From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Subject: Re: Hercules ??? Be realistic !
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:40:55 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <92253.134002ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:

>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.

I do not think this shows bias - it shows a forward thinker.  I was working
for a large corporation 3 years ago, and after looking at what was presented
at COMDEX that year I told the bean counters that the world was GUI and 
the time to start moving in a position to use it meaningfully was NOW (October
1989).  Based on my strong recommendation, they started replacing ALL old
mono (including Hercules) and EGA video systems then, and are now all SVGA.
Those who are screaming now are those that ignored the handwriting that
appeared years ago.

>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.

Maybe the low end has moved, but the GOOD SVGA monitors (Sony, NECs,
ViewSonics, Mags, Nanao) have not changed much in price over the past
2-3 years.  They are on a plateau.

>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.

Yes, but the problem is they DID NOT HEED THE WARNING IN A TIMELY FASHION!
Anyone who has watched the desktop computer world should have seen the need
to change for at least the past 3 years.  If they are starting now, they are
3 years behind, and will stay 3 years behind because then they will see that
they either will not see the changes occurring, or will still be buying into
the last change.

Sure, there are uses for older machines.  I have just argued against a 
proposal put forth in our college to throw out all 8088 machines.  They 
can function as terminals, print servers, and gateways - why throw them
out?  But if you need or require one of the newer OS's for some reason,
or just to make your workers more productive, then you have to pay the
cost.  Drawing it out helps some, but hurts some, too - esp. when 
you get a late jump.

>>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?"

Yes, but how much productivity did they forfeit for want of $30-60 worth
of memory?

>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?

YES!  If I were forward thinking.  I wrote a position paper for a corporation
that asked them to do this very thing - only I wrote it some years back.
I was not saying spend $20K - but several MILLION.  And the argument was -
no one knows where the future of desktop computing will be in 5 years, but
the configuration needed for OS/2 is close to what you will really need
for any of the viable OS candidates.  (This was written maybe 3-1/2 to
4 years ago).  They started the buy-in, stopped it a little over a year
ago because a manager was balking at the cost, and now are bitching because
Windows performance is not up to par on their 10 MHz 80286 machines with
1-2Mb of RAM and standard VGA.  If they had bought in what I had stated as
a minimum (80386/33, 8 Mb RAM, 300 Mb hard drive, SVGA) they would not
have problems with Windows, OS/2, would be a bit low for NT and Solaris,
etc.  Now they have a long way to go if they are goint to run anything
other than DOS - and the longer the wait, the further behind they will be.
OK if your current DOS apps will do you for the next few years, otherwise ...

>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.

False economy.  We did a rather extensive analysis back 6-7 years ago of
computer costs vs. personnel costs.  We used something like 15 years of
data, with the first 10 years being mainframe charges and the last 5
being a phase-over to desktop from mainframe.  The significant findings
were that computer resource costs were a fraction of personnel costs, and
that that fraction was very stable, i.e., there is a relationship.  It
was obvious that the relationship shifted in the switchover from the
mainframe, but computer costs were still a proportional to personnel costs.
Now you can adjust that relationship by buying low or buying high.  

But if you buy low, and your people twiddle thumbs, and then you need
more people to do the same amount of work - you are paying for an 
expensive item (personnel) to save money on a less expensive item
(a computer).  

>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.  

The upgrade path was there - folks just ignored it, and now they say
the road is long.  Those who started down the path when the path became
apparent are not bitching as much.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy