Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!spdcc!ima!haddock!news
From: news@haddock.ima.isc.com (overhead)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Speed Kills (long)
Message-ID: <16858@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 12 Jun 90 20:21:12 GMT
References: <447@garth.UUCP>
Reply-To: suitti@anchovy.UUCP (Stephen Uitti)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Interactive Systems Co
Lines: 120

In article <447@garth.UUCP> fouts@bozeman.ingr.com (Martin Fouts) writes:
>  1) Processors are much faster than programmers:

	You talk about RISC architectures and high end 386's
	running UNIX as if they were aimed at the home computer
	market.  How about something that is:

	My Mac II is faster than the TOPS 20 system my school
	bought in 1980.  It was two orders of magnitude cheaper.
	It has better software.  It wasn't available in 1975.

>    In the same chapter he recalled that it took "about an afternoon" to
>    wire up Eniac to solve a simple system of linear equations.

	I haven't felt the need to solve any linear equations at
	home, unless it were for some sound or graphics
	transform, and I'm just not aware of it.  Of course, not
	being aware of it is the best possible scenario.

>  2) User friendly systems aren't getting any friendlier:

	On the Mac, programs are very easy to learn.  The Mac has
	a very regular command set with online help.  It also
	does internationalization.  Friendly to more people.

>    Lee Feldstein gave an interview to a trade rag in which he pointed out
>    that for his purposes, fancy laser printers and hot 386 systems had
	      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    almost reached the power and quality where they could produce the same
>    word processing quality in the same time as his old Kaypro/Diablo
>    combination at only twice the cost and requiring only twice the time
>    to do anything.  He was very unhappy with what he saw as a regression
>    in the usability of computer systems.

	If an experienced Kaypro/Diablo person could produce a
	document as fast as someone similar who has spent a
	similar amount of time on a Mac/Laser Printer, I'd be
	amazed.  Just text?  We're talking typing time, minimal
	formatting, and print time.  My Mac spits out 5 pages per
	minute.  No Diablo ever did that.

	Diablo printers can still be purchased.  An XT clone with
	a Diablo is at least as good as a Kaypro/Diablo.  Laser
	printers can also do graphics.  If someone buys a new
	screwdriver to use as a chisel, whose fault is that?

>C) Prediction:

>   As the rate of introduction and obscelences of new generations of
>   hardware increases the development of truely new software
>   functionality will decrease, dropping to zero.  [I claim that this
>   is an observation.  There hasn't been any "new" software since the
>   middle 70s.]

>D) PLEA:

>   Speed Kills.  This whole problem stems from the need to port
>   software to new generation machines which were made incompatible
>   with old generation machines because that was the way to make
>   them faster.  Most of the programming talent is going into
>   supporting the SOS (same old stuff) on yahc  (yet another hot cpu.)

	It is easier to port stuff to a new architecture that
	runs an old OS than to port stuff from one OS to another
	on the same hardware.  For example, porting from 4.3 BSD
	on a VAX to a Sequent (Dynix) is tons easier (5 to 10
	orders of magnitude) than porting from the Mac OS to a
	Sun III.  What we need is standardization.  This also
	means verification.  It's being worked on.

>   What architectures can be proposed now which:

>   3) Support improved *user* speed rather than hot *cpu* speed.

	As you've noted, a new architecture isn't going to do
	this.  Only an old architecture will do this.  Thus, you
	want to build a machine using an old architecture (DEC
	still makes tons of money on the PDP-11), or you want to
	build an architecture that will survive to be old.

>E) Why bother?
>   There is a huge untapped market for "computrons" which will remain
>   untapped until they are as easy to use as toasters.  They aren't
>   going to get easy to use if all of our effort goes into porting the
>   SOS to YAHP.

	I don't see it as untapped.  UNIX machines haven't gotten
	there yet.  OS/2 isn't there either.

	In 1980(ish) Apple, Commodore, IBM went for it.  Many
	others didn't make it.  It is hard stick with an
	architecture for 20 years.

>F) Don't flame?
>   Before you decide to attack the "nothing new under the sun"
>   premise, consider your computer history very carefully.

>   The only thing you are going to be able to point out as
>   advances are speed, cost, and some kinds of 3d graphics.

	Since 1975?  How about integration?  My Mac has a drawing
	program that does integrated paint + draw with color and
	with mixed resolutions and 9 feet squared.  Word
	processing good enough for publishing color magazines,
	with automatic TOC and indices.  Real color processing
	and photo-manipulation.  Real databases, which can
	include sound, graphics.  Sound digitizing, editing.
	Real time synth controls, musical score editing &
	printing.  Animation.  Even programing and debug are tons
	better.  All applications can share data.  It is all
	easy to use.

	Software moves from research to the market.  It generally
	must be rewritten for the market.  Not just for the new
	machines, but for the new users.

	OCR software is becoming more versatile and usable daily.
	CPU & I/O speed are requirements.

Stephen.