rpeglar@csinc.UUCP (Rob Peglar) (03/20/90)
In article <798@dgis.dtic.dla.mil>, jkrueger@dgis.dtic.dla.mil (Jon) writes: > brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks) writes: > > >You will be completely shocked to see how > >low the processor utilization of single user work stations are. The > >small size of the utilization factor completely negates the cost performance > >edge of the Killer Micro inside it. > > This is quite correct, and therefore we should stop using personal > automobiles, too. Instead we should use taxis, car pools, and > other forms of better sharing the same basic hardware. This will > increase the <10% utilization of most cars. All depends on where you live. In New York or Tokyo, you should stop using personal cars; in my experience, anyone in those two cities who uses one is nuts. Take the public transport. That aside, you're missing Eugene's point. I can't fathom your leap from KM's to cars. The whole point here is that a powerful KM on someone's desk is now becoming a wasted resource at times. This is evolution. One wouldn't (not to mind couldn't) have an CDC 6600 on the desktop; now, we're down to KM's. Again, it all depends on the situation. The scenario at LLNL and many other R&D houses is this; lots (hundreds, thousands) of engineers and programmers. It is economically infeasible to have each person with a 10% utilized KM. For those who can utilize at 50 % or so, by all means buy it. However, at 10%, it becomes much harder to justify single-user KM's. > > OK, ob. smiley. Yes, we like having our own cars, and we like having > our own local source of computation, and we're going to continue > to choose this whenever we have a choice. It's a fact of life. True. But, many people don't have such choices. (stuff deleted) > decision, it's a policy decision. The ability for the individual > to have 100% of his local computational power available to him > on demand is a policy widely favored by individuals. The ability > to get the most computation per dollar is a policy widely favored > by central planners. > > No one argues that these policies are in any way compatible. They both > exist, and each drives a different kind of purchase decision. Neither > has anything to do with how you build technology. Both have much to do > with you how you buy it, and rather little to do with computer > architecture, at this late date. I disagree. Architecture is forcing the hand of many a buyer. KM's are becoming easier and easier to justify (or should I say single-user WS :-) But Eugene's point is still valid. Even just sharing with another person ("dual-user WS" ?) allows, at the asymptote, a factor of 2 savings for the big R&D houses. To those with finite resources (dollars), this is significant. Applying it across the board, however, is still a mistake, one that Jon points out. One size does not fit all. Rob -- Rob Peglar Control Systems, Inc. 2675 Patton Rd., St. Paul MN 55113 ...uunet!csinc!rpeglar 612-631-7800 The posting above does not necessarily represent the policies of my employer.