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

/* ---------- */