Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:15487 comp.unix.wizards:14101 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!oliveb!sun!thetone!swilson From: swilson%thetone@Sun.COM (Scott Wilson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: spiffy terminals Message-ID: <85237@sun.uucp> Date: 13 Jan 89 17:52:39 GMT References: <443@marob.MASA.COM> <11067@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <408@ispi.UUCP> <9357@smoke.BRL.MIL> Sender: news@sun.uucp Reply-To: swilson@sun.UUCP (Scott Wilson) Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View Lines: 48 In article <9357@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes: >In article <408@ispi.UUCP> jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) writes: >> The difference in cost is between $ 1000 and $ 1500. When you >>multiply this by the number of terminals in an office, the cost starts >>to become prohibitive. > >This line of argumentation has been refuted already, but let's try >again: Why not supply your office workers with packing crates or >even cardboard boxes instead of real office furniture? Just think >of the savings! The analogy above to furniture is, as with most analogies, bogus at best. The analogy was chosen to cross a line most would agree would be unacceptable. One could make a similar analogy saying: Why not supply your office workers with designer home furniture instead of real office furniture? This analogy would obviously be chosen to reflect the original posters opposition to unnecessary spending to obtain features unneeded. The point is that analogies are sometimes convenient for exposition but are only superficially useful in proving a point. For every analogy you can come up with to support your position someone can come up with one to refute it. Ban analogies! As far as the terminal vs. bitmap display argument goes, I think there is no absolute rule. For some people/situations one is better and for others the other is better. I'd say it all reduces to a simple decision of whether the increase in expense of the hardware outweighs the increased productivity. For example, consider a receptionist that mainly answers the phone and on occaison sends a phone message by e-mail to someone. I think you could easily argue that a terminal is sufficient for this purpose and that paying more for a fancier display would not return any increase in productivity. On the other hand, people like me who make some pretense of doing useful software development are more productive given fancier displays and more powerful hardware. Here at Sun we have billions of terminals. Some of them are used by people who only occasionally access a computer. Most are used as consoles to machines (like servers) that rarely have a user sitting in front of it and therefore don't need a bitmap display. Although I've seen at lot of terminals here I don't think I've seen any in positions where I though it would be more cost effective to have a bitmap display. -- Scott Wilson arpa: swilson@sun.com Sun Microsystems uucp: ...!sun!swilson Mt. View, CA