Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!dgbt!netfs.dnd.ca!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!radar!cadillac!joy!speyer From: speyer@joy.cad.mcc.com (Bruce Speyer) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: Musings on the future of computing... (REPOST) Message-ID: <15748@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM> Date: 6 Feb 91 20:19:49 GMT References: <1991Feb6.165031.14655@world.std.com> Sender: news@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM Reply-To: speyer@MCC.COM (Bruce Speyer) Organization: MCC CAD Program, Austin, TX Lines: 84 In article <1991Feb6.165031.14655@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >... Thoughts and expansion appreciated. I haven't been following this group but I happenned to catch Dan Yurman's article (message id: <9102031827.AA72323@gemstone.inel.gov>) today which I really liked. Personally, I would like to see more detailed future visions for various application areas. Also, I presume discussions have been taking place concerning the technology behind these visions. Concerning the two computational models for the future: Obviously, there are benefits and detriments to the two different models. Most computing instantiations will be a hybrid. However, I dispute the two major arguments presented in support of the model with large compute servers and desktop terminals: 1) user-administration a) is easier in this model and b) is a major issue; and 2) the general user wouldn't be able to use the compute power of a server on their desktop anyway. First, we are talking about future computing models not today's state of the art. I would be greatly disappointed and surprised if system administration, along with general OS development, did not make great advances in the next 10 years. I think the issue of user-level administration is a minimal one. Secondly, I believe the users of the future will be able to use a great deal of local computes, perhaps dedicated to special purposes, in the future. It seems that we are moving away from the general application paradigm of today which is just applying tools to tasks to one which integrates the dynamic component (process) of the application with the static portion of the environment (data). What this means is that (I know this is way too brief but it all I have time for) is that as more and more of the process within an enterprise is considered which itself accesses more and more of the information infrastructure within the enterprise the future of computing will move away from the simple tool to task paradigm and rapidly move toward a model of continuously simulating the enterprise. [in fact, there are many limitied examples of this more advanced paradigm available today] (The term enterprise is being used here to refer to a coherent, interconnected organization or entity. At the highest level today something like the military-industrial complex is an enterprise which is made up of many other, perhaps overlapping, enterprises which are composed...) I say simulation will be the norm because enterprises operate continuously not discretely (like a tool being applied to a task). If future computing is dedicated to supporting the infrastructure and operation of the enterprise then it must model and compute the enterprise in tandem with the real organization. I know my point may be confusing so I will try to illustrate. Take a jet pilot in an advanced fighter. Is he/she flying the plane or manipulating the simulation which controls the plane? Seems to be that both realities are taking place at the same time and the pilot is interacting in both simultaneously. They see and react to what is physically happenning and also with the simulator (command and control). Likewise, I see the future user interacting with the simulation of the enterprise at the same time they are dealing with the physical organization. This is going to take a lot of computes to support and link the two (or more) realities. Furthermore, each user defines and manipulates their own view(s) of the enterprise which means all these different layers of abstraction must be managed in a consistent (and often real-time) fashion. In order to do effect this interaction the user must be able to generate stimulus and receive stimulus. We can imagine this stimulius being advanced visualization graphics, speech recognition, etc. in order to make all of these layers of abstraction comprehensible to the normal human. The terminal compute model scenario can not begin to support these type of real-time requirements. You can also imagine the user running many different scenarios through the enterprise simulator: what scenarios and interactions were used to arrive at this current state of the enterprise? are there other valid alternate states available to exercise? what would be the impact of changing one of the processes in the enterprise? constructing a new view of the enterprise? etc. Again this is extremely (both local and distributed) compute intensive. Concluding back to the original question: certainly real-time computer response requires local dedicated computes; complex 3d visualization and animation could easily use the current state of the art million-plus vectors or several hundred thousand polygons per second capability which today is only found on the most advanced graphics hardware. Also, if my enterprise simulation premise holds then most users will be doing real-time, continuous, complex simulations. Either there must be serious local computes or else there will need to be at least a fairly high ratio of servers for a given number of users. You did say expansion welcomed. :-) Bruce Speyer / MCC CAD Program EMail: speyer@mcc.com 3500 West Balcones Center Drive Phone: [512] 338-3668 Austin, TX. 78759 Fax: [512] 338-3897