Talk:Workstation

Mac OS X Bit at the end needs updates

The mention of Mac OS X machines meeting the criteria of workstations, yet it remains to be seen what will happen with the Intel switch part near the end needs updated. It's May 2006 as I write this and Solo and Duo Core Intel processors have been available in iMacs, MacBook Pros, and Mac Minis since February and March (for the latter).

However I don't know the details of the processor or how it counts in this regard. So someone else needs to do it.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. Do not revert this move. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Workstation (computer hardware) → Workstation … Rationale: 'Workstation' is a redirect to the longer name article, might as well move it to Workstation. -- Frap 16:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose. The term 'workstation' predates its current use in the computer industry; I believe it first came into use in the early days of assembly line manufacturing but I don't have a verifying citation to back that up. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Following the KISS principle Jay32183 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Tag the redirect Workstation with Template:R with possibilities. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If I had seen this debate earlier I would have voted against it. The term workstation is as User:Ceyockey suggests. But as there is no article on that meaning there is no need to disambiguate this page. When an artile on the term workstation is written this page can be moved again. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

misc obesrvations and suggestions

observation:

i've been musing about some of the same questions being debated here and looked up this article to see what wikipedia folk had to say about them, so i'm not terribly surprised to find the debate.

suggestions:

on definitions:

-- point out that the term "workstation" has had different meanings in different contexts and has evolved over the years.

-- two general concepts of workstation:

-- -- a computer designed to be used interactively by one person at a time that is built using techniques typically used for multi-user computers (servers or timesharing minicomputers depending on the historical period) and puts all the associated perfomance and reliability resources at one user's disposal.

[ note this phrase appears mid-article: "Personal computers, in contrast to workstations, were not designed to bring minicomputer performance to an engineer's desktop, but rather..." ]

-- -- a computer and peripherals deidcated to a specialized use (faxing, laboritory instrumentation monitoring, etc.

an entirely different approach to the definition problem is base the definition not so much on the hardware and software and software architecture, but on the business problem and the user.

AFAIK workstations have typically been asigned to users working on large time-sensitive problems that are important to the organization and/or to users whose time is expensive. in other words, firms spend extra money to put big, fast, reliable boxes in the hands of some users and not others based on business criteria. now, how you go about expressing that concisely is another question.  :-)

Ericfluger 18:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

incentives to use workstations

the article gives some attention to the business incentives to deploy workstations, but i think a bit more is merited. after reading what's there i still have some basic questions that i think are still reasonably in-scope for an encyclopedia article.

[ i recognize that in a business setting almost any criteria for problem solving is ultimatately reducable to cost/revenue considerations, but having said that... ]

i'm wondering if initial popularity of workstations was due to cost-effectiveness of offloading from the mainframe, or whether they simply provided a practical way of doing things that otherwise might have been quite difficult at the time.

IIRC at the time the workstation concept was starting to take hold, connecting multiple high resolution high speed graphics terminals to one mainframe and locating such termials far from the machine room would have been a serious challenge given the data communications technology of the day. using smaller computers with built in frame buffers side-stepped this problem.

i seem to recall reading (long ago) an interview with an early adopter of networked workstation for software development who said that the driving factor was predictable compile compile times (which came at cost of poorer hardware utilization) that made planning and managing projects much more systematic.

i also wonder if there was a "fashion factor". it became the way folks did things for a while. and users who had their own box at one job (or in college lab) and went on to another job wanted the same thing there too.

so i suspect there may have been more considerations than are currently mentioned. Ericfluger 19:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

thin clients and workstations

while it can be hard to say what's a workstation and what isn't, i think it's safe to say there's a distiction to be made between a workstation and thin client FROM A FUNCTIONAL STANDPOINT.

as far as i can tell, workstations generally provide "local applications processing". thin clients don't.

viewed from a hardware-only perspective things get a bit dicier. in some cases the same machine can be configured as either a workstation or a thin client. (sun's only x-terminal was based on entry level workstation hardware. PCs can be configured to work as thin clients in various ways.)

the sun ray ultra thin clients mentioned in the article are clearly not workstations. no workstation hardware, software, or functionality. while sun's new-ish scalable back end graphic technology may now make replacing workstations with thin clients feasable and even attractive, that still doesn't make the thin client "workstation-like".

i suspect it may be best to mention this alternative and link to a separate article rather than explore it in depth.

