Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pur-ee.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-ee!eb From: eb@ecn-ee.UUCP Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: IBM vs VAX/unix - (nf) Message-ID: <1671@pur-ee.UUCP> Date: Sat, 17-Mar-84 00:15:36 EST Article-I.D.: pur-ee.1671 Posted: Sat Mar 17 00:15:36 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 11-Mar-84 01:13:49 EST Sender: notes@pur-ee.UUCP Organization: Electrical Engineering Department , Purdue University Lines: 25 #R:sri-arpa:-1695900:ecn-ee:14100003:000:1024 ecn-ee!eb Mar 9 22:59:00 1984 /***** ee:net.micro / cornell!rej / 6:56 pm Mar 5, 1984 */ Multiuser systems have the added expense of supporting all the security and resource allocation overhead that single user systems do without. Why does everybody associate "single process" with "single user?" A "single user" computer has one user. If that user wants to create zero or more background processes that capability should be there. However, just because a process is executing in background, doesn't mean it has no bugs. If I have several background processes running I certainly want them protected from each other and the system better be able to allocate resources. I think rej@cornell is a little bit behind the times. "Single user" systems can be very powerful. The hardware is available today to support these systems. It does not take a Vax either. A programmable maching is about all that it takes. I agree a Vax will outperform an 8086. So send big things to the Vax. Ed Blackmond pur=ee!eb eb@purdue /* ---------- */