bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (03/25/89)
> If a workstation is really going to have 1GB memory something better >than "more of same" is going to be needed to justify the cost. >-- > bill davidsen (wedu@crd.GE.COM) Well, to some extent, hoisted on my own petard, I've made similar arguments. But consider that 4 or 8MB workstations seemed just as out of sight a very few years ago (remember, the entire physical address space of an IBM370 architecture is/was [there are extensions now] 16MB! And that was the biggest mainframe architecture on the market.) Did changing over from 64K or 256K chips to get the larger memories significantly increase the price of the workstations? I don't think so, quite the opposite. It's probably safe to assume that when 4Mb/16Mb/64Mb chips come available over the next (very) few years they'll each be expensive for a short while and then drop down to the cost level of what they're replacing. So cost, other than replacing old equipment, will not be much of a factor. I don't think it will take too much to make you consider very large memories on your workstation. Just mapping in all/most of /bin and /usr/bin (etc) would probably make you want it if the guy next to you has that. It makes diskless/dataless workstations much more useful when you can use, say, 1/2 GB of memory as a read/write-through cache for the remote file system. Sure, cheap disks are going against that grain, but many still like the advantages of remote file systems, no noise, centralized backups and administration etc. And when large memories show up the disks will cease to be cheap, things are only cheap when the technology curves go out of kilter. The current memory rationing makes a 1GB disk for $5K seem very cheap. When you have a 1GB main memory on your workstation you'll need two or three of those just for swap space (?!) and we'll be right back where we started with our strategizing (unless something changes.) And don't talk to me about the bandwidth to get things in and out of those memories. And backups? Argh! As an analogy, who needs a 15MIPS workstation? Very few people, but they're available now and are cost competitive with slower workstations so, hey, that's what we all want. The others will wither on the vine. And trust the software tribes to eat up all available resources for you over time (have you seen the 3D window managers? etc) I do believe we will see a "Software Gap" in the near future with hardware vendors desparate for software applications which demand the new generation of hardware they're producing to induce people to upgrade. There's nothing more terrifying to hardware manufacturers than satisfied customers. -Barry Shein, Software Tool & Die
barnett@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (03/27/89)
Another thing to consider about 1 GByte Memory workstations, is that when the systems have more potential, the creative researcher finds a way to use that power. They thought 64K was enough. Then 256K was enough.... Bitmapped workstations revolutionized the way we work with computers. Suppose the workstation of the future had: Expert systems assiting you in creating new software, tapping into the knowledge base of the results of a million person-years of software experience. Hypertext encyclopedias available via USENET. Voice recognition systems, including personaility traits, inflections, etc. Artificial personalities. Real-Time, Real Colour 3D Imaging systems. When we worked with Punchcards, 64K was a lot. Video terminals 640K? Bitmapped graphics. 6.4M? Expert Systems 64M? ???? 640M? Give me enough memory, CPU power, tools, and time, and I would come up with one or two ideas. -- Bruce G. Barnett <barnett@crdgw1.ge.com> a.k.a. <barnett@[192.35.44.4]> uunet!steinmetz!barnett, <barnett@steinmetz.ge.com>