From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: is NT really NEW technology?
Date: 16 Aug 92 06:08:02 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: NT Unix OS2 DOS Blither

In article <1992Aug14.193408.5614@novell.com> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.095638.5330@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>I didn't include the article about whether NT is really New Technology
>>'cause it was rather long...
>>
>>1) I never said that NT couldn't user dumb terminals.
>>2) I never said that the Clients must be NT machines,
>>   in fact, simple windows machines are good.
>
>Well, that means you need NT or Windows machines to take advantage
>of NT's client-serve technology?  I hope this isn't the case, because
>if it is, NT WILL fail.  Since NT has lan manager products, and
>is able to do TCP/IP, I think that non NT/win machines could be clients,
>and I certainly hope so.

Read the post.  I said windows machines would be nice, I did NOT say
that they were the only ones.  RPC will be DCE compatable.  TCP/IP.
heck, that implies that most anyone who knows certain protocols can
be a client.

>
>
>>3) You will never see "NEW" technology unless you work in a research
>>   station.  The "NEW" in NT is in the context of the market that it
>>   is targeted for.  You may be able to find some of the features in
>
>This is confusing.  NT stands for "NEW Technology" yet you say it has
>nothing to do with being New in that regard.  Maybe they should call
>it Win NM, for "Windows NEW Marketing" :)

In a box, you get all of these NEW things that the person opeining the
box has probably never seen.  It doesn't matter if the technology is
NEW to some comp sci major at an edu site.  It matters if the technology
is new to a manager of a small business who wants to easily computerize
her business.  Up till now, she has been using single user windows machines,
or Mac's, or whatever.  Now she wants to try out some of this New technology
in her office setting.  She doesn't care if pieces of this technology exist
in large corporate sites, or in universities.  It is new to her.
(I don't mean to imply that you are a student, I just used that as an
example).


>>   X or UNIX, but to get them all, you really have to go out of your
>>   way.  If you have a UNIX system with X, various DOS/WINDOWS/WHATEVER
>>   emulators, I want to see you act as the MIS person.  Try managing
>>   a number of these stations.
>
>I do manage a variety of platforms.  However your statement is confusing.
>I didn't say I had dos/win emulators going.  I said X servers are available
>for many platforms.  The reason I said it was to enforce the point that
>I don't need NT to do remote graphical apps.  I also said for NON NT
>machines, if they want to do NT remote graphical apps, NT will have
>to have some kind of graphics protocol, and the machine wanting
>to recieve the graphics display from NT will need a "NT Display
>Server."  if NT doesn't have the ability to do remote graphics
>such as X, that's another strike against NT.

NT can do anything you want, given the right server (okay, within limits of
reality).  Whether that server exists is yet to be seen.

A question, though, why cut the interface line at the level of the graphics
protocol.  Why not just run the whole user interface on the local machine,
and communicate the data back and forth, and not the graphics representation
of the data.

>
>>
>>You say that NT will lose because UNIX and X can do a lot of the things
>>that NT can do, well, I say it's the other way around.  NT can do the
>>things UNIX and X can do, and MORE!!!  (blatant advertisement just
>>to fan the flames ;)
>
>Yeah, whats the "alot more?".  

Like running Windows apps that users are familiar with.  Like being used for
things more useful than XConq or XTrek.  Like being used for more than just
a windowed VT100.

>
>However, there were other things in the post you decided to ignore.

Probably because they weren't worth responding to.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy