Re: What companies are still using old technology

[ak621@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner)]

Jamie wrote:

> ak621@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) mentions:

> >> Some applications do not require a 2GHz Ferrari processor.
> >> Guess why the old Z80 8-bit is still around.
> >
> >***   Sure and it's why imbedded processors are simple 486s and similar.
> >The marketing to constantly upgrade needs to be revealed for what it is: a
> >money grab.

> I almost never see people using dumb terminal equipment anymore, (a real
> shame, terminal based systems really do offer a lot of advantages)

> There is still the issue of power consumption, the "new" (well, "new" in terms
> of PC's anyway) thing these days is to virtualize several computers on one
> faster machine. At a certain point, you'll save money doing this due to power
> consumption and replacement parts. Using a boatload of old 486's will end up
> consuming more power and hence, more money. 

***   Over time. That would be true. I remember a newspaper article here a
few years ago (Mail Star? Globe & Mail?) about power consumption and how
it was recommended that terminals and any non-essential computer be shut
down at night if they were not needed until the next day. It listed power
savings for a typical business setup, and over a year, they could be
substantial. (Not mentioned was the advantage of regular reboots, but the
article was about power and its costs.)

   Regardless, the boatload of 486s could be made to be fairly power
efficient, especially if there were client/server setups. 486s also had
power management by then and would power down monitors and hard drives
after so many minutes. Still, I agree with your point.


> If it weren't for graphical web pages, colors and enhanced screen size of X11,
> I would gladly use a dumb terminal instead. When it gets screwed up you can
> just reboot the terminal w/out rebooting the whole computer.. easy to replace,
> lower power consumption, rugged and generally easier to maintain. 

***   Yes, those sound like good advantages. A year or so ago, one of my
computer clubs had two guest speakers that were promoting Linux terminal
setups and thin-client technology, so I don't see them going away
completely.


> Probably the best thing about dumb terminals is that they are _Quiet_.

> Jamie

***   Yes. They could even incorporate flash drives for data storage and
keep that quietness while having the advantage of a local "hard drive".

         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/

PS: Please set line lengths to `75' for text newsgroups.

R.