NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/misc-part1/3731

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 7.9 KB

Path: taco.cc.ncsu.edu!wakko
From: [e-mail] (Wakko Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.2600,alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc,alt.crackers,alt.cracks,alt.cyberspace,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.wired,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
Subject: Re: Will anyone buy NT??
Date: 31 Jan 1996 21:03:25 GMT
Organization: Bob, the machine o' death.
Message-ID: <4eolet$[e-mail]>
References: <1d7cc$[e-mail]> <4eg3us$[e-mail]> <4eg8ei$[e-mail]> <4elusl$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bob.catt.ncsu.edu

In article <4elusl$[e-mail]>, Simon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On 28 Jan 1996 16:32:18 GMT, [e-mail] (Ravi Krishna
>Swamy) wrote:
>
>>In article <4eg3us$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Simon) writes:
>
>>>"Windows NT" is now a very attractive operating system to consider,
>>>and could easily come "the" operating system of choice.
>
>>I look at it and still see that horrible ugly piece of crap
>>win3.1 GUI.  Yeah, yeah, I know about the win95 interface,
>>but it still doesn't ship with it...
>
>Thank goodness; I'd rather not have the 95 interface !

Let me put you down as the first in my list of people who
like the win3.1 interface.

>>>"NT" is sold in two forms; "NT Server" and "NT Workstation". "NT
>>>Workstation" is designed for use on a PC, and according to the press,
>>>is so good compared to "Windows 95" that many are going directly to it
>
>>My TI-85 has a better "OS" than a computer with win95...
>
>What's a T1-85 when it's at home?

The same thing it is when it's at school.  A calculator.

>>>Practically all popular applications are being re-written or
>>>re-compiled for 32 bit systems, and there will be no shortage of
>
>>I can't wait for that 32-bit solitaire!  Best windoze app
>>I've ever seen!
>
>Have you seen many?

Yes.

>>>software that will run on "NT". 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
>>>
>>>"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,
>
>
>>I never would have known that "networking is the way things are
>>going" if it wasn't for Microsoft telling me that...
>
>With computers outselling televisions in the US, networking is no
>longer going to be associated with just company use.

Actually I'm planning on setting up a 3 or 4 computer network
at home.  Have you heard of sarcasm before?

>>>especially with the increasing prominence of the Internet. 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.
>
>>Wow, just the concept seems so new to me.  I'd rather just have
>>a multiuser OS and hook a couple of dumb or X terminals up to it
>>and let my nonexistant children use it at the same time as I am.
>
>When there is more than one PC in a house, the oportunity of
>connecting them is bound to arise. Why have not concentrate hardware
>like disk drives in one machine, which less expensive ones can use

I'm planning on it, but I don't need for Micro$oft to sell me
this "New Technology" in order to be able to have a network.

>just as easily. Not necessarily dumb terminals though; after all many
>would like to keep CD ROM drives to hand, as well as other devices.

A dumb terminal would still let me access files on a CD.  I'm not
exactly sure what you mean be "would like to keep CD ROM drives
to hand."  What does "to hand" mean?  Personally I use my CD-ROM
drive about once ever 4 months if that often.  I've only used
it to install a couple of OS's and play some CD's, but my stereo
downstairs is much better at that.

>>>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.
>>
>>Yippy, I'm so happy for you.
>
>Me too ! It's been a long time coming. As soon as it becomes a
>finacially good move to keep a constant connection to the Net, a
>desktop PC is not an ideal solution. Something a little more powerful
>securely mounted in a cupboard somewhere, with a UPS sufficient to
>allow a controlled shutdown upon power failure, is what's needed. As a

So why not just put the UPS on the desktop PC?  My "desktop PC"
at work was running an ftpd, httpd, and serving up apps to two
other "desktop PC's" while I was using it to do my work.  What's
this stuff about "secure mounting?"

>bonus for having a cable connection for cable tv, my local cable
>company provides free dial-up of my provider, for up to around one
>hundred hours a week. Continuous connection to the Net is very

I can't really comment.  I have "free" access to T3's at school
and at work.  I doubt I would be happy with ISDN speed so
until cable modem service in my area becomes a reality I will
be quite happy with a 2400 baud connection to check my mail
once a night.

>realistic under these circumstances. The explosion in Internet
>popularity is very likely to extend low cost continuous access to many
>over the next few years. While a server quietly does it's job, it's
>good to have an independent PC for everyday use, that can be rebooted
>frequently, played around with, or just plain switched off. My

I guess we just differ in philosophy.  I just leave my computer
up 24-7 at work but my email is sent there and who knows when
someone wants to access some info on it.  I don't see any point
rebooting it except to change its IP address when some twit
decides he likes mine better than the one assigned to him.

>enthusiasm for a little home network is unrelated to anything said by
>"Microsoft". Domestic products manufactures are likely to be pushing
>home networks very soon, to integrate telephones/tv's/alarms... etc
>
>>>"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.
>
>>I guess this implies Windows users are stupid?
>
>Not at all ! But compared to "Novel's Netware", it is much easier to

Lorentz transformations are easy to understand compared to Netware.

>understand; the interface is so familiar. If "Netware" wasn't so
>complicated for managers to set-up and run securely, and provided as
>easy a way to connect to external networks, then they wouldn't have
>suffered such an enourmous loss of the market. Bearing in mind it is
>largely these "managers" who have voted with their money as to what
>they want.

I've never claimed that these "managers" are intelligent.  Quite
the opposite in fact.

>>>I am not in any way associated with "Microsoft"; I merely wished to
>
>>For someone not associated with M$ you sure sound like their
>>marketing department.
>
>Your right! Perhaps I should check them out for a job !
>: )

Go for it.

>>>Already it has aquired such a large
>>>share of the network operating system market, that Novel's in real
>>>trouble. Check it out !
>
>>No thanks, I'm not interested in any "New Technology" from M$.
>>
>>Ravi
>>--
>>Ravi K. Swamy                http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rkswamy/www/
>>[e-mail]         [e-mail]
>
>If you can't beat them; join em !

I've never agreed with that and never will.

Ravi
--
Ravi K. Swamy                http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rkswamy/www/
[e-mail]         [e-mail]