From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hercules ??? Be realistic ! (long)
Date: 12 Sep 92 02:03:59 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep10.180214.28494@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) write
s:
>In article <1992Sep10.041814.169657@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (
STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep9.154835.12695@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writ

>>>Which shows your bias.  Many of these hercules 386's were "upgrades" from old
er
>>>286's--instead of replacing the entire system, only the motherboard (and in
>>>some instances, the case/power supply) were changed.  Many were "upgrades"
>>>from 8088's--which started out running Windows 3.0, and when 3.1 came out,
>>>the client wanted it and spent the extra $400 for a 386sx case... utilizing
>>>the old HERCULES monitor, MFM HARD DISK, and 8-BIT NETWORK CARD.
>>
>>And how many people have done this?  I am 100% certain that it is a
>>statistically insignificant number.  Frankly there is not bias involved in
>>this,  it is simply a matter of usability.  Hell I have a 40 MB MFM disk
>>running OS/2, but it just doesn't really do the job.  The same with Herc or
>>CGA.  Yea, technically it is possible, but it really causes more problems then
>>the money you save is worth.
>
>Well, let's see, there were five companies with an average of 150 users per
>company, roughly half of them were monochrome... I'd say 300 right off the
>bat (however, some of these companies have far fewer monochrome monitors
>than others--not everyone makes the same decisions).

Your intent in the above paragraph is not very clear, are you saying that half
of the monitors out there are monochrome?
>
>Personally, I know of no INDIVIDUALS that suffer the same problem.  Only
>Corporate America seems to make decisions based solely on expense/production.
>Funny that way, huh?  In other words, HGC is a minor problem to most
>individuals--but for a company that has already invested a large amount
>of money in technology, it *is* unwise to uproot production, increase costs,
>for a technology that doesn't do a thing more for them.  Let's face it,
>most of the useful applications for OS/2 (for example) are simply Windows
>apps or DOS apps (both of which run HGC just fine, thank you).  If there were
>a multi-user accounting package, insurance premium package, document imaging
>system, etc. available for OS/2 (that takes advantage of this "power" that
>your proposed capitalization promises)--then it may be worth the cost.  But
>right now, it's "spend money now to be able to do what you're already
>doing."

No, more like spend money gradually, so that you don't go into shock when it
does come time to upgrade.  It is sort of like buying a car.  You can afford
small continual payments while making one big payment iss simply impossible
financially.  Funny that way too, huh?
>
>>
>>>
>>>It works.  It runs Mind Your Own Business (Accounting Package), Word for
>>>Windows 2.0, Excel 4.0, all the Win 3.1 min-apps.... and solitaire.  NONE of
>>>these will run on a similarly equipped machine with OS/2 2.0--because
>>>it doesn't support Hercules
>>
>>So what?  How many people do you know with an OS/2 class machine and Herc?
>>The answer I would wager is none.  (and I don't mean just run them on the
>>barest of possible systems).
>
>As I said above, I know quite a few companies.  One company has SVGA in all
>the corporate officers offices, and practically all monochrome for the
>production floor.

Right, but do they need OS/2, or Windows apps on the production floor?  Most
likely not.  Also on the production floor, they are not likely to need a 386
either, but that is another matter altogther.
>
>On the other hand, very few individuals I know of have a 386 or better machine
>with herc.
>
>>>
>>>Mind you, these people aren't stoopid--they're just stingy (and in these
>>>economic times, this is a survival trait).
>>
>>No, I think stupid is the right word here.  If a $300 expenditure is going to
>>break your business, then you are in sad shape and probably won't be around
>>much longer anyway.  Besides, you can donate the old equipment and probably
>>get some tax breaks out of that.
>
>First, we are NOT talking about "$300"... we are talking about THOUSANDS of
>dollars (almost $20,000 in one company)--which equates to several HUNDRED
>thousand dollars in sales.  If HGC WERE supported by OS/2--there would be
>no problem--$300 is pittance... and they can upgrade slowly as profits
>permits... but to switch to OS/2 means to have to upgrade EVERYBODY at one
>time!  Surely, you can see that this would be much, much, much, much more
>expensive--especially taking into account that hardware prices are
>continually dropping.


