perelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (03/06/84)
(..)
\/
Here are the preliminary results of my survey about personal computers in
a formal education environment. With the possible exception of Dartmouth,
nobody seems to really know what to do about student purchased pc's in the
classroom situation.
I am presenting the results. A follow-up questionnaire will be posted
separately.
----------- Summary (it really is a summary, just not concise) -----------
University of Toronto
- We are currently looking into teaching introductory computing
on a pc based system (8086-family, MS-DOS). The language will
be Turing (developed at the U. of T. and accepted for all intro.
computing courses here.)
- Initial plans are to develop a lab of 15 pc's and use it to teach a
course. Other problems being investigated are networking and file
servers.
- The University is trying to work out a deal for making computers
cheaper for students to purchase. A minimal machine will be
designated and a good price for a particular version will be
negotiated with the manufacturer/dealer.
Rose-Hullman @ Indiana
- Classrooms, study areas, dorms, etc. all have computer ports
- Students required to purchase a small, portable PC with AC/battery
pack that can be tied into a large computer network.
North Carolina State
- Introductory courses now taught on micro-computers using the
Sage IV running a multi-user P-System. Each Sage IV has 5 (?)
terminal attached. Other courses use an IBM 4341, Data General
MV-8000, and a lab full of PDP-11's
- Students can purchase a single-user Sage II running the UCSD
P-System.
- A Sage is based on the 68000 processor. The Sage II has 2
floppies (DSDD), 512K (?), 2 RS-232 ports, a printer port, and
an IEEE-422 (?) port. The Sage IV has 1 floppy, 1 hard disk,
1M RAM, 6 serial ports, 1 parallel port, and an IEEE-422 (?).
University of Waterloo
- Many introductory courses use pc's in networks. There are
several Janet networks of IBM PC's and several Waterloo
MicroNets using IBM Series 1's, PDP-11's, and big IBM's as
central file servers. Languages include Pascal, Basic, Cobol,
and Assembler.
- Students cannot use their pc's at home and cannot get copies of
Watcom software. Network pc's have no floppies, only shared
file servers.
Looking Glass Software
- currently designing a programming environment based on
syntax-direct editors to run on the ICON (Bionic Beaver) pc.
- These will be purchased by high-schools in Ontario and are
not likely for students initially.
- First target is a Pascal environment.
MIT
- uses HP machines based on 68000's with 4M main memory for
introductory programming.
- Project Athena at MIT will use lots of DEC Pro-350's and some
IBM PC's, all donated.
University of Saskatchewan
- currently looking for 50 networkable micros to replace the 11/70
being used for RJE.
- Will probably standardize on MS-DOS and are looking into Modula-II
Simon Fraser University
- May be doing same things as Sask.
Harvard
- Plans to use Macintoshes to teach introductory courses next semester.
- Will be developing software over the summer.
- Developing introductory Pascal and more advanced assembler courses.
Pascal environment may eventually use three windows on the Mac --
one for source, one for output, and one for condition of data
structures.
- Currently using IBM PC's in an extension course teaching Pascal.
Ok experience but a pain with printers.
UCSD
- has been using micros since 1978. First used Teraks but they were
too expensive for students ($8K). Course switched to Apple ]['s and
IBM PC's.
- project involves groups (2-3) of students so usefulness of personally
owned PC's is debatable.
Dartmouth
- Any student can buy a PC or get financial aid to help buy the PC.
- DCS assuming all students will have easy access to a PC.
- Introductory: will use True Basic on a Mac
- Followup: will use Pascal on Mac
- Assembly: will probably use Mac (68000 is a nice assembly lang.)
University of Alberta
- Getting a lab of PC's but aren't quite sure what to do about it.
New Mexico State University
- uses Terak (11/03) to teach UCSD P-system Pascal for intro. computing.
