[TUHS] Re: Origins of the frame buffer device

[Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3452 bytes --]

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
expensive products 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8368 bytes --]