs. workstation lines are Cazier> a bit blurred. Cazier> Would a good definition of a workstation include or exclude the PC and Cazier> Mac's? Can a workstation be a server or multiuser system and still be Cazier> considered a workstation? Cazier> Would the following definition adequately fit "workstation"? Cazier> A configuration of a high performance, microcomputer-based hardware and Cazier> software functional unit providing an integrated desktop service to one or Cazier> more users at a time. I belive that the classic workstation definition used to be: >= 1 Meg of RAM >= 1 Meg of Pixels Networking hardware and software The memory restriction might be considered too little now that 4 or 8 or 16 Mb of RAM is the norm. I think a large area of screen real estate is an important part of the concept. Cazier> Does "workstation" include the IBM 3270 terminals? IHMO No, smart terminals are smart terminals, I would not class X terminals as workstations in the computer science sense either. A workstation should be able to locally process data in many ways. IHMO High end PCs and MACs running a mutli-tasking, multi-user operating system do qualify as workstations, but would require at least VGA graphics. Cazier> Are workstations only Cazier> single-user systems, although capable of multi-user use? I think a workstation is primarily designed for single user use, but in a multi-user environment, eg sharing data, resources etc. The potential for simultaneous multi-user use, whether via ethernet or serial lines should be supported in the operating system It needn't be put to its designed use to be a workstation. -- Regards, pd@x.co.uk IXI Limited Paul Davey pd@ixi.uucp 62-74 Burleigh St. ...!uunet!ixi!pd Cambridge U.K. "These are interesting times" +44 223 462 131 CB1 1OJ USA: 1 800 XDESK 57