Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #640004 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-11 13:15 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-07-16 13:04 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 55 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 13:15 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 16:27 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 14:46 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 18:36 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:20 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 21:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-11 22:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-07-11 19:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 02:24 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 22:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 10:24 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 20:57 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:17 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:21 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-12 07:28 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 05:10 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:45 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-12 18:39 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 21:29 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-13 20:27 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:22 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-14 11:55 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 22:56 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:03 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:50 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 23:49 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 23:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:51 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:23 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:08 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 12:53 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 13:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 09:51 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 11:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 17:55 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 16:15 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 20:26 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 15:32 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:08 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-16 15:21 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 17:00 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 09:06 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-17 20:23 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 15:27 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 17:39 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-17 09:46 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:16 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 13:04 -0500
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-12 21:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <entdmcda1nnfoe9f0ttai9hg4brlb3tqec@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640249 |
Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>major limitation is, one cannot "print" higher melting temp material on
>lower melting point material.
>
And just what does that really limit?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 20:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ok96lv$hk$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #640268 |
On 7/12/2017 11:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> >> major limitation is, one cannot "print" higher melting temp material on >> lower melting point material. >> > > And just what does that really limit? > > obviously, printing objects composed of mixed materials.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 23:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mmogmc5ttljv3fnpinae19fniph5tpv5bl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640404 |
Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 7/12/2017 11:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> major limitation is, one cannot "print" higher melting temp material on
>>> lower melting point material.
>>>
>>
>> And just what does that really limit?
>>
>
>obviously, printing objects composed of mixed materials.
>
Again, just what does that really limit, if we accept it as a limit
(and it is a much more specific limit than that).
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 11:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okat1u$c3l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #640426 |
On 7/14/2017 1:22 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 7/12/2017 11:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> major limitation is, one cannot "print" higher melting temp material on >>>> lower melting point material. >>>> >>> >>> And just what does that really limit? >>> >> >> obviously, printing objects composed of mixed materials. >> > > Again, just what does that really limit, if we accept it as a limit > (and it is a much more specific limit than that). > > (mixed materials => several different types of materials) can you "print" copper onto steel ? would that work ? what type of gas would you use to exclude H2, N2 and O2 ? why would you do such ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 21:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9t5gmctejagnq9qbaenbmftfi5sp7emck8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640198 |
