From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Hercules ??? Be realistic !
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:10:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.194055.21184@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
>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.

Let's talk about "Forward thinking."  If I had necessitated a buy for OS/2-
capable hardware three years ago, each 486 would have cost around $5000
apiece (yes, that's FIVE grand).  By the admonition of this adovcacy group,
GUI's weren't really useful until OS/2 2.0 (yes, I'm saying that sarcastically-
there was Windows and OS/2 1.3, but bear with me).  In the three years that
ensued, the price of an OS/2 capable machine has dropped to $1700--a
$3300.  IF the customer upgraded 150 machines THEN, it would have cost them
a cool half mil. MORE for something that wouldn't start paying them back until
NOW.  Think of it, $500,000 dollars of profit was saved by delaying a purchase
until it was truly useful... the net result?  This insurance agency is still
in business when agencies both larger and smaller are going belly up...
and they ARE running Windows with an eye toward OS/2--in one or two years.

>
>>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, actually (if you'd look at history) the "GOOD SVGA" monitors of three
years back have become the "low end" of today.  I bought my Sony 1304HG
for $800 two years ago.  Today, the same monitor (still good quality, may I
add) now costs about $445--the "GOOD SVGA" is now the Sony 1504 which sells for,
you guessed it, $800.

Same goes for NECs, ViewSonics, Mags, and Nanao--it isn't that the "Good"
SVGA prices haven't moved, it's that they've redefined what a good SVGA is.

>
>>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.

As I said before... they can NOW buy 150 new machines (if they chose),
run OS/2 and save a half million dollars more than your company that bought
in three years ago--and who is now finding GUI's a true productive tool.
Let's face it, GUI's on the PC were impractical until the mass market of
Windows 3.x--and a 286 with a herc monitor CAN run Windows 3.x.

The question, now, is OS/2.  My clients have put off the purchase because
it would cost them too much money UP FRONT to upgrade.  So they stick with
the second best solution: Windows and DOS--which not only has the APPLICATIONS
they need, but runs fine on their current machines.

>
>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?

If they had bought 1 meg of RAM LAST year, they would be spending TWICE as 
much money.  Honestly, there are few of my clients now that have only one
meg of RAM--I now sell it for $25.00 per meg for valued customers--and, again,
they upgrade each machine as they see fit.

>
>>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 ...

It's only $20K NOW--and that's really considering that most of my clients
have been upgrading piecemeal--to make OS/2 useable, not only do they have to
replace the monitors, but the 286's (the original 20K assumed 386sx--which is
barely realistic) in some cases the RAM and hard disk as well--and 20K
did not consider the software purchase (what're OS/2 site licenses costing
nowadays?), installation, retraining, etc.  When there is no REAL GOOD
PAYOFF YET.  With legistlation against businesses (look what prop 103 did
to the insurance industry in california)--throwing money into an "upgrade"
that has dubious immediate payback can be distastrous.  

Your client says that 10mhz 80286 performance was not "up to par"--mine
think it's slow (when compared to one of the 386's or 486's) but they are
happy because they remember some of their coworkers who had 8088's (which
are now gone, BTW).

If your clients had bought the "minimum" you recommended four years ago,
and they needed to buy over a hundred machines, they would have had to
increase sales by eight million dollars to cover the cost.

>
>>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.  

We found otherwise.  There's a difference between going from
mainframes to desktops and going from one OS to another.  The first, it's
a switch in the PROCEDURES of the entire company: centralized processing
to distributed processing--the second does not change a basic premise of the
way the company operates.  The payoff in the second is questionable... it
increases the efficiency of the machines--but not the efficiency of the
person... or the efficiency of the mail, printer, management, etc...

>
>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).  
>

Now, buying a 486 for Jane Doe is NOT going to make any office more 
productive!  It all dependes on what Jane Doe does... if she types (which
is mainly what my clients' employees do) she's going to type 60 wpm whether
she's on an 80286 running Word 5.5 (or WordWin 2.0) or she's typing on
an 80486.  She's still going to make the same mistakes.  She's still
going to cost as much money (more, considering retraining).  All just
to have the newest machine on her desk (and THIS with the P5 around the
corner!).

Let's not exaggerate the payoff.  Now matter what kind of machine you
get, the basic office worker LIKES to twiddle thumbs...


>>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.

No, people are sticking to Windows because it has a gentle upgrade path.
OS/2 requires new capitalization up front to "modernize" the office.  Most
businesses (I can say this now, I brought this subject up during our last
Rotary) would rather upgrade piecemeal than all at once.

Just an opine!

Joe.