From: jss@cs.bham.ac.uk (John Swapp-Sweet)
Subject: Re: OS which beats MS-DOS and OS/2?
Organization: University of Birmingham
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:50:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.010119.10873@Celestial.COM>, ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:
|> In <1993Jan19.134034@cs.bham.ac.uk> jss@cs.bham.ac.uk (John Swapp-Sweet) writes:
|>
|> >Please tell me about running windows and then hefty windows apps like Correl 3
|> >under "vpix".  Tell me about the pain in the arse that "vpix" is to configure
|> >optimally in the fist place.  Then tell me why I should double the size of my
|> >hard disk jsut to carry on running the same apps as before, but slower is time
|> >and hard disk space that much cheaper in Mercer Island?
|> 
|> Well, I haven't tried to run Correl 3 under vpix, so I just don't know how
|> it would perform.  But as far as setting up vpix, there seems to be very
|> little difference between setting up the UNIX  version and setting up a new
|> DOS box ( or maybe your dealer did that for you??).
|>

If only there were any decent dealers this side of the pond able to find there
arses with both elbows.  Setting upon vpix out of the box, just like slapping in
a couple of dos disks, oh please.  I've installed all flavours of dos
(3.3,4.01,5.01,dr5,dr6 and multiuser dr) on all flavours of hardware and network.
 BAsically there isn't an os that hasn't reduced me to tears of incoherent rage
at some point (including o/s400).  If you read my snippet I mentioned, perhaps a
little casually, the notion of optimal performance.  Believe me, there are HUGE
compatibility problems with heavy winapps.  But this isn't the real issue, the
issue is one of what is apropriate for a given application and the CHEAPEST way
to achieve that optimal solution, if one uses Correl under windows under dos why 
should one move to vpix under unix to DO THE SAME THING. 
 
|> >P.S. the _real_ cost of running MS-Word on a unix net is significantly higher
|> >than the _windows_ version on a dos net, minor details like the cost of the OS
|> >and hardware (and suport staff!) have their place in any such calculation.
|> Even with all those factors thrown in, it is significantly less expensive on
|> the UNIX box!
|>

Real life case, an outfit I consulted for had Tetra under Xenix, they needed to
word process (as you do).  They had a choice of WORD (or after a long wait)
WordPerfect.  They tried, it failed, hardware upgrades were needed, the suport
guys (who weren't that bad) were pulling their hair out.  I arrived, I left and
they were rolling out Netware 3.11, Win3.2 and Word for Windows 2.  The accounts
were a pisser to move but it worked and there year on suport costs have fallen by
8% and user invlovement has finally strted to become a factor that help
productivity.
 
|> But enough of this, there is no way you can be convinced, so why try.
|> -- 

But I AM convinced --- I'm writing this on a HP 700/RX running UNIX.  I like this
machine and OS, it does things I could never do under DOS on INTEL.  But I only
do this when it is apropriate, not before, and not for the sake of it.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.questions,comp.sys.dec,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.os2