--
Stephen Perelgut
Computer Systems Research Group University of Toronto
Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!utcsrgv!perelgut
CSNET: perelgut@Torontohenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/07/84)
There was an interesting CS seminar today at U of T, a fellow from
Brown University describing their "electronic classroom" work with
some references to future plans. He made one interesting point,
which I sincerely hope the planners at U of T (and elsewhere) will
pay attention to (ARE YOU LISTENING, OVER THERE IN MCLENNAN LABS AND
SANDFORD FLEMING??): don't expect miracles if your idea of a "personal
workstation" is an IBM PC. He cited a "7 M's" definition of a reasonable
workstation, attributed to Bill Joy:
Megabyte of memory
Megapixel screen (800x1024 is close enough)
MIP (million instructions per second) processor (68000 is ok)
Mouse
Megabyte/s network
Menu-based interface
Memory (large contiguous unsegmented virtual)
Note that a garden-variety IBM PC under MSDOS has none of these.
Brown uses Apollo workstations.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryperelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (03/07/84)
In defence of IBM-PC's (and their compatible buddies):
- The 80186 is arguably as good as a 68000 and anyone with talent
can create software to run on the 80186 and 8088 and all the other
family members
- 8088 based micros are the most popular. It isn't fair to students
to force them to buy another machine. This may change with the
Macintosh-madness. (If the happens, the CSRG is capable of making
the switch with little pain.)
- Since Canada has no history of corporate support of universities,
the choice of micro is typically dependant on who makes the best
offer and what is available "north of the border."
Aside from this, th "7 M's" are true for Brown's "animated algorithms"
scheme, but they aren't essential for the simple task of introductory
computer programming courses. An IBM PC (or Tandy 2000 or DEC Rainbow or ...)
is suitable, cheaper, available, and currently popular.
--
Stephen Perelgut
Computer Systems Research Group University of Toronto
Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!utcsrgv!perelgut
CSNET: perelgut@Torontomendell@utcsrgv.UUCP (Mark Mendell) (03/07/84)
Sorry Steve, but as a person working on an 8086/80186 compiler, I take offense to your statement : >> - The 80186 is arguably as good as a 68000 and anyone with talent >> can create software to run on the 80186 and 8088 and all the other >> family members A 68000 may not be the best architecture around (I would prefer a NS16032 myself), but I would take an awful lot of convincing before I would agree that an 80186 beats the advantages of 32-bit arithmetic and linear address space on the 68000. While I agree that software can be developed that will run on both machines, I think I would prefer a Turing Machine over the 80186. -- Mark Mendell Computer Systems Research Group University of Toronto Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!utcsrgv!perelgut CSNET: mendell@Toronto ARPA: mendell%Toronto@CSNet-Relay
thomson@uthub.UUCP (Brian Thomson) (03/07/84)
And don't forget the hidden 8'th M: Megabucks.
--
Brian Thomson, CSRG Univ. of Toronto
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,utzoo}!utcsrgv!uthub!thomsonhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/08/84)
Steve Perelgut observes, in defence of the IBM PC and clones:
- The 80186 is arguably as good as a 68000 and anyone with talent
can create software to run on the 80186 and 8088 and all the other
family members
I think Mark Mendell answered this one well. In no way is a collection
of 16-bit address spaces as good as a single big contiguous one. Sure,
there are many things that will run quite well in 16 bits, but when you
run out of address space, you're really stuck. I can create software
that will run on a PDP-8 -- that doesn't mean that it's a good idea or
a worthwhile use of my time.
- 8088 based micros are the most popular. It isn't fair to students
to force them to buy another machine. This may change with the
Macintosh-madness. (If the happens, the CSRG is capable of making
the switch with little pain.)
By this argument, you ought to be teaching the students Microsoft BASIC
as their first language. Universities should be buying the equipment
that will be right for tomorrow, not yesterday. As for making the switch
with little pain: after you've bought a huge pile of 8088 machines? No
way that investment is going to be written off without pain, screaming,
madness, committee inquiries, etc. etc. When this much money is involved,
there is a very high premium on getting it right the first time. Buying
a 16-bit-address-space machine is clearly a major mistake.
Aside from this, th "7 M's" are true for Brown's "animated algorithms"
scheme, but they aren't essential for the simple task of introductory
computer programming courses.
