Hercules ??? Be realistic !
ASI...@djukfa11.bitnet
run on a Hercules system ? Why don`t you request a 386 emulator to run 2.0 on
a 286 ? How many 386 computers are out there with a Hercules board. And why has
the one who bought them not been fired ? What GUI applications are used on
these 386 computers with Hercules ? I bet these machines are only used for
text mode apps. If you want to use a GUI on them you have to get VGA.
I have seen people bashing Microsoft for saying Win3.x only needs a 286 with
1MB. I see people bashing IBM for printing "Min requirements 4MB RAM" on the
OS/2 2.0 boxes. And now you want IBM to say WPS runs on a Hercules system ?
Of course it could be done. But why not add a little bit of honesty to the
computer buisiness? A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit. Win3.x on a 1MB
machine is bullshit. OS/2 on a 4MB machine is bullshit. And NT on a x86 with
yMB RAM and a zMB harddisk is bullshit. And ist better to tell people what they
really need and what they really get then to let them buy product A and then
say "Fine, now of course you need to spend another nnn$ to get it really to
work."
IBM should rather get the drivers for all the existing SVGA boards than fiddle
with Hercules.
I would be really pissed of when I`d discover that IBM has a driver for Herc.
and no SVGA driver for lets say an ET3000.
Michael Bode.
Joe Discar
>I can`t believe what I`m reading here. There are really guys who want the WPS
>run on a Hercules system ? Why don`t you request a 386 emulator to run 2.0 on
>a 286 ? How many 386 computers are out there with a Hercules board. And why has
> the one who bought them not been fired ? What GUI applications are used on
>these 386 computers with Hercules ? I bet these machines are only used for
>text mode apps. If you want to use a GUI on them you have to get VGA.
Which shows your bias. Many of these hercules 386's were "upgrades" from older
286's--instead of replacing the entire system, only the motherboard (and in
some instances, the case/power supply) were changed. Many were "upgrades"
from 8088's--which started out running Windows 3.0, and when 3.1 came out,
the client wanted it and spent the extra $400 for a 386sx case... utilizing
the old HERCULES monitor, MFM HARD DISK, and 8-BIT NETWORK CARD.
It works. It runs Mind Your Own Business (Accounting Package), Word for
Windows 2.0, Excel 4.0, all the Win 3.1 min-apps.... and solitaire. NONE of
these will run on a similarly equipped machine with OS/2 2.0--because
it doesn't support Hercules.
Mind you, these people aren't stoopid--they're just stingy (and in these
economic times, this is a survival trait). They ARE slowly changing the
monitors to VGA (one at a time--which, again, they can do because the
Windows supports HGC... instead of the entire production floor if they had
chosen OS/2)--and increasing hard disk sizes, etc. But because they chose
an operating system that supported their "obsolete" equipment--they can
do the upgrades piecemeal... saving tons of money:
1) Over the last year Super VGA monitors have dropped as much as $200-$300
in price. Other hardware (hard disks, network cards, motherboards)
have dropped in price as well.
2) During Tax time, a business can expense up to $10,000 directly off
their income per year. Any amount over this MUST be depreciated over
five years. Being able to upgrade the system piecemeal means they
save themselves tax dollars.
>
>I have seen people bashing Microsoft for saying Win3.x only needs a 286 with
>1MB. I see people bashing IBM for printing "Min requirements 4MB RAM" on the
>OS/2 2.0 boxes. And now you want IBM to say WPS runs on a Hercules system ?
>Of course it could be done. But why not add a little bit of honesty to the
>computer buisiness? A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, a GUI on a VT100 (text only) or a Monochrome Adapter is bolshevik. Not
supporting "obsolete" adapter technology for an OS that's trying to break
into a new market alienates businesses that may be invested in the older
technology. It would be prudent to give them a chance to upgrade piecemeal--
but let them TASTE what they'd be missing.
In the meantime, more than a few of my clients expressed that they will
stick with Windows 3.x until all of their machines are OS/2 compatible (yes,
I still tell them that OS/2 is SUPERIOR to Windoze--they just can't run it
yet).
>Win 3.x on a 1MB
>machine is bullshit. OS/2 on a 4MB machine is bullshit. And NT on a x86 with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hehehe. But it runs. Not well, but well enough that they can get work done...
and two months later say "I want more RAM--will it make it faster?"
>yMB RAM and a zMB harddisk is bullshit. And ist better to tell people what they
>really need and what they really get then to let them buy product A and then
>say "Fine, now of course you need to spend another nnn$ to get it really to
>work."
Wrong. This doesn't cut it in the business world where they have to worry
about cash flow. OS/2 is NEW, it's EXCITING, it's UNPROVEN. If you were a
corporate CEO with a hundred OS/2-obsolete machines, would you spend
$20,000 to make them run an operating system that YOU ARE NOT CERTAIN WILL
HAVE A TANGIBLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT?
I've sat through these (rather boring) board meetings. At a 5% profit
margin, the company has to do at least $400,000 in sales to pay for the
HARDWARE investment alone! Not to mention the costs of installation, testing,
software, etc. ALL OF THESE COSTS UP FRONT... just to do what they've been
doing fine (albeit slowly) on older technology.
These companies chose the "worse" operating system because it allowed them
to spread the capital investment over time. Eventually (or so I am told)
they will switch to the new technologies (NT or OS/2).
All that IBM did by not supporting HGC, was delay their purchase--so that
by the time they have the iron to run OS/2 2.0, NT will be a viable option.