Ericfluger 19:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Processor

Does the phrase "server-level processor" have any objective commonly-accepted meaning in the industry or is it just vacuous PC-magazine-speak? As I recall, every microprocessor chip introduced since the 8085 was said to be "far too powerful for personal computer use and only suitable for servers". Servers...file servers..,don't even need to do floating-point maths. I'm taking it out. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Server level processor usually refers to Xeon and Opteron processors. It also refers to pure server processors such as the Sun UltraSPARC and IBM POWER. As for all servers not needing floating point mathematics, server simply refers to a computer that serves a client. A file server is just a type of server, not definitive of. As for the 8085 "being far too powerful for personal computing and suitable only for servers" please provide a reliable source for that. Back in those days, servers were built on VAX and other proprietary processors. Mainframes too, were big then. If I am not mistaken, the 8085 was for a terminal that connected to a mainframe. Rilak (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Workstation is an outdated term

My background with workstations goes back to 1984 and Sun. Back then there was a clear distinction between PCs and workstations. These days I don't believe the distinction exists anymore. Back in the 80's I think the four main requirements of a workstation were that it meet the 3M_computer requirements: a MIPS, a Mega-pixel and a Megabyte, that it would run a multitasking operating system, that it have at least a 17" bitmap display, and that it was connected to a high speed network. Now it happens, at that time most of the machines that met this spec ran a flavor of UNIX, used a window systems, X became the standard, and used TCP/IP and Ethernet for their network connection. The 3M computer dividing line held up until the late 80's and early 90's. While in the late 80's/early 90's the hardware specs of a workstation had increased by more than an order of magnitude, the typical mid-range PC was just starting to meet the 3M spec.

But in the 90's as hardware performance increased, Ethernet and TCP/IP became the standard of for all computers and Mega-pixel large screen displays became affordable the 3M computer differences no longer were that great. A typical high end PC had similar hardware specifications as a typical workstation. And the price difference was typically an a factor of 4 to 10. This is why most hardware vendors either got out of or dramatically scaled back in the workstation market. Yes, you could still buy them but they were very high end machines used for very specific tasks. Different types of CAD mainly. Graphics intensive applications could be usually be done on a high end PC.

The last hurtle to overcome was the multitasking operating system. This happened in the late 90's. Linux and UNIX running on Intel hardware became solid and achieved a production level of quality. Also with Microsoft's introduction of Windows NT, the Microsoft world finally had a true multitasking operating system. So the high-end software vendors started porting their software to the Intel architecture, either UNIX/Linux or Windows NT. This was the death knell for the workstation as a distinct class of machine. For me personally the switch happened in the 97-98 time frame when I switched my Sun workstation for a Linux PC. At this time I changed my thinking about workstations to thinking of them as plain desk top computers. I think this change had been happening for a while. So to me at least the term "workstation" seems like an archaic term like the term "mini-computer". Yes there are still a few mini-computers made, the IBM AS/400 (System 1 now) comes to mind. But if some one is describing a need for new computer as needing a mini-computer, I would think that they had a need to run legacy applications. If you were thinking of running current multi-user applications you would host it on a server, not a mini-computer. Likewise there are still people buying workstations, but I suspect that it is mainly to run legacy applications on legacy CPU architectures.

Workstations were great while they lasted, but I am glad that a typical desk top PC has a very similar user experience as a workstation used to.

