From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hercules ??? Be realistic !
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:18:14 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

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.

>
>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).
>
>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.
>  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.

>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.
>
>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.)

>
>>
>>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.

>  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)
>
>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.
>
>>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.
>
>>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".

>>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.
>
>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)
>
>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.

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
>
>>
>>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.
>