NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/misc-part1/3859

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 7.7 KB

Path: news.uk0.vbc.net!SoNet!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Simon)
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: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 21:10:25 GMT
Organization: SoNet - The first Internet provider on the south coast
Message-ID: <4eraqb$[e-mail]>
References: <1d7cc$[e-mail]> <4eg3us$[e-mail]> <4eg8ei$[e-mail]> <4elusl$[e-mail]> <4eolet$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.119.120.81
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99b.112

On 31 Jan 1996 21:03:25 GMT, [e-mail] (Ravi K. Swamy)
wrote:


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

I'm sure there will be plenty of others! I like it becuase I can work
in it without a second thought, and it does the job. No doubt, if I
had spent half as long with "Windows 95", I might be able to say the
same about that. (or then again ... )

>>>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.

Hmmm...

>>>I can't wait for that 32-bit solitaire!  Best windoze app
>>>I've ever seen!
>>
>>Have you seen many?
>
>Yes.

Not a "Magic Carpet" kind of guy then?

>>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.

Your assumption that "Microsoft" sold me the idea of networks is
wrong ! I'm merely enthusiastic that "NT" happens to be a good
potential chioce. I could have been saying the same about "Linux"
under different circumstances.

>>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.

You only use your CD ROM "about once every 4 months" !!!
No wonder that you do not feel the need to keep a CD ROM drive to
hand.

I am always using mine. Loading app's from computer mag CD's. Loading
and re-loading comercial app's in my collection. Veiwing multimedia,
and reference material. The CD ROM can easily be used 20 times a day !

I sure wouldn't want to wander to another part of the house to put in
a CD; not to mention removeable hard disks.

>
>>>>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?"

A desktop PC as an Internet server for my business, as well as day to
day use, it out of the question. Between the Net and CD's, I installed
around 700 applications over the last year. A small percentage of
those have caused a variety of problems. Exceeding path lengths;
overwriting important files; and most frequently of all; just crashing
my system. Under all those situations, it's of little account if the
PC is not running for a while. If a virus ever gets past me, it's
still contained on a system that I can quite easily rebuild.

For a business server that should run for months supplying
registration numbers, information, and other important stuff around
the clock, without any problems; something separate is called for.
My desktop doesn't really need a UPS capable of maintaining power long
enough for a controlled shutdown, but the server will.

>What's this stuff about "secure mounting?"

Held securely in brackets. Shut away in a safe space, and left to it.
Call me insecure, but brackets it's going to have !

>>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.

I reboot my desktop several times a day; sometimes much more if
there's been a problem.

>>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.

The motives that guide them though, are ultimately not to dissimilar
to our own. In the event that something goes wrong that requires
assistance; "NT" tech support is available 24 hours a day. "Novel"
does not have the reputation among many, for supporting their
customers at all. I've never needed to call a support line before, but
If your business interests were at risk, it might be an important last
resource.

>>>>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$.

Me, I'll have whatever I can get.

Simon.