NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/misc-part1/3611

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 8.3 KB

Path: crl9.crl.com!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (Andrea Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.2600,alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc,alt.comp.virus,alt.crackers,alt.cracks,alt.cyberspace,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.wired,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.unixware.misc
Subject: Re: Will anyone buy NT?? (Yes!)
Date: 30 Jan 1996 12:43:25 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access
Message-ID: <4elvtd$[e-mail]>
References: <4eik5e$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl9.crl.com

[e-mail] (Simon) writes:



>From what I have read, "NT Workstation has the ability to run both
>"Windows" 16 and 32 bit app's along with "DOS" "OS2" and "Posix".
>All these apparently simultaneously !!!

Uh duh ....   So does every serious Unix and OS2. This has been
a standard in operating systems since the 386 took off about
5 years ago.  As usual MS was the last one up.


>Practically all popular applications are being re-written or
>re-compiled for 32 bit systems, and there will be no shortage of
>software that will run on "NT".

There is a shortage of software that will run on NT.  OS2 has the
same problem but there is a lot more and since the OS is big
in the corporate community you can beg, borrow or contact a
lot of custom programs.  32 bit software does not equal NT
software.



>At the moment, I am writing some
>software with the 16 bit "Delphi" development tool. Programs written
>with this, are said to be able to run on both "Windows 95" and
>"Windows NT" as well as "Windows 3.1 / 3.11

At this moment I am not developing any code (how could I be writing
this post if I was).  If I was interested in writing some code
I would go to a number of languages with 32 bit DOS extenders
that could be run in Windows along if I so chose in machines
using OS2 and Unix.



>"NT Workstation" is optimised for connection to a network, especially
>a network running "NT Server"; but it's quite capable of standing
>entirely by itself . Networking is the way things are going,
>especially with the increasing prominence of the Internet.

Uh everyone I know has been networked for about a decade now.  Or
at least every business.  Some are hooking up to Internet and they
do this by adding a Unix box onto the system.  Others just use
phone lines.  In point of fact the Internet is restoring the
old centralized computer(s) way of doing things as opposed to
the standard PC distributed programming in which the server was
essentially a file server and most computation was done locally.
The Internet is not the only thing which is spreading this
the "application server",  but it is part of a process.   In
a few years time (as lines improve) we are likely to see more
and more people shifting some work and stored data (off site
back up) to specialized providers.  The box on your desk
may be just a few hundred dollar terminal with someone else
handling the complexities of organization.   Add fifty machines,
you just rent 50 more lines from the phone company.  "Networking"
in the PC sense is no longer the wave of the future.  All serious
small concerns did it years ago,  the big iron people carried out
a lot of their migration and are having doubts about it (in some
cases).  You are getting heavier and heavier interconnection at
the WAN level, but we really are not talking things like NT
here we are talking things like Cisco.











>Before long
>many families will have a central server in their home, serving PC's
>used by children for homework as well as their parents applications.

Well the price of disks are down and you can surely put up an
archive if you like,  but I think most sensible families
are going to be hooking the Nintendo or PC to a centralized
service provider who can store huge qualities of data (by
todays inflated standards) not a few gig and why buy and
encyclopedia on CD ROM when you can get a much huger one
for a buck an hour (or whatever).  You probably are going
to see some LANs in home so daddy bear can mail baby bear
"It's bedtime" message,  I used to keep a network for backup onto
separate machines,  but it's no big deal.


>This is the reality; it's happening ! The next machine that I buy will
>be a powerful server within my home, that will be permanently
>connected to the Internet for business handling. All individual PC's
>within the house, will be able to access it. It will almost certainly
>be running "NT Server", with "NT Workstation" on the individual PC's.


Wow!


>"Windows NT" can now be considered a stable, powerful operating
>system, which is why it has been chosen for a number of banking
>systems in the US. It can provide various levels of security, and is
>easily understood by "Windows" users.


There are some companies using NT.  They are also hiring contractors
to custom build a lot of necessary pieces.  We are talking some
very different levels of systems here.  This isn't at all like the
network in your home.  If you needed powerful stuff then Unix,
OS 2 and application servers which can be hooked into Novell
provide you with something much closer to a turn key application.
NT may or may not take off.  It is adequete for a lot of jobs
(so is DOS (which can run multiple programs through a Quarterdeck
extension).  The consumer mass market producers however are producing
less stuff for NT than they are for OS2.  Unix has it's own huge
archive of programs.  Windows 95 is where (if you want the new and
snazzy) you are likely to get stuff at your level.


>I am not in any way associated with "Microsoft"; I merely wished to
>respond to what I saw as an unjustifed comment  about an operating
>system that doesn't seem to deserve it. Already it has aquired such a
>large share of the network operating system market, that Novel's in
>real trouble. Check it out !

Novell has problems, everyone has problems.  But MS products are
not welcome for those running serious networks without staffs of
programmers to tweak them.  Yes, if I want to hook up a dozen
or so computers on a LAN NT is probably ok,  but I have seen
dozens of products (most of them gone) of which the same is
true. Novell is the standard.  Second level problems such as
linking the networks locally or across town,  adding routers,
plugging in third party products,  adding some Unix boxes are
no big deal.  Customer support deals with this standard easily.  A big
company with some millions to play with in custom development
may decide to go NT because it has some theoretical advantages.
But the stuff you have been going wow about is routine.  Everyone
has it.  Networks are not new.  Even Apple figured out that they
were useful by the late eighties.  386 and above allow you to
partition memory so you can run multiple programs and operating
systems at the same time.  MS was the last one on the block to
do this.

Whether you understand it or not,  your piece is a detraction
of NT because it shows a sucker,  someone who has no idea of
the technology.  MS is not a serious network player.  Their
opeating system ability stinks.  DR had a muliuser DOS out with
the 286,  32 bit DOS extenders came out within months of the
386.  MS is just getting to true multi programming and 32 bit.  I have
known people who used some MS network products.  Kinks came
up and they spent hours on the phone and then had to figure
out on their own how to do things that were rudimentary with
3Com (this is probably before your time).  Like I say NT is
probably great if you want a simple system.  But if you
are building anything at all serious you are going to be
walking on a lot of untrod ground.  The MS people are not
going to be much help.  They have been trying to get into
the netowork market for years,  but they are not very good.
Few of the little bits and pieces you need to add to a serious
network are tested with NT.  There are a few good companies
(such as SGI) which have invested some energy into it,  but
NT can quickly get to be a real hassle.

And nobody is building for it which means you have to build for
yourself.  Or accept a very limited range of products.





>This article is a corrected version of my earlier one, which addressed
>wrongly.