Introductory computer programming courses are among the things Brown uses
their fancy lab for. It is quite possible that an 8088 is adequate for
the introductory courses DCS teaches today, taught the way they are
taught today. The availability of the new technology is likely to change
the way courses are taught. It is a mistake to view the introduction of
per-student workstations as just new hardware for the same old purposes.
Maybe DCS is not interested in things like "animated algorithms" now;
in a few years they will be. But by then it will be too late, if the
short-sighted advocates of the cheapest hardware available have their way
right now. U of T will once again find itself stuck with antiquated
equipment and a second-rate teaching environment while everyone else
forges ahead. How many years will it take to fix it THIS TIME? Much
better to think ahead a bit now, and invest a bit of money in the future.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/08/84)
It just occurred to me that outsiders may not be aware of just what I
was referring to in my previous article, when I referred to U of T getting
stuck with a poor computing environment "again" and asked how long it
would take to get it fixed "this time".
Three years ago, U of T's computing environment for computer science
teaching was punchcards. Only quite recently did this change.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryperelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (03/08/84)
.
I don't want too many people to think I am a promoter of outdated
technology or something. So let me say a few more things in my own
defence.
1) I advocate 8088 based technology because it is there. The reason I
don't advocate MS-BASIC is that we can do better now. Following Henry's
argument, I would design my teaching environment based on a 16032 with
all 7 M's. However: it isn't available in any quantity
it isn't tested (and no university is going to buy
a pig in a poke no matter how pretty it is.)
it would cost both arms, one leg, and the other leg
up to the second joint
2) I advocate IBM PC's because they are here, they have upper management
support, and we have one to play with NOW. Not next week or next year
or whenever.
3) I realize that 16-bits isn't enough to write the worlds largest programs,
but I seriously doubt any student will suffer from the "limitation" in a
first computer course.
4) "Animated algorithms" may be the wave of the future, but there is no
support here, now. Would anyone recommend that we wait until the future is
here? I would rather do something than sit and wait for something better.
There is always something better on the horizon. After the 68000's are the
16000's. And then the next generations. Etc. I don't wanna wait. I want
to start conversion now.
5) The U. of T. is grossly underfunded. When there is a commitment to pursue
some project, turning it down is suicide. If we look too far into the
future, we will miss the present boat.
In spite of all that, I sympathize with Mark Mendell (who got stuck with the
8086 coder when I became too busy. Just goes to show you what happens when
you're the best, and Mark is! So he got stuck!) I would love to use 68000's,
but I don't have one, let alone the 15-20 we need. Anyone wanna give a gift
to a worthy university. We even have means for giving out U.S. tax
certificates. And we implement top-quality compilers in under a man-year.
(3 months for a production Turing compiler developed by 3 people, about
2 man-months for Turing/68000 when we go that route.) And Turing is
complete, verifiable, and FAST (compile-time AND run-time.)
--
Stephen Perelgut
Computer Systems Research Group University of Toronto
Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!utcsrgv!perelgut
CSNET: perelgut@Torontohenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/11/84)
Steve Perelgut counters with:
...I advocate 8088 based technology because it is there. The reason I
don't advocate MS-BASIC is that we can do better now....
And we can most assuredly do better than the 8088. Even stipulating that
we couldn't, this would NOT be an argument for buying 8088's now; it would
be an argument for postponing purchases until we could get equipment with
reasonable characteristics and a reasonable useful life.
..........I would design my teaching environment based on a 16032 with
all 7 M's. However: it isn't available in any quantity
it isn't tested (and no university is going to buy
a pig in a poke no matter how pretty it is.)
it would cost both arms, one leg, and the other leg
up to the second joint
If you are willing to settle for a 68000 instead of a 16032 (I know, this
is a poor deal, but it's not too visible from high-level languages), it is
available, in quantity, tested, right now. True, it's expensive. The
price can come down a lot if you're willing to settle for something that
doesn't meet the 7M specs but nevertheless comes lots closer. Also, the
prices keep dropping. I would not call the Macintosh "both arms, one leg,
and the other leg up to the second joint"; more like half an arm. Also
remember: "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch". If we want a
decent teaching environment, as opposed to a half-obsolete one, it may
cost some money. Punchcards are real cheap, but we appear to have finally
decided that they are no bargain. The general lesson does not seem to
have sunk in, though.
