egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf) (11/12/90)
In article <T_Y6OYC@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > Sigh. 4 Meg and 72 Meg disk is planty for a useful UNIX development > system. I've done real work with a 40 Meg disk, but it's not very > happy. > > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > peter@ferranti.com In 1976, my UNIX system was a PDP-11/40 96KB 4-RK05 (10MB) machine With the 4 disks, all of V6 was on line, and I thought it was a very useful environment. OS cost was $20K, machine was (think now...) $50K In 1979, my 11/70 had 256K and 67MB. I thought it was a useful development environment for UNIX. OS cost $25K, Machine was $120K. In 1982, my VAX 750 (sn 219) had 2MB and 67MB. I thought it was a useful UNIX development environment. OS cost $30K, Machine was $120K. In 1984, my Sun 2/120 had 2MB and 130MB. I thought it was a useful UNIX development environment. OS cost was free (but binary only...) and the machine was $40K. Do I detect a common thread here somewhere??? My current machine is a Solbourne 500 with 32MB and 1.8GB. The disks are full. I TRIED to make do with only 1.2Gb while one disk was being replaced, but found that it just wasn't a useful development environment. I can hardly wait 'til next year. Skip Egdorf hwe@lanl.gov
my@dtg.nsc.com (Michael Yip) (11/12/90)
Sigh! Yeah, right now I have a 32M RAM SpracStation 1+ and many file servers on the net. My software runs faster and I would like to have more RAM and more speed. I just wonder how people developed extremely good software on machines much much less capable than the machines that we use nowaday. Sigh! If we can have yesterday's programmer and tomorrow's machines then we will probably have a lot of excellent programs today. -- Mike my@dtg.nsc.com PS: I still like my X-Window system running the Digital Clock!
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/13/90)
In article <EGDORF.90Nov11125338@zaphod.lanl.gov> egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf) writes:
1976, $70K system was OK. '79, $145K system was OK. '82, $150K system was OK.
'84, $40K system was OK.
Fine, but the system I was using, with 72M of disk, was a $3K system. Some
folks don't have the price of a house to spend on their computer.
--
Peter da Silva. `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180. 'U`
peter@ferranti.com jayavant@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Rajeev Jayavant) (11/15/90)
/ hpfcdj:comp.arch / gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu / 7:22 pm Nov 12, 1990 / >> Why don't we see monitors that are 2048*1532, at 150 dpi? Would the >> radiation from the high-frequency modulators fry your brains? How much money do you have to spend? :-) I haven't priced 2048*1532 monitors recently, but they were in at least the $20K ballpark not long ago. You also now have roughly 4x the pixels as before, so you have to render 4x as fast just to have the appearance of equivalent performance. Graphics hardware cost starts going up pretty fast compared to today's megapixel displays. Rajeev ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajeev Jayavant (rajeev@hpfcla.hp.com) "Excuse me, I've lost my marbles" Hewlett Packard - Graphics Technology Division - P. Opus, [Bloom County]
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (11/17/90)
(1) In my (limited) experience with a macintosh, I have see only about 1 legible 6-point font FACE at 75dpi. There are fewer than 8 legible, distinct, 10pt font faces at 75dpi. There are only a handful more legible 12pt fonts faces (perhaps 12-14). On the other hand, on paper there are 10-20 legible, distinct, 6-point fonts (i.e. 40-80 faces). We need more dpi in order to edit and distinguish small characters on the screen. I have similar complaints about the display of complex graphics (figures) drawn on the screen. That is why I asked about 150dpi displays. I'd like to hear if there are good alternative ways to solve this resolution problem. (2) Why not scan the screen of a color monitor with multiple pulsed lasers? What about putting a laser on every pixel? Why not etch the phosphors onto the glass panel to get 1 micron dot pitch? What about active-matrix displays?