Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site ahuta.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!hoxna!houxm!ahuta!dmt From: dmt@ahuta.UUCP (d.tutelman) Newsgroups: net.micro,net.college Subject: Re: Overloaded Computing Systems Message-ID: <271@ahuta.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Dec-84 09:18:45 EST Article-I.D.: ahuta.271 Posted: Mon Dec 24 09:18:45 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Dec-84 03:14:02 EST References: <471@mako.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 30 CC: dmt REFERENCES: <471@mako.UUCP> >So keep the user efficiency / machine efficiency ratio in mind, >and use the appropriate tools for the task, but let's not >go off half cocked eliminating useful tools just because >they aren't as efficient for the computer as some other tool. I echo the sentiment, and would like to suggest that the technology is reaching a point where we can match tool efficiency to people efficiency. While raw mode is a problem for expensive machines which need to be shared to pay for themselves, there obviously are small, cheap chunks of compute power that you wouldn't mind burdening with keystroke-catching. (See included portion of original posting below.) We ought to be using the terminal (workstation, PC, etc.) to handle the user interface, and save the shared resource to deal with transactions (probably more complex than single lines). >We have terminals with 32 bit processors and memory measured >in megabytes (not computers, not workstations, t e r m i n a l s ), >and there still aren't enought cycles. There will *never* be >enough cycles. (one of those Murphy's laws things) I'm sure you meant Parkinson's Law (originally "Work expands to fill the time alloted to it," but much more widely applicable.) Yes, cycles, storage, and bus width (see current debate on 64-bit micros) are all Parkinsonian to SOMEBODY. Dave Tutelman