All HAIL Bill GATES, Windows Forever
Dan Stromberg
Organization: University of California, Irvine
In article <48o9gs$ia4...@cs1.electriciti.com>,
Ed Redondo <evrw...@powergrid.electriciti.com> wrote:
>In article <48icn0$4...@rand.org>,
> gia...@conrad.rand.org (Amanda Giarla) wrote:
>>I've heard 'him' called - the Anti-Christ of computing :-)
>>Is this true?????
>
>Only by those who are green with envy.
Did anyone else hear that spot on NPR recently, contrasting
mainframes, workstations, and Gates-ware? (BTW, did anyone catch
Gates throwing on the blurring between mainframes and workstations
again? Do -you- want software from someone who can't tell the
difference?)
Gates was talking about the dominant place in the computer market "we
all know PC's should have."
The thing is, his voice... He just didn't sound convinced. In fact,
it sounded like he was suffering a pang of conscience.
This is not enviable.
Ed Redondo
stro...@bingy.acs.uci.edu (Dan Stromberg) wrote:
>Did anyone else hear that spot on NPR recently, contrasting
>mainframes, workstations, and Gates-ware? (BTW, did anyone catch
>Gates throwing on the blurring between mainframes and workstations
>again? Do -you- want software from someone who can't tell the
>difference?)
>
Actually the blurring of mainframes and workstations *is* occurring. With
networking of workstations, the difference between how you *use* mainframes
and networked workstations is becoming less.
Mainframes are fast becoming the tool of very big business that deal in
huge amounts of data per day (banks, international corporations, etc.).
For the medium sized business, networked workstations will do the same job
that a mainframe did in the past. That's why today's OS is heavy in
networking capabilities/tools.
==============================================================
The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its
credibility. And vice versa.
====================================== Ed Redondo ============
Theofilu Andreas
jrob...@ehsn18.cen.uiuc.edu (robertson jason vict) writes:
>In article Corporal Punishment <3a...@qlink.queensu.ca> writes:
>>Subject: Re: All HAIL Bill GATES, Windows Forever
>>I recently attended a presentation given by a guy from IBM, about OS/2 and how
>>it compares to Win95, and about IBM in general. Here are the main points:
>>
>>- Mainframes are in, PC's are out. The guy said that IBM can't keep up with the
>>damand for its mainframes, and that there's no way mainfraimes can be replaced
>>by a whole bunch of networked PC's, as some people would have us believe. The
>>reliablitly just isn't there. I asked him about Intel's latest order from the US
>>government for a system made of 9000 P6's used to simulate nuclear explosions,
>>and the guy said that Intel basically "gave" the system away just as a publicity
>>thing.
>>
>
>Well, I thought we were moving from mainframes to _workstations_, not PC's.
>There's no way any number of PC's could perform like a good mainframe (not
>just CPU power) but workstations and 'super' workstations are getting close.
>
>Not claiming to be an expert, just repeating what I've heard.
I'm working in a big company and we're using one IBM-mainframe together
with many MIPS R4000 based SINIX-workstations. All of them are connected
over a big private X.25 network (WAN). There are 5000 users daily working
on the mainframe together plus the 400! workstations currently connected
to the mainframe.
There will never be a workstation who is available to serve concurrently
5000 or more users and I believe that there is no *NIX-system who has the
security features and the capacity to do the work of a mainframe.
However, most of the calculation and work is done by the workstations. We
have there a special, self written application who is the interface to the
user. The data is stored on the mainframe and every night the mainframe
makes some basic calculations uppon the data stored on it.
This is the only way to garantee that every workstation have the same
data basis and to make a daily backup. Therefore it doesn't matter if
one of the workstations crash.
And where is the place for a PC? They are necessary! Every user is
working on a PC and uses it basicly as a terminal for either the work-
station and the mainframe. Because of the network we can also have an
internal mailing system based on the workstations but using Window$ as
an interface where the client applications are running. I think, this
scenario will be the future, if a company is big enough of course.
Maybe the OS on the PC will change, but that doesn't matter. Companies
like this are the motor of computer industrie. They need platforms who
saves the investions made in the past. They do not care about an OS
is good or not. They only asks, how often the OS was selled. As long
as they thing that way, there is no place for a Linux or something else.
Don't misanderstand this. I'm a big fan of Linux and I hate Micro$oft
and Bill Gates. On my private disks there's no space for Window$. But
be honest, that's not realistic.
