Compute tasks like rendering and simulation are multi-threaded meaning they commonly utilize multiple cores simultaneously. Therefore, if you incorporate these tasks into your workflow, Inventor workstations with more cores can provide better performance by reducing compute time. There are, however, significant downsides to using Inventor workstations for regular rendering or simulation. Chief among them is that your workstation becomes a wait station, i.
Engineers and product designers often need to be mobile. Whether you work remote or are constantly on the road, you need an Autodesk Inventor laptop capable of handling large assemblies.
Note: GeForce drivers are not certified for Inventor. New companies emerged such as Apollo, Silicon Graphics, and Three Rivers Corporation, but they often floundered because of over ambitious software plans. For instance, the Three Rivers Perq had a beautiful bit-mapped interface but no applications. Digital had a fast microprocessor, the microVAX, but the company hesitated. Their profits came from minicomputers and they were reluctant to undermine sales of the VAX minicomputers with much cheaper workstations.
Their later workstations were well engineered, fast, and reasonably priced, but they misjudged the market. Digital, which had been the second largest computer company in the world, never recovered and went out of business a few years later.
The company that came to dominate the workstation market was Sun Microsystems. Since BSD included the definitive implementation of the Internet protocols the Sun workstations ran well on the emerging networks.
In the early days Sun's business model was to be first to market with advanced hardware and innovative software, often at the expense of reliability. When I joined Carnegie Mellon in my office computer was a Sun 2. It crashed frequently. This was mystery until a colleague pointed out that it failed when the sun fell on it in the early afternoon. Later Sun workstations were much more reliable.
Every program that ran on Andrew had to run on standard BSD. When the project began, IBM was not yet ready to ship its own Unix workstation. IBM made a marketing mistake in delaying the announcement of their Unix workstation until their engineers were comfortable with the reliability of the hardware and had reworked parts of Unix. As a result they were late to market and the operating system was not quite compatible with BSD.
A further mistake was not to offer a high-resolution display with the first release. The display in the photograph was an experimental display and not available commercially. While IBM was resolving these problems, Sun was consolidating its position as the market leader. Steve Jobs's NeXT computer was a glorious failure. When he was forced out of Apple in he set out to build a computer with the power of a workstation but the usability of a Macintosh. His target market was education and the business model did not depend on the economies of scale of mass manufacturing.
Photograph by John Miranda. Many of the technical concepts were influenced by the several visits that he paid to Carnegie Mellon in and When my family and I moved to Pittsburgh we lived for a few weeks in a large house that belonged to Carnegie Mellon. For some of that time, Jobs was also living there. Later I was the first member of the NeXT advisory board, but his main contacts were with members of the Computer Science department. From them he was persuaded to use Carnegie Mellon's new Unix kernel known as Mach , and to include a digital signal processor, which made the NeXT computer particularly suitable for applications such as speech recognition.
An historically important organizational cluster emerged at Stanford Research Institute in the sixties, peaked about , and was scattered in -- with a small core carrying forth in a commercial and then industrial environment to the present. It grew by ones and twos from , as it collected "permanent" members from the SRI technical staff, and recruited new ones from the outside. By '69 I believe we were about 18 strong; and this grew steadily until by '76 we totalled about In we made two explicit sub-groups, one headed by Dick Watson doing development of software and some hardware , and one headed by Jim Norton handling operations and applications support.
SRI was organized by divisions, each containing a group of laboratories: the hierarchy being formed according to the associated disciplines. Other laboratories at least in science and engineering operated more or less as a "farmers' market," where small and changing clusters of researchers promoted and conducted research projects as a loose federation.
The management structure, budgeting, accounting and financing for the Institute had evolved to support this kind of business. But ARC was driven by a coherent, long-term pursuit. This involved the continuing evolution of an ever-larger and more sophisticated system of hardware and software. It didn't seem unreasonable to me to pursue this course: things similar and on a grander scale are common for other researchers.
But whatever my perception, there were some significant problems and stresses for which our over-all environment didn't have effective ways to cope. It would be an interesting historical study to try to understand the diversity of perception that must have existed among this set of players.
What did the different parties perceive for the future of workstations, for the range of function and application that would come about, for the systems architectures and standards that must emerge, and for the impact on the organizations that learned how to harness these most successfully? Even as a central party in what happened, I've not understood the dynamics.
But I am pretty sure that disparities among the perceptions of all of the above parties had a major part in what to me was the "great collapse of SRI-ARC.
In other words, I can't blame those other groups. Which of course makes for a personal problem, since during those times of black discouragement when one wants desperately to blame someone, there is only one candidate -- that guy at the head of the list. In , SRI judged it better to move our large-system development and external-service activities out from the research institute environment and into a suitable commercial environment.
Let a working assemblage of all of these be called an Augmentation System; my Framework considers this whole system to be a valid object of study and improvement. I broke the many parts of the Augmentation System into two main sub-systems: one contained all of the hardware, software and other artifacts -- the Tool System; and all the rest of it I called the Human System.
Note that the Human System contains our natural languages, and the conceptualizations and formalisms of every discipline: an overwhelming network of invention. The emergent information technologies promised such startling innovation in the Tool System that, according to my Framework, most of the Human System elements that are involved in our knowledge work are likely to be up for improvement or replacement.
And the Framework further predicted very large improvements in human knowledge-work capability as a result -- after we have gone through a few generations of evolution. The challenging strategic question for me was: how best to invest whatever resources are available in a manner that best serves the evolution toward truly high performance by our knowledge organizations? One answer: begin consciously scouting for elements in our Human System that are candidates for being changed as a means of better harnessing the technology toward our human ends.