Who loses?
>
>IBM should rather get the drivers for all the existing SVGA boards than fiddle
>with Hercules.
Which is another reason they haven't switched. They're newer machines can't
run SVGA on the (CEO's and CFO's) 20" monitors. IBM made a serious mistake
in not supporting more SVGA adapters up front.
>
>I would be really pissed of when I`d discover that IBM has a driver for Herc.
>and no SVGA driver for lets say an ET3000.
So would I. All in all, I'm not really that upset they don't support Herc.
My clients are happy with Windows at the moment (well, sort of, MYOB has a
tendency to crash--a problem with the application, not Windows, per se). And
IBM just made it easier to reach a concensus about upgrading to OS/2 now:
don't do it--it will cost too much money to keep production going.
The hard decision will happen in two years--when most of the machines will be
OS/2 capable--but they (probably) will be NT-capable as well.
>
>Michael Bode.
Just my thoughts....
-> Joe <-
Note: I am not one of those that say users should always use old technology...
I'm just a firm believer that successful products allow the users a gentle
upgrade path. Not allowing slow upgrades (to increase performance) tends to
convince the potential corporate buyer to put off the commitment to a new
operating environment--long enough for the competitors to come to market
with a competing product.
Only time will tell if IBM made the right choice.
Frank Ch. Eigler
ASI...@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>[among other silly comments]
>A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit. [...]
Michael, have you forgotten about the original Mac?
GUIs on monochrome screens of roughly that resolution
can be quite competent.
I hope IBM puts in a Hercules driver for OS/2. I'd
use it.
--
-- Frank Ch. Eigler -- Comp Eng -- <eig...@ecf.toronto.edu> --
STACY JOHN BEHRENS
:
>In article <92253.134...@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI...@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>>I can`t believe what I`m reading here. There are really guys who want the WPS
>>run on a Hercules system ? Why don`t you request a 386 emulator to run 2.0 on
>>a 286 ? How many 386 computers are out there with a Hercules board. And why ha
s
>> the one who bought them not been fired ? What GUI applications are used on
>>these 386 computers with Hercules ? I bet these machines are only used for
>>text mode apps. If you want to use a GUI on them you have to get VGA.
>
>Which shows your bias. Many of these hercules 386's were "upgrades" from older
>286's--instead of replacing the entire system, only the motherboard (and in
>some instances, the case/power supply) were changed. Many were "upgrades"
>from 8088's--which started out running Windows 3.0, and when 3.1 came out,
>the client wanted it and spent the extra $400 for a 386sx case... utilizing
>the old HERCULES monitor, MFM HARD DISK, and 8-BIT NETWORK CARD.
And how many people have done this? I am 100% certain that it is a
statistically insignificant number. Frankly there is not bias involved in
this, it is simply a matter of usability. Hell I have a 40 MB MFM disk
running OS/2, but it just doesn't really do the job. The same with Herc or
CGA. Yea, technically it is possible, but it really causes more problems then
the money you save is worth.
>
>It works. It runs Mind Your Own Business (Accounting Package), Word for
>Windows 2.0, Excel 4.0, all the Win 3.1 min-apps.... and solitaire. NONE of
>these will run on a similarly equipped machine with OS/2 2.0--because
>it doesn't support Hercules
So what? How many people do you know with an OS/2 class machine and Herc?
The answer I would wager is none. (and I don't mean just run them on the
barest of possible systems).
>
>Mind you, these people aren't stoopid--they're just stingy (and in these
>economic times, this is a survival trait).
No, I think stupid is the right word here. If a $300 expenditure is going to
break your business, then you are in sad shape and probably won't be around
much longer anyway. Besides, you can donate the old equipment and probably
get some tax breaks out of that.
> They ARE slowly changing the
>monitors to VGA (one at a time--which, again, they can do because the
>Windows supports HGC... instead of the entire production floor if they had
>chosen OS/2)--and increasing hard disk sizes, etc. But because they chose
>an operating system that supported their "obsolete" equipment--they can
>do the upgrades piecemeal... saving tons of money:
>
I do all my upgrades piecemeal as well. I'm not a business and don't have
much money, but I make sure that I get the best things that I can reasonably
afford. Also, how many "production floors" have you seen running Windows,
OS/2, or any other GUI for that matter? I have yet to see Windows running on
*any* manufacturing plant floor, or any other kind of production for that
matter. You fail to make a point based in reality.
>1) Over the last year Super VGA monitors have dropped as much as $200-$300
> in price. Other hardware (hard disks, network cards, motherboards)
> have dropped in price as well.
Right, so why not get rid of antiquated equipment when prices are good.
>
>2) During Tax time, a business can expense up to $10,000 directly off
> their income per year. Any amount over this MUST be depreciated over
> five years. Being able to upgrade the system piecemeal means they
> save themselves tax dollars.
Has it ever occured to you that by using Herc, the person might actually get
less done because it is getting in the way? As the phrase goes, "time is
money" and Herc will almost certaintly promote getting less done. (You try
*using* two different programs in two different windows with CGA. It's nearly
impossible.)
>
>>
>>I have seen people bashing Microsoft for saying Win3.x only needs a 286 with
>>1MB. I see people bashing IBM for printing "Min requirements 4MB RAM" on the
>>OS/2 2.0 boxes. And now you want IBM to say WPS runs on a Hercules system ?