Robert.harker (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm no. Current technical applications such as CATIA and many 3D graphics applications (Maya and Max) still run on workstations. Granted, the architectures are not as distinctive as they once were, but workstations are still going strong. Such an example would be the Boxx Apexx 8, with eight quad-core Opterons and 128 GB of memory. Workstations are no where near obsolete. Rilak (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge to desktop computer

I strongly oppose this suggestion. One of the definitions of "desktop" is any computer whose size and weight permits it to be placed on a desk, as opposed to a "deskside" computer which is too large and heavy. A workstation, however, can be of any size. Old IBM POWERstations, based on the POWER1 and POWER2 processors were huge (for a workstation) deskside machines, if I recall correctly. Further more, a workstation is not a term used to describe size - it is a term used to describe, historically, a computer intended to be used by a single person that is based on a RISC architecture, and currently a computer: 1) specialized for a certain technical or scientific task or 2) significantly more powerful than a commodity computer of its era. Merging it with desktop, which has no connection to workstations other than some workstations being a desktops, seems to me, rather pointless and to be honest - silly. Rilak (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose -- Per Rilak (although the "RISC architecture" part is not accurate, given that many workstations were/are based on CISC processors such as the 68K and x86 processor families). "Desktop" is a form factor; "workstation" encompasses a large number of design points, as discussed in this article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Also strong oppose - a "workstation" implies something more capable than the typical desktop MS Office platform. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - what about mobile workstations (notebooks)? The term "workstations" changed meaning over the time. In my company we are using it when refering to any computer used for work. --N Jordan (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose In the mid to late 80's and early 90's there was a real difference between workstations and desktop compuers interms of computational power, memory size, disk size, screen size and video resolution. Granted these days the difference between a worksation and a desktop computer are no longer clear. Besides many workstations were desk side computers not desk top computers. Robert.harker (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think its quite right to merge a Workstation and Desktop Computer sections based on a mere physical similarity. Today, they are called a "traditional workstation" when referring to RISC-based workstations for technical computing. Google it and see. However there are enough historical and design differences to justify keeping the evolution of Unix/RISC workstations separate from that of PC/X86 developments. From a functional standpoint they now have considerable overlap, but there are enough differences between them that they should not be merged and cause confusion. --SanjaySingh (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Need for s specific OS

the phrase Workstations perform work of such value to their owners that they are free of the requirement to run mass-market commodity operating systems. has two biases. First, it implies that difference between high end workstation system and a commodity system rely in the operating system only, which is clearly not the case, since high end workstation can run what is in this article concidered as commodity OS.

The second bias is that this sentence claim that the major part of the cost premium is the operating system which clearly is not the case, as all worstation system present on the market after january 2009 will run either free operating systems or windows/MacOS which are not expensive in regards to the total price of the workstation.

Changing free of the requirement to run mass-market commodity operating systems to free of the requirement to run mass-market commodity systems. would remove the two bias while still explaining that given the added value of such a system for the buyer, price is not criteria in system selection.

Of course some user will need non commodity operating system, for software compatibility issues, architecture homogeneity, TCOO, .... that does not make it a general truth. --Dwarfpower (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the statement in question. Rilak (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

could you elaborate and explain in what extend I did misinterpret. the sentence say running a mass market commodity operating system is a requirement that is omposed on users that do not have the same added value for their computers workstations users have, and that workstation user a freed from that requirement. I explained why such statements are not neutral and try to push a biased opinion, and I explained how things could be reformuated as not to promoted such biases. You did rever my modification, so please could you explain in what extend current formulation is better thab the one I tried to promote, and how current formulation is accurate and un biased. --Dwarfpower (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view, the statement does not imply what you claim. It is merely claims that workstations perform tasks that are so important ("of such value") that they do not have to run mass-market operating systems. It does not claim that a "high end workstation system and a commodity system rely in the operating system only", it does not even make this comparison, and it does not claim that "the major part of the cost premium is the operating system". Your proposal to change the statement to "free of the requirement to run mass-market commodity systems." does not make sense. How does removing "operating" make the statement less biased? The statement, if your proposals were carried out, would then claim that workstations are "free of the requirement to run mass-market commodity systems". What "systems"? "Systems" is a completely ambiguous word now and from the context of its use, no relation to anything can be deduced, resulting in a rather confusing sentence. Rilak (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

