Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!purdue!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: spiffy terminals, cont. (was: AT&T 630 terminal - software ??)
Message-ID: <9446@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 19 Jan 89 21:38:33 GMT
References: <1800005@spdyne> <9434@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <34808@bbn.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 14

In article <34808@bbn.COM> ellard@vax.bbn.com (Dan Ellard) writes:
-On the other hand, it just doesn't make sense to put a workstation
-(or the same kind of workstation, for that matter) on everyone's
-desk.  Some tasks, such as data entry or reading email, don't currently
-benefit from using anything better than a dumb terminal, and perhaps
-they never will.

Ah, but that's what I argue is NOT true.  In fact I make heavy use
of the 630's spiffy features in responding to email/netnews.  One
doesn't have to be a programmer to benefit from better tools.

I'm sure there are cases where the additional price of a spiffy
terminal would not be justified, but those cases are fewer than
many suppose.