...I advocate IBM PC's because they are here, they have upper management
support, and we have one to play with NOW. Not next week or next year
or whenever.
They indeed are here now. So are better things. I know people who have
Macintoshes to play with right now -- Toronto-area people with no special
"in" at Apple. True, it took a bit of effort; they think it was worth it.
As for "upper management support"... [long string of expletives deleted].
If upper management is making a colossal mistake, it is your *DUTY* to
tell them so, attempt to convince them, and resign if it doesn't work.
I am prepared to do exactly this if *my* management makes a sufficiently
large mistake; fortunately, this does not seem likely.
...I realize that 16-bits isn't enough to write the worlds largest programs,
but I seriously doubt any student will suffer from the "limitation" in a
first computer course.
Of course the students aren't likely to notice. It will be the instructors
and their programmers who will notice, as soon as the teaching environment
starts to shift towards really *using* the new technology. Incidentally,
I haven't heard any provision for giving the upper-year students anything
better. You know as well as I do that if 8088s are the official U of T
teaching environment, they'll be stuck with them too. (Barring the few
lucky courses that have access to something better.)
..."Animated algorithms" may be the wave of the future, but there is no
support here, now. Would anyone recommend that we wait until the future is
here? ...
No, we're supposed to be trying to MAKE the future happen, not just sitting
waiting for it to hit us in the eye. Which it will if we buy 8088s. It is
the duty of people who are making decisions to try to avoid doing things
in ways that are short-term wins but long-term disasters. Nobody ever said
that it would be easy.
I would rather do something than sit and wait for something better.
So we are supposed to sit with our 8088s and wait for something better
to magically appear?
There is always something better on the horizon. After the 68000's are the
16000's. And then the next generations. Etc. I don't wanna wait. I want
to start conversion now.
Of course. But it is nevertheless possible to pick equipment that is not
going to be cripplingly obsolete in a few years, especially when we are
talking about something that may well represent a long-term commitment to a
specific teaching machine.
The U. of T. is grossly underfunded. When there is a commitment to pursue
some project, turning it down is suicide. If we look too far into the
future, we will miss the present boat.
Believe me, I know about U of T's funding. I refer you back to my previous
comments about trying to make things happen rather than just accepting a
rotten situation, and about the possibility of waiting in order to get
decent equipment. Even if it meant getting only half as many (say)
Macintoshes (an assumption I think implausible -- fewer, maybe, but not
that big a difference), that would still be a better investment. Buying
by the lowest bidder makes sense only if the products offered are roughly
equivalent in functionality. Not so here.
Sorry if some of the above seems harsh. I really do think that an 8088-
based teaching machine would be a disastrous mistake, and that it could
be avoided. We've had the @&$&%est time trying to get rid of punchcards
here, and I'd prefer not to see a repeat.
P.S. to all the other readers: I know this is starting to seem like a
personal debate between Steve and myself, but I think the issues are of
sufficiently wide interest to justify continuing to use "f" rather than
"r" for my rebuttals. Let me know if you disagree.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryperelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (03/12/84)
[Rebuttal**n]
Let me make things clear and concise.
1) I don't love 8088's but they aren't as bad as Henry seems to think. If
all courses had to use IBM PC's, they would be almost as good
2) The situation at the U. of T. is so bad that the students cannot complete
assignments. 1/2 as many Mac's would be WORSE (100% certainty). Offloading
the intro courses to PC's would allow full use of the COMPUTING power of the
IBM's and Vaxen for courses that need the power.
3) The situation requires action. 8088's are ideal for the current needs and
will be used. 68000/16032 systems are the unquestionned future but we need
them now.
Summary
- support is there
- machines are available in quantity
- software is being prepared by the best in the business. (Let's seee
anyone else produce a compiler for a complex, verifiable language
with simplified syntax in only 3 months! And the code (excluding
run-time checking) is as good as any other VAX compiler with very,
very few exceptions)
- students own THESE machines, almost none (none?) own promises of
Mac's.