System has IMHO the advantage of covering both the hardware specification and the operating system. As the workstation market have for the last 20 years been defined by hardware/operating combination with no possibility to choose both independantly. In my experience operating system has not been a discriminating factor in defining the choice of a workstation vs. a commodity desktop system. The only occurence would be when given software is only availably on one operating system; in such cases the choice of that particular operating system by the software editor was originally motivated by hardware capabilities (I am only focusing on the workstation market here) --Dwarfpower (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

But the statement does not claim, "defining the choice of a workstation vs. a commodity desktop system." It claims that workstations are free of the requirement to run mass-market operating systems because the work they perform is of such value, mass market operating systems are irrelevant, in contrast to a PC, which must run a mass-market and therefore user-friendly operating system. I am not sure what you are trying to say here, because so far, all of your claims are irrelevant to the statement. Rilak (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Difference between a workstation class and a not workstation class computer is related to capability and hardware and not to operating system. All operating system running on historic unix workstation have also run on non workstation class computers. How can the operating system be mentionned as either a positive or a negative requirement for a workstation then ? Solaris have run on workstation and not workstation, same for IRIX, AIX, HP-UX and windows ( perhaps to the exception of digital UNIX, i may be mistaken there ). As a result adding the operating system into the choice equation is off topic. --Dwarfpower (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it... The statement does not claim that the difference between a workstation class is in operating systems. It merely says that workstations do not have stringent requirements of supporting a mass market operating system. I don't know why you are bringing up all these irrelevant arguments. The statement might be a bit out of place, but even in an improper context, I still do not see how it could be claiming any of things you have said it claims. If you think I'm wrong (and I might be), then provide a word for word analysis of how it is claiming what you are saying it is claiming. Rilak (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree that workstations audience are involved in high added value activities(1) as a result the basic economic equation their are subject to ( maximize ROI )is shifted toward higher end systems(2). Commodity systems offer low pricesand as a result are often concidered as a solution to improve ROI(3). Workstation audience, not having the same pressure on price have more leeway on their system choice to meet their technical requirements(4).

I think that is the basic economics of the workstation, and is what was basiccally implied by the sentence in question. Nowhere does the operating system appear in this equation, except in the technical requirements.

Why focus on the operating system when mentionning price if operating system does not come in the price equation then ? --Dwarfpower (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement in question: "Workstations perform work of such value to their owners that they are free of the requirement to run mass-market commodity operating systems."

"Workstations perform work of such value to their owners..." - in other words, workstations perform work that is so important to their owners...

"...that they are free of the requirement to run mass-market commodity operating systems." - ...that they don't have the requirement of supporting mass-market commodity operating systems.

Tell me where exactly economical factors and pricing of operating systems is mentioned. Rilak (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How would you consider the sentence Workstations perform work of such value to their owners that they are free of the requirement to run pink cased computers. neither statement would be false, but the assertion would be, because A does not imply B. Same thing with current version --Dwarfpower (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Amusingly, the SGI Fuel comes close to pink. Back on topic: How does A imply B? The statement: "...free of the requirement to run mass-market commodity operating systems" merely claims that workstations do not have a requirement to run mass-market operating systems, it does not claim that workstations have to run non-mass-market operating systems. Rilak (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

it says that because they do serious stuff (A) they do not have to run commodity operating system ( A => !B ) which means that ( B => !A) you cannot do serous business with commodity OS. these two statement are equivallent, not my fault it's logic. it's as I already said, at best off topic, worst case it is wrong and un-NPOV. --Dwarfpower (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"It's as I already said" Really? First you claim that the statement is wrong because you thought the statement claimed that a workstation is something that runs a non-commodity operating system, and now, after some more twists and turns as to what the statement claims, you now claim that the statement implies "you can't do serious business on a commodity operating system..." Rilak (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. my last point demonstrated that the sentence claims that the use of a commodity operating system is a requirement ( implied of systems commonly purchased )imposed by cost consideration, and that such a requirement does not exist anymore on workstation market thanks to high added value that shift ROI equation. I do not says that current sentence says that. I said from the start that such a statement is biased. You ask me to demonstrate, i indulge, and get more precise at your request. now please do not accuse me of wandering around and changing my mind, when all the time I tried to point you to my original point. --Dwarfpower (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything. I just don't see why it is necessary to branch into other topics that did not have particularly strong connection to the statement when what the statement claims is simple and straight forward (in my view). If the statement is such a concern, then perhaps moving the sentence into a more suitable location in the article and revising it is a desirable outcome. Rilak (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

will see in the future. I don't want to waste more time on the topic. there is much much more work on the article, and when that will be done, the more probable is that the sentence will be reformulated to fit into the overall article.... --Dwarfpower (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Blade workstation and sun visualization System

I mentionned the emergence of blade workstations which are beeing pushed forward by IBM and HP as an option similar to current and past workstations. IBM solution is really poor in terms of capacity as of now.

Sun visualization system is akin to these solutions, thought it is based on traditional servers, and more in line with traditional client/server solutions. Anyone want to comment on the Out of scope nature of it. I cannot make up my mind... --Dwarfpower (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

SpaceBalls

I think I have seen pictures of SpaceBalls but their use was rare. They seemed like interesting devices, but I suspect that no OS provided support and extremely few applications provided 3-D support. Unless you can find a reliable reference to their somewhat common use then they are niche product like 3-D glasses or Sun's "Knobs and Dials" and should not be included with graphic tablets which were somewhat common.

Robert.Harker (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see what the issue is. I just restored the article to a previous revision after an anonymous editor removed SpaceBall with no explanation. Rilak (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the requested a reliable reference, from CAD User Mechanical Magazine, Volume 16, Number 08, August and September 2003:

Chadwick, David. "Space Traveller".

On the extent of SpaceBall usage: "The Space Ball has been around for some time, with over 250,000 installed with users already."

On the extent of SpaceBall application support: "To date, over 100 leading software applications, most of them in the design world, naturally, have had plug-ins made to accept the devices, including Autodesk Inventor, SolidWorks, 3D Studio Max, Pro/Engineer, ANSYS, oldflow, EdgeCAM and others.

Office productivity applications that are supported include Microsoft Project, Office (Word and Excel), Outlook Express and Internet Explorer. 3D Connexions can supply customers with the appropriate plug-ins on request, or customers can download them from their website."

On the extent of SpaceBall support in computing: "The goods are the range of high performance motion controllers developed by 3D Connexions - SpaceMouse, SpaceBall 5000 - and now the Space Traveller, designed for the laptop PC or Workstation owner who wants to move on the move."

Link: [1]

Rilak (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your review. It reads like a press release. I went to the companies web site and found that they no longer sell the space ball product. I wend to their old press releases and found one dated February 26, 2003 which put the units at 100,000 not 250,000.

I also do not think it is appropriate to list a brandname in a list of generic device names. I would not object to the more accurate description of "3-D controller", "3-D pointer" or even "3-D mouse". Any of these terms would impart more information about what the device is.

Robert.Harker (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to support the claim that the reference in question is a press release? If not, then what is wrong with using it as evidence to support the fact that SpaceBalls or 3D mice are common peripherals for performing serious work? I do not understand your disapproval of an independant source in favor of a biased press release. Nevertheless, your assertion that a generic term should be used is good idea. Rilak (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Article rewrite?

I think this article needs some major work to improve the presentation of all classes of computers that are or have been termed a "workstation". The problem is that workstations have been referred to many classes of computers. In the past, they were not based on, or are personal computers, if the definition of personal computers is a single-user microcomputer for use by "average users". This is my primary concern. Workstations are not average user-orientated machines, some workstation vendors in the past sold workstations only to businesses and other large organizations, not individuals. Stating that workstations run technical and scientific applications doesn't help. I run technical applications on my PC, and that same application has a port to HP-UX on PA-RISC and Solaris on SPARC. At present, the article uses the mid-1990s definition, a single-user microcomputer. This is not the case today as they are nothing more than PCs. So, that said, should the article be rewritten to address the present definition of a workstation, with the historical definitions regulated to subsections or should the article be split into multiple articles for each? Rilak (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Xenon processors are CISC, aren't they?

