Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Relative Speed
Message-ID: <2397@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Sep-87 16:24:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.2397
Posted: Mon Sep 21 16:24:21 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Sep-87 06:10:29 EDT
References: <1665@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM) <8579@utzoo.UUCP) <6886@eddie.MIT.EDU) <2473@xanth.UUCP) <6920@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT.
Lines: 22
Keywords: cost of bloated programs

In article <6920@eddie.MIT.EDU> jbs@eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal) writes:
|In article <2473@xanth.UUCP) kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
|)To put it another way, graph the time to load ls(1) versus date of the
|)version for the versions mentioned and the systems on which they run,
|)and weep.
|)
|)For an example close to home, my Amiga is doing good if it can drag
|)programs off a hard disk at 30K bytes/second over an SCSI interface.
|)[...]
|
|Again, if you take into account the changing conditions that exist in
|computer technology, things look much better.  30KB/sec is horribly
|slow for a Unix system [...]

Not necessarily.  True, I/O speeds are improving; but so are processor
speeds.  And my impression is that the processors are improving faster than
the I/O.  If so, the problem will only get worse with time.  (Unless you
think a time will come when most computer systems are underutilized.)
-- 

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Ashton-Tate          52 Oakland Ave North         E. Hartford, CT 06108