I've always liked the "Workbench" terminology that AT&T used, it summons to mind a more communal environment than the idea of a "workstation" does. The former makes me think of my time in the lab "at the bench" with my coworkers, whereas the latter makes me think of my current remote programming job where my break room chat is limited to the cat.

It's a shame we all have multiple timesharing systems in our homes, pockets, etc. these days but a dearth of communal computing environments. That said, it's understandable given how many bad actors there are out there, a computing utility would be a frequent target...curse the crackers for ruining that along with the term hacking....

- Matt G.
------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, March 8th, 2023 at 9:45 AM, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 9:24 AM Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't try to be too rigid in your terms here. The term
>> "workstation" was probably never well-defined
>
> I agree.
>
>> By the early 90s this was understood to mean a single-user machine in
>> a desktop or deskside form factor with a graphics display, and a more
>> advanced operating system than something you'd get on a consumer-grade
>> machine. But the term probably predated that.
>
> Definitely.
>
>> Would a Tek 4014 connected to a VAX count?
>
> And herein lies the issue. The term was taken from the engineering/architecture style definition of the 50s/60s - where someone had a desk/table/bench and area to do 'work'.
>
> With the CTSS/Multrics et al., the birth of interactive computing is the term used to define an area (usually in a shared computer terminal room). By the time of Tek 4014 and ME-CAD in particular, you often saw darkened rooms where one or two Tek 4000 series terminals might be attached to a large (more capable) computer - be it a PDP-10, IBM, or later Vaxen.At this point, everything is shared - because the computer is shared - only on the terminal itself is a single user, but this was called a 'workstation,' at that time as the place where you did work..
>
> Fast forward to the first personal (mini) computer - a.k.a. the. Xerox Alto
>
> These were intended to be single-user computer systems, and the CPU was not a shared resource like a time-shared system. Next, we see the MIT LISP machine and the PascALTO [a.k.a. the. 3-Rivers Perq] -- same thing. BTW: I also just looked at my copy of the CMU SPICE (Scientific Personal Integrated Computing Environment).  In none of these does the term workstation show up (be. used) to describe the computer itself - i.e., the term is still only used in the context of the place/area you do work. All of these use the term personal computer to describe the device being used in that place.
>
> We also start to see the birth of firms like Apollo, Masscomp, and later VLSI Systems (later renamed Sun Microsystems). But also build personal computers that can perform the same computing task as 32-bit minicomputers such as the Vax.
>
> Fast forward to the IBM release of the IBM 5150 Personal Computer based on an Intel 8088 - which is decidedly a much less capable computer than what is being sold by the folks using Vaxen, M68000s, or Zilion Z8000. While this system can be a fine replacement for a 'word processor' and even run the business friends 'Visicalc' - it is not suited for the CAD style work that is ruining on minicomputers. But ... IBM usurps the term 'Personal Computer' to describe their new product (and make it sound a bit more than what it really was). But now you have a problem in the market at large.
>
> Marketing folks at places like 3-Rivers, Apollo, and the like need a new term to start to describe the capabilities of the computer in their more expensiveproducts to differentiate them from the new IBM product and explain their value for that extra cost -> i.e. they were no selling personal computers, but complete and much more capable systems that integrated into a network, had raster graphics, etc. and to perform tasks that the IBM PC was unable. So they took the term of how the product was being used -> to create a place to do work, to be the device that allowed you to do (real) work.
> ᐧ