Um, no.  There is ABSOLUTLY NO requirement to switch everryone to OS/2 all at
once.  As you yourself pointed out, there is a decided lack of OS/2 apps out
there right now so your Windows stuff can still be used just fine.  The whole
point of making it compatible with Windows was for situations just like this.
Therefore I point out that it is NOT necissarily the big sticker shock
purchase you propose.

>
>>>  They ARE slowly changing the
>>>monitors to VGA (one at a time--which, again, they can do because the
>>>Windows supports HGC... instead of the entire production floor if they had
>>>chosen OS/2)--and increasing hard disk sizes, etc.  But because they chose
>>>an operating system that supported their "obsolete" equipment--they can
>>>do the upgrades piecemeal... saving tons of money:
>>>
>>I do all my upgrades piecemeal as well.  I'm not a business and don't have
>>much money, but I make sure that I get the best things that I can reasonably
>>afford.  Also, how many "production floors" have you seen running Windows,
>>OS/2, or any other GUI for that matter?  I have yet to see Windows running on
>>*any* manufacturing plant floor, or any other kind of production for that
>>matter.  You fail to make a point based in reality.
>
>A "production floor" has nothing to do with manufacturing.  Any large
>business usually has Corporate Offices (for the officers of the corporation
>this is where the darts, table golf, and dirty jokes books can be found),
>management offices (for the corporate wannabes), and the production floor
>(where work actually gets done).  The production floor is where the typists,
>telemarketers, accountants, customer service representatives, documentation
>specialists, etc. can be found--and by far, the largest computer user base
>in any corporation... and usually the people who get the hand-me-downs
>and cheaper equipment (why?  To put a 486DX50 in a CEO's office only costs
>the corp $2500... to put it on the production floor can cost $100K).
>
A manufacturing plant doesn't have a production floor?  (Even with your
definition?)  Very well even by the definition you give me, I basically have
to ask, what is your point?  You aren't going to be giving every person , or
even the majority of people in ANY company a 486dx50.  And yes, upgrading
computers can be (is) expensive.  It is less so though if you buy systems bit
by bit and give them to the most appropriate people.  Unless your company is
in pretty bad shape, that should be well within the realm of reality.>
>>
>>>1)  Over the last year Super VGA monitors have dropped as much as $200-$300
>>>    in price.  Other hardware (hard disks, network cards, motherboards)
>>>    have dropped in price as well.
>>Right, so why not get rid of antiquated equipment when prices are good.
>
>Because, in order to do this they need to upgrade the entire office...this
>is much more than just $200-$300.  It's easy to upgrade John Smith for $200...
>and fine, HE will be able to run OS/2... but how about the other
>fifty users?

Again, why do you hold on to this notion that everyone has to go at once?  The
users that do upgrade are quite compatible with those who don't, so go at a
rate that is economically feasible, not all at once.
>
>>>
>>>2)  During Tax time, a business can expense up to $10,000 directly off
>>>    their income per year.  Any amount over this MUST be depreciated over
>>>    five years.  Being able to upgrade the system piecemeal means they
>>>    save themselves tax dollars.
>>
>>Has it ever occured to you that by using Herc, the person might actually get
>>less done because it is getting in the way?  As the phrase goes, "time is
>>money" and Herc will almost certaintly promote getting less done.  (You try
>>*using* two different programs in two different windows with CGA.  It's nearly
>>impossible.)
>
>Nope.  They can get work done faster than they do by hand.  Hercules is
>actually FASTER than VGA in some instances (it doesn't need as much RAM
>updated)... but the point is, aside from resolution,color (& support) THERE
>IS NO ADVANTAGE FOR VGA!  All work can just as easily be done on an amber
>and black screen as on a purple, blue, magenta and white screen.  As long as
>the applications you need will run on it--and it's useable (and hercules
>on Windows certainly is)--it doesn't matter WHAT kind of monitor you use.
>
>Businesses are very good in deciding what is necessary and what is desirous.
>

