Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!MATHOM.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU!lindsay From: lindsay@MATHOM.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Politics and Architectures Keywords: discretionary limit Message-ID: <7145@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Date: 30 Nov 89 05:20:21 GMT References: <1128@m3.mfci.UUCP> <1989Nov22.175128.24910@ico.isc.com> <3893@scolex.sco.COM> <39361@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <17305@netnews.upenn.edu> <1989Nov25.000120.18261@world.std.com> <1989Nov27.144016.23181@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <18794@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 21 The Great Secret behind the success of minicomputers (and now microcomputers), is the discretionary spending limit. Many people are allowed to authorize purchases that are below a certain limit. Above that, the purchase must be first reported up through official channels for review. So, back in the minicomputer days, DEC found a lot of (say) $15,000 upgrades purchased as two $8,000 upgrades, simply because the customer's discretionary limit was $9,999. And some PDP's snuck in as "programmed data processors" (no kidding). Many early microsystems were semiworthless toys, incapable of solving the purchaser's problem. However, the total purchase was below just about everyone's discretionary spending limits. Even if management had forbidden computer purchases, the things snuck in as "office equipment" or "word processors". This is where today's industry came from. Believe it. -- Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon Computer Science Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com