Xref: utzoo comp.arch:19294 comp.unix.questions:26924 comp.unix.internals:1030 comp.unix.admin:533 comp.unix.large:192 comp.unix.misc:558
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.internals,comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.large,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: Killer Micro Question
Message-ID: <4277@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 15 Nov 90 05:18:53 GMT
References: <16364@s.ms.uky.edu>
Followup-To: comp.arch
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 14

In article <16364@s.ms.uky.edu>, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
> I have been wondering how hard it would be to set up several 
> of the new fast workstations as one big Mainframe.
> The advantage is that this seup should be able to deliver a fair 
> number of MIPS to a large number of users at very low cost.
> So my questions is, do you think this would work?  How well do you
> think this would work?

Yes it did work.  Cambridge University had a wall full of 68000s
doing this sort of thing about 7 years ago (it had been running for
some time, that's just when I saw it).
-- 
The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3
may always be replied to with a lob across the net.  --Alasdair Macintyre.