home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.arch:11962 comp.misc:4705
- Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!rde!ksmith!keith
- From: keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith)
- Subject: Multi-User vs Network (was: Re: IBM AS/400 ...)
- Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC
- Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 03:27:14 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Dec28.032714.7781@ksmith.uucp>
- Followup-To: comp.misc
- References: <1992Dec21.141558.18626@rchland.ibm.com> <id.HD1W.X03@ferranti.com> <1992Dec26.003022.25532@bilver.uucp>
- Lines: 59
-
- In article <1992Dec26.003022.25532@bilver.uucp> wbeebe@bilver.uucp (Bill Beebe) writes:
- >In article <id.HD1W.X03@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
- >
- >>I'd hope it'd run pretty damn well, since we've had up to 10 users on a 286
- >>doing software development... which is about 30 times slower than the 486,
- >>with more demanding users.
- >>
- >>Now I won't say I was happy with the performance on the 286, but the current
- >>systems with moderately old 386es are adequate, and our 486 box screams.
- >
- >Maybe I *really* am dumber than a box of dirt, but why, in this day of
- >networking, would anyone do team development on a single box when it would
- >appear that team development on networked single-user boxes would be a lot
- >more efficient? Why do we still need multi-user boxes except to support
- >obsolete business practices?
-
- What is obsolete about 32 people using dumb text terminals to query a
- customer database? What's obsolete about saving a small fortune doing
- it? Why network my office staff when the additional expense of
- equipment, and training will net $0 into the corporate coffers? What
- will networking get me that I cannot get with a Multi-User box
- (*BESIDES* the headaches with printing under NOVELL :) :) :) ). Why
- *NOT* do team development on a single CPU if it is quite capable of
- handling it? Why not go into my office, turn on my terminal & seconds
- later answer the login and go to work rather than wait for a PC to boot?
- Why not network the Multi-User box to another Multi-user box and share
- multiple resources on both.
-
- I've got a NOVELL site where the users all want to share a single modem
- (and phone line) for several different simple dedicated PC-DOS style
- comm packages. Under novell, I can get a bunch of redirector cards for
- all the PeeCees. Under Unix I do the same thing with Unlimited user
- VP/ix on wy-150 terminals. Net savings: Big bucks. Net hassle: MUCH
- less. Administration. Gimme a Multi-User setup. Mail for NOVELL.
- Costs extra. In fact all that DOS crap costs extra.
-
- And the APP for the NOVELL... Why it *REQUIRES* a VGA adaptor & 538K of
- available RAM, So forget the hot-key to mail. Oh, And those
- highlighted and colored *TEXT* windows, menu's and screens really take
- FULL advantage of the VGA adaptors and screens. *YEP*, true strides in
- productivity because of all that expensive *REQUIRED* hardware, And
- application shuffling. RIGHT.
-
- Meanwhile the wy150 folks can hotkey between 3 different sessions using
- mscreen (built in to SCO) and All the apps will let you shell up
- indefinately, If you can't hotkey straight over to where you wish to be.
- Oh, and the 20 DOS boxes and 5 other SCO boxes in the remote offices
- around NC and VA, could easily call in/out on a regular basis into the
- NOVELL network on the 7 HS modems I have attached without spending a
- small fortune on a modem server. Sure.
-
- So network a bunch of unix work$tation$?
-
- Assuming the 486DX2/66 will handle it, What are my advantages in
- networking?
- --
- Keith Smith uunet!ksmith!keith 5719 Archer Rd.
- Digital Designs BBS 1-919-423-4216 Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201
- Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ...
-