>>Of course it could be done. But why not add a little bit of honesty to the
>>computer buisiness? A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>No, a GUI on a VT100 (text only) or a Monochrome Adapter is bolshevik.
True but that makes what he said no less true. Try running Windows in 1 meg
of RAM. Gets you a nice solitaire game.
> Not
>supporting "obsolete" adapter technology for an OS that's trying to break
>into a new market alienates businesses that may be invested in the older
>technology. It would be prudent to give them a chance to upgrade piecemeal--
>but let them TASTE what they'd be missing.
Supporting the technology you are so desprately holding on to, would hold the
systems back so much that they would lose a great deal of their competitive
edge. People in this business do not make their money by supporting standards
that not many people still use instead of the new up and coming standards.
(and no, not a lot of people still use Herc. I'm sorry if that news
disapoints you)
>
>In the meantime, more than a few of my clients expressed that they will
>stick with Windows 3.x until all of their machines are OS/2 compatible (yes,
>I still tell them that OS/2 is SUPERIOR to Windoze--they just can't run it
>yet).
Look. This is something that I have noticed over the years which you seemed
to have missed. The most successful companies are those which think, plan and
buy ahead. They do not hold on to technology which is long past its prime.
Instead, they are constantly searching for and getting newer and better ways
of doing things. A good example is a company called KennaMetal. They are a
Fortune 500 company which produces Tungsten Carbide and tooling. One of the
biggest reasons they are so successful, is that they have invested in, and
continue to invest in one of the most modern computer systems among companies
in their business. They stay one step ahead instead of one step behind, and
it has paid off big. You go into their plants, and you will see no Herc
monitors except on a few text based machines out on the plant floor. Because
of this commitment to staying ahead of the game, they have become an
enormously productive company which generally far outstrips many of its
rivals.
>
>>Win 3.x on a 1MB
>>machine is bullshit. OS/2 on a 4MB machine is bullshit. And NT on a x86 with
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Hehehe. But it runs. Not well, but well enough that they can get work done...
>and two months later say "I want more RAM--will it make it faster?"
Doesn't matter if it "runs", if it is so slow as to be useless.
>
>>yMB RAM and a zMB harddisk is bullshit. And ist better to tell people what the
y
>>really need and what they really get then to let them buy product A and then
>>say "Fine, now of course you need to spend another nnn$ to get it really to
>>work."
>
>Wrong. This doesn't cut it in the business world where they have to worry
>about cash flow. OS/2 is NEW, it's EXCITING, it's UNPROVEN. If you were a
>corporate CEO with a hundred OS/2-obsolete machines, would you spend
>$20,000 to make them run an operating system that YOU ARE NOT CERTAIN WILL
>HAVE A TANGIBLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT?
You are never certain that your investment will pay off until you have made
it. You may not need to upgrade everything to OS/2, but if you are still
using any sizable quantity of Herc montors, then you are probably behind your
competitors in productivity, and that could lose you a whole lot more than
that investment in OS/2 class machines. Yes, you have to worry about cash
flow, and can't spend money you don't have, but if you take no risks, you will
be out of business faster than you can say "ob-sol-ete".
>>I've sat through these (rather boring) board meetings. At a 5% profit
>margin, the company has to do at least $400,000 in sales to pay for the
>HARDWARE investment alone! Not to mention the costs of installation, testing,
>software, etc. ALL OF THESE COSTS UP FRONT... just to do what they've been
>doing fine (albeit slowly) on older technology.
Right. It is expensive and you must be careful, but on the other hand, with
everything becoming as competive as it is, not making a contiual commitment to
improving your level of technology can put you out of business. Look at
Bethlehem Steel. About 10-15 years ago, they were at the peak of their
production and making a lot of money, but were not investing it in new
technology while everyone else was. The result? They are almost out of
business while much smaller, ultra modern, ultra efficent plants have take
over much of their business.
>
>These companies chose the "worse" operating system because it allowed them
>to spread the capital investment over time. Eventually (or so I am told)
>they will switch to the new technologies (NT or OS/2).
Eventually, but there are things in between. They might use (gasp) Windows if
they are in a pinch. (Not a fate I would wish on anyone)
>
>All that IBM did by not supporting HGC, was delay their purchase--so that
>by the time they have the iron to run OS/2 2.0, NT will be a viable option.
>Who loses?
>
Stop contradicting yourself. If companies buy equipment at the rate you've
been claiming above, they will get OS/2 class machines in about 1998. (Let's
see, Herc is about 6 years obsolete, so that sounds about right) Hell by then
NT will probably be obsolete. (That was a joke folks) You are assuming that
technology, particularly OS's, is a sitting target. It isn't. There is a
good chance that someday in the future, OS/2 will be similar in power to NT.
So your point here too is moot. Regardless of how the future OS wars turn
out, you need to get out of yesterday and at least catch up before you start
worrying about tomarrow's OS.
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
STACY JOHN BEHRENS
ank Ch. Eigler") writes:
>
>ASI...@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>
>>[among other silly comments]
>>A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit. [...]
>
>Michael, have you forgotten about the original Mac?
>GUIs on monochrome screens of roughly that resolution
>can be quite competent.
And do you still use the origional mac for anything? I agree that the Macs
system is usable, but using the oldest monocrome macs really sucks
>
>
>I hope IBM puts in a Hercules driver for OS/2. I'd
>use it.
Why? They need SVGA drivers more.
