Re: OS For IIGS

[wsmith@ctron.com (Will Smith)]

On 26 Nov 1997 18:00:09 GMT, !smentzer@pacbell.net (Steve Mentzer)
wrote:

|>Try deperately, but ultimately failing to sound intelligent, Will Smith said...

nice opening.  sure to win people over to your side....

|>>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.

true enough, but that still doesn't decide what "mainstream" is.
you're the one that said something (in another post) about the right
tool for the right job, remember?  if you want something that is
(relatively) brainless, go with a GUI-based thingy like MacOS or Win*.
if you wanna do something USEFUL.....  <shrug>

i think that one man put it best when he said that people want to use
Win* simply because that's what the Lady Next Door is using, and if
they want to talk to her (presumably about the task at hand, "how do
you do this" problems, etc)....

|>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. 

you're dancing around the issue.  the whole REASON that PunySquishy
has the presence it does (notice that i'm not denying it's there!), is
MARKETING.  if any other OS got the kind of MARKETING that M$ put on
Win*, then The Masses would be using something ELSE.  most people
don't bother to use anything else because they don't know it's THERE.

|>>|> 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.

my point, since you missed that too, was that NT isn't the "best".

|>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.

simple: a basic Pentium box w/16+ MB RAM, with NT.  do an install.
install M$ Office, Framemaker, and a couple games.  run for a few
months.  watch the system die a horrible death for no apparent reason.
repeat steps as neccessary.

i know people that are relative novices at OS administration and
people that are Win*-lovers.  both groups have seen this happen
several time over the last six months.  kindly remember that just
because YOU don't see the problems, it doesn't mean that they don't
exist.

|>>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.

good move.

|> 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.

actually, IBM does NetBIOS.  M$'s flavor of it is NetBEUI.  for all
intents and purposes, they're the same, but after a certain point in
the packets, there's a difference.  most network analyzers don't
bother with the difference, but some can pick it up.

|>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?

i'll believe it when i see it.

have a good holiday!