From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:01:55 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <jfy.725049109@crucis.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> jfy@cis.ksu.edu (Joseph F. Young) writes:
>jessea@u013.me.vp.com (Jesse W. Asher) writes:
>
>>In article <64@nearside.UUCP>, shwake@nearside.UUCP (Raymond Shwake) wrote the following:
>>>
>>>	Based on their comments, and comparing anticipated functionality
>>>and pricing, I must report with some anxiety that Unix on the Desktop could
>>>be in trouble. Two of those colleagues are long-time UNIX practitioners in
>>>both the development and the integration/support areas. They're now proposing
>
>>I'm also a Unix bigot who is advocating (with others) moving to Windows
>>NT.  I have no problem doing this for several reasons:
>
>>1)  Price.  Unix appllications and the OS itself have long been over
>>priced.  Both NT and applications will be very cheap compared to those
>>for Unix.  Just the other day I heard about a PPP implementation that
>>was being sold for Unix for $795.  What a joke.
>
>This is a general problem of the workstation market; software price
>structures for the majority of UNIX products are still stuck in the
>old mainframe/mini price structures.  The laws of supply and demand
>haven't pushed the prices of software down as far in the workstation
>market as they have in the PC market.

Single user Wordperfect for UNIX is about the same as the NSDOS version.
I think that prices for UNIX apps will come down as more single user 
systems are sold.

>>2)  Range of applications.  We will finally be able to run all those
>>nice dos applications out on the market that have not run worth a hoot
>>under unix.  Not only dos, but also windows apps.  And porting to NT is
>>not difficult so a wealth of public domain software will still be
>>available.
>
>Microsoft has said that they will make sure the top 100 Windows 3.1
>applications work under NT.  This doesn't sound like you are going to
>be able put your old DOS and Windows 3.x applications on it and expect
>that they will run.  So, in any case, people are going to have to buy
>new versions of their software to run under NT.  

From Microsoft of course.

>>3)  Ease of programability.  Windows is much easier to problem in than
>>X.  Even though it doesn't have all the advantages of X, we can live
>>without them for the benefits we gain.  Not only that, but there are X
>>servers coming out for NT for those needing X.  But we finally have a
>>choice.
>
>One thing to remember: X is not UNIX.  As far as the programmability
>of X versus Windows goes, I've heard complaints about both.  There are
>a number of toolkits, such as SUIT, that allow you to write window
>system independent code and ignore the details of the windowing system.

And Windows 3.x has a lousy GUI.

>>4)  Ease of usability.  Nt should be a lot more easier to use for the
>>user that actually has to get some work done.  Sharing disks and
>>printers is no longer something the user has to speed inordinate amounts
>>of time learning.  Users shouldn't have to spend time learning how to
>>run the OS just to get it to do something.  They should be spending
>>their time getting their work done.
>
>No matter what GUI you put on it and no matter how many layers of
>software you put on top of it, networking is going to give the user
>problems.  Is Microsoft going to support all combinations of Novell,
>Apple Filesharing, NFS, Decnet, TCP/IP, etc. that a user might wish to
>integrate with?

No, they're not.  Partial TCP/IP support plus Microsoft LAN Manager
support.  No NFS.

>>5) Ease of administration.  This relates to
>#4 in that with NT the user >can do many things that the sysadmin had
>to previously.  Disk sharing, >printer sharing, and so on are
>extremely easy.  You will not believe how >easy until you see it.
>
>I've fought with a number of "user-friendly" setup programs.  They are
>nice when they work, but when you want to do something that doesn't
>quite fit into what is "expected", they make your life miserable.

And I know someone who works on a multi-system network where Sun, OS/2,
SVR4, and OSF systems have an intricate crossmounting scheme between all
the systems.  NT probably won't do that.

>>6)  Enhancements in OS.  The OS handles some things better than Unix.
>>Better scheduling and able to handle 256kb off a serial port (that right
>>- 256kb).  They improved what needed to be improved in Unix long ago.
>
>"Better" scheduling?  In what respect?

This sounds like Microsoft marketing speak.

>The problem with UNIX and serial ports is most vendors hadn't
>bothered tuning their drivers to go beyond 9600 bps or so, especially
>since most of the common serial hardware couldn't handle anything
>faster.

And of course, this has now changed.

>>Basically, you will have all the power of unix without a lot of the
>>hassle.  This is how unix should have been long ago.  Now I too am
>>predicting the death of Unix for workstations (PC based).  Windows NT is
>>just too much better than Unix for workstations.  This is _not_ a
>>prediction of the death of Unix.  Only people that don't know anything
>>about Unix predict such nonsense.  Unix is still a great multi-user
>>system with many advantages in other areas.  But it is in big trouble
>>for workstations.
>
>I've seen losts of hype about Windows NT, but I've seen little of
>substance.  Where is the committment of software vendors to produce NT
>software?   Where is the commitment of hardware vendors to support NT
>(I don't mean the lip service DEC and SGI have given to it)?  
>NT still has a ways to go, if it is going to succeed.
>
>>Besides, NT IS Unix with Windows on top of it.  It is just put out by MS
>>and doesn't have an AT+T copyright.
>
>Yeah right.  A Mach-based microkernel and a minimally functional POSIX
>interface does not make NT a UNIX OS.

It's not even Mach.  And it is extremely minimal POSIX.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	merk!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.sys.novell