fouts@bozeman.ingr.com (Martin Fouts) (07/09/90)
What do you mean by "dead" Eugene? I've heard that 16 bit systems
were dead, and then discovered that DEC sold many hundreds of millions
of dollars worth of PDP11s last year. I've heard that mainframes were
dead, but IBM is still the biggest company in the computer business.
If you mean it is time for a nomenclature change, I agree, so here
goes my entry in the obfsucate the nomenclature contest. There are
two dimensions, size and price. The chart is accurate now, but will
be obsolete before everyone on the list sees it. Not all positions
have an entry, because not all niches are filled yet. (VCs take note
;-)
< 5k < 10K < 100K < 1 M > 1 M
Portable Portable Portable
PC Supercomputer
Desk Top Loss Personal Serious Milspec
PC Leader Workstation Workstation Workstation
Cabinet in Milspec PC Workstation
Computer room PC Supercomputer Workstation Supercomputer
Multiple Departmental
Cabinets Supercomputer Supercomputer
As you can see, we only have three classes of computers:
PC: Mine and mine only.
Workstation: Mine, but you can use it once in a while.
Supercomputer: Marketing needed better advertising copy
Adjectives are used to distinguish prices.
--
Martin Fouts
UUCP: ...!pyramid!garth!fouts ARPA: apd!fouts@ingr.com
PHONE: (415) 852-2310 FAX: (415) 856-9224
MAIL: 2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94303
If you can find an opinion in my posting, please let me know.
I don't have opinions, only misconceptions.fnddr@acad3.fai.alaska.edu (RICE DON D) (07/10/90)
In article <543@garth.UUCP>, fouts@bozeman.ingr.com (Martin Fouts) writes... > >What do you mean by "dead" Eugene? I've heard that 16 bit systems >were dead, and then discovered that DEC sold many hundreds of millions >of dollars worth of PDP11s last year. I've heard that mainframes were >dead, but IBM is still the biggest company in the computer business. Do we all believe what Datamation says? No, but here it is anyway, from the June 15 1990 issue (p 188): In 1989, the mainframe died. In its place, the POWERframe was born-- the high end in a trio of new computing architectures to emerge for the 1990s. ... The mainframe was _main_ because it was the central point of residence of shared logic--the host. ... POWERframes. Characterized by the ability to interface with different forms of databases, these machines have parallel processors sharing an organizationally common memory and storage hierarchy. ... SERVERframes. Unique in their ability to serve up a locally shared database to a work group or a single user, these machines also can access organizationally collective databases. CLIENTframes. Home of all new applications and all human interface features, these machines eventually will allow users to automatically generate their own applications. ... I don't know if anyone other than the author uses the above definitions, which sound suspiciously like they were taken from an IBM sales brochure. Capping the -frame prefix looks like terminally cute marketingese. I don't think that we, the users, have much control over terminology. Even if we resist the use of such odious neologisms, the marketing people push them and the people who buy the machines for us to use mostly like using them (you too can use the latest technobabble in lieu of original thought!) so we end up using them to communicate with the salescritters and administrative purse-holders. Maybe this is what really happened at the Tower of Babel. The different project teams got so deeply into their own jargons that they no longer knew what the others were talking about... Don Rice fnddr@acad3.fai.alaska.edu fnddr@alaska (bitnet)
jkrueger@dgis.dtic.dla.mil (Jon) (07/11/90)
fnddr@acad3.fai.alaska.edu (RICE DON D) writes: >Capping the -frame prefix looks like terminally cute marketingese. You bet. What's the derivation of "mainframe" anyway? Where does the frame come from? It isn't very likely that history or usage will make that meaningful in such coined travesties as "serverframe". >I don't think that >we, the users, have much control over terminology. >...(you too can use the latest technobabble in lieu of original thought!) Orwell warned us about this. Looks like "Politics and the English Language" should be issued in a new edition on "Technology Marketing Hype and the English Language". >...Maybe this is what really happened at the Tower of Babel. The different >project teams got so deeply into their own jargons that they no longer >knew what the others were talking about... Cute analogy. Last I heard the computer Tower of Babel was all the different programming languages. I think the problem you point to, though, has become a bigger waste of time, money, talent. -- Jon -- Jonathan Krueger jkrueger@dtic.dla.mil uunet!dgis!jkrueger Drop in next time you're in the tri-planet area!