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:45:42 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >> In article <24vf3e-srm.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >> says... >>> >>> >>> I can see a few, very few, people printing junk jewelry, mostly teenage >>> girls. >> >> Perhaps, but have you been to a craft store in the last 5 years? >> They've been selling commercial 2d robotic cutters for many years that >> are about the size of an ink-jet printer. The stupid thing shows >> absolutely no sign of stopping even though the "cartridges" which >> contain the cutting patterns are DRM protected and *very* expensive. >> They are mostly used by people who like to do scrap books, but others >> use them for making their own greeting cards and etc. >> >> In those same craft stores is a large jewelery making section. Those >> "memory bracelets" people make are a hot thing because "every item on it >> represents a memory". In other words, these things are already highly >> customized. >> >> So, I wouldn't discount the notion that the crafts stores might start >> selling very small 3d metal printers for making little dangling things >> for jewelery (memory bracelets, necklace charms, and etc.) since this >> would drop right into the market-space. They would only need to print >> at most 3" x 3" x 3" to cover 99% of the jewelery market. >> >> That same metal printer would sell "big league" at game stores where >> custom cast characters for board games are already a huge market. In >> other words Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer 40k, and etc. Even if an >> individual player wouldn't want one, every damn game store on the planet >> would want at least a couple. >> >> Jeff > >By those standards black powder firearms will take over the firearms world. > >I'm not saying there is not and will not be a bunch of niche users of >3D printing. > >What I am saying is that 3D printing is not going to be the next industrial >revolution. Personal 3D printing won't be the next industrial revolution. 3D printing is already revolutionizing engineering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 02:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <frll3e-bmc.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #640397 |
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:45:42 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>> In article <24vf3e-srm.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>> says... >>>> >>>> >>>> I can see a few, very few, people printing junk jewelry, mostly teenage >>>> girls. >>> >>> Perhaps, but have you been to a craft store in the last 5 years? >>> They've been selling commercial 2d robotic cutters for many years that >>> are about the size of an ink-jet printer. The stupid thing shows >>> absolutely no sign of stopping even though the "cartridges" which >>> contain the cutting patterns are DRM protected and *very* expensive. >>> They are mostly used by people who like to do scrap books, but others >>> use them for making their own greeting cards and etc. >>> >>> In those same craft stores is a large jewelery making section. Those >>> "memory bracelets" people make are a hot thing because "every item on it >>> represents a memory". In other words, these things are already highly >>> customized. >>> >>> So, I wouldn't discount the notion that the crafts stores might start >>> selling very small 3d metal printers for making little dangling things >>> for jewelery (memory bracelets, necklace charms, and etc.) since this >>> would drop right into the market-space. They would only need to print >>> at most 3" x 3" x 3" to cover 99% of the jewelery market. >>> >>> That same metal printer would sell "big league" at game stores where >>> custom cast characters for board games are already a huge market. In >>> other words Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer 40k, and etc. Even if an >>> individual player wouldn't want one, every damn game store on the planet >>> would want at least a couple. >>> >>> Jeff >> >>By those standards black powder firearms will take over the firearms world. >> >>I'm not saying there is not and will not be a bunch of niche users of >>3D printing. >> >>What I am saying is that 3D printing is not going to be the next industrial >>revolution. > > Personal 3D printing won't be the next industrial revolution. 3D > printing is already revolutionizing engineering. Nonsense. 3D printing is simply making some prototypes easiery to make. CAD software has to a certain extent revolutionized engineering, but that is very old news. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 22:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <hkcgmcdmt301pjo8jf5p5pq8bd27l3ouqv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640408 |
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:11:27 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:45:42 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>> In article <24vf3e-srm.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>> says... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can see a few, very few, people printing junk jewelry, mostly teenage >>>>> girls. >>>> >>>> Perhaps, but have you been to a craft store in the last 5 years? >>>> They've been selling commercial 2d robotic cutters for many years that >>>> are about the size of an ink-jet printer. The stupid thing shows >>>> absolutely no sign of stopping even though the "cartridges" which >>>> contain the cutting patterns are DRM protected and *very* expensive. >>>> They are mostly used by people who like to do scrap books, but others >>>> use them for making their own greeting cards and etc. >>>> >>>> In those same craft stores is a large jewelery making section. Those >>>> "memory bracelets" people make are a hot thing because "every item on it >>>> represents a memory". In other words, these things are already highly >>>> customized. >>>> >>>> So, I wouldn't discount the notion that the crafts stores might start >>>> selling very small 3d metal printers for making little dangling things >>>> for jewelery (memory bracelets, necklace charms, and etc.) since this >>>> would drop right into the market-space. They would only need to print >>>> at most 3" x 3" x 3" to cover 99% of the jewelery market. >>>> >>>> That same metal printer would sell "big league" at game stores where >>>> custom cast characters for board games are already a huge market. In >>>> other words Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer 40k, and etc. Even if an >>>> individual player wouldn't want one, every damn game store on the planet >>>> would want at least a couple. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>> >>>By those standards black powder firearms will take over the firearms world. >>> >>>I'm not saying there is not and will not be a bunch of niche users of >>>3D printing. >>> >>>What I am saying is that 3D printing is not going to be the next industrial >>>revolution. >> >> Personal 3D printing won't be the next industrial revolution. 3D >> printing is already revolutionizing engineering. > >Nonsense. > >3D printing is simply making some prototypes easiery to make. Just as PCs made prototypes *faster* and easier to design. Rather revolutionary. Really. >CAD software has to a certain extent revolutionized engineering, but that >is very old news. And 3D printing takes it to the next level.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 05:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8uvl3e-lpd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #640410 |
