Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!csustan!polyslo!jmckerna
From: jmckerna@polyslo.UUCP (John L McKernan)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: What's the future of the mainframe?
Message-ID: <1461@polyslo.UUCP>
Date: 8 Mar 88 08:33:34 GMT
References: <8803052348.AA21708@bu-cs.bu.edu> <3614@killer.UUCP>
Reply-To: jmckerna@polyslo.UUCP (John L McKernan)
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 26
Summary: Mainframe futures.

In article <3614@killer.UUCP> elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes:
>Note that I don't include Crays and other supercomputers as "mainframes",
>because they're not general-purpose computers. Although I think Crays are
>pretty neat, and when I'm a multibillionaire I'll have one for every room :-).
>After all, on what other computer can you say that GNU Emacs is a small
>process?! 


I think a definition of mainframes which excludes "supercomputers" is overly
narrow these days. All mainframe really means is maximum computing power with
maximum memory. The reason supercomputers are not general purpose is because
general purpose uses have no need of a modern supercomputer's power. It's
cheaper and cleaner to use a minicomputer as a front end. Since the demand for
increased power and memory is essentially infinite forever, the demand for
mainframes is essentially infinite forever.

I realize that current usage does make a distinction between mainframe and
supercomputer, but I don't see any more real meaning in that distinction
than the difference between a car and an automobile. Pre-emptive flame strike:
Anyone who disagrees with this is being hopelessly dogmatic and bound to a
usage with little regard for its meaning.


John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Servant's gossip in Aillas's castle: "Have you heard the latest?, GREEN jewelry
                                  is the new fad among the ladies of the court."