New Orleans, La. -- The future of graphics-oriented workstations in a
market increasingly dominated by accelerated PCs was debated in a panel
entitled "Graphics PCs Will Put Workstation Graphics in the Smithsonian"
before a standing-room-only audience at the SIGGRAPH 96 convention. The
participants were Michael Cox of PC accelerator manufacturer S3 Inc, Michael
Deering of Sun Microsystems, Jay Torborg of Microsoft and Kurt Akeley of
Silicon Graphics Inc (SGI).

  Cox began the discussion by observing that the accelerated PC/workstation
competition represents a Darwinian process wherein the increased volume of
PC sales would inevitably be accompanied by increasing incentives and
innovation for the PCs. Citing developments such as embedded DRAM and Intel's
AGP 0.5 GB bus dedicated to graphics, he asserted that the process would move
PCs further and further up the pyramid of computational power, increasing
both their market share and their threat to the present high-end dominance of
workstations. 

  Deering countered Cox's claims by noting that PCs, whether accelerated or
not, were designed specifically for entertainment purposes as opposed to
serious professional applications requiring extensive, intricate and highly
accurate visualizations that are workstations' raison d'etre. Deering saw
this as a lethal flaw in Cox's arguments: the increasing volume of PC sales
would thus encourage nothing more than the lowest common denominator of
computational capability acceptable to the mass market. In keeping with this
notion, he pointed out that impressive displays generated by PCs were simply
products of large texture maps giving the illusion of detail. In addition, he
castigated PC advocates for mendaciously comparing what workstations
presently are with what accelerated PCs want to become.

  Torborg picked up and attempted to strengthen Cox's thread. In particular,
he claimed that ruthless economics of scale would eventually win the day: the
rising volume of PC sales would necessarily produce more firms engaged in PC-
related technology and thus a burgeoning price/performance ratio for PCs. 
Noting that the current workstation/PC conflict is analogous to the former
supercomputer/workstation competition, he predicted that, since similar
market forces are operational in both cases, workstation manufacturers would
go the way of former supercomputer-makers, as more participants in the PC
market would pioneer innovation and an open-platform approach. 

  Akeley, in turn, rounded out the discussion by bolstering Deering's
position. Specifically, he observed that workstation graphics are simply and
clearly superior to those of PCs -- and that today's high-end applications
cry out for even more sophisticated graphics capabilities, not less. He
strongly contested the notion that increasing volume drives innovation,
asserting instead that PCs, as archetypal commodity products, represent the
very antithesis of innovation. He said that workstations, as opposed to PCs,
were value-added products, and that one could not do truly innovative work
"on a 1-year product cycle". Akeley concluded by noting that: (1) although
PCs are ubiquitous, workstations lead, because they represent the first and
best models; (2) supercomputers are still sold; (3) the market pyramid is not
a static entity but getting larger faster -- thus insuring a significant
permanent role for workstations at the high-end, even as PCs move up.

  Judging by the vigor of audience response, sympathies lay decidedly with
Deering and Akeley. Certain provocative issues, however, were not placed
under intense scrutiny, e.g. the roles to be carved out by systems like DEC
Alpha running NT or workstations that will be constructed from COTS
components.