Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!dayton!meccts!meccsd!mecc!sewilco From: sewilco@mecc.MECC.COM (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Mainframe vs Micro Message-ID: <787@mecc.MECC.COM> Date: Wed, 7-Jan-87 00:59:20 EST Article-I.D.: mecc.787 Posted: Wed Jan 7 00:59:20 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 8-Jan-87 23:00:56 EST References: <658@imsvax.UUCP> <1427@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> Sender: news@mecc.MECC.COM Reply-To: sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Organization: Minn Ed Comp Corp, St. Paul Lines: 52 Summary: Micros may replace mainframe, but personal computers won't. In article <1427@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> tim@tomcat.UUCP (Tim Kay) writes: >Ted Holden (IMS) writes: >>Tim Kay (Caltech) writes: ... >>army ants EAT. What is important is the servers reach a certain level of >>power and sophistication, which they have, and the state of the control soft- >>ware for the army (e.g. Novell's Netware). These are good enough for such >>PC armies to eat VAX class machines today and I can't believe they won't be >>eating IBM mainframes in another year or two. "Speed" is relative. A PC is fast for balancing a checkbook. For drawing a complex image you'll want a faster processor if you don't want that PC on your desk busy for sixteen hours. Ditto for data crunching, as PC disk data paths are not fast. ... >So, let's build a version of the IBM PC with I/O processors, high bandwidth >point-to-point communications, additional, higher bandwidth busses, the >ability to handle many disk drives, etc., to overcome the difficulties that >I have just mentioned. For the CPU, we'll use an 80386, which I agree could be >adequate. What you now have is a machine somewhere between today's >minicomputers and a mainframes. You have lost your cost advantage, >and the machine I just described is no longer a personal computer. >But I'll agree that this machine could do what you are claiming. The above is currently called a "supermicro". It's a multiuser machine because for many applications it's cheaper to put dumb terminals on it than for each user to have a networked PC. As long as networking costs more than dumb terminals ($400 ASCII) that break-even point will be important. Micro *processors* are replacing larger processors, by being used to build larger computers, and will continue to push upward the lower limit of the "mainframe" and "supercomputer" ranges. A 30-processor 32032 or 680x0 machine with I/O processors packs a hefty punch, pulls a lot of data, and is only horrendously expensive when comparing it to a computer for your home. More power in a single processor is only needed for single-thread compute-intensive jobs (there will always be supercomputers). >I have already conceded that smaller computers >might eventually replace lots of mainframes. But I think ... >And, don't get me wrong. I love PCs, and I am fascinated by what they >can do. I can't imagine why anybody would buy something like a >System 36, when you could have an AT or three that are just as powerful >(more powerful?) and costs a fraction as much. Why is a System/36 not called a micro? Because the box is too big. -- Scot E. Wilcoxon Minn Ed Comp Corp {quest,dayton,meccts}!mecc!sewilco (612)481-3507 sewilco@MECC.COM ihnp4!meccts!mecc!sewilco National Enquirer seers: 4 Reality: 360