>--
>
>-- Frank Ch. Eigler -- Comp Eng -- <eig...@ecf.toronto.edu> --
>
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
David Charlap
>I can`t believe what I`m reading here. There are really guys who want
>the WPS run on a Hercules system ? Why don`t you request a 386
>emulator to run 2.0 on a 286 ? How many 386 computers are out there
>with a Hercules board. And why has the one who bought them not been
>fired ? What GUI applications are used on these 386 computers with
>Hercules ? I bet these machines are only used for text mode apps. If
>you want to use a GUI on them you have to get VGA.
Two points:
1) It's Herc's responsibility to support their cards. Hercules wrote
the Windows 3.x driver, I believe. It was ported up from the
Windows 1.x and 2.x driver, since Hercules was competing with CGA
and EGA at the time of Windows 1.x's release.
Hercules has REFUSED to develop OS/2 drivers, claiming that it will
never sell any copies. They won't even support their hi-res color
boards, why do you think they would support the mono boards?
I don't this behavior, but IBM has given them the same
opportunities that they gave Trident, ATI, and Orchid.
2) I have used Hercules on a 386 system. When I got my first sVGA
board, an ATI Wonder, I couldn't afford the monitor, so I was left
with my dual-sync amber monitor. Due to the ATI board's monitor-
auto-detect circuit, it detected a mono monitor, and wouldn't run
in any mode other than Hercules mode (or EGA mono, but that looked
even worse with only three shades of amber). I ran Windows 2.03 in
Hercules mode for about4 months until I could afford my Multisync
monitor.
I don't think I'm that unusual here. If I was doing this today,
I'd be upset if my board couldn't produce any mode that OS/2 can
handle.
3) (OK, three points) When IBM ships their device driver kit, you
should see PD herc mono drivers out. The Hercules monochrome specs
are very well documented, and it isn't complicated. I'd expect to
see some hot-shot programmer write one when the kit ships.
--
|) David Charlap "LECTURER, n. One with his hand in your pocket,
/|_ dic...@hertz.njit.edu his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
((|,) patience."
~|~ --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
David Charlap
>
>ASI...@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>
>>[among other silly comments]
>>A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit. [...]
>
>Michael, have you forgotten about the original Mac?
>GUIs on monochrome screens of roughly that resolution
>can be quite competent.
The Mac's 9" screen is less resolution than Hercules. I believe it's
a 512x240 screen. Herc mono is 720x348.
>I hope IBM puts in a Hercules driver for OS/2. I'd
>use it.
I suggest you complain LOUDLY to Hercules corporation.
Joe Discar
>In article <1992Sep9.1...@nosc.mil>, dis...@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes
>:
>>In article <92253.134...@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI...@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>>>I can`t believe what I`m reading here. There are really guys who want the WPS
>>>run on a Hercules system ? Why don`t you request a 386 emulator to run 2.0 on
>>>a 286 ? How many 386 computers are out there with a Hercules board. And why ha
>s
>>> the one who bought them not been fired ? What GUI applications are used on
>>>these 386 computers with Hercules ? I bet these machines are only used for
>>>text mode apps. If you want to use a GUI on them you have to get VGA.
>>
>>Which shows your bias. Many of these hercules 386's were "upgrades" from older
>>286's--instead of replacing the entire system, only the motherboard (and in
>>some instances, the case/power supply) were changed. Many were "upgrades"
>>from 8088's--which started out running Windows 3.0, and when 3.1 came out,
>>the client wanted it and spent the extra $400 for a 386sx case... utilizing
>>the old HERCULES monitor, MFM HARD DISK, and 8-BIT NETWORK CARD.
>
>And how many people have done this? I am 100% certain that it is a
>statistically insignificant number. Frankly there is not bias involved in
>this, it is simply a matter of usability. Hell I have a 40 MB MFM disk
>running OS/2, but it just doesn't really do the job. The same with Herc or
>CGA. Yea, technically it is possible, but it really causes more problems then
>the money you save is worth.
Well, let's see, there were five companies with an average of 150 users per
company, roughly half of them were monochrome... I'd say 300 right off the
bat (however, some of these companies have far fewer monochrome monitors
than others--not everyone makes the same decisions).
Personally, I know of no INDIVIDUALS that suffer the same problem. Only
Corporate America seems to make decisions based solely on expense/production.
Funny that way, huh? In other words, HGC is a minor problem to most
individuals--but for a company that has already invested a large amount
of money in technology, it *is* unwise to uproot production, increase costs,
for a technology that doesn't do a thing more for them. Let's face it,
most of the useful applications for OS/2 (for example) are simply Windows
apps or DOS apps (both of which run HGC just fine, thank you). If there were
a multi-user accounting package, insurance premium package, document imaging
system, etc. available for OS/2 (that takes advantage of this "power" that
your proposed capitalization promises)--then it may be worth the cost. But
right now, it's "spend money now to be able to do what you're already
doing."
>
>>
>>It works. It runs Mind Your Own Business (Accounting Package), Word for
>>Windows 2.0, Excel 4.0, all the Win 3.1 min-apps.... and solitaire. NONE of
>>these will run on a similarly equipped machine with OS/2 2.0--because
>>it doesn't support Hercules
>
>So what? How many people do you know with an OS/2 class machine and Herc?
>The answer I would wager is none. (and I don't mean just run them on the
>barest of possible systems).
As I said above, I know quite a few companies. One company has SVGA in all
the corporate officers offices, and practically all monochrome for the
production floor.
On the other hand, very few individuals I know of have a 386 or better machine
with herc.
