A new offering by Hewlett Packard--a PC that can be shared by four users--makes me wonder if we've finally come full circle.

Actually we came full circle on the software side once web apps (html forms) became prevalent.

Old school IBM mainframe termninals (3270's and similar) aren't like terminals on Unix machines, VAXen or other such 'interactive' systems. The user fills out a form, which the terminal then sends to the mainframe when they submit it. The mainframe sends back the results as the next screen, itself a form.

And gee whiz, that's exactly what a web application is like!

Once the web started gaining traction in the late 90's, IBM and others just slapped a thin glue layer around the mainframe transactional systems they've made for decades and presto! they are 'web enabled'. Their ability to precisely calculate database loads and response times in mainframes, coupled with their webification, caused mainframe sales at IBM to start climbing for the first time in well over 10 years during the dot-boom.

Remember, every web application uses the mainframe application model!

Does this mean that we will once again see hybrid computers too? That might be a spiral rather than a circle...

I'm somewhat surprised that standard linux only allows 2 simultaneous users and that hp modified it for only 4. We used to connect 100s of terminals to mainframes that are much less powerful than todays PCs.

With x-windows, I've always wondered why somebody didn't come out with a wireless x-window terminal, consisting of a screen, keyboard and mouse with only the minimum of whatever else is required to support x-windows. Combine that with a brick-like computer with a wireless router and you've got a household appliance that's perfect for a family of computer users.

I think the reason PCs took glory away from mainframes in the early days was not because PCs were more powerful, but because users could have applications that wouldn't make their way onto the mainframes. That issue should be pretty well buried these days.

I'm somewhat surprised that standard linux only allows 2 simultaneous users...

That would indeed be surprising if it were true.

HP didn't modify it for four--they're simply selling a piece of hardware that has four interfaces. The operating system can handle an almost arbitrarily large number of users.

Thank you for the correction. I misread the article.

On the one hand PC makers need way to convince people they should invest in the latest monster box while on the other hand cannot make that same box into an excuse to buy very little new hardware since it covers so many users.

Nothing really new or retro-new here. There have been companies that sold products to add the needed KVM for a second or more additional users since the AT days. Until Windows and PC gaming took off there was dificulty finding apps for mainstream users that justified what was then awesome gains in processing power. I can recall 80286 systems running Xenix that happily drove dozens of users for a single dedicated app. You can handle a lot of users if you're just zipping bits of text around with little real processing load.

> With x-windows, I've always wondered why somebody didn't come out with a wireless x-window terminal, consisting of a screen, keyboard and mouse with only the minimum of whatever else is required to support x-windows. Combine that with a brick-like computer with a wireless router and you've got a household appliance that's perfect for a family of computer users.

They are called X-terminals. Or rather, they were called X-terminals - I think that folks have stopped making them. They were supposed to be a big deal at roughly the same time as minis were supposed to be a big deal. (Remember Apollo?)

They make no sense for a family of computer users, and they make less sense for the naive.

I think the reason PCs took glory away from mainframes in the early days was not because PCs were more powerful, but because users could have applications that wouldn't make their way onto the mainframes. That issue should be pretty well buried these days.

Yes, it was the freedom to have complete control over the computing; installing apps, having it at your desk, etc, etc. Many folks were able to have reasonable access (cheap and convienent) only when the PC came along.

If you have to run a lab of public PCs, you'll appreciate the many heads, one body model. Much, Much easier to administer. I think it would be a good model for home use if the central server were rock solid -- however, these days PC OSs tend to be virus riden, unreliable, unadministerable nightmares, so its better to have your machine seperate from other family members for reliability purposes.