--
Theofilu Andreas
Email: theo...@ping.at
-------------------------------------------------
Enjoy the science of Linux!
Genieße die Wissenschaft von Linux!
-------------------------------------------------
David Corn
>>It's not object oriented, and he demonstrated that by showing how
>>it keeps track of the "shortcuts", versus OS/2's "shadows": basically it doesn't
>>keep track of them at all. When the original is moved, the shadow is useless.
>
>This is blatantly wrong. The only time the shortcut is lost is if
>it's moved to a different drive, and even then you are given the
>option to manually locate it when launched.
No. If a Win95 shortcut is moved, first Win95 does a _VERY_ fast
search of the surrounding area, then asks the user to find the
original while it continues doing a longer search based on filesize.
The Mac alias concept is better.
In any case, this is nitpicking. This isn't a big deal for anyone.
How often do you move applications around, and how long does it take
to fix that? 10 seconds? 30?
Detlef Engelbrecht
delivers.
The alternative would be to provide something as user friendly maybe based
on Linux.
As long as there is no alternative to MS Office (when it comes to usabilty),
people should not complain. - Providing an alternative is up to us all. Why
not start an internet project based on Linux?
Detlef
--
Detlef Engelbrecht
Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG, ASW BA DMS2
81739 Muenchen, Otto-Hahn-Ring 6, Germany
Tel.: + 49 (89) 636-43062
FAX: + 49 (89) 636-48903
E-mail: Detlef.En...@mch.sni.de
det...@isys.net
Proud member of the 1995 Cottage Summit, Ontario, Canada
Your UVID
It's only nit-picking to you if you really don't care about overall
system stability. Once the system starts losing track of files and programs
it becomes a setup for corruption as it begins to overwrite files, create
files to replace ones still in existence, etc. Because OS/2 uses dynamic
linking to create it's shadows, copies, etc., it _always_ knows where its
resources are - no re-booting BS needed. While any OS can lose data due
to power surges, etc., in OS/2 the damage is limited to data currently
being manipulated in RAM. Win95 has the potential to lose entire desktops
of links from a power outage at the wrong time.
James Martino
>
>I'm working in a big company and we're using one IBM-mainframe together
>with many MIPS R4000 based SINIX-workstations. All of them are connected
>over a big private X.25 network (WAN). There are 5000 users daily working
>on the mainframe together plus the 400! workstations currently connected
>to the mainframe.
WOW! No kidding, "a big company"! 400 factorial workstations! Let's
see... that'd be about
6403452284662389526234797031950300585070258302600295945868444594280239716918683143627847864746326467629435057503585681084829816288351743522896198864680299793734165415083816242646194235230704624432501511444867089066277391491811733195599644070954967134529047702032243491121079759328079510154537266725162787789000934976376571032635033153396534986838683133935202437378815778679150631185870261827016981974006298302530859129834616227230455833952075961150530223608681043329725519485267443223243866994842240423259980555
1610635942376961399231917134063858996537970147827206606320217379472010321356624613809077942304597360699567595836096158715129913822286578579549361617654480453222007825818400848436415591229454275384803558374518022675900061399560145595206127211192918105032491008000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I'd love to see the I/O setup on that baby... -jim
--
Jim Martino j...@math.jhu.edu or Jim.M...@jhu.edu
David Bourgin
>
> I wonder why people keep complaining about Bill Gates and the products he
> delivers.
> As long as there is no alternative to MS Office (when it comes to usabilty),
> people should not complain. - Providing an alternative is up to us all. Why
> not start an internet project based on Linux?
If you want to write a shareware wordprocessor on LINUX, I'm there!
--
David
E-mails: dbou...@ufrima.imag.fr bou...@obs-besancon.fr
David Bourgin - UFR IMA (French University - Grenoble)
I'm a netsurfer, and as such a citizen of the world!
Richard M. Hartman
robertson jason vict <jrob...@ehsn18.cen.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>In article Corporal Punishment <3a...@qlink.queensu.ca> writes:
>Well, I thought we were moving from mainframes to _workstations_, not PC's.
>There's no way any number of PC's could perform like a good mainframe (not
>just CPU power) but workstations and 'super' workstations are getting close.
An interesting statement considering all the talk about how PCs
are getting closer and closer to workstation level.
