NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/advocacy/3850

Text File | 1993-01-24 | 7.5 KB | 151 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!u.cc.utah.edu!yf5990
From: [e-mail] (Yan Fang/Humanities)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center Student Mail Machine
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 21:27:07 GMT
Lines: 139

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jason Smith) writes:
>[e-mail] (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jason Smith) writes:

<stuff deleted>

>>>I'm thinking of the needs of fairly non-knowledgable people doing very
>>>general work.
>>>
>>>    If it's a Mac OS, I can be in-house support.  OS/2, I could most
>>>likely pick up easily, but I've heard too many nightmares from netop friends
>>>about Windows and WFW to be excited about it.
>>>
>>>    In order, we're looking for :     Ease of use    (Mac)
>>>                    Networking    (Mac)
>>>                    Flexibility/upgradability
>>>                            (Mac or NeXTStep)
>>>                    Compatability    (OS/2)
>>>                    Programming    (NeXTStep 486)
>>>
>>NeXT has a much more structured, consistent and powerful user interface.
>
>    True, a matter of opinion.  Having worked with Unix, the NeXT is an
>inuitive system.  But to someone who's never used Unix?  I think not.  NeXT's
>interface is still based off of it's Unix roots, and frankly, it takes a bit
>more technical knowledge to *understand* than the Mac.  I have to look at this
>from the point of view that complete dunderheads are going to be using them,
>I'm afraid.  Otherwise, yes, I might agree with you.  But, for the hypothetical
>idiots, the Mac is easier.
>
>>To say that Mac has the best networking is to say that a Yugo could out
>>Ferrari.  Appletalk is SLOW and error prone.  Even MacWeek magazine agrees
>>with that one.  The NeXT networking environment is configured using a bundled
>>program with an easy to use graphical interface.  A network of systems
>>running NeXTSTEP can be set up just as easily as Mac, or even easier.  Once
>>the server system is turned on and established as being the server, networking
>>other NeXT systems is done by simply plugging them into the network and
>>turning them on - VOILA - the NeXTSTEP network is set up automatically by
>
>    AppleTalk *is* slow.  Relatively speaking.  Again, I'm not looking for
>cutting-edge, I'm looking for what will be appropriate for the needs of the
>company, at the lowest price.  For the occassional file transfer of a word
>processing document or mail message, AppleTalk is fine.  The server would most
>likely be a 486 with Novell or NeXTStep, now that I've been exposed to a little
>more information.  That *would* allow us a greater flexibility in in-house
>platforms.  However, I am leery of future compatability problems, specifically
>with AURP.
>
>However, I wasn't talking about protocols, I was talking about applications and
>files.  Remember, this is for an *office*, not a technical laboratory filled
>with technologically minded people... they don't *care* about the protocols,
>they just want to be able to share data with Joe Schmoe with a '386 running
>Windows down the street.  In that arena, OS/2 offers the most *built-in*
>compatability than the others.

>Like I said, if it's Mac, I'm in-house.  If it's
>NeXT, it would most likely take me a while to configure everyone's systems
>*because they don't have the technical background*.  I don't want to have to
>run to everyone's station every five minutes to help them configure something.
>I'd rather have a system that the *user's* can understand.  Again, that's why
>I'm looking into the NeXTStep 486 server... power where *I'll* need it, and out
>of the hands of the people who will screw it up.
>
>    Thanks for the input, but the focus of this system is going to be at
>the *users*, not me, the admin.  The less trouble *they* have, the less trouble
>*I* have. :)  Hence, I'm aiming for the easiest to use system for complete
>novices... and it looks like the Mac to me.
>
>JMS

What you said you were looking for in your purchase of computers, besides
low cost, was ease-of-use to novices, resulting in little overhead to you, the
adminstrator. Of course, that's not the only independent variable in the
equation; you also must add in how easy it is for you to set up, to train
users to use, what kind of performance you'll get when it's configured, and
what tools are available to your users for doing Real Work.

If you want
* to give the users an easy-to-use-and-learn environment,
* need compatibility between heterogenous environments' data types and network
protocols,
* need bulletproof Windows emulation and want competent Mac emulation,
* want better than LocalTalk network performance,
* need easy-to-use network tools, and
* decent productivity apps

then NeXTSTEP '486 is a good choice.

If you aren't sure that NeXTSTEP '486 is all it's cracked up to be, call
NeXT, ask to speak to Conrad Geiger, NeXT user group coordinator for North
America, and ask him to find someone in your area to show you NeXTSTEP
'486, so you can judge for yourself rather than have someone tell you
about it.

NeXT users have little trouble figuring out how to use NeXTSTEP. After
all, despite its "cheap welfare interface," it is simply a point-and-click,
drag-and-drop graphical environment with many Mac-like advantages and few
Mac-like disadvantages.

What kind of data types are you transferring between disparate platforms?
If you can save something in EPS, TIFF, RTF, WKS or WK1, or ASCII, you can
usually transfer it between platforms easily.

Since you're an experienced network administrator, you will find NeXTSTEP
as easy to administer as a LocalTalk network. That's a big win for a
TCP/IP network on Unix platforms. A novice really could set up
a NeXT network with only a vague idea of what networking is about and an
hour or two reading the on-line networking docs. An experienced
administrator could set up a heterogenous network in a day or so. This
applies if your net will be connected to the Internet.

In my company's LocalTalk network, people are always pulling the network
connectors off their machines because when someone uses resources on
their machine, it slows it down to a crawl. (BTW, we are using a Quadra 700
20/660 as a server and Mac IIvxs, among others, as clients.) In a NeXT
network, as in any robust Ethernet-based network, you don't get nearly the
performance hit as you do with a LocalTalk network.

Apparently, NeXTSTEP '486 runs DOS/Windows on the '486 itself; it doesn't
emulate it as does OS/2 2.0. That's a big win; you never have to worry
about your Windows emulation because you're not emulating it. When
someone hands you a Windows app on a floppy, just run it under Windows.

Surprisingly, there are more than a few productivity NeXTSTEP
productivity apps. If your users aren't running AutoCAD or a 3D modelling
package, they'll have a choice between what apps to use, be they
spreadsheets, word processors, or page layout tools.

If you are faced with the onerous task of writing checks (or recommending
writing checks) and you must justify your decision later to some
higher-up, you should at least evaluate NeXTSTEP '486 as a potential solution.


--
Yan Fang-Magnusson
Ph.D. candidate, philosophy, University of Utah
[e-mail]
[e-mail] (NeXTmail)