From: SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
Keywords: Unix Windows NT
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:54:34 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

In article <1992Aug26.081231.25228@coe.montana.edu> icsu8053@cs.montana.edu (Craig Pratt) writes:
>From: icsu8053@cs.montana.edu (Craig Pratt)
>Subject: Re: NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
>Keywords: Unix Windows NT
>Date: 26 Aug 92 08:12:31 GMT

>Windows NT and OS/2 are not multiuser, however.  I think the big attraction
>to SCO and Xenix is it's multiuser capabilities.  PCs with either of these
>has a very low cost/user ratio when you hang a bunch of terminals on it.
>I can't see how it's going to displace this advantage.

Er, well, this is partially true.  Define mulituser.  No, its inital release
NT will not allow remote terminal login WITH THE BASE OS.  However, it
appears that MS has included all the basics for mulituser operation in the 
OS itself.  It should be simple to write the rlogin capabilities for NT.
MS employees on the Internet have stated that the reason that NT does not
included this in the base package is because MS thought that this was a
outdated method of multiuser access.  They are pushing client/server apps
and advanced networking.  I'm not real up to date on this, so if want more
info I would suggest you ask on comp.os.mswindows.programmer.win32.

>BTW, I'm curious about how Windows NT handles file security in a networked
>environment without a multiuser file system.  How does OS/2 handle it?

Chuckle...NT handles it because its primary filesystem, NTFS, DOES have
multiueser capabilities.  The file system will offer C2-level security to 
users.  NT has a login screen and security, just like Unix.  Again, for more
specific info I would ask around programmer.win32.  NT will not offer much
security to files on FAT or HPFS partitions.

OS/2, I'm not sure about.  Me thinks its just like DOS, the security is on
the server and NOS.

>I think that people will be disappointed when they see how NT performs.
>MicroSloth may be doing itself a disservice by claiming that it will run
>acceptably on any system slower that a 486/33 EISA w/16M RAM & 400MB hard
>drive.  This has been many people's reaction to OS/2 - "OS/2 is too slow 
>compared with DOS and it takes up all of my 120MB hard drive."

I have a problem with people who want DOS performance on a multitasking,
multiuser GUI based OS.  They also tend to want to run it on their 1982
IBM PC.  Yes, NT will require more hardware, suprise, suprise suprise.
Are'nt the hardware requirements for NT less than for NS486? It still is
unfair to condemm the performance of NT yet seeing as it has not even gone
into beta yet.  For what its worth, the 32 bit windows is supposed to be
fairly snappy, and the win16 and Dos stuff has yet to be fully debugged.

>It's a nasty situation: Either it's too slow or not inovative enough to be
>worth switching to.  Hopefully, NeXTStep 486 is innovative *enough*.  Perhaps
>NT as well - but from MicroSoft...well see.

I'm just curious, what is your beef against MS.  It seems that everyone on
the internet has one.  My experience with MS programs, paticularly windows
programs, have been excellent.  DOS was not horrible for the timeframe it
was released in.  OS/2...well even Steve Jobs had his Lisa.  If you prefer
to start another thread or reply in e-mail, I would be interested (The people
on this .advocacy group seem to be a hell of a lot more calm and reasonable
than the pro-OS/2 groups).

>-- 
> Craig Pratt                                           icsu8053@cs.montana.edu
> Montana State University, Bozeman MT             gcp1070@msu.oscs.montana.edu
>       "Chicken McNuggets: If they McCome from where I McThink they do, 
>                 I don't want to McEat it!" - Jerry Seinfeld

-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)