Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!oddjob!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!urbsdc!aglew From: aglew@urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Balanced system - a tentative defin Message-ID: <28200189@urbsdc> Date: 16 Aug 88 13:31:00 GMT References: <794@cernvax.UUCP> Lines: 15 Nf-ID: #R:cernvax.UUCP:794:urbsdc:28200189:000:658 Nf-From: urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM!aglew Aug 16 08:31:00 1988 > A balanced system (matthews definition, not mine) is a very >*inexpensive* implementation, in that no part has unused capacity which >has added expense without adding performance. > > bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) (1) I was referring to expense on the part of the manufacturer, not customer - the manufacturer would have to build the whole thing over again for version N+1. It often happens that designing in extra capacity in one subsystem costs nothing at all in design -- and may end up saving the customer money in the long run. How many people swapped up processors on their IBM PC systems? (2) Cost functions are strongly non-linear.