>>
>>Mind you, these people aren't stoopid--they're just stingy (and in these
>>economic times, this is a survival trait).
>
>No, I think stupid is the right word here. If a $300 expenditure is going to
>break your business, then you are in sad shape and probably won't be around
>much longer anyway. Besides, you can donate the old equipment and probably
>get some tax breaks out of that.
First, we are NOT talking about "$300"... we are talking about THOUSANDS of
dollars (almost $20,000 in one company)--which equates to several HUNDRED
thousand dollars in sales. If HGC WERE supported by OS/2--there would be
no problem--$300 is pittance... and they can upgrade slowly as profits
permits... but to switch to OS/2 means to have to upgrade EVERYBODY at one
time! Surely, you can see that this would be much, much, much, much more
expensive--especially taking into account that hardware prices are
continually dropping.
>> They ARE slowly changing the
>>monitors to VGA (one at a time--which, again, they can do because the
>>Windows supports HGC... instead of the entire production floor if they had
>>chosen OS/2)--and increasing hard disk sizes, etc. But because they chose
>>an operating system that supported their "obsolete" equipment--they can
>>do the upgrades piecemeal... saving tons of money:
>>
>I do all my upgrades piecemeal as well. I'm not a business and don't have
>much money, but I make sure that I get the best things that I can reasonably
>afford. Also, how many "production floors" have you seen running Windows,
>OS/2, or any other GUI for that matter? I have yet to see Windows running on
>*any* manufacturing plant floor, or any other kind of production for that
>matter. You fail to make a point based in reality.
A "production floor" has nothing to do with manufacturing. Any large
business usually has Corporate Offices (for the officers of the corporation
this is where the darts, table golf, and dirty jokes books can be found),
management offices (for the corporate wannabes), and the production floor
(where work actually gets done). The production floor is where the typists,
telemarketers, accountants, customer service representatives, documentation
specialists, etc. can be found--and by far, the largest computer user base
in any corporation... and usually the people who get the hand-me-downs
and cheaper equipment (why? To put a 486DX50 in a CEO's office only costs
the corp $2500... to put it on the production floor can cost $100K).
>
>>1) Over the last year Super VGA monitors have dropped as much as $200-$300
>> in price. Other hardware (hard disks, network cards, motherboards)
>> have dropped in price as well.
>Right, so why not get rid of antiquated equipment when prices are good.
Because, in order to do this they need to upgrade the entire office...this
is much more than just $200-$300. It's easy to upgrade John Smith for $200...
and fine, HE will be able to run OS/2... but how about the other
fifty users?
>>
>>2) During Tax time, a business can expense up to $10,000 directly off
>> their income per year. Any amount over this MUST be depreciated over
>> five years. Being able to upgrade the system piecemeal means they
>> save themselves tax dollars.
>
>Has it ever occured to you that by using Herc, the person might actually get
>less done because it is getting in the way? As the phrase goes, "time is
>money" and Herc will almost certaintly promote getting less done. (You try
>*using* two different programs in two different windows with CGA. It's nearly
>impossible.)
Nope. They can get work done faster than they do by hand. Hercules is
actually FASTER than VGA in some instances (it doesn't need as much RAM
updated)... but the point is, aside from resolution,color (& support) THERE
IS NO ADVANTAGE FOR VGA! All work can just as easily be done on an amber
and black screen as on a purple, blue, magenta and white screen. As long as
the applications you need will run on it--and it's useable (and hercules
on Windows certainly is)--it doesn't matter WHAT kind of monitor you use.
Businesses are very good in deciding what is necessary and what is desirous.
>
>>
>>>
>>>I have seen people bashing Microsoft for saying Win3.x only needs a 286 with
>>>1MB. I see people bashing IBM for printing "Min requirements 4MB RAM" on the
>>>OS/2 2.0 boxes. And now you want IBM to say WPS runs on a Hercules system ?
>>>Of course it could be done. But why not add a little bit of honesty to the
>>>computer buisiness? A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>No, a GUI on a VT100 (text only) or a Monochrome Adapter is bolshevik.
>
>True but that makes what he said no less true. Try running Windows in 1 meg
>of RAM. Gets you a nice solitaire game.
It runs perfectly fine. A little slow, perhaps, and your are unable to
open DOS windows... but it runs Word for Windows (for example) just fine. It
gives the user a chance to USE it, decide they want it, and upgrade their
machine at their leisure.
>
>> Not
>>supporting "obsolete" adapter technology for an OS that's trying to break
>>into a new market alienates businesses that may be invested in the older
>>technology. It would be prudent to give them a chance to upgrade piecemeal--
>>but let them TASTE what they'd be missing.
>
>Supporting the technology you are so desprately holding on to, would hold the
>systems back so much that they would lose a great deal of their competitive
>edge. People in this business do not make their money by supporting standards
>that not many people still use instead of the new up and coming standards.
>(and no, not a lot of people still use Herc. I'm sorry if that news
>disapoints you)
Nope. This is not the case. Windows 3.0, like it or not, has done more for
the PC than anything else in recent years. People found they could switch to
it, and when they can afford it, upgrade it. *I* never owned a color monitor
until after Windows came out--even then, I stuck to HGC until I felt MY
business could afford the expense--then I upgrade one (and now two) of my
five machines to SVGA. The other three are still in monochrome, but
doing fine. Supporting an easy upgrade path doesn't "hold systems back"--
on the contrary, it's a catalyst: people switch to it, knowing that doing
so will not upset the norm too much, and then upgrade it.
