4 ms·
poor analogy IMO. the old building sized computer was only adequate for a single tenant's use. Nowadays the large data centers facilities hundreds of thousand
by jordache 8y ago
poor analogy IMO. the old building sized computer was only adequate for a single tenant's use. Nowadays the large data centers facilities hundreds of thousands of organizations' infrastructures
- Retric 8y agoOld building sized computers often supported multiple organizations via time sharing etc. The NSA, Google, and many other who have reached a point here single buildings are not enough computing power. If anything the number of orgs with building sized computers is probably similar. Which feels strange but it’s more about budgets than anything else.
- jordache 8y agonot simultanesouly they did not.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Stratoscope 8y ago> not [simultaneously] they did not. Are you referring to this part of the parent comment? "Old building sized computers often supported multiple organizations via time sharing etc." I worked at Tymshare in the early 1970s, and I can assure you that we supported many simultaneous users and organizations who dialed into our Tymnet nodes with their Teletypes and other terminals to connect to our building sized computers. That was the whole point of the company, and the very thing it was named after. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tymshare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tymshare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-sharing
- tomc1985 8y agoPerhaps they need to reevaluate their mission statement
- Waterluvian 8y agoReminds me of a story my dad told about studying CS at Waterloo in the 70s. Time sharing == bringing your punch cards in at 3am because the queue was shorter then. :) He said those nights were the best experiences of his time at University (aside from meeting my mom).