Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncrlnk!emdeng!hrich From: hrich@emdeng.Dayton.NCR.COM (George.H.Harry.Rich) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Single user vs. shared Message-ID: <290@emdeng.Dayton.NCR.COM> Date: 21 Mar 90 14:53:06 GMT References: <51771@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <100598@convex.convex.com> <52661@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1990Mar18.023523.4034@ultra.com> <52817@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <2165@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1990Mar20.174931.2202@utzoo.uucp> <1990Mar21.010346.6552@ultra.com> <34853@news.Thin Reply-To: hrich@emdeng.UUCP (George.H.Harry.Rich) Organization: NCR, E&M Dayton Lines: 29 Speaking as a user, I find that there are applications where it's really important for me to be together with everyone else, and others where I feel that I can do my best job, if I'm allowed to time upgrades, select my own software, etc., etc. My own feeling is that the best approach is using networked individual systems where the software and data that must be sychronously updated is maintained on a network server, and the software which does not need to be in synchronization sits on my workstation. This has the advantantage that the professional administrator can stick to dealing with general needs of the organization without messing with special requirements of individuals, and at the same time saves me the problem of taking forced changes and upgrades when the organization doesn't need them. Of course this is expensive. But have you looked at the cost of the people using these systems lately? I don't think that the argument that most desktops have terribly low average utilization levels amounts to a hill of beans. Expensive people have been kept waiting for inexpensive computers for a decade by others who have been trying to optimize computer utilization rather than the overall operational cost and effectiveness of organizations. Regards, Harry Rich Disclaimer: The ideas expressed here are my own and not necessarilly those of my employer (who would be glad to sell you either kind of system).