Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site mako.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!orca!mako!seifert
From: seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.college
Subject: Re: Overloaded Computing Systems
Message-ID: <471@mako.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Dec-84 01:04:49 EST
Article-I.D.: mako.471
Posted: Sun Dec 23 01:04:49 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Dec-84 03:10:10 EST
References: <773@amdahl.UUCP> <10468@watmath.UUCP> <1312@eosp1.UUCP>
Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm
Lines: 32

> One simple way to eliminate a significant amount of mainframe cycle
> usage of the kind you cite is to eliminate "full duplex" (UNIX "raw"
> mode) terminal drive.  Sure, full duplex is convenient, but to cause a

Since when does "full duplex" equal "raw mode" ?????????????

These are two seperate things, and they are both quite useful.

If you want to make things efficient for the computer,
feel free to do your programming in machine code (no, not
assembly, why waste the computer's time doing your work
for you?) and of course the net is a tremendous waste of cycles.
Let's all go back to batch.  Time-share was fun, but it's
just not as efficient for the computer, now is it? (I willn't
even *mention* APL (opps!) )

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)

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.

		Merry Christmas y'all,
        _____
	|___|		the Bavarian Beagle
       _|___|_			Snoopy
       \_____/		tektronix!tekecs!seifert <- NEW ADDRESS !!!
        \___/