Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site hercules.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!tektronix!teklds!hercules!scotth From: scotth@hercules.UUCP (Scott Herzinger) Newsgroups: net.micro,net.research,net.cse Subject: should universities explore the cutting edge? Message-ID: <143@hercules.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Mar-84 14:58:50 EST Article-I.D.: hercules.143 Posted: Mon Mar 19 14:58:50 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 21-Mar-84 02:33:34 EST References: <3501@utcsrgv.UUCP> <10@sask.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 68 There have been several opinions expressed as to whether educational organizations should invest in proven technology or jump ahead and buy state-of-the-art. This is, I acknowledge, somewhat oversimplified and inaccurate, but I think you know what I mean, given the example systems being compared from each category: 1- IBM PC (or clone), a well-integrated system of proven, accepted, and supported components. 2- 16032 or 68000 Unix system. This is a class of systems, generally similar in capability and technology. Call this class "state-of-the-art", though, we really mean something like "state-of-the-available-art." This note is not intended to convince anyone either way on this question. I'd just like to mention one criterion to include in the decision-making process. The ability of the educational organization to support a computer science program varies widely. Large, state-funded universities tend to be able to support broader, and more advanced programs. Smaller, especially private, colleges find it much more difficult to provide an adequate program. This is especially true of private liberal arts schools without heavy financial support of industry. Larger institutions can often provide an in-house computer support and service team of hardware and software gurus, consultants, etc. The smaller organizations usually cannot afford to do this. Rather they rely on faculty expertise, talented students that pass through the program, etc.. The problem with this arrangement is that the experts have other, higher priority committments, and support is inconsistent at best, simply not there at worst. The smaller institutions, then, to survive require computing equipment and service to be very reliable, and in the event of failure, rely on vendors and outside repair organizations for maintenance. Systems must be easy to learn and apply, because there is often a low level of institution-local consulting support. The moral of the story is, unless you have a lot of spendable money and a strong local organization with the expertise to help you with your problems (and you will have many) you better invest in equipment that is proven, accepted by a broad user community, and supported by a healthy, available service organization. And by all means, by service contracts. They're the best way to keep your equipment up. FYI: The statements above are not related to my position with my employer, and are my opinion only. I formed these opinions during several years as operations manager of a small academic computing center that supported instructional computing needs of a private liberal arts college on the campus of a small university in the Pacific Northwest. There were about 1350 undergraduate students in liberal arts, about 425 instructional computing users each semester, with about 150 students in computing classes each term. I recieved my BS from this college in 1982. Representatives from similar organizations seeking advice or interested in discussing these issues may contact me. I also continue to discuss instructional computing with the cs dept chairman at my alma mater. Perhaps we all could establish a forum for discussing the unique requirements of these small institutions? Anyone interested? -- Scott Herzinger; Logic Design Systems; Tektronix; Inc. uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!tektronix!teklds!scotth CSnet: scotth@tek ARPAnet: scotth.tek@rand-relay --