From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Hercules ??? Be realistic !
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:02:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.041814.169657@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.154835.12695@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes
>:
>>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 ha
>s
>>> 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.
>
>And how many people have done this?  I am 100% certain that it is a
>statistically insignificant number.  Frankly there is not bias involved in
>this,  it is simply a matter of usability.  Hell I have a 40 MB MFM disk
>running OS/2, but it just doesn't really do the job.  The same with Herc or
>CGA.  Yea, technically it is possible, but it really causes more problems then
>the money you save is worth.

Well, let's see, there were five companies with an average of 150 users per
company, roughly half of them were monochrome... I'd say 300 right off the
bat (however, some of these companies have far fewer monochrome monitors
than others--not everyone makes the same decisions).

Personally, I know of no INDIVIDUALS that suffer the same problem.  Only
Corporate America seems to make decisions based solely on expense/production.
Funny that way, huh?  In other words, HGC is a minor problem to most
individuals--but for a company that has already invested a large amount
of money in technology, it *is* unwise to uproot production, increase costs,
for a technology that doesn't do a thing more for them.  Let's face it,
most of the useful applications for OS/2 (for example) are simply Windows
apps or DOS apps (both of which run HGC just fine, thank you).  If there were
a multi-user accounting package, insurance premium package, document imaging
system, etc. available for OS/2 (that takes advantage of this "power" that
your proposed capitalization promises)--then it may be worth the cost.  But
right now, it's "spend money now to be able to do what you're already
doing."

>
>>
>>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
>
>So what?  How many people do you know with an OS/2 class machine and Herc?
>The answer I would wager is none.  (and I don't mean just run them on the
>barest of possible systems).

As I said above, I know quite a few companies.  One company has SVGA in all
the corporate officers offices, and practically all monochrome for the 
production floor.

On the other hand, very few individuals I know of have a 386 or better machine
with herc.

>>
>>Mind you, these people aren't stoopid--they're just stingy (and in these
>>economic times, this is a survival trait).
>
>No, I think stupid is the right word here.  If a $300 expenditure is going to
>break your business, then you are in sad shape and probably won't be around
>much longer anyway.  Besides, you can donate the old equipment and probably
>get some tax breaks out of that.

First, we are NOT talking about "$300"... we are talking about THOUSANDS of
dollars (almost $20,000 in one company)--which equates to several HUNDRED
thousand dollars in sales.  If HGC WERE supported by OS/2--there would be
no problem--$300 is pittance... and they can upgrade slowly as profits
permits... but to switch to OS/2 means to have to upgrade EVERYBODY at one
time!  Surely, you can see that this would be much, much, much, much more
expensive--especially taking into account that hardware prices are 
continually dropping.

>>  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:
>>
>I do all my upgrades piecemeal as well.  I'm not a business and don't have
>much money, but I make sure that I get the best things that I can reasonably
>afford.  Also, how many "production floors" have you seen running Windows,
>OS/2, or any other GUI for that matter?  I have yet to see Windows running on
>*any* manufacturing plant floor, or any other kind of production for that
>matter.  You fail to make a point based in reality.

A "production floor" has nothing to do with manufacturing.  Any large 
business usually has Corporate Offices (for the officers of the corporation
this is where the darts, table golf, and dirty jokes books can be found),
management offices (for the corporate wannabes), and the production floor
(where work actually gets done).  The production floor is where the typists,
telemarketers, accountants, customer service representatives, documentation
specialists, etc. can be found--and by far, the largest computer user base
in any corporation... and usually the people who get the hand-me-downs
and cheaper equipment (why?  To put a 486DX50 in a CEO's office only costs
the corp $2500... to put it on the production floor can cost $100K).


>
>>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.
>Right, so why not get rid of antiquated equipment when prices are good.

Because, in order to do this they need to upgrade the entire office...this
is much more than just $200-$300.  It's easy to upgrade John Smith for $200...
and fine, HE will be able to run OS/2... but how about the other
fifty users?

>>
>>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.
>
>Has it ever occured to you that by using Herc, the person might actually get
>less done because it is getting in the way?  As the phrase goes, "time is
>money" and Herc will almost certaintly promote getting less done.  (You try
>*using* two different programs in two different windows with CGA.  It's nearly
>impossible.)

Nope.  They can get work done faster than they do by hand.  Hercules is
actually FASTER than VGA in some instances (it doesn't need as much RAM
updated)... but the point is, aside from resolution,color (& support) THERE 
IS NO ADVANTAGE FOR VGA!  All work can just as easily be done on an amber
and black screen as on a purple, blue, magenta and white screen.  As long as
the applications you need will run on it--and it's useable (and hercules
on Windows certainly is)--it doesn't matter WHAT kind of monitor you use.

Businesses are very good in deciding what is necessary and what is desirous.

>
>>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>True but that makes what he said no less true.  Try running Windows in 1 meg
>of RAM.  Gets you a nice solitaire game.

It runs perfectly fine.  A little slow, perhaps, and your are unable to
open DOS windows... but it runs Word for Windows (for example) just fine.  It
gives the user a chance to USE it, decide they want it, and upgrade their
machine at their leisure.