This led directly to such things as our structured-text, with its links and views, and also to the mouse and the keyset. Look for the innovations that will boost not only our regular productive capability, but will add as much as possible to our capability to further improve our Augmentation System. This kept me focused on documents -- which carry the knowledge, plans, arguments, etc.
It also very directly pointed to the importance of developing improved support for collaboration among distributed workers; and from there to community support, etc. The whole Augmented Knowledge Workshop concept emerged from the Bootstrap strategy -- working toward coherent, integrated access to an open-ended, evolving collection of resources and people. And doing this in a way that best enables evolutionary freedom of parts of the whole system without being unnecessarily anchored by the needs of other parts.
But read on Had my turn to address the whole group 50 or so people ; not much reaction, but I do remember the group hoot when I said that we'd all be seeking to boost response time for many man-computer interactions down to at least a quarter of a second before the returns began to diminish.
In spite of most other online developers working with typewriters, I felt that the much higher "augmentation potential" of displays warranted early pursuit, and figured that cost would surely come down in a few years. Keep in mind that CRT workstations were very expensive then -- they weren't a consumer product by any means.
Had a simple, batch system, too: type in correction directions on a paper-tape-punching Flexowriter; feed that paper tape into the A for pre-processing; results and the file to be corrected transferred via mag tape to SRI central processor Burroughs , I think ; processed results brought back for post-processing and printing on the A.
CDC workstation at which we experimented with selection devices here testing early-prototype mouse with auxillary left-handed input device. Figure 2. CDC workstation at which we experimented with selection devices here testing the "Graficon" selection device. Full structured files, with in-file addressing and uniform text- and structure-manipulation commands.
Clear forerunner of our later User Interface System. Working at a Model Teletype, which makes a punched-tape record of all that is typed. Escape and Command codes embedded anywhere in the text could cause the later "batch" process to correct any previous error or omission, including those in any prior commands.
The Model had only one case of alphabetic characters; this process enabled me to designate cases so that the later, processed printout on a two-case Flexowriter paper-tape driven would come out with proper alphabetic cases.
I made myself write most of that report this way. And my wife made me move out into the garage to do it because the Model was so noisy. I remember the extra problem of typing with cold fingers. Simple, structure-text manipulations, with very fast concurrent control mouse and keyset , and very fast computer response stand-alone CDC Illustrated the basic difference in perspective between our approach and the prevailing concepts of "time-shared computer support.
Branch 4c and Fig. Figure 3. Put together our home-designed, custom-built displays system to run with the SDS These twelve video lines were brought out to our work area, where each work station had a high-quality video monitor for its display. Our early computer display set up with 5-inch CRTs. The Augmentation Project display system close up.
This gave us four sizes of alphanumeric characters, and accelerators vector-graphic figures. The display generators were connected on a Direct Memory Access bus so that switching from one stored view to another occurred essentially in a thirtieth of a second.
Basic production workstation: table with keyset, detached keyboard, mouse, and a separate monitor. Keyset input device closeup. For this event, we added another layer of new technology on top of NLS, a system that was already very complex for its day.
It is worth an extra bit of description here. In the Spring, when the Program Committee was considering candidate papers and organizing its sessions, I also proposed that they let us have a full hour-and-a-half session to put on a video-projected, real-time presentation.
After considerable deliberation, and no less than two site visits to our lab at SRI, they consented. It was a considerable gamble, possibly an outright misuse of research funding. I have no illusions that it could possibly have been pulled off without Bill English's genius for getting things to work. Our new display system provided us with twelve video cameras; we left about half of them working as display generators, and used the others to provide video views of people, borrowing tripods and drafting all kinds of people as camera operators and prompters.
It required temporarily mounting four pairs of dishes -- two atop our SRI building, two atop the Conference hall, and four on a truck parked on top of a relay mountain. We procurred some video-lab equipment: frame splitters, switches, faders, and mixers.
We made special electronics to get our mouse and other terminal signals from the podium to the at SRI. It required a special video projector, whose rental included a specialist from New York to set it up and operate it. He proved invaluable in making other things work that day, too. Two cameras were mounted on the stage where I sat at the special work station which the Herman Miller Company had made for us, and donated.
Engelbart giving the demonstration; custom work station by Herman Miller Company. I was on-stage as anchor man during the continuous, minute presentation, and Bill sat in the canvas-enclosed, raised booth at the back of the auditorium, directing the participants according the the script that I had prepared. People in our laboratory had key roles, and Bill coordinated us all via a voice intercom; while he also did the switching and mixing and frame splitting to put together the projected images.
View of the text retrieval presented by Bill Paxton live from the lab in Menlo Park. The audio and video of the entire presentation was captured on film no portable video recorders in those days.
We had ten prints made, and circulated free loaners to people for years. This film has recently been converted to VHS video cassette form to facilitate viewing by other people. When the two computers and the intervening network link were all working properly lots of flat tires in the early days of automobiles , our programmers would do all of this back and forth transitioning "through" the same workstation.
I think that it was not only a record-making way of working, but the NLS transport task was accomplished in remarkably short time we attributed part of the efficiency to the network, and part to the use of NLS.
Integrated into NLS, this assumed that a mail item was a document -- so any part of all of an NLS document could be sent. Provided for permanent record in explicitly retrievable form our Journal.
0コメント