Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!fortune!rpw3
From: rpw3@fortune.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: Network in-a Box - (nf)
Message-ID: <3182@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Apr-84 23:02:29 EST
Article-I.D.: fortune.3182
Posted: Fri Apr 27 23:02:29 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Apr-84 10:58:42 EST
Sender: notes@fortune.UUCP
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 25

#R:ncsu:-257000:fortune:16500011:000:1064
fortune!rpw3    Apr 27 19:19:00 1984

Notice that hierarchical principles again come to the rescue in the
network-in-a-box scheme. The answer is simply to have no (physically)
bigger cluster than the length of the video cables from the "box" to the
tubes, with the LAN connecting boxes. Once you get more than 3-4 users
in a box, the economies of scale taper off. Big power supplies are NOT
appreciably cheaper per watt than medium-sized ones. Size and fan noise
also put a limit to how big a "box" can be in the office environment.
Have you noticed the recent proliferation of 4-16 terminal systems?

By the way, with the (new? not any more) FCC rules, RS-232 cables are
getting nearly as expensive as high-speed LAN cables. This has the
effect of shifting the cost balance such that "network-in-a-box" has
an alternative: "computer-in-a-terminal".

Rob Warnock

UUCP:	{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd70,hpda,harpo,sri-unix,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD:	(415)595-8444
USPS:	Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065

("Hierarchy": Literally, "Heavenly Order". Loosely, "the way things are".)