Obviously you haven't tried using a WYSIWIG word procesor under Herc.  It
isn't very WYSIWIG.  There certaintly is an advantage to using VGA and it is
prcisely the things you claim aren't an advantage.  Certaintly a number of
applications don't need VGA, but an increasing number do and if I can get
several applications going on one screen under OS/2 (or any other system for
that matter) I am certaintly going to get more done.  And in case you hadn't
noticed, it is really impractical to do this in Herc.  Besides if you don't
care about color, there is always monochrome VGA.  (Which is faster and costs
less too)
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have seen people bashing Microsoft for saying Win3.x only needs a 286 with
>>>>1MB. I see people bashing IBM for printing "Min requirements 4MB RAM" on the
>>>>OS/2 2.0 boxes. And now you want IBM to say WPS runs on a Hercules system ?
>>>>Of course it could be done. But why not add a little bit of honesty to the
>>>>computer buisiness? A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit.
>>>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>No, a GUI on a VT100 (text only) or a Monochrome Adapter is bolshevik.
>>
>>True but that makes what he said no less true.  Try running Windows in 1 meg
>>of RAM.  Gets you a nice solitaire game.
>
>It runs perfectly fine.  A little slow, perhaps, and your are unable to
>open DOS windows... but it runs Word for Windows (for example) just fine.  It
>gives the user a chance to USE it, decide they want it, and upgrade their
>machine at their leisure.

Say WHAT?  No.  Windows itself runs fine, but you cannot run ANY applications
worth a damn.  Basically you are running everything off the hard drive.  That
is a great way to ruin a hard drive in a hurry.  'Course if you are stupid
enough to do something like that regularly, maybe you deserve it.
>
>>
>>>  Not
>>>supporting "obsolete" adapter technology for an OS that's trying to break
>>>into a new market alienates businesses that may be invested in the older
>>>technology.  It would be prudent to give them a chance to upgrade piecemeal--
>>>but let them TASTE what they'd be missing.
>>
>>Supporting the technology you are so desprately holding on to, would hold the
>>systems back so much that they would lose a great deal of their competitive
>>edge.  People in this business do not make their money by supporting standards
>>that not many people still use instead of the new up and coming standards.
>>(and no, not a lot of people still use Herc.  I'm sorry if that news
>>disapoints you)
>
>Nope.  This is not the case.  Windows 3.0, like it or not, has done more for
>the PC than anything else in recent years.  People found they could switch to
>it, and when they can afford it, upgrade it.  *I* never owned a color monitor
>until after Windows came out--even then, I stuck to HGC until I felt MY
>business could afford the expense--then I upgrade one (and now two) of my
>five machines to SVGA.  The other three are still in monochrome, but
>doing fine.  Supporting an easy upgrade path doesn't "hold systems back"--
>on the contrary, it's a catalyst: people switch to it, knowing that doing
>so will not upset the norm too much, and then upgrade it.

Yes Windows has done a lot for the PC world, but it is by no means obsolete.
It isn't anywhere near the best thing out there, but it isn't obsolete.
Herc is obsolete, remember it was released about 9-10 years ago?  And no,
there comes a point when it no longer becomes the systems vendors
reponsibility to support old standards.  We no longer see CP/M support because
the vendors and most users would rather see new more useful products instead
of support for systems that have been out of date for years.  I can find
countless examples of this.  Supporting Herc would really be a monumental
waste of time for IBM which I am sure they could spend much better elsewhere.
Remember there are bugs to fix and enhancements to add applenty.  Supporting
Herc would have been a "catalyst" a few years ago, but not today, now it is
just one more piece of deadweight that IBM has wisely discharged.



>By the time that Windows 3.1 came out, most people who had switched to
>Windows 3.0 had "upgraded" to a system that COULD run Windows 3.1 (e.g.m
>they bought 286's or better).
>
>>>
>>>In the meantime, more than a few of my clients expressed that they will
>>>stick with Windows 3.x until all of their machines are OS/2 compatible (yes,
>>>I still tell them that OS/2 is SUPERIOR to Windoze--they just can't run it
>>>yet).
>>
>>Look.  This is something that I have noticed over the years which you seemed
>>to have missed.  The most successful companies are those which think, plan and
>>buy ahead.  They do not hold on to technology which is long past its prime.
>>Instead, they are constantly searching for and getting newer and better ways
>>of doing things.  A good example is a company called KennaMetal.  They are a
>>Fortune 500 company which produces Tungsten Carbide and tooling.  One of the
>>biggest reasons they are so successful, is that they have invested in, and
>>continue to invest in one of the most modern computer systems among companies
>>in their business.  They stay one step ahead instead of one step behind, and
>>it has paid off big.  You go into their plants, and you will see no Herc
>>monitors except on a few text based machines out on the plant floor.  Because
>>of this commitment to staying ahead of the game, they have become an
>>enormously productive company which generally far outstrips many of its
>>rivals.
>
>WRONG!  These people are not turning their back on new technology.  On the
>contrary, they ARE investing into new machines--slowly, without disrupting
>work flow.  How successful do you think KennaMetal would have been if they
>wanted to upgrade their plant, so THEY SHUT DOWN FOR A WEEK, THEN TRAINED
>FOR A MONTH ON THE NEW EQUIPMENT--just for something that for the next
>two years--THEY WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO PRODUCE AS MUCH AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY
>PRODUCING????  There is no production advantages for OS/2 YET... there is
>much potential... but no meat.  So why switch?  Upgrade your machines to
>make what your are running NOW (Windows) to be more productive--and when
>the base is there (both hardware in house, and applications on the market),
>switch.

