From: potts@itl.itd.umich.edu (Paul Potts)
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Organization: Instructional Technology Laboratory, University of Michigan
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:45:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.101832.12678@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <SXMRP.13.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>> 
>> >Or you can run OS/2 2.0 on a 386sx/20MHz with 6 megs of RAM.
>> > 
>> >I saw NT today. *BOW WOW* If that's a desktop system, then MVS/XA is the next
>> >step for the desktop!
>> > 
>> 
>> Remember, you were looking at a pre-beta release
>> 
>
>Mike, I'm going by what the presenter said. He said - I wrote it down - you
>*will* need a 486/33 with a minimum of 8megs just to run, 16megs if you want
>to get any work done. he said that NT was NOT for the desktop,it is for a 
>niche market. He said that the people who will be using NT will be the sort
>of people who do not have hardware restrictions ( like home users have). The
>presenter made it very clear that NT was NOT competition for Windows 3.1. He
>*stressed* these points.
> 
>I have no reason to assume he was lying.

Microsoft is stuck in a bad position here, and they certainly aren't making
things any clearer.

They want to offer "New Technology" (NT) and include all the hot new features,
but they don't want to alienate all the users (and there are a lot) who
don't have the iron to run things with any decent degree of performance.

I use higher-end machines, and I see no reason that NT couldn't be considered
a desktop system for power users. I'm running the pre-beta NT on an 8-Meg,
25 MHz 386 system, by the way, and it runs. I was even able to build almost
all of the sample applications. (Some weren't happy for lack of memory).
This is the same system I have at home, except at home I have a 386-40.

386 machines are becoming pretty common now. There are a lot of SX machines
out there too, but I would hope that business buyers didn't fall for the
SX bait-and-switch, and spent the extra for DX systems. 

I think the big hurdle will
be memory upgrades and disk space. I would like to have 12 megs to run NT.
It is a big system. Microsoft is hoping to avoid having their high-end product
cannibalize 3.1 sales. However, I don't think they will really be able to
prevent this in the long term. If they convince users that NT is for file
servers only, they will certainly cool off NT sales.

I've used OS/2 2.0 on a 386 with 6 megs, and it wasn't pleasant. I gave it
a couple of weeks and then threw it off my 386/40 too. It did a horrible job
with Ultima and Borland C++ 3.1, which are the only apps I use DOS for. The
Windows support I found sorely lacking (it wouldn't support my 3.1 group
files, for example, and I have yet to figure out how to install a new
application such as Word 2.0 into the Windows compatibility box under OS/2
2.0. Also, the installation crashed a couple of times, each time deleting
my config.sys and autoexec.bat files, making my computer un-bootable. Not
too friendly.

Of course, I just attempted to remove NT from my hard disk, and wound up
making the computer un-bootable too.

I'm not a huge fan of Microsoft's Windows offering, but NT looks interesting
to me as both a user and a developer. I attended the Win32 conference in
San Francisco. Their strategy for positioning NT, though, does indeed look
quite muddled. Is it a server OS? Is it the replacement for Windows? Is it
what I should be developing for, if I want to write multimedia apps? 

What should their strategy be? I'd like to hear other views.  

-- 
"It'sVerySad / toSeeTheAncientAndDistinguishedGameThatUsedToBe / aModelOf
DecorumAndTranquilityBecomeLikeAnyOtherSportABattlegroundForRivalIdeologies
toSlugItOutWithGlee." (from _Chess_). -potts@itl.itd.umich.edu-