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:11:27 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:45:42 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>> In article <24vf3e-srm.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>> says... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I can see a few, very few, people printing junk jewelry, mostly teenage >>>>>> girls. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps, but have you been to a craft store in the last 5 years? >>>>> They've been selling commercial 2d robotic cutters for many years that >>>>> are about the size of an ink-jet printer. The stupid thing shows >>>>> absolutely no sign of stopping even though the "cartridges" which >>>>> contain the cutting patterns are DRM protected and *very* expensive. >>>>> They are mostly used by people who like to do scrap books, but others >>>>> use them for making their own greeting cards and etc. >>>>> >>>>> In those same craft stores is a large jewelery making section. Those >>>>> "memory bracelets" people make are a hot thing because "every item on it >>>>> represents a memory". In other words, these things are already highly >>>>> customized. >>>>> >>>>> So, I wouldn't discount the notion that the crafts stores might start >>>>> selling very small 3d metal printers for making little dangling things >>>>> for jewelery (memory bracelets, necklace charms, and etc.) since this >>>>> would drop right into the market-space. They would only need to print >>>>> at most 3" x 3" x 3" to cover 99% of the jewelery market. >>>>> >>>>> That same metal printer would sell "big league" at game stores where >>>>> custom cast characters for board games are already a huge market. In >>>>> other words Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer 40k, and etc. Even if an >>>>> individual player wouldn't want one, every damn game store on the planet >>>>> would want at least a couple. >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>> >>>>By those standards black powder firearms will take over the firearms world. >>>> >>>>I'm not saying there is not and will not be a bunch of niche users of >>>>3D printing. >>>> >>>>What I am saying is that 3D printing is not going to be the next industrial >>>>revolution. >>> >>> Personal 3D printing won't be the next industrial revolution. 3D >>> printing is already revolutionizing engineering. >> >>Nonsense. >> >>3D printing is simply making some prototypes easiery to make. > > Just as PCs made prototypes *faster* and easier to design. Rather > revolutionary. Really. Actually real engineering companies were using CAD software well before there was such a thing as a PC. Really. >>CAD software has to a certain extent revolutionized engineering, but that >>is very old news. > And 3D printing takes it to the next level. That and N/C controlled mills and lathes. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 17:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l2fimc5rk093usanabn6qkg4frk9cv6vmb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640416 |
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 05:03:36 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:11:27 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:45:42 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>> In article <24vf3e-srm.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>> says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can see a few, very few, people printing junk jewelry, mostly teenage >>>>>>> girls. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps, but have you been to a craft store in the last 5 years? >>>>>> They've been selling commercial 2d robotic cutters for many years that >>>>>> are about the size of an ink-jet printer. The stupid thing shows >>>>>> absolutely no sign of stopping even though the "cartridges" which >>>>>> contain the cutting patterns are DRM protected and *very* expensive. >>>>>> They are mostly used by people who like to do scrap books, but others >>>>>> use them for making their own greeting cards and etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> In those same craft stores is a large jewelery making section. Those >>>>>> "memory bracelets" people make are a hot thing because "every item on it >>>>>> represents a memory". In other words, these things are already highly >>>>>> customized. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, I wouldn't discount the notion that the crafts stores might start >>>>>> selling very small 3d metal printers for making little dangling things >>>>>> for jewelery (memory bracelets, necklace charms, and etc.) since this >>>>>> would drop right into the market-space. They would only need to print >>>>>> at most 3" x 3" x 3" to cover 99% of the jewelery market. >>>>>> >>>>>> That same metal printer would sell "big league" at game stores where >>>>>> custom cast characters for board games are already a huge market. In >>>>>> other words Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer 40k, and etc. Even if an >>>>>> individual player wouldn't want one, every damn game store on the planet >>>>>> would want at least a couple. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff >>>>> >>>>>By those standards black powder firearms will take over the firearms world. >>>>> >>>>>I'm not saying there is not and will not be a bunch of niche users of >>>>>3D printing. >>>>> >>>>>What I am saying is that 3D printing is not going to be the next industrial >>>>>revolution. >>>> >>>> Personal 3D printing won't be the next industrial revolution. 3D >>>> printing is already revolutionizing engineering. >>> >>>Nonsense. >>> >>>3D printing is simply making some prototypes easiery to make. >> >> Just as PCs made prototypes *faster* and easier to design. Rather >> revolutionary. Really. > >Actually real engineering companies were using CAD software well before >there was such a thing as a PC. Really. If you define "real engineering companies" as those who could afford mainframes, sure. Everyone else was using rubylith. Even the IC guys. > >>>CAD software has to a certain extent revolutionized engineering, but that >>>is very old news. > >> And 3D printing takes it to the next level. > >That and N/C controlled mills and lathes. In exactly that same setting, sure. *NOT* in everyone's home.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 23:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2t1o3e-ksk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #640524 |