By the time that Windows 3.1 came out, most people who had switched to
Windows 3.0 had "upgraded" to a system that COULD run Windows 3.1 (e.g.m
they bought 286's or better).
>>
>>In the meantime, more than a few of my clients expressed that they will
>>stick with Windows 3.x until all of their machines are OS/2 compatible (yes,
>>I still tell them that OS/2 is SUPERIOR to Windoze--they just can't run it
>>yet).
>
>Look. This is something that I have noticed over the years which you seemed
>to have missed. The most successful companies are those which think, plan and
>buy ahead. They do not hold on to technology which is long past its prime.
>Instead, they are constantly searching for and getting newer and better ways
>of doing things. A good example is a company called KennaMetal. They are a
>Fortune 500 company which produces Tungsten Carbide and tooling. One of the
>biggest reasons they are so successful, is that they have invested in, and
>continue to invest in one of the most modern computer systems among companies
>in their business. They stay one step ahead instead of one step behind, and
>it has paid off big. You go into their plants, and you will see no Herc
>monitors except on a few text based machines out on the plant floor. Because
>of this commitment to staying ahead of the game, they have become an
>enormously productive company which generally far outstrips many of its
>rivals.
WRONG! These people are not turning their back on new technology. On the
contrary, they ARE investing into new machines--slowly, without disrupting
work flow. How successful do you think KennaMetal would have been if they
wanted to upgrade their plant, so THEY SHUT DOWN FOR A WEEK, THEN TRAINED
FOR A MONTH ON THE NEW EQUIPMENT--just for something that for the next
two years--THEY WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO PRODUCE AS MUCH AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY
PRODUCING???? There is no production advantages for OS/2 YET... there is
much potential... but no meat. So why switch? Upgrade your machines to
make what your are running NOW (Windows) to be more productive--and when
the base is there (both hardware in house, and applications on the market),
switch.
>>
>>>Win 3.x on a 1MB
>>>machine is bullshit. OS/2 on a 4MB machine is bullshit. And NT on a x86 with
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Hehehe. But it runs. Not well, but well enough that they can get work done...
>>and two months later say "I want more RAM--will it make it faster?"
>
>Doesn't matter if it "runs", if it is so slow as to be useless.
There is a difference between "Not Well" and "useless". My 6 year old car
does not run well--but it is far from useless.
>>
>>>yMB RAM and a zMB harddisk is bullshit. And ist better to tell people what the
>y
>>>really need and what they really get then to let them buy product A and then
>>>say "Fine, now of course you need to spend another nnn$ to get it really to
>>>work."
>>
>>Wrong. This doesn't cut it in the business world where they have to worry
>>about cash flow. OS/2 is NEW, it's EXCITING, it's UNPROVEN. If you were a
>>corporate CEO with a hundred OS/2-obsolete machines, would you spend
>>$20,000 to make them run an operating system that YOU ARE NOT CERTAIN WILL
>>HAVE A TANGIBLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT?
>
>You are never certain that your investment will pay off until you have made
>it. You may not need to upgrade everything to OS/2, but if you are still
>using any sizable quantity of Herc montors, then you are probably behind your
>competitors in productivity, and that could lose you a whole lot more than
>that investment in OS/2 class machines. Yes, you have to worry about cash
>flow, and can't spend money you don't have, but if you take no risks, you will
>be out of business faster than you can say "ob-sol-ete".
No, one of these companies (the largest user of Monochrome monitors of the
companies I work for) is ranked number one in their industry--in this city.
I'd always attributed this to good money decisions, good workers, and
sound management.
Question: what production advantage does OS/2 give the normal office worker
NOW (I'm not talking about two years from now, I'm talking about now). Sure
it's more stable, but it still crashes--it's a bear to install applications
under it (to work optimally), it does not support many SVGA cards, it
will not work with some NOS's... Will switching to OS/2 help the worker
type faster? Think faster? Make telephone calls faster?
>
>>>I've sat through these (rather boring) board meetings. At a 5% profit
>>margin, the company has to do at least $400,000 in sales to pay for the
>>HARDWARE investment alone! Not to mention the costs of installation, testing,
>>software, etc. ALL OF THESE COSTS UP FRONT... just to do what they've been
>>doing fine (albeit slowly) on older technology.
>
>Right. It is expensive and you must be careful, but on the other hand, with
>everything becoming as competive as it is, not making a contiual commitment to
>improving your level of technology can put you out of business. Look at
>Bethlehem Steel. About 10-15 years ago, they were at the peak of their
>production and making a lot of money, but were not investing it in new
>technology while everyone else was. The result? They are almost out of
>business while much smaller, ultra modern, ultra efficent plants have take
>over much of their business.
But you are assuming these companies are not investing. They are. Wisely,
in my opinion. When profits are up for the month, they buy X new computers...
without hurting the Y that don't have new computers. They can't do this
if they switch NOW--they have to upgrade everybody at once.
>>
>>These companies chose the "worse" operating system because it allowed them
>>to spread the capital investment over time. Eventually (or so I am told)
>>they will switch to the new technologies (NT or OS/2).
>
>Eventually, but there are things in between. They might use (gasp) Windows if
>they are in a pinch. (Not a fate I would wish on anyone)
They do. And they get work done. Windows supports hercules fine. Even the
document imaging system installed at one of my clients' works impressively
on a herc equipped workstation.
>>
>>All that IBM did by not supporting HGC, was delay their purchase--so that
>>by the time they have the iron to run OS/2 2.0, NT will be a viable option.
