From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Who actually NEEDS NT?  Speak Up!
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:11:07 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: NT OS/2 Windows OS

In article <1992Jul21.211050.21383@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.213800.27305@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
>I think you've gone beyond the capacities of today's PC's.
>
>>1) Large corporations with a SQL based system, needing the powere of 
>>a parallel machine as their server, with 1000's of workstations.
>>OS/2 doesn't scale up to that yet.
>
>For this, an OS/2 workstation will work for each of the 1000's of
>workstations.  As a matter of fact, a PC running DOS probably would.
>For the server, NT might work, but not on a PC platform.  I'd want a
>mainframe to do this scale of database serving.  I'm going to get
>flamed for this, but I think the only machine really suited for
>database work with 1000's of parallel requests is an IBM 370-series
>machine.  An ES-9000 running VMS and SQL-DS is quite capable.  An OS/2
>file server make a great front-end to this for the rest of the
>workstations to funnel through.

They've demonstrated NCR multicpu systems running SQL Querys, sometimes
faster than mainframes.
The thing is, NT will work well in conjunction with Win31 machines to provide
a good, cheap solution to this problem.  In many cases, you'd only need a
286 or low end 386sx for the client machines.

>
>>2) Cad based systems running on IRIS machines.
>
>Anything will work if you've the proper video support.  The bulk of
>this type of software deals with rendering the image for the display.
>No PC can do this on a large scale without 3D graphics hardware.  Such
>as the Silicon Graphics video system (made for PC's and IBM RS-6000's
>as well as IRIS machines).  If you have this hardware, any OS will do.

What are you trying to say here?  The IRIS boxes are good, fast graphics
boxes which are currently in production.  I gave them as an example.
Are you saying that I'm wrong?  Heck, you throw out any of the favorite
operating systems discussed on this group, and I could make it perform
well on the applications any of the others do.  What I implied when I said
CAD on an IRIS was that with NT you have a good package for supplying your
cad needs.  It performs well, it's economical, etc.>
>>3) I like it as a development platform.
>
>Well, I'm not going to dictate your personal preference.  Likewise,
>you shouldn't think everyone else will share yours.

Did I say that everyone else should share mine, no.  All I did was state
my personal preference.  sheesh.>
>>4) Any large installment where you need security/multiuser filesystems.
>
>OK.  OS/2 doesn't have this out of the box.  Note that the LAN Manager
>software for it does.  And it's very bad practice to leave your file
>servers out where people can access them from the console, anyway.

What?  Where does it being bad practice to leave my file server out
have to do with what I said.
>
>>5) developers for any of the above.
>
>???  How are developers an application?  Or are you going to write an
>application which develops other applications?  :-)  I suggest you
>re-think this, or your eventual success will put programmers out of a
>job! 

You like reading things into what I said, don't you.  I didn't say
no to app developers, just that developers for any of the above would
be pretty good off using NT.  I didn't even mention the word applications.
I just gave some examples, which is what was wanted.

I'd like to see what you read into the following sentence:
programmers are people who programm computers.

My bet is that you though I said that IBM and McDonalds corp
are banding together to take over the minds of all DOS users.

;) ;) ;)

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions....