From: icsu8053@cs.montana.edu (Craig Pratt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
Keywords: Unix Windows NT
Date: 26 Aug 92 08:12:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: coe.1992Aug26.081231.25228
Organization: Montana State University, Dept. of Computer Science, Bozeman MT 59717

In article <SXMRP.29.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>In article <86862@netnews.upenn.edu> arzt@dccs.upenn.edu (Noam H. Arzt) writes:
>>From: arzt@dccs.upenn.edu (Noam H. Arzt)
>>Subject: Re: NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
>>Date: 24 Aug 92 14:28:49 GMT
>
>>In article <SXMRP.27.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R.  
>>Platzke) writes:
>>> Which brings me to my main point.  How the hell does Next plan to compete in
>>> the PC market with a product that sells for $1000?
>>> 
>>> -Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)
>
>>Hasn't SCO done OK with their products, including the hefty price tag?
>
>>--
>>Mr. Noam Arzt                            215/898-3029 (voice)
>> [Bzzzzzzzzzzing...]
>
>Yes, they have done OK in the past.  A couple of points to note.  SCO and
>Interactive have carved out niches in the PC market by providing Unix to
>PC's.  For the last couple of years, they have been the only providers of
>multitasking, multiuser, PC systems (that I can think of now, I may be wrong)
>Now, both OS/2 and NT are available to users.  NT specifically, is very
>Unix like in some respects.  I expect to see many of the companies who were
>using Unix on PCs to take a long, hard look at NT.  

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.

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?

>In addition, Interactive
>was bought out by SunSoft and they plan to introduce Solaris for the PC soon.
>So, what was a market niche inhabited by SCO and Interactive is now crowded
>with OS/2 2.0, NT, SCO, and Solaris.  In paticular, IBM and MS are currently
>in a bloody market battle and have pumped up a lot of consumer interest.
>I still think that if NS486 come out at $1000, it will fall flat on its face.

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."

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.

>Just my humble opinion...
>
>-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)

-- 
 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
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy