Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!cmcl2!beta!lanl!sam From: sam@lanl.ARPA (Sam A Matthews) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Mainframes vs micros Message-ID: <10781@lanl.ARPA> Date: Mon, 22-Dec-86 19:06:56 EST Article-I.D.: lanl.10781 Posted: Mon Dec 22 19:06:56 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 23-Dec-86 00:06:44 EST References: <653@imsvax.UUCP> <1397@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> Reply-To: sam@a.UUCP (Sam A Matthews) Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 29 [] To say who needs a mainframe when you can have a micro is like saying who needs a hammer now that we have a screw driver. :) The truth of the matter is both are tools and both do thier jobs very well. I have a PC on my desk that I use quite effectively. I also have a comm line that puts at my immediate disposal 17 vaxen minis and remote access that can get me to many of the 200+ vaxen (!) here at the lab. There are also 2 or 3 cray X-MP/48s, 1 cray X-MP/24, 4 cray-1s, 2 CDC 7600s, 5 CDC cybers, we also have 4 IBM mainframes (2-4241, 3083, and a 4381) just for a front end to mass storage! I would like to see someone try to get 1000+ users to access one database using a PC network or manage a multi-gigabyte database, or 2 or 3. Come on... It will not happen in our lifetimes. Technology is not just improving in the PC world either. Mainframe technology is also improving, advancing and growing in leaps and bounds. By the time we all have crays on our desks, I can just imagine what the crays will be doing! :) I guess the point of this is that tools are here for us to use, we should use the one that best does the job. I wouldn't use the cray for a spreadsheet any more than I would do fluid dynamics simulations on my PC. Sam Matthews /\|/\ "We put a star sam@lanl.ARPA --> * <-- in a box." (ihnp4 or cmcl2)!lanl!sam \/|\/