Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!mouse
From: mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Workstation def
Message-ID: <1991Jun1.204126.26976@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>
Date: 1 Jun 91 20:41:26 GMT
References: <1991May31.143233.25042@linus.mitre.org>
Organization: McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines
Lines: 38

In article <1991May31.143233.25042@linus.mitre.org>, cazier@mbunix.mitre.org (Cazier) writes:

> I would like to get a feel for what netters consider a "workstation."
> Since the DOS and Mac's have increased in power with the development
> of the '386 and 030's, it would appear that the PC vs. workstation
> lines are a bit blurred.

Quite so.  As far as I can tell, a workstation is anything that's sold
as a workstation.  Nothing more complicated than that.  The technical
differences between a workstation and a personal computer are slight
and getting smaller all the time; the only remaining difference I can
see is that one is sold as a personal machine for $1200 and the other
as a workstation for $5000.

> Would a good definition of a workstation include or exclude the PC
> and Mac's?

Macs - and most "workstation"s - are PC.  A high-end workstation can
support multiple users without bogging down, but the low-end ones sure
can't.

If you really want technical differences...I would say that a
workstation generally has a better display (typically a million pixels
for a low-end workstation, which is high-end as PC displays go), more
I/O bandwidth (though that distinction is going away), and more storage
(both core and disk), typically isn't even offered without some sort of
network interface, and does multitasking out-of-the-box.

Hmmm, that $1200 versus $5000 begins to make sense.

Oh yes, the personal computers are generally better documented, since
the third-party software developers demand it.

					der Mouse

			old: mcgill-vision!mouse
			new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu