Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!hao!gatech!uflorida!codas!mtune!mtgzz!drutx!druhi!neal
From: neal@druhi.ATT.COM (Neal D. McBurnett)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: Why I'm suspicious of NeWS
Message-ID: <2691@druhi.ATT.COM>
Date: 17 Feb 88 15:50:38 GMT
References: <1679@desint.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO
Lines: 18
Summary: NeWS is a win because you can offload the client processor

I see a lot of good arguments that say that NeWS uses bandwidth more
efficiently, and I think they are good arguments.  However, the most telling
factor for me is that NeWS can also offload the client processor.
Picture a time-shared client processor and a server which runs mainly on a
PC, workstation or very smart terminal (like the 630 terminal from AT&T).
I'm really frightened by the thought of my Vax or Amdahl having to reply
to a bunch of tiny interactions, like highlighting each menu selection.
Even the vi and emacs editors can grind a system with 50-200 users on it
into the ground, so I think the the ability to download an arbitrary
amount of the functionality of an application into the NeWS server is
a great asset.

For applications in which the client and server are both on the same
processor, this may not matter much, but if we're looking for a widely
applicable standard, I think NeWS is it.  Single-user workstations may
be the wave of the future, but for a long time, people will want to make
use of their larger hosts in combination with smart, cheap terminals.

-Neal McBurnett, AT&T R&D, ihnp4!druhi!neal