Sorry you are wrong.  First, they never shut down the plant, and I do mean
never.  (Open 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year)  Second, the
training is a continual ongoing process, so that it never severly interupts
the work flow.  Third, their continual investment in technology and figuring
out better ways to implement it, has resulted in them getting FAR more work
done than they ever used to.  They have become one of the most efficent
companies around, and are always getting better.  Your statements above are
nearly meaningless unless you go about doing things entirely the wrong way.
Besides give your employees some credit.  Most of them aren't stupid and they
certaintly don't need months of training to use most applications.  I mean, it
isn't that tough to learn how to use a new word processor or spreadsheet
effectively.  Heck, I've seen people learn most of the basics of a programming
language in less than a day.  Also, you are splitting your arguement up.  The
question of should you upgrade to OS/2 is a much different question than
should IBM support Herc.  Keep that in mind.  That aside, I will address your
other statement and state that if you think that IBM is simply all potential,
then you need to look a little closer.  It does a lot of things with DOS and
Windows that DOS and Windows can't do by themselves.
>
>
>>>
>>>>Win 3.x on a 1MB
>>>>machine is bullshit. OS/2 on a 4MB machine is bullshit. And NT on a x86 with
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Hehehe.  But it runs.  Not well, but well enough that they can get work done.
..
>>>and two months later say "I want more RAM--will it make it faster?"
>>
>>Doesn't matter if it "runs", if it is so slow as to be useless.
>
>There is a difference between "Not Well" and "useless".  My 6 year old car
>does not run well--but it is far from useless.

Perhaps, but Word for Windows in one meg of RAM IS useless.

>
>>>
>>>>yMB RAM and a zMB harddisk is bullshit. And ist better to tell people what t
he
>>y
>>>>really need and what they really get then to let them buy product A and then
>>>>say "Fine, now of course you need to spend another nnn$ to get it really to
>>>>work."
>>>
>>>Wrong.  This doesn't cut it in the business world where they have to worry
>>>about cash flow.  OS/2 is NEW, it's EXCITING, it's UNPROVEN.  If you were a
>>>corporate CEO with a hundred OS/2-obsolete machines, would you spend
>>>$20,000 to make them run an operating system that YOU ARE NOT CERTAIN WILL
>>>HAVE A TANGIBLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT?
>>
>>You are never certain that your investment will pay off until you have made
>>it.  You may not need to upgrade everything to OS/2, but if you are still
>>using any sizable quantity of Herc montors, then you are probably behind your
>>competitors in productivity, and that could lose you a whole lot more than
>>that investment in OS/2 class machines.  Yes, you have to worry about cash
>>flow, and can't spend money you don't have, but if you take no risks, you will
>>be out of business faster than you can say "ob-sol-ete".
>
>No, one of these companies (the largest user of Monochrome monitors of the
>companies I work for) is ranked number one in their industry--in this city.
>I'd always attributed this to good money decisions, good workers, and
>sound management.

I never claimed that these were not factors, but this is a discussion on how
technology affect business, not whether having rotten management will ruin you
company.  That is a given.


>
>Question: what production advantage does OS/2 give the normal office worker
>NOW (I'm not talking about two years from now, I'm talking about now).  Sure
>it's more stable, but it still crashes--it's a bear to install applications
>under it (to work optimally), it does not support many SVGA cards, it
>will not work with some NOS's...  Will switching to OS/2 help the worker
>type faster?  Think faster?  Make telephone calls faster?