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 05:03:36 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:11:27 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:45:42 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In article <24vf3e-srm.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>> says... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can see a few, very few, people printing junk jewelry, mostly teenage >>>>>>>> girls. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps, but have you been to a craft store in the last 5 years? >>>>>>> They've been selling commercial 2d robotic cutters for many years that >>>>>>> are about the size of an ink-jet printer. The stupid thing shows >>>>>>> absolutely no sign of stopping even though the "cartridges" which >>>>>>> contain the cutting patterns are DRM protected and *very* expensive. >>>>>>> They are mostly used by people who like to do scrap books, but others >>>>>>> use them for making their own greeting cards and etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In those same craft stores is a large jewelery making section. Those >>>>>>> "memory bracelets" people make are a hot thing because "every item on it >>>>>>> represents a memory". In other words, these things are already highly >>>>>>> customized. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, I wouldn't discount the notion that the crafts stores might start >>>>>>> selling very small 3d metal printers for making little dangling things >>>>>>> for jewelery (memory bracelets, necklace charms, and etc.) since this >>>>>>> would drop right into the market-space. They would only need to print >>>>>>> at most 3" x 3" x 3" to cover 99% of the jewelery market. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That same metal printer would sell "big league" at game stores where >>>>>>> custom cast characters for board games are already a huge market. In >>>>>>> other words Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer 40k, and etc. Even if an >>>>>>> individual player wouldn't want one, every damn game store on the planet >>>>>>> would want at least a couple. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeff >>>>>> >>>>>>By those standards black powder firearms will take over the firearms world. >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm not saying there is not and will not be a bunch of niche users of >>>>>>3D printing. >>>>>> >>>>>>What I am saying is that 3D printing is not going to be the next industrial >>>>>>revolution. >>>>> >>>>> Personal 3D printing won't be the next industrial revolution. 3D >>>>> printing is already revolutionizing engineering. >>>> >>>>Nonsense. >>>> >>>>3D printing is simply making some prototypes easiery to make. >>> >>> Just as PCs made prototypes *faster* and easier to design. Rather >>> revolutionary. Really. >> >>Actually real engineering companies were using CAD software well before >>there was such a thing as a PC. Really. > > If you define "real engineering companies" as those who could afford > mainframes, sure. Everyone else was using rubylith. Even the IC > guys. Ever heard of the PDP-8 or the HP CAD workstations that were common well before the PC? >>>>CAD software has to a certain extent revolutionized engineering, but that >>>>is very old news. >> >>> And 3D printing takes it to the next level. >> >>That and N/C controlled mills and lathes. > > In exactly that same setting, sure. *NOT* in everyone's home. 3D printers go for less than $200; I see no rush by consumers to buy them. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 23:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2f1jmclsk2sr4ansgdj8h1mi5cj391j5o8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640550 |
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 23:49:22 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 05:03:36 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:11:27 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:45:42 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <24vf3e-srm.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>>> says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can see a few, very few, people printing junk jewelry, mostly teenage >>>>>>>>> girls. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps, but have you been to a craft store in the last 5 years? >>>>>>>> They've been selling commercial 2d robotic cutters for many years that >>>>>>>> are about the size of an ink-jet printer. The stupid thing shows >>>>>>>> absolutely no sign of stopping even though the "cartridges" which >>>>>>>> contain the cutting patterns are DRM protected and *very* expensive. >>>>>>>> They are mostly used by people who like to do scrap books, but others >>>>>>>> use them for making their own greeting cards and etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In those same craft stores is a large jewelery making section. Those >>>>>>>> "memory bracelets" people make are a hot thing because "every item on it >>>>>>>> represents a memory". In other words, these things are already highly >>>>>>>> customized. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, I wouldn't discount the notion that the crafts stores might start >>>>>>>> selling very small 3d metal printers for making little dangling things >>>>>>>> for jewelery (memory bracelets, necklace charms, and etc.) since this >>>>>>>> would drop right into the market-space. They would only need to print >>>>>>>> at most 3" x 3" x 3" to cover 99% of the jewelery market. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That same metal printer would sell "big league" at game stores where >>>>>>>> custom cast characters for board games are already a huge market. In >>>>>>>> other words Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer 40k, and etc. Even if an >>>>>>>> individual player wouldn't want one, every damn game store on the planet >>>>>>>> would want at least a couple. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jeff >>>>>>> >>>>>>>By those standards black powder firearms will take over the firearms world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'm not saying there is not and will not be a bunch of niche users of >>>>>>>3D printing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What I am saying is that 3D printing is not going to be the next industrial >>>>>>>revolution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Personal 3D printing won't be the next industrial revolution. 3D >>>>>> printing is already revolutionizing engineering. >>>>> >>>>>Nonsense. >>>>> >>>>>3D printing is simply making some prototypes easiery to make. >>>> >>>> Just as PCs made prototypes *faster* and easier to design. Rather >>>> revolutionary. Really. >>> >>>Actually real engineering companies were using CAD software well before >>>there was such a thing as a PC. Really. >> >> If you define "real engineering companies" as those who could afford >> mainframes, sure. Everyone else was using rubylith. Even the IC >> guys. > >Ever heard of the PDP-8 or the HP CAD workstations that were common well >before the PC? So no one really used Rubylith? IOW, nonsense. >>>>>CAD software has to a certain extent revolutionized engineering, but that >>>>>is very old news. >>> >>>> And 3D printing takes it to the next level. >>> >>>That and N/C controlled mills and lathes. >> >> In exactly that same setting, sure. *NOT* in everyone's home. > >3D printers go for less than $200; I see no rush by consumers to buy them. Exactly my point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 05:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7ko3e-5qm.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #640573 |
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 23:49:22 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 05:03:36 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:11:27 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:45:42 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <24vf3e-srm.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>>>> says... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I can see a few, very few, people printing junk jewelry, mostly teenage >>>>>>>>>> girls. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps, but have you been to a craft store in the last 5 years? >>>>>>>>> They've been selling commercial 2d robotic cutters for many years that >>>>>>>>> are about the size of an ink-jet printer. The stupid thing shows >>>>>>>>> absolutely no sign of stopping even though the "cartridges" which >>>>>>>>> contain the cutting patterns are DRM protected and *very* expensive. >>>>>>>>> They are mostly used by people who like to do scrap books, but others >>>>>>>>> use them for making their own greeting cards and etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In those same craft stores is a large jewelery making section. Those >>>>>>>>> "memory bracelets" people make are a hot thing because "every item on it >>>>>>>>> represents a memory". In other words, these things are already highly >>>>>>>>> customized. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, I wouldn't discount the notion that the crafts stores might start >>>>>>>>> selling very small 3d metal printers for making little dangling things >>>>>>>>> for jewelery (memory bracelets, necklace charms, and etc.) since this >>>>>>>>> would drop right into the market-space. They would only need to print >>>>>>>>> at most 3" x 3" x 3" to cover 99% of the jewelery market. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That same metal printer would sell "big league" at game stores where >>>>>>>>> custom cast characters for board games are already a huge market. In >>>>>>>>> other words Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer 40k, and etc. Even if an >>>>>>>>> individual player wouldn't want one, every damn game store on the planet >>>>>>>>> would want at least a couple. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jeff >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>By those standards black powder firearms will take over the firearms world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I'm not saying there is not and will not be a bunch of niche users of >>>>>>>>3D printing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What I am saying is that 3D printing is not going to be the next industrial >>>>>>>>revolution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personal 3D printing won't be the next industrial revolution. 3D >>>>>>> printing is already revolutionizing engineering. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>>3D printing is simply making some prototypes easiery to make. >>>>> >>>>> Just as PCs made prototypes *faster* and easier to design. Rather >>>>> revolutionary. Really. >>>> >>>>Actually real engineering companies were using CAD software well before >>>>there was such a thing as a PC. Really. >>> >>> If you define "real engineering companies" as those who could afford >>> mainframes, sure. Everyone else was using rubylith. Even the IC >>> guys. >> >>Ever heard of the PDP-8 or the HP CAD workstations that were common well >>before the PC? > > So no one really used Rubylith? IOW, nonsense. Not what I said. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 08:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mp3kmc903h1e7mhm1fbqnfe2ngtsd6iuv5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640582 |
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 05:02:14 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 23:49:22 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 05:03:36 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:11:27 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:45:42 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article <24vf3e-srm.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>>>>> says... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I can see a few, very few, people printing junk jewelry, mostly teenage >>>>>>>>>>> girls. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps, but have you been to a craft store in the last 5 years? >>>>>>>>>> They've been selling commercial 2d robotic cutters for many years that >>>>>>>>>> are about the size of an ink-jet printer. The stupid thing shows >>>>>>>>>> absolutely no sign of stopping even though the "cartridges" which >>>>>>>>>> contain the cutting patterns are DRM protected and *very* expensive. >>>>>>>>>> They are mostly used by people who like to do scrap books, but others >>>>>>>>>> use them for making their own greeting cards and etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In those same craft stores is a large jewelery making section. Those >>>>>>>>>> "memory bracelets" people make are a hot thing because "every item on it >>>>>>>>>> represents a memory". In other words, these things are already highly >>>>>>>>>> customized. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, I wouldn't discount the notion that the crafts stores might start >>>>>>>>>> selling very small 3d metal printers for making little dangling things >>>>>>>>>> for jewelery (memory bracelets, necklace charms, and etc.) since this >>>>>>>>>> would drop right into the market-space. They would only need to print >>>>>>>>>> at most 3" x 3" x 3" to cover 99% of the jewelery market. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That same metal printer would sell "big league" at game stores where >>>>>>>>>> custom cast characters for board games are already a huge market. In >>>>>>>>>> other words Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer 40k, and etc. Even if an >>>>>>>>>> individual player wouldn't want one, every damn game store on the planet >>>>>>>>>> would want at least a couple. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jeff >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>By those standards black powder firearms will take over the firearms world. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I'm not saying there is not and will not be a bunch of niche users of >>>>>>>>>3D printing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>What I am saying is that 3D printing is not going to be the next industrial >>>>>>>>>revolution. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personal 3D printing won't be the next industrial revolution. 3D >>>>>>>> printing is already revolutionizing engineering. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>3D printing is simply making some prototypes easiery to make. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just as PCs made prototypes *faster* and easier to design. Rather >>>>>> revolutionary. Really. >>>>> >>>>>Actually real engineering companies were using CAD software well before >>>>>there was such a thing as a PC. Really. >>>> >>>> If you define "real engineering companies" as those who could afford >>>> mainframes, sure. Everyone else was using rubylith. Even the IC >>>> guys. >>> >>>Ever heard of the PDP-8 or the HP CAD workstations that were common well >>>before the PC? >> >> So no one really used Rubylith? IOW, nonsense. > >Not what I said. The point is that CAD on minicomputers was very minimal. It was the domain of the mainframe. Rubylith was the tool of choice for the electronics industry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 17:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8mvp3e-ndr.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #640614 |
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 05:02:14 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: <snip> > >>>>Ever heard of the PDP-8 or the HP CAD workstations that were common well >>>>before the PC? >>> >>> So no one really used Rubylith? IOW, nonsense. >> >>Not what I said. > > The point is that CAD on minicomputers was very minimal. It was the > domain of the mainframe. Rubylith was the tool of choice for the > electronics industry. That was not my experience. Yes, companies used Rubylith, but the tool of choice was CAD on minicomputers. The only mainframe application was Spice. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 18:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ji4lmclfgacps0d8ef96i4bpmcpduajcur@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640635 |
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:23:52 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 05:02:14 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > ><snip> > >> >>>>>Ever heard of the PDP-8 or the HP CAD workstations that were common well >>>>>before the PC? >>>> >>>> So no one really used Rubylith? IOW, nonsense. >>> >>>Not what I said. >> >> The point is that CAD on minicomputers was very minimal. It was the >> domain of the mainframe. Rubylith was the tool of choice for the >> electronics industry. > >That was not my experience. > >Yes, companies used Rubylith, but the tool of choice was CAD on minicomputers. > >The only mainframe application was Spice. Bullshit! Tell that to Boeing. You're simply clueless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 02:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <82uq3e-ic1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #640679 |
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:23:52 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 05:02:14 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>> >>>>>>Ever heard of the PDP-8 or the HP CAD workstations that were common well >>>>>>before the PC? >>>>> >>>>> So no one really used Rubylith? IOW, nonsense. >>>> >>>>Not what I said. >>> >>> The point is that CAD on minicomputers was very minimal. It was the >>> domain of the mainframe. Rubylith was the tool of choice for the >>> electronics industry. >> >>That was not my experience. >> >>Yes, companies used Rubylith, but the tool of choice was CAD on minicomputers. >> >>The only mainframe application was Spice. > > Bullshit! Tell that to Boeing. You're simply clueless. Bullshit! Tell that to Hughes Aircraft Company. You're simply clueless. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 12:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <et1r1aF33buU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #640725 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>Yes, companies used Rubylith, but the tool of choice was CAD on minicomputers. >>> >>>The only mainframe application was Spice. >> >> Bullshit! Tell that to Boeing. You're simply clueless. > >Bullshit! Tell that to Hughes Aircraft Company. You're simply clueless. I never encountered CAD before the micros, so have nothing to add to the argument. But I'm enjoying the discussion. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 13:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okiu6l$1lti$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #640843 |
On 7/16/2017 1:53 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, companies used Rubylith, but the tool of choice was CAD on minicomputers.
>>>>
>>>> The only mainframe application was Spice.
>>>
>>> Bullshit! Tell that to Boeing. You're simply clueless.
>>
>> Bullshit! Tell that to Hughes Aircraft Company. You're simply clueless.
>
> I never encountered CAD before the micros, so have nothing to add to
> the argument. But I'm enjoying the discussion.
>
I remember Rubylith, and Spice but spice was a simulator, and rubylith a
layout tool... (?)
there is free spice on the internet for under 30 components.
and free tools from some fab houses for small cheap proto boards now
too, under $50, gets you a board back
AND I remember laying out circuits for Motorola by hand using "dolls"
4:1 I think, ...
anybody ?
Hughes Aircraft Company is fantastic, they did SLQ-32 !
google that one...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 09:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.33d5395dbd3d7123989990@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #640614 |
In article <mp3kmc903h1e7mhm1fbqnfe2ngtsd6iuv5@4ax.com>, krw@notreal.com says... > The point is that CAD on minicomputers was very minimal. It was the > domain of the mainframe. Rubylith was the tool of choice for the > electronics industry. > I've worked on CAE software that's tightly integrated with CAD my entire professional life. Back in about 1988 our CAD/CAE software still ran on mainframes (IBM, DEC, and etc.) but the transition to Unix workstations was in its infancy. Back then, PCs were "toys" that quite simply couldn't handle professional level CAD/CAE software. In the early 1990s Unix Workstations dominated for running CAD/CAE software. A good SGI "box" would run you about $20k in early 1990s dollars (about $33k today). Today, you can comfortably run CAD/CAE software (at least the CAE pre/post) on a sub $2k PC running Windows OS. But many customers will go quite a bit over $2k with things like solid state drives and 64 GB or more of RAM coupled with the best professional graphics card money can buy (no, they're not quite the same as consumer/gaming cards). Still, the most "decked out" PC workstation today will still cost a fraction of what a Unix workstation used to cost in the early 1990s. So again, we see yet another example of improving technologies driving down costs in a market. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 11:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okg2qu$17de$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #640782 |
On 7/16/2017 8:51 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <mp3kmc903h1e7mhm1fbqnfe2ngtsd6iuv5@4ax.com>, krw@notreal.com > says... >> The point is that CAD on minicomputers was very minimal. It was the >> domain of the mainframe. Rubylith was the tool of choice for the >> electronics industry. >> > > I've worked on CAE software that's tightly integrated with CAD my entire > professional life. Back in about 1988 our CAD/CAE software still ran on > mainframes (IBM, DEC, and etc.) but the transition to Unix workstations > was in its infancy. Back then, PCs were "toys" that quite simply > couldn't handle professional level CAD/CAE software. > > In the early 1990s Unix Workstations dominated for running CAD/CAE > software. A good SGI "box" would run you about $20k in early 1990s > dollars (about $33k today). > > Today, you can comfortably run CAD/CAE software (at least the CAE > pre/post) on a sub $2k PC running Windows OS. But many customers will > go quite a bit over $2k with things like solid state drives and 64 GB or > more of RAM coupled with the best professional graphics card money can > buy (no, they're not quite the same as consumer/gaming cards). Still, > the most "decked out" PC workstation today will still cost a fraction of > what a Unix workstation used to cost in the early 1990s. > > So again, we see yet another example of improving technologies driving > down costs in a market. > > Jeff > key to that is the higher level of integration on the PC Chips, more functions were pulled into fewer pieces of silicon. and the maturing of PC software, it was quite unstable, Win 3.1 ? etc... Win XP had good stability, not as good as Unix. the Telcos ran Unix for decades, very reliable and hated PCs (unreliable) Unix sort of split into Linux (low cost) and HP UNIX (high end, high cost on high cost hardware) Which slowly ran HP into the ground. I was offered a mainframe computer with 8 remote stations, (1990's) but I had to haul it from a second story down, and in evaluating it, it had less power than a PC (AT) at the time, and custom software, custom software apps... I turned it down. Big Boat Anchor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web