home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.arch
- Subject: Re: IBM AS/400 is the worlds slowest computer
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!unixland!rmkhome!rmk
- From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
- Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
- Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 22:13:06 GMT
- Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
- Message-ID: <9212271713.07@rmkhome.UUCP>
- References: <1992Dec21.141558.18626@rchland.ibm.com> <id.HD1W.X03@ferranti.com> <1992Dec26.003022.25532@bilver.uucp>
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <1992Dec26.003022.25532@bilver.uucp> wbeebe@bilver.uucp (Bill Beebe) writes:
- >In article <id.HD1W.X03@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
- >
- >>I'd hope it'd run pretty damn well, since we've had up to 10 users on a 286
- >>doing software development... which is about 30 times slower than the 486,
- >>with more demanding users.
- >>
- >>Now I won't say I was happy with the performance on the 286, but the current
- >>systems with moderately old 386es are adequate, and our 486 box screams.
- >
- >Maybe I *really* am dumber than a box of dirt, but why, in this day of
- >networking, would anyone do team development on a single box when it would
- >appear that team development on networked single-user boxes would be a lot
- >more efficient? Why do we still need multi-user boxes except to support
- >obsolete business practices?
-
- What's obsolete about hanging terminals on a system that is running a
- multiuser, multitasking operating system? A 50 mhz 486 with 32 megs
- of memory should easily handle 10 users doing the compile-edit-debug
- cycle. Terminals are dirt cheap. Workstations are a little more
- expensive.
-
- --
-
- Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP merk!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
-