- the machines are cheap and upgradable.
Conclusion
We aren't stupid, we're just making the best of the situation. Talk
to me again next year and we'll be up on 68000's, 16000's, and almost
anything else there is a crying need for. But 8088's are the
(qualified) BEST choice NOW! And if you don't agree, try teaching a
course on one of the currently overloaded machines!
--
Stephen Perelgut
Computer Systems Research Group University of Toronto
Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!utcsrgv!perelgut
CSNET: perelgut@Torontogeoff@utcsstat.UUCP (Geoffrey Collyer) (03/13/84)
Steve Perelut has recently made several references to overloaded U of T teaching machines. Just so the general audience understands, the VAX 780 which is taking 2/3 of the undergraduate ``Computing Disciplines'' students on the main campus is not overloaded, it is *broken*. We are having trouble getting it fixed because, as usual, DEC diagnostics have run without failure. At this moment, Ian Darwin and a DEC repairman are trying to get the machine to fail DEC diagnostics. One symptom of the failure could perhaps be confused with heavy load because the machine just stops running for minutes at a time and only runs for a few minutes at a time. This may seem like a local U of T argument, but the mainframe situation is not as bad as it has looked for the last week or so. Geoff Collyer, U. of Toronto Computing Services
perelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (03/13/84)
I repeat, the U. of T. resources are overloaded, not just broken
sometimes. My students have reported consistent load averages of
over 30 (over 50 since the load increased due to downtime.)
The overall load during a day might be small, but students shouldn't have
to come in at 0300 just to do an assignment. THAT is overloaded.
P.S. As a student not too long ago I felt that way. A compilation took
45 min. at times. And THAT IS OVERLOADED! (On an unloaded system it took
under 2 min.)
--
Stephen Perelgut
Computer Systems Research Group University of Toronto
Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!utcsrgv!perelgut
CSNET: perelgut@Torontothomson@uthub.UUCP (Brian Thomson) (03/13/84)
The net has likely seen enough of U of T's internecine squabbling.
Maybe it's time to move this discussion to a local group.
--
Brian Thomson, CSRG Univ. of Toronto
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,utzoo}!utcsrgv!uthub!thomsonhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/14/84)
Well, here's my rebuttal to Steve's rebuttal...
1) I don't love 8088's but they aren't as bad as Henry seems to think. If
all courses had to use IBM PC's, they would be almost as good
Senior courses using non-trivial software packages will be badly hurt
by the 8088's awful 16-bittisms and its dismal speed. I don't agree
that they are suitable for all courses; they are only marginally suitable
for the lowest-level courses.
2) The situation at the U. of T. is so bad that the students cannot complete
assignments. 1/2 as many Mac's would be WORSE (100% certainty). Offloading
the intro courses to PC's would allow full use of the COMPUTING power of the
IBM's and Vaxen for courses that need the power.
3) The situation requires action. 8088's are ideal for the current needs and
will be used. 68000/16032 systems are the unquestionned future but we need
them now.
What does "now" mean? If we are talking about major offloading of the
central machines, my impression is that this *isn't* going to happen
overnight. If nothing else, the administration is going to have to be
talked into buying *lots* of personal machines, and this administration
has a history of grossly underestimating the amount of interactive access
needed for intro teaching. (My impression is that this is as big a problem
as overloading, although admittedly the delays due to overloading worsen
the finding-a-free-terminal problem.)
Given that there is going to be a non-trivial delay before personal machines
have a large impact on local computing, it might well make sense to opt for
a better personal machine. Macintoshes are available *now* -- they are the
present, not the future. By the time we have enough personal machines
to have a large offloading effect, it may be very hard to change machines
because of the immense inertia.
Which leads to: just how wide is the conviction that "68000/16032 systems
are the unquestioned future"? Once upper management at places like UTCS
gets its collective mind locked into "IBM PC", or some such similar track,
it's going to take a long time to get it unlocked. If we cannot get
decent machines right away, it is *vital* that there be an immediate and
strong commitment to upgrading as soon as possible. Otherwise we will
still be buying PCs in 1999. Do not forget what a powerful effect the
IBM marketing hype has on "professional managers".
