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
 --