I think that this passage is misleading - would an expert please check it

For example, some low-end workstations use CISC based processors like the Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon 64 as their CPUs. Higher-end workstations still use more sophisticated CPUs such as the Intel Xeon, AMD Opteron, IBM POWER, or Sun's UltraSPARC, and run a variant of Unix, delivering a truly reliable workhorse for computing-intensive tasks.

Alternative UNIX based platforms

The article said that: Alternative UNIX based platforms are provided by Apple Inc., Sun Microsystems, and SGI. But AFAIK SGI nowadays only have Windows and Linux, so I think SGI should be deleted from this phrase. AFAIK only proprietary UNIXes supplied by vendors in their workstations are MacOSX in Apple MacPro and Solaris in Sun Ultra 27 (both on them on Intel Xeon, x86-64 architecture) --ManoloKosh (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mac workstation

• • Is Apple a workstation manufacturer at all? No real engineering/scientific apps for this platform, and Mac Pro itself is rather a toy (computer for graphics/audio/video production) not a workstation (computer for real scientific/engineering work)... maybe remove MacPro picture from article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.219.166.17 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What they were used for and why they were important

There is a lot of energized Talk history to take in and digest. I’m not looking to push a controversial position. I was involved with workstations from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. We even had a TI Explorer LISP machine. (Sidenote for younger editors, we didn’t have podcasts but we did have TI sponsored interactive lectures re AI by satellite link…still have the VHS).

What do people think about some *very modest* inclusion/expansion regarding what workstations were used for and why they were important? I’d appreciate your thoughts.

The current brief list of applications is indicative but doesn’t give much flavor or provide the context for adding many wikilinks. For example, preceding desktop publishing, workstations were transformative for the prepress/typesetting industry with companies such as Interleaf, Compugraphics, Bitstream, and perhaps a few others.

Workstations made real-time parametric modeling possible (reference companies such as PTC/Pro-E), which literally multiplied the productivity of design and manufacturing engineers, not just for designing parts but with auto-routing tools for laying out the wiring and plumbing, etc., of complex buildings and production facilities.

Workstations were pivotal for the emergence of industrial-scale document imaging; using early workstations, companies such as FileNet enabled industries such as insurance and banking to virtualize their document storage and retrieval, leading to some fairly radical shifts in customer service models. (e.g., USAA no longer needed a vast warehouse of bankers boxes and could offer customer service by phone across all time zones; others followed.) (PCs using dedicated image processing cards supplanted the pricy workstations, but it took several years.)

One particularly noteworthy impact of workstations was their effect on the supercomputer industry. Interacting with Cray staff, I recall their confidence that workstations would not undermine their market. How wrong they were. Within months, budget expenditures were being shifted from buying time on the Crays to buying Apollo and other workstations. (Note there is a small matter that acquisition could be capitalized while time was just expensed.) The last step in this process was Silicon Graphics' acquisition of Cray. Ref:

The Shrinking Supercomputer [2]

Supercomputer Decline Topples Cray Computer [3]

SILICON GRAPHICS TO ACQUIRE CRAY IN $740 MILLION DEAL [4]

Workstations formed a crucial technical/capability bridge in the 80s and 90s as part of the era of downsizing and distributing computing resources (and their control) away from centralized computing hardware and organizations. They gave departments more flexibility to adjust resources, justify expenditures, etc.

Putting aside my particular examples, do people agree that the particular roles of workstations and their significance in the history of computing could use some selective enhancement? While some points would fit under in subsection of History, a convenient starting point for mentioning something like prepress (Interleaf, Compugraphics) might be under Market Position where Avid (non-linear editing) is already mentioned. Zatsugaku (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)