- students own THESE machines, almost none (none?) own promises of
Mac's.
So we're going to encourage students to buy a machine that we plan to
abandon in a couple of years anyway? This sounds like a recipe for being
stuck with the PC for the indefinite future to me. And if the machines
owned by students now are considered a major factor, what about those
poor souls who aren't rich enough to own one? Do they get screwed? If
not, why are the existing student-owned machines so important?
We aren't stupid, we're just making the best of the situation. Talk
to me again next year and we'll be up on 68000's, 16000's, and almost
anything else there is a crying need for. But 8088's are the
(qualified) BEST choice NOW!
Note what I said above about the time required to have a major impact.
By the time we can get enough 8088s to help, they will be obsolete.
And if you don't agree, try teaching a
course on one of the currently overloaded machines!
No thanks, I do have some idea what it's like. I also have some glimpse
of what it'll be like teaching 8088-based courses 15 years from now.
I'm glad I'm not teaching at all.
I have continued to post to the world, rather than follow Brian's
suggestion of more localized discussion, because I continue to think
that much of this stuff is of wide interest. The mail I've received on
the matter has agreed with me.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrydmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (03/17/84)
Could someone explain the background for the debate at U of T? Why is someone choosing a "standard computing environment"? At Waterloo, for reference, the computing environment seems much more varied than at UofT. The lower-year courses are taught on Commodore PETs upgraded by the addition of 6809's, IBM PC's, IBM 4300's running VM/CMS, PDP11's and IBM Series/1's running systems which allow editing of source and then submission of batch jobs on the 4300's, and probably something I've forgotten. Upper year courses are taught on the 4300's again, VAXes, a Honeywell DPS8 machine, and some micros used for specialized things. There is no master plan behind all of this (that I can see, anyway) - the current collection of hardware is due to people's perceptions of needs over the years, various people's experiments, and other random factors. And it will change continuously as time goes on. It may be disorganized, but it's reasonably flexible. For example, someone might decide that the PETs are no longer adequate for the courses which use them. Well, they've served us for several years, and there are only a couple of dozen of them, so replacing them with something else wouldn't be all that painful. (providing that the money could be found at all). Isn't picking one single standard "instructional computer" putting too many eggs in one basket?
konkin@sask.UUCP (Doug Konkin) (03/18/84)
Cheers to Henry and boos to Stephen. It seems to me that one of the roles
of universities is to lead, not to follow blindly. When the qulaity of
computing environment in a university is determined by what the kids have
in their basement, and not by considerations of where the technology is
going, we are in trouble.
As far as the money problem goes, everyone is in the same boat; it is a
poor excuse.
Doug Konkin
{utcsgrv|inhp4}sask|konkindmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (03/18/84)
Anyone care to donate another VAX to Waterloo? The rumour has a slight basis in truth, but it mostly wrong. Waterloo encourages manufacturers to give us hardware outright, or in exchange for software, but most of it ends up being purchased. Some statistics: watrose, watmath, watcgl, watdaisy, wateng, watdcsu are all VAX 11/780's; there is another one running VMS which has no name. Of those 7, watdcsu and the current watmath were obtained by a buy-one-get-one-free donation from DEC. The remaining 5 were purchased at full price, less the standard discount that anyone in a university in Ontario gets. There are a few 750's around too - they were all purchased. The Honeywell DPS8/49 called watbun got a new processor and some disks last year courtesy of Honeywell. IBM has been the biggest donor so far - they've donated 3 4341's and (I think) about 50 IBM pc's. But this wasn't an outright gift; they got access to some software and had some research done in return. And most of this equipment was allocated to specific groups of researchers, not the university in general. The computing centre owns another 3 4341's which were purchased. Tektronix donated a microprocessor development system to one of the labs. As a smaller example, Able is giving us a pair of Ethernet boards for Vaxes in return for a 4.2BSD device driver for them - not a bad deal for Able. Overall, I believe that most of the computer hardware around here was not an outright donation, and the majority of it was purchased rather than traded for. The diversity of what's available is mostly the result of a variety of groups each going off in their own direction, rather than what someone decided to donate. Dave Martindale Computer Graphics Lab University of Waterloo
derek@sask.UUCP (Derek Andrew) (03/19/84)
Apologies to anyone I may have mislead by starting the rumour that
Waterloo receives all of its hardware through donations. Tis clearly
not the case I see now.