-Richard Hartman
har...@zoom.COM
--
"If we do not succeed, we risk failure." -D. Quayle
robertson jason vict
>In article <498qp2$m...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>robertson jason vict <jrob...@ehsn18.cen.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>In article Corporal Punishment <3a...@qlink.queensu.ca> writes:
>>Well, I thought we were moving from mainframes to _workstations_, not PC's.
>>There's no way any number of PC's could perform like a good mainframe (not
>>just CPU power) but workstations and 'super' workstations are getting close.
>
>An interesting statement considering all the talk about how PCs
>are getting closer and closer to workstation level.
>
Closer, yes. But they're still miles away. People look at the P6 and think
that since the CPU is getting somewhere almost in the same ballpark that the
rest of the system must be close. Not only are the p5-p6's dead-end and
getting relatively slower, but the rest of the PC architecture is absolute
junk.
--
Buh?
PGP: finger jrob...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
email: jrob...@uiuc.edu [MIME/PGP accepted]
Jake Kesinger
p
References: <498qp2$m...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <499jtt$7...@theofilu.ping.at>
Organization: Texas Tech Mathematics Dept.
Distribution: inet
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Theofilu Andreas (theo...@ping.at) wrote:
: I'm working in a big company and we're using one IBM-mainframe together
: with many MIPS R4000 based SINIX-workstations. All of them are connected
: over a big private X.25 network (WAN). There are 5000 users daily working
: on the mainframe together plus the 400! workstations currently connected
: to the mainframe.
400! workstations? Wow, that's a hell of a lot of computers.
--Jake _ Jake Kesinger (kesi...@math.ttu.edu) <*>
LUBBOCK -> _|*~- http://rowlf.cc.wwu.edu:8080/~n9146070/
\, _} I had a marvellous quote to go here, but it is too
\( long to fit in the margin.
David Corn
>On Mon, 27 Nov 1995 03:50:36 GMT, David Corn (dc...@metronet.com) wrote:
>: In any case, this is nitpicking. This isn't a big deal for anyone.
>: How often do you move applications around, and how long does it take
>: to fix that? 10 seconds? 30?
>
>15-20 times a day. To make things more confusing, they're usually successive
>versions of the same applications.
Some people have a need for it; why not just name the app the same
thing, and have a batch job to move the old files to a dated name in
another directory?
Jeff Dege
p
References: <48qhmd$j...@news.service.uci.edu> <30B7E7...@qlink.queensu.ca> <49alh1$a...@ddi2.digital.net> <30b913d1...@feenix.metronet.com>
Distribution:
Lines: 13
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950726BETA PL0]
On Mon, 27 Nov 1995 03:50:36 GMT, David Corn (dc...@metronet.com) wrote:
: In any case, this is nitpicking. This isn't a big deal for anyone.
: How often do you move applications around, and how long does it take
: to fix that? 10 seconds? 30?
15-20 times a day. To make things more confusing, they're usually successive
versions of the same applications.
--
Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another:
"What! You, too? Thought I was the only one."
-C.S. Lewis
Jeff Dege
: jd...@winternet.com (Jeff Dege) wrote:
:
: >: In any case, this is nitpicking. This isn't a big deal for anyone.
: >: How often do you move applications around, and how long does it take
: >: to fix that? 10 seconds? 30?
: >
: >15-20 times a day. To make things more confusing, they're usually successive
: >versions of the same applications.
: Some people have a need for it; why not just name the app the same
: thing, and have a batch job to move the old files to a dated name in
: another directory?
What I generally do is to check all the files into the revision control
system, rename the project directory, create a new project directory,
check all the files out and do a clean build. The inconvenience is that
any icons that had the old project directory as their working directory
now have the old project directory as their working directory, and that's
not what I want.
_Sometimes_ you want an icon to follow a moved file or directory,
_sometimes_ you want it to work strictly off the name. In Unix, this is
the difference between a hard and a soft link. It would be nice if other
systems were flexible enough to provide both alternatives.
[This thread has been posting to an absurd number of newsgroups. I trimmed
it some.]
--
"I quite agree with you," said the Duchess; "and the moral of
that is -- `Be what you would seem to be' -- or, if you'd like it put
more simply -- `Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it
might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not
otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be
otherwise.'"
-- Lewis Carrol, "Alice in Wonderland"
Hoodoznik
the advocacy groups.
David "The Great One" Digger"