>>Who loses?
>>
>Stop contradicting yourself. If companies buy equipment at the rate you've
>been claiming above, they will get OS/2 class machines in about 1998. (Let's
>see, Herc is about 6 years obsolete, so that sounds about right) Hell by then
>NT will probably be obsolete. (That was a joke folks) You are assuming that
>technology, particularly OS's, is a sitting target. It isn't. There is a
>good chance that someday in the future, OS/2 will be similar in power to NT.
>So your point here too is moot. Regardless of how the future OS wars turn
>out, you need to get out of yesterday and at least catch up before you start
>worrying about tomarrow's OS.
No, most companies (I'm speaking from personal experience, not from
statistics) think that the switch can be made viable in late 1993 or 1994.
Remember: costs of equipment are going down. Regardless, by that time
NT will have come out, and IT, too, will be taken into consideration--
IBM may have lost sales that could have brought them over the top...if
my clients' preferences are any indication.
>>So would I. All in all, I'm not really that upset they don't support Herc.
>>My clients are happy with Windows at the moment (well, sort of, MYOB has a
>>tendency to crash--a problem with the application, not Windows, per se). And
>>IBM just made it easier to reach a concensus about upgrading to OS/2 now:
>>don't do it--it will cost too much money to keep production going.
>>
>>The hard decision will happen in two years--when most of the machines will be
>>OS/2 capable--but they (probably) will be NT-capable as well.
>>
>>Note: I am not one of those that say users should always use old technology...
>>I'm just a firm believer that successful products allow the users a gentle
>>upgrade path. Not allowing slow upgrades (to increase performance) tends to
>>convince the potential corporate buyer to put off the commitment to a new
>>operating environment--long enough for the competitors to come to market
>>with a competing product.
>>
>>Only time will tell if IBM made the right choice.
>>
-> Joe <-
Richard Warner
>ASI...@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>>[among other silly comments]
>>A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit. [...]
>Michael, have you forgotten about the original Mac?
>GUIs on monochrome screens of roughly that resolution
>can be quite competent.
Much different monochrome, however. Macs use 1 bit plane and dithering,
Hercules uses 2 bit-planes and shading. I have found the shaded
screens of Hercules much less useful than the dithered screen of the
Mac, esp. as it relates to the interface (I ran Windows 1.0, 2.x, and 3.0
on a Hercules driven video system).
Richard Warner
>In article <92253.134...@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI...@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>Which shows your bias. Many of these hercules 386's were "upgrades" from older
>286's--instead of replacing the entire system, only the motherboard (and in
>some instances, the case/power supply) were changed. Many were "upgrades"
>from 8088's--which started out running Windows 3.0, and when 3.1 came out,
>the client wanted it and spent the extra $400 for a 386sx case... utilizing
>the old HERCULES monitor, MFM HARD DISK, and 8-BIT NETWORK CARD.
I do not think this shows bias - it shows a forward thinker. I was working
for a large corporation 3 years ago, and after looking at what was presented
at COMDEX that year I told the bean counters that the world was GUI and
the time to start moving in a position to use it meaningfully was NOW (October
1989). Based on my strong recommendation, they started replacing ALL old
mono (including Hercules) and EGA video systems then, and are now all SVGA.
Those who are screaming now are those that ignored the handwriting that
appeared years ago.
>Mind you, these people aren't stoopid--they're just stingy (and in these
>economic times, this is a survival trait). They ARE slowly changing the
>monitors to VGA (one at a time--which, again, they can do because the
>Windows supports HGC... instead of the entire production floor if they had
>chosen OS/2)--and increasing hard disk sizes, etc. But because they chose
>an operating system that supported their "obsolete" equipment--they can
>do the upgrades piecemeal... saving tons of money:
>1) Over the last year Super VGA monitors have dropped as much as $200-$300
> in price. Other hardware (hard disks, network cards, motherboards)
> have dropped in price as well.
Maybe the low end has moved, but the GOOD SVGA monitors (Sony, NECs,
ViewSonics, Mags, Nanao) have not changed much in price over the past
2-3 years. They are on a plateau.
>No, a GUI on a VT100 (text only) or a Monochrome Adapter is bolshevik. Not
>supporting "obsolete" adapter technology for an OS that's trying to break
>into a new market alienates businesses that may be invested in the older
>technology. It would be prudent to give them a chance to upgrade piecemeal--
>but let them TASTE what they'd be missing.
Yes, but the problem is they DID NOT HEED THE WARNING IN A TIMELY FASHION!
Anyone who has watched the desktop computer world should have seen the need
to change for at least the past 3 years. If they are starting now, they are
3 years behind, and will stay 3 years behind because then they will see that
they either will not see the changes occurring, or will still be buying into
the last change.
Sure, there are uses for older machines. I have just argued against a
proposal put forth in our college to throw out all 8088 machines. They
can function as terminals, print servers, and gateways - why throw them
out? But if you need or require one of the newer OS's for some reason,
or just to make your workers more productive, then you have to pay the
cost. Drawing it out helps some, but hurts some, too - esp. when
you get a late jump.
>>Win 3.x on a 1MB
>>machine is bullshit. OS/2 on a 4MB machine is bullshit. And NT on a x86 with
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Hehehe. But it runs. Not well, but well enough that they can get work done...
>and two months later say "I want more RAM--will it make it faster?"
Yes, but how much productivity did they forfeit for want of $30-60 worth
of memory?
