Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!boingo.med.jhu.edu!haven.umd.edu!umbc3.umbc.edu!brian
From: brian@umbc3.umbc.edu (Brian Cuthie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: (Ne)X(T) Terminals---a hot product idea?
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.025924.13079@umbc3.umbc.edu>
Date: 26 Jun 91 02:59:24 GMT
References: <1991Apr28.044626.11746@menudo.uh.edu> <1991Apr28.062338.27036@cs.ubc.ca> <12826@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services
Lines: 19

In article <12826@pt.cs.cmu.edu> ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio) writes:
>In article <1991Apr28.062338.27036@cs.ubc.ca> sritchie@cs.ubc.ca (Stuart Ritchie,,,2616774) writes:
>>We're entering an age (fiber-optics) where bandwidth is very cheap.
>
>Yes and no.  We're *also* entering an age where more and more users
>have workstations at home, connected to a TCP/IP network via high
>speed modems.  The number of people with very slow internet
>connections is going to continue to grow, *especially* as far as NeXT
>users go.  We've got to deal with huge differences in bandwidth.  To
>ignore either end of the spectrum is a bad thing.
>-- 
>DdJ

This is especially true as ISDN becomes a reality.  More and more workstations
will be at home connected to the internet over either 64k or 16k bps lines.
It is extremely bad to assume that net bandwitdh is in unlimited supply.  This
assumption is one of the things that makes most X software unusable from home.

-brian