From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Hercules ??? Be realistic !
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:48:35 GMT

In article <92253.134002ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>I can`t believe what I`m reading here. There are really guys who want the WPS
>run on a Hercules system ?  Why don`t you request a 386 emulator to run 2.0 on
>a 286 ? How many 386 computers are out there with a Hercules board. And why has
> the one who bought them not been fired ? What GUI applications are used on
>these 386 computers with Hercules ? I bet these machines are only used for
>text mode apps. If you want to use a GUI on them you have to get VGA.

Which shows your bias.  Many of these hercules 386's were "upgrades" from older
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.

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.

Mind you, these people aren't stoopid--they're just stingy (and in these
economic times, this is a survival trait).  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:

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.

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.

>
>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.  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.

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).

>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?"

>yMB RAM and a zMB harddisk is bullshit. And ist better to tell people what they
>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?

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.

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).

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?


>
>IBM should rather get the drivers for all the existing SVGA boards than fiddle
>with Hercules.

Which is another reason they haven't switched.  They're newer machines can't
run SVGA on the (CEO's and CFO's) 20" monitors.  IBM made a serious mistake
in not supporting more SVGA adapters up front.

>
>I would be really pissed of when I`d discover that IBM has a driver for Herc.
>and no SVGA driver for lets say an ET3000.

So would I.  All in all, I'm not really that upset they don't support Herc.
My clients are happy with Windows at the moment (well, sort of, MYOB has a
tendency to crash--a problem with the application, not Windows, per se).  And
IBM just made it easier to reach a concensus about upgrading to OS/2 now:
don't do it--it will cost too much money to keep production going.

The hard decision will happen in two years--when most of the machines will be
OS/2 capable--but they (probably) will be NT-capable as well.

>
>Michael Bode.


Just my thoughts....

-> Joe <-


Note:  I am not one of those that say users should always use old technology...
I'm just a firm believer that successful products allow the users a gentle
upgrade path.  Not allowing slow upgrades (to increase performance) tends to
convince the potential corporate buyer to put off the commitment to a new
operating environment--long enough for the competitors to come to market
with a competing product.

Only time  will tell if IBM made the right choice.