Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!hes From: hes@ecsvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.micro,net.micro.pc Subject: Re: PC vs. VAX/unix Message-ID: <2115@ecsvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Mar-84 08:30:33 EST Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2115 Posted: Tue Mar 6 08:30:33 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Mar-84 08:04:35 EST Lines: 19 <> There is one major consideration missing in the generic question: Is a micro = 1/n'th of a larger computer? That is consideration of what job you are trying to do! For a job which fits comfortably on a micro, I believe that that is the best (cheapest) way to do that job. E.g., word processing of the typical 1-50 or so page letter/memo can be done very cheaply (including the user's time & effort) on a micro. A big number crunching type job will probably require such things on a micro as extensive reprogramming to partition/overlay/etc. so it fits the constraints of memory; a wall-clock execution time exceeding the MTBF of the micro and/or the users patience/life-span; I/O of such magnitude that the user must spend much time changing disks, etc. For cheap convenient running of small jobs one needs a micro; for acceptable performance in larger jobs one needs larger machines (maybe even larger than VAX/unix!) which are easily accessable and ideally upwards compatible. The best of all worlds is a micro per user with good communications to an array of larger and larger computers. (That's the hardware-then one needs suitable software.) --henry schaffer ncsu genetics