Re: OS For IIGS

[!smentzer@pacbell.net (Steve Mentzer)]

Try deperately, but ultimately failing to sound intelligent, Will Smith said...
>
>On 25 Nov 1997 17:34:44 GMT, !smentzer@pacbell.net (Steve Mentzer)
>wrote:
>
>|>...... I can set up a 
>|>P200 box w/64megs of ram with NT40sp3 and office 97 in 45 minutes. That is a 
>|>fact, and nothing you can say or do can dispute that.
>
>so?  what's your point?  last time i checked, this is WAAAAAAAY
>off-topic, even if i DO side with the *nix fan.
>
>|>UNIX - The choice OS for a generation of unix hackers and gurus who cannot 
see 
>|>the benefit of using a mainstream consumer driven OS in the workplace 
because 
>|>they are so afraid of losing their beloved "job security".
>
>let's discuss "mainstream".  better yet, let's discuss the fact that
>the ONLY reason that Win* "dominates the market" is because of
>skillful marketing on the part of PunySquishy.  they don't have an
>original idea in their collective heads.



So, it makes businesses tons of money. Users want something they are 
comfortable with. WinNT is comfortable to them. That is what is important here.



>
>"mainstream" is a relative term.  before Win* was pushed so hard, the
>Apple ][ series was a good contender.  (i think it is still a good
>machine, even if it is a bit slow by today's standards....)
>mainstream is what just HAPPENS to be most common at the time.


See above.



>
>|>I will give you one thing. Unix is far more stable than NT will EVER be. But 
>
>so's OS/2, but nobody uses OS/2.



OS/2 is NOT as stable as WinNT. I should know. I was an OS/2 user since the 
days of 2.0. Dont try to blow me off on this one. I know OS/2 in and out. 



>
>|>you cannot go to the store and pick up Office97 for unix.
>
>that brings us back to the marketing thing.  PunySquishy will NEVER
>offer Office for *nix because that would give users a CHOICE of OS....
>they know that anyone with half a brain will choose anything over
>Win*....


Ok, and the point is that they can't purchase Office97 for Unix, and that is 
what the users like and know. It is stupid to push non mainstream 
applications/OS on a users machine just because it is technically superior to 
the other options. Give me a break. This is about productivity. A 
user who has Office97 at home and at work will be more productive. Productivity 
= $$$. That is what drives a business. 


>
>|> And not every employee has Unix at home.
>
>no, but they SHOULD....


No, they should NOT. I know lots of people who have a hard time installing 
a simple application under Win95. Under *nix, it would be impossible for them.


>
>|> Face it, the workplace is consumer driven, 
>|>regardless of what your preference is. NT is the best of both worlds.
>
>uh-huh.  sure.  and politicians aren't liars, either.


Hmmmm... that was relavent.




>
>|> It is 
>|>rock solid, and it runs the great productivity software that my users need 
to 
>|>function on a daily basis. With NT my users can work.
>
>interesting thought.  i've seen nothing but PROBLEMS with NT.  sure,
>it's stable....   .....for about three months.  THEN you have to do a
>complete re-install.  (if there's more than "just installing it" and
>then using apps, then there's something in the install process that
>PunySquishy has forgotten....)


I have 125 NT4.0 boxes here (p90s-p2/266s) that have been running since the 
beginning of the year without a single problem. And these users PUNISH the 
machines. I would like to hear about the problems that you have had. I am sure 
that the problems could have been resolved by a little administrator training, 
or using hardware on the HCL.




>
>|> With Unix, they can work, 
>|>and I have to pay 2 unix gurus $100k a year to maintain an aging (and 
>|>increasingly incompatible) network OS.
>
>interesting theory.  shame it doesn't hold water.  (1) i can find
>several "unix gurus" that would work for less than $100k/year, (2)
>granted unix is aging.  so is EVERYTHING.  Time marches on, eh?
>(3) "incompatible"?!?  PUH-LEASE!  if it's got IP, then it'll
>communicate with *nix.  simple.  done.  i think you're confusing
>something that makes the Internet work (IP) with something that is
>sluggish, poorly designed, and worthless (NetBEUI, Win*'s protocol of
>choice).......

Actually, we are running IP and IPX (for legacy novell support) here. We canned 
netbeui before it even started. NetBeui is non routable. We have several 
subnets here and 3 remote offices. It wouldn't work. BTW - Did you know that in 
a small (under 25 user) single subnet LAN, NetBeui is the FASTEST protocol 
available? And did you know that IBM developed NetBeui, not MS? Slam MS all you 
want. That is not the issue here.

As far as IP is concerned, network connectivity isn't the issue here. I have 
yet to see a COM/DCOM compatible service architecture for *nix. And guess what 
bud. Everything in Win95/NT is going to revolve around COM techonology in 3 
years. So much for compatibility, eh?

Most of the servers here do more than just provide file and print services. 
Distributed computing is in. WinNT provides a great way to do it. Simple. Done.

>
>if you wish to carry this discussion furthur, i'll be happy to take
>e-mail.  this has already gotten WAY off topic.

Agreed...