I had thought it to be *much* more widespread than a few systems.
--
Derek Andrew, ACS, U of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N 0W0
{ihnp4 | utah-cs | utcsrgv | alberta}!sask!derek 306-343-2638 0900-1630 CSTderek@sask.UUCP (Derek Andrew) (03/19/84)
I believe the 8088 is the best choice a university in Canada can make
today. There is a lot of software out there to run on these things.
I can actually order it today and receive it.
I challange Henry to find a piece of equipment on the market today
which will not be obsolete in 5 years. The equipment must be
available to me today, and not in kit form. In short, it must be
a complete system that I can order and run as soon as I power it on.
Perhaps one should wait a year to get the 16032, or maybe two years
to get something better, or maybe three years to get even better, or
maybe four years to get the best, or maybe five years to get even
better...
What am I supposed to use in the meantime? Maybe I could order some
8088s then in a few years time buy something else.
--
Derek Andrew, ACS, U of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N 0W0
{ihnp4 | utah-cs | utcsrgv | alberta}!sask!derek 306-343-2638 0900-1630 CSTderek@sask.UUCP (Derek Andrew) (03/19/84)
oops - in previous article read challenge rather than challange.
I could not grab the article in time to correct it. That is what
you get when you send news out 24 hours a day over a direct line
to you news neighbours.
--
Derek Andrew, ACS, U of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N 0W0
{ihnp4 | utah-cs | utcsrgv | alberta}!sask!derek 306-343-2638 0900-1630 CSTbstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/19/84)
Some have suggested it is bad to have all kinds of computers around. This is very false. Any educational institution should have as many different types of computers around so that students get access to all the different types, and don't end up under the skirts of one vendor. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
rcd@opus.UUCP (03/20/84)
<> > ...It seems to me that one of the roles of universities is to lead, not > to follow blindly... AGREE! And it's high time that universities started leading more... It can work. Remember that Pascal got its start as a taching language, because Wirth found no suitable language for teaching. As a result of its use in universities, both Pascal and the concepts it contains have become widely known. [I find it quite gratifying that I no longer have to explain the idea of a discriminated union, what it's for, how it's implemented, etc. All I have to say is "...like a variant record" and the light comes on.] -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd
derek@sask.UUCP (Derek Andrew) (03/25/84)
I heard a rumor that Waterloo does not buy any computer equipment. It is
all donated. If this is true, it would account for a diversity of types
and seem as though there is no master plan for computing there.
This is just a rumor, but can anybody at Waterloo verify or deny the
existance of any purchase orders for computing equipment?
--
Derek Andrew, ACS, U of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N 0W0
{ihnp4 | utah-cs | utcsrgv | alberta}!sask!derek 306-343-2638 0900-1630 CSTschamberlain@wateng.UUCP (Ray Chau) (04/06/84)
As a former student at the University of Toronto (8T2), I have much admiration for some of the leading technology invented there. However, the problems of centralized proceessing and overloading due to insufficient capacity seem to be very much in evidence, still. We were the guineau pigs on The new Vax, back then, but the problems remain. I am presently at the University of Waterloo, and as Dave Martindale said; "the eggs are not all in one basket". The problem stems from basic administration (!!!). Waterloo is not especially well known for novelty, but for doing whats been done before, well. Even to this day with increasing enrollment and limited budgets Waterloo 'dynamic' (as in real time) administration makes the situation more than tolerable. P.S. Co-op and outside funding through contract research is a sample of good administration. Perhaps U of T should prepare itself for some sweeping changes ? A sincere wish for good education, Ray.