From: jaesyn@carson.u.washington.edu (Jason Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Date: 22 Jan 1993 21:28:17 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:

>In article <1jl75mINN4a8@shelley.u.washington.edu> jaesyn@carson.u.washington.edu (Jason Smith) writes:
>>	Well, I expected a can of worms to be opened, but *this* was almost
>>ridiculous. :)
>>
>>I'm thinking of the needs of fairly non-knowledgable people doing very 
>>general work.
>>
>>	If it's a Mac OS, I can be in-house support.  OS/2, I could most
>>likely pick up easily, but I've heard too many nightmares from netop friends
>>about Windows and WFW to be excited about it.
>>
>>	In order, we're looking for : 	Ease of use	(Mac)
>>					Networking	(Mac)
>>					Flexibility/upgradability
>>							(Mac or NeXTStep)
>>					Compatability	(OS/2)
>>					Programming	(NeXTStep 486)
>>

>Ease of Use:

>It is a matter of opinion which is easier to use, Mac or NeXT.  I still say
>NeXT has a much more structured, consistent and powerful user interface.

	True, a matter of opinion.  Having worked with Unix, the NeXT is an
inuitive system.  But to someone who's never used Unix?  I think not.  NeXT's
interface is still based off of it's Unix roots, and frankly, it takes a bit
more technical knowledge to *understand* than the Mac.  I have to look at this
from the point of view that complete dunderheads are going to be using them,
I'm afraid.  Otherwise, yes, I might agree with you.  But, for the hypothetical
idiots, the Mac is easier.


>Networking: 

>To say that Mac has the best networking is to say that a Yugo could out 
>Ferrari.  Appletalk is SLOW and error prone.  Even MacWeek magazine agrees
>with that one.  The NeXT networking environment is configured using a bundled
>program with an easy to use graphical interface.  A network of systems
>running NeXTSTEP can be set up just as easily as Mac, or even easier.  Once
>the server system is turned on and established as being the server, networking
>other NeXT systems is done by simply plugging them into the network and 
>turning them on - VOILA - the NeXTSTEP network is set up automatically by
>the server machine.  To add more machines, simply plug them in and turn them
>on.  Also, NeXT understands Novell and Appletalk in case you want to network
>PC's or Mac's to the NeXT server.

	AppleTalk *is* slow.  Relatively speaking.  Again, I'm not looking for
cutting-edge, I'm looking for what will be appropriate for the needs of the
company, at the lowest price.  For the occassional file transfer of a word
processing document or mail message, AppleTalk is fine.  The server would most
likely be a 486 with Novell or NeXTStep, now that I've been exposed to a little
more information.  That *would* allow us a greater flexibility in in-house
platforms.  However, I am leery of future compatability problems, specifically
with AURP.

>Compatability:

>OS/2??  Wrong.  NeXTSTEP is fully compliant with many standards:  Postscript,
>TCP/IP, POSIX, unix sendmail, Appletalk, Novell, UNIX, built in FAX, Ethernet,
>FTP, DOS and Mac filesystem support, TIFF, EPS, RTF, 3270 emulation, JPEG,
>SybaseOracle databases, High sierra CD-ROM.  All of these things come bundled
>with NeXTSTEP.  NeXTSTEP 486 will also support Windows and DOS programs to
>run side by side with NeXTSTEP windows.

	There isn't one protocol you listed that I can't use with my Mac. *
However, I wasn't talking about protocols, I was talking about applications and
files.  Remember, this is for an *office*, not a technical laboratory filled
with technologically minded people... they don't *care* about the protocols,
they just want to be able to share data with Joe Schmoe with a '386 running
Windows down the street.  In that arena, OS/2 offers the most *built-in*
compatability than the others.  Having OS/2, DOS, and Windows capability is
quite a combo.

	* With appropriate add-ons, of course. :)  Currently, I have compliance
with PostScript, TCP/IP, unix mail, Appletalk, FAX, FTP, DOS and Mac filesystem 
support, TIFF, EPS, RTF, 3270 emulation, JPEG, and High-Sierra CD-ROM.  ENet is
easily added with one file (and a card, blast it), but is built-into the
Quadra line.  I *am* only on a PowerBook 180, after all.

>Programming:

>NeXTSTEP.  That's all you need to know.

	No argument from me here.  *If* we were doing programming, this would
most definitely be the system of choice.  I'm considering using NeXTStep 486
on the server for specifically this reason.  I can diddle with it to my heart's
content.

>Price/Performance:

>With over 250 Megs of bundled software (excluding developing tools its about
>100 megs), UNIX filesystem and networking, powerful 33Mhz 68040 with a
>Motorola 56001 Digital Signal Processor for CD quality sound, NeXT definately
>leads in price/performance.

	Is this including the hidden costs of consultant's fees, down-time, etc
that will also come with it?  Like I said, if it's Mac, I'm in-house.  If it's
NeXT, it would most likely take me a while to configure everyone's systems
*because they don't have the technical background*.  I don't want to have to
run to everyone's station every five minutes to help them configure something.
I'd rather have a system that the *user's* can understand.  Again, that's why
I'm looking into the NeXTStep 486 server... power where *I'll* need it, and out
of the hands of the people who will screw it up.

>>	The boss also is a speed freak... he wants the fastest, best system
>>even if he doesn't need the power, so it'd be most likely either Quadras
>>(which I think is overkill), or 486's (which I also think is overkill, but may
>>make Windows tolerable speedwise.)
>>
>>	My proposal?  One Quadra 950 server, and clustered 700's or IIvx's.
>>

>Argh!  A Quadra server system configured properly will cost near $10,000.
>You can get a NeXT, with all bundled software necessary for networking,
>file serving, and the like for under $6000 (list).  NeXTSTEP 486 will also
>run on the new Pentium chips (586), so if you really really need speed,
>buy a Pentium chip and get NeXTSTEP to run on it.  If you need things now,
>Settle for a 66Mhz 486/DX2 running NeXTSTEP 486.  This configuration is 
>even faster than the current NeXT systems (unless of course you take advantage
>of NeXT's multi-processing capabilities and add on extra CPU's).

See above.  I'm re-thinking the server.  The lure of the Quadra is the upcoming
AURP, since we *will* need informational searching systems in the near future.
Not cheap, but it looks like one of the better protocols coming forth.

>>
>>	
>>Jason M Smith
>>University of Washington
>>Physics/Math
>>

>Eric

	Thanks for the input, but the focus of this system is going to be at
the *users*, not me, the admin.  The less trouble *they* have, the less trouble
*I* have. :)  Hence, I'm aiming for the easiest to use system for complete
novices... and it looks like the Mac to me.

JMS