>
>>  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.
>
>Supporting the technology you are so desprately holding on to, would hold the
>systems back so much that they would lose a great deal of their competitive
>edge.  People in this business do not make their money by supporting standards
>that not many people still use instead of the new up and coming standards.
>(and no, not a lot of people still use Herc.  I'm sorry if that news
>disapoints you)

Nope.  This is not the case.  Windows 3.0, like it or not, has done more for
the PC than anything else in recent years.  People found they could switch to
it, and when they can afford it, upgrade it.  *I* never owned a color monitor
until after Windows came out--even then, I stuck to HGC until I felt MY
business could afford the expense--then I upgrade one (and now two) of my
five machines to SVGA.  The other three are still in monochrome, but
doing fine.  Supporting an easy upgrade path doesn't "hold systems back"--
on the contrary, it's a catalyst: people switch to it, knowing that doing
so will not upset the norm too much, and then upgrade it.

By the time that Windows 3.1 came out, most people who had switched to
Windows 3.0 had "upgraded" to a system that COULD run Windows 3.1 (e.g.m
they bought 286's or better).

>>
>>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).
>
>Look.  This is something that I have noticed over the years which you seemed
>to have missed.  The most successful companies are those which think, plan and
>buy ahead.  They do not hold on to technology which is long past its prime.
>Instead, they are constantly searching for and getting newer and better ways
>of doing things.  A good example is a company called KennaMetal.  They are a
>Fortune 500 company which produces Tungsten Carbide and tooling.  One of the
>biggest reasons they are so successful, is that they have invested in, and
>continue to invest in one of the most modern computer systems among companies
>in their business.  They stay one step ahead instead of one step behind, and
>it has paid off big.  You go into their plants, and you will see no Herc
>monitors except on a few text based machines out on the plant floor.  Because
>of this commitment to staying ahead of the game, they have become an
>enormously productive company which generally far outstrips many of its
>rivals.

WRONG!  These people are not turning their back on new technology.  On the
contrary, they ARE investing into new machines--slowly, without disrupting
work flow.  How successful do you think KennaMetal would have been if they
wanted to upgrade their plant, so THEY SHUT DOWN FOR A WEEK, THEN TRAINED
FOR A MONTH ON THE NEW EQUIPMENT--just for something that for the next
two years--THEY WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO PRODUCE AS MUCH AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY
PRODUCING????  There is no production advantages for OS/2 YET... there is
much potential... but no meat.  So why switch?  Upgrade your machines to
make what your are running NOW (Windows) to be more productive--and when
the base is there (both hardware in house, and applications on the market),
switch.  


>>
>>>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?"
>
>Doesn't matter if it "runs", if it is so slow as to be useless.

There is a difference between "Not Well" and "useless".  My 6 year old car
does not run well--but it is far from useless.

>>
>>>yMB RAM and a zMB harddisk is bullshit. And ist better to tell people what the
>y
>>>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?
>
>You are never certain that your investment will pay off until you have made
>it.  You may not need to upgrade everything to OS/2, but if you are still
>using any sizable quantity of Herc montors, then you are probably behind your
>competitors in productivity, and that could lose you a whole lot more than
>that investment in OS/2 class machines.  Yes, you have to worry about cash
>flow, and can't spend money you don't have, but if you take no risks, you will
>be out of business faster than you can say "ob-sol-ete".

No, one of these companies (the largest user of Monochrome monitors of the
companies I work for) is ranked number one in their industry--in this city.
I'd always attributed this to good money decisions, good workers, and
sound management.

Question: what production advantage does OS/2 give the normal office worker
NOW (I'm not talking about two years from now, I'm talking about now).  Sure
it's more stable, but it still crashes--it's a bear to install applications
under it (to work optimally), it does not support many SVGA cards, it
will not work with some NOS's...  Will switching to OS/2 help the worker
type faster?  Think faster?  Make telephone calls faster?

>
>>>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.
>
>Right.  It is expensive and you must be careful, but on the other hand, with
>everything becoming as competive as it is, not making a contiual commitment to
>improving your level of technology can put you out of business.  Look at
>Bethlehem Steel.  About 10-15 years ago, they were at the peak of their
>production and making a lot of money, but were not investing it in new
>technology while everyone else was.  The result?  They are almost out of
>business while much smaller, ultra modern, ultra efficent plants have take
>over much of their business.

But you are assuming these companies are not investing.  They are.  Wisely,
in my opinion.  When profits are up for the month, they buy X new computers...
without hurting the Y that don't have new computers.  They can't do this
if they switch NOW--they have to upgrade everybody at once.

>>
>>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).
>
>Eventually, but there are things in between.  They might use (gasp) Windows if
>they are in a pinch.  (Not a fate I would wish on anyone)

They do.  And they get work done.  Windows supports hercules fine.  Even the
document imaging system installed at one of my clients' works impressively
on a herc equipped workstation.

>>
>>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?
>>
>Stop contradicting yourself.  If companies buy equipment at the rate you've
>been claiming above, they will get OS/2 class machines in about 1998.  (Let's
>see, Herc is about 6 years obsolete, so that sounds about right)  Hell by then
>NT will probably be obsolete.  (That was a joke folks)  You are assuming that
>technology, particularly OS's, is a sitting target.  It isn't.  There is a
>good chance that someday in the future, OS/2 will be similar in power to NT.
>So your point here too is moot.  Regardless of how the future OS wars turn
>out, you need to get out of yesterday and at least catch up before you start
>worrying about tomarrow's OS.

No, most companies (I'm speaking from personal experience, not from
statistics) think that the switch can be made viable in late 1993 or 1994.
Remember: costs of equipment are going down.  Regardless, by that time
NT will have come out, and IT, too, will be taken into consideration--
IBM may have lost sales that could have brought them over the top...if 
my clients' preferences are any indication.


>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>

-> Joe <-