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