How about dial on a modem more reliably, while formatting disks in the
backround, and writting a memo on W4Win while working on Excel to include some
figures for the boss.  I believe that qualifies under more productive.
Granted not everyone needs this, but many do.  You don't need to do one thing
faster in today's world, you often need to do a lot of things at once, as fast
as possible.
As an aside OS/2 is not prone to crashes.  Some apps, many of which are poorly
written are prone to this, but their failure doesn't require a reboot which
saves you a lot of time.
>
>>
>>>>I've sat through these (rather boring) board meetings.  At a 5% profit
>>>margin, the company has to do at least $400,000 in sales to pay for the
>>>HARDWARE investment alone!  Not to mention the costs of installation, testing
,
>>>software, etc.   ALL OF THESE COSTS UP FRONT... just to do what they've been
>>>doing fine (albeit slowly) on older technology.
>>
>>Right.  It is expensive and you must be careful, but on the other hand, with
>>everything becoming as competive as it is, not making a contiual commitment to
>>improving your level of technology can put you out of business.  Look at
>>Bethlehem Steel.  About 10-15 years ago, they were at the peak of their
>>production and making a lot of money, but were not investing it in new
>>technology while everyone else was.  The result?  They are almost out of
>>business while much smaller, ultra modern, ultra efficent plants have take
>>over much of their business.
>
>But you are assuming these companies are not investing.  They are.  Wisely,
>in my opinion.  When profits are up for the month, they buy X new computers...
>without hurting the Y that don't have new computers.  They can't do this
>if they switch NOW--they have to upgrade everybody at once.

It also doesn't matter if you are "investing" if you can't keep up with your
competitors.  Also you really need to get away from this foolish
business-major notion that you need to upgrade all at once.  You don't.
Besides OS/2 doesn't really hurt you current investment.  Makes it more useful
if anything.>
>>>
>>>These companies chose the "worse" operating system because it allowed them
>>>to spread the capital investment over time.  Eventually (or so I am told)
>>>they will switch to the new technologies (NT or OS/2).
>>
>>Eventually, but there are things in between.  They might use (gasp) Windows if
>>they are in a pinch.  (Not a fate I would wish on anyone)
>
>They do.  And they get work done.  Windows supports hercules fine.  Even the
>document imaging system installed at one of my clients' works impressively
>on a herc equipped workstation.
>
Great, Windows supports Herc.  So what?  Upgrade what you can to OS/2 and do
the rest later when it is economically feasible.  I can garauntee you that the
machines will still be able to communicate.  (Really, I'm not pulling the wool
over your eyes)

>>>
>>>All that IBM did by not supporting HGC, was delay their purchase--so that
>>>by the time they have the iron to run OS/2 2.0, NT will be a viable option.
>>>Who loses?
>>>
>>Stop contradicting yourself.  If companies buy equipment at the rate you've
>>been claiming above, they will get OS/2 class machines in about 1998.  (Let's
>>see, Herc is about 6 years obsolete, so that sounds about right)  Hell by then
>>NT will probably be obsolete.  (That was a joke folks)  You are assuming that
>>technology, particularly OS's, is a sitting target.  It isn't.  There is a
>>good chance that someday in the future, OS/2 will be similar in power to NT.
>>So your point here too is moot.  Regardless of how the future OS wars turn
>>out, you need to get out of yesterday and at least catch up before you start
>>worrying about tomarrow's OS.
>
>No, most companies (I'm speaking from personal experience, not from
>statistics) think that the switch can be made viable in late 1993 or 1994.
>Remember: costs of equipment are going down.  Regardless, by that time
>NT will have come out, and IT, too, will be taken into consideration--
>IBM may have lost sales that could have brought them over the top...if
>my clients' preferences are any indication.
>
Costs of equipment are always going down.  That is a fact of the industry.
Requirements of software are always going up.  Another fact of the industry.
NT may be the option for your company in the future, but burn that bridge when
you come to it.  You can't seriously think that IBM will have lost the war to
NT because they didn't support Herc.  Poor SVGA support, maybe, but you won't
see many tears over the loss of Herc.


Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy