Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu-cs!bucsb.bu.edu!madd From: madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (Jim "Jack" Frost) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Mainframes vs micros Message-ID: <696@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Jan-87 17:46:22 EST Article-I.D.: bucsb.696 Posted: Mon Jan 12 17:46:22 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Jan-87 01:13:10 EST References: <653@imsvax.UUCP> <53900006@smu> Reply-To: madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (Jim "Jack" Frost) Organization: ODO (Organization for the Disorganization of Organization) Lines: 57 In article <53900006@smu> sampson@smu writes: > It appears that the new 32-bit microcomputers will have the >CPU power of many smaller mainframes. The weakest link will be >I/O. The disk access is much too slow for any moderate number of >users. Wrong! Fancy programming can take care of this. We operate a multiuser multiprocessor PC system. Now, with 5 terminals running I/O intensive stuff all at once, there is almost no slowdown. Why? Disk caching. We have a 1.5 megabyte cache. It really makes a difference. It's write- through, so if everyone is writing at the same time, things slow down. But we bought a $1200 micropolis drive (25ms ave access advertised) which is plenty fast enough for a 5 user system with the cache. Some data compression techniques I've seen can also speed up the apparent I/O speed by compressing the actual amound of data being read or written. > There is no doubt about the impact of PC's on the mainframe >and especially minicomputer market. But, as long as there are mundane >jobs that must be done in quanity, such as gas bills and payroll, there >will always be mainframe shops around. In terms of micro users sharing >data, the best method of networking pc's is too hook them all to a >mainframe with a large secondary storage capacity. Basically I agree with that. There's no way a PC can match an IBM 3090 (yet) in pure processing power. And there's better on the way. But with some of the multi-CPU architectures they have (like the one we use) you can get the megaMIPS that the 3090 supplies without the megacost. This could wipe out IBM's System/36 market. I did a cost projection for a multi-CPU system with the processing power of the 3090 and came out with a system in the System/36 price range, including software and terminals. Pretty sad state of affairs for IBM. Still out of the PC price range, though. > I wouldn't trade my micro even for a 3090, if I had to do >ALL my work on the 3090, but there is a place for both. Me either, but luckily I get to play with both. Kinda like having your cake and eating it too :-) >Not only >will there always be mainframes, there will always be COBOL! Yea, but will anyone use it? RPG II is still around, but who do you know that uses it? I'm one of the few people here that had even HEARD of it, and the only one I've met here who can write serious stuff in it. The language is around, but the programmers aren't. It's just a matter of time before it costs too much to keep the language in stock (and maintained). >joel sampson >southern methodist university >convex!smu!sampson %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% - Jim Frost * The Madd Hacker - UUCP: ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd | ARPANET: madd@bucsb.bu.edu CSNET: madd%bucsb@bu-cs | BITNET: cscc71c@bostonu -------------------------------+---+------------------------------------ "Oh beer, oh beer." -- Me | [=(BEER) <- Bud the Beer (cheers!)