>Wrong. This doesn't cut it in the business world where they have to worry
>about cash flow. OS/2 is NEW, it's EXCITING, it's UNPROVEN. If you were a
>corporate CEO with a hundred OS/2-obsolete machines, would you spend
>$20,000 to make them run an operating system that YOU ARE NOT CERTAIN WILL
>HAVE A TANGIBLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT?
YES! If I were forward thinking. I wrote a position paper for a corporation
that asked them to do this very thing - only I wrote it some years back.
I was not saying spend $20K - but several MILLION. And the argument was -
no one knows where the future of desktop computing will be in 5 years, but
the configuration needed for OS/2 is close to what you will really need
for any of the viable OS candidates. (This was written maybe 3-1/2 to
4 years ago). They started the buy-in, stopped it a little over a year
ago because a manager was balking at the cost, and now are bitching because
Windows performance is not up to par on their 10 MHz 80286 machines with
1-2Mb of RAM and standard VGA. If they had bought in what I had stated as
a minimum (80386/33, 8 Mb RAM, 300 Mb hard drive, SVGA) they would not
have problems with Windows, OS/2, would be a bit low for NT and Solaris,
etc. Now they have a long way to go if they are goint to run anything
other than DOS - and the longer the wait, the further behind they will be.
OK if your current DOS apps will do you for the next few years, otherwise ...
>I've sat through these (rather boring) board meetings. At a 5% profit
>margin, the company has to do at least $400,000 in sales to pay for the
>HARDWARE investment alone! Not to mention the costs of installation, testing,
>software, etc. ALL OF THESE COSTS UP FRONT... just to do what they've been
>doing fine (albeit slowly) on older technology.
False economy. We did a rather extensive analysis back 6-7 years ago of
computer costs vs. personnel costs. We used something like 15 years of
data, with the first 10 years being mainframe charges and the last 5
being a phase-over to desktop from mainframe. The significant findings
were that computer resource costs were a fraction of personnel costs, and
that that fraction was very stable, i.e., there is a relationship. It
was obvious that the relationship shifted in the switchover from the
mainframe, but computer costs were still a proportional to personnel costs.
Now you can adjust that relationship by buying low or buying high.
But if you buy low, and your people twiddle thumbs, and then you need
more people to do the same amount of work - you are paying for an
expensive item (personnel) to save money on a less expensive item
(a computer).
>Note: I am not one of those that say users should always use old technology...
>I'm just a firm believer that successful products allow the users a gentle
>upgrade path.
The upgrade path was there - folks just ignored it, and now they say
the road is long. Those who started down the path when the path became
apparent are not bitching as much.
Stuart Woolford
>Much different monochrome, however. Macs use 1 bit plane and dithering,
>Hercules uses 2 bit-planes and shading. I have found the shaded
>screens of Hercules much less useful than the dithered screen of the
>Mac, esp. as it relates to the interface (I ran Windows 1.0, 2.x, and 3.0
>on a Hercules driven video system).
No...Not even close...Both the mac and normal herc are Black AND White, and
BOTH are capable of dithering, and, believe it or not, apple did not invent
dithering either ;-)... ( not that I think you said the did.. )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
stu...@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz
>>>>In VI Wheree Available<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASI...@djukfa11.bitnet
("Frank Ch. Eigler") says:
>
>ASI...@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>
>>[among other silly comments]
>>A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit. [...]
>
>Michael, have you forgotten about the original Mac?
>GUIs on monochrome screens of roughly that resolution
>can be quite competent.
>
I`ve been waiting for that comment. Yes the Mac had even less pixels than Herc
But it had a better aspect ratio. That made it suitable for a GUI. The Herc
graphics mode was simply what they could get out of their text mode resolution.
I installed Win3.0 on my 12MHz 1MB 286 Herc system. After 15 minutes I decided
to trough it out until I had a machine that could run it _reasonible_. Then
when I had the money I upgraded my system. But not brain dead buying a 386 main
board. I bought a VGA w monitor and one additional MB of RAM. And then I bet
I had much more of Win3.0 than with a 20MHz 1MB Herc system. And I`m still
using my Herc equipment as a debugging screen with Turbo Debugger.
Do you know the main argument the Mac fanatics give for their machines ?
It`s more fun working on a Mac than on a PC. Mac users _like_ to work with
their machine. PC users very often _have to_ work with their machine. That`s
the difference.
And Win3.x on a Herc monitor is certainly everything but fun.
BTW: Are we really talking about companies having hundreds of 386 8MB RAM 120MB
Harddisk machines equipped with Herc ?
Michael Bode.
Joe Discar
>dis...@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>
>>In article <92253.134...@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI...@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>
>>Which shows your bias. Many of these hercules 386's were "upgrades" from older
>>286's--instead of replacing the entire system, only the motherboard (and in
>>some instances, the case/power supply) were changed. Many were "upgrades"
>>from 8088's--which started out running Windows 3.0, and when 3.1 came out,
>>the client wanted it and spent the extra $400 for a 386sx case... utilizing
>>the old HERCULES monitor, MFM HARD DISK, and 8-BIT NETWORK CARD.
>
>I do not think this shows bias - it shows a forward thinker. I was working
>for a large corporation 3 years ago, and after looking at what was presented
>at COMDEX that year I told the bean counters that the world was GUI and
>the time to start moving in a position to use it meaningfully was NOW (October
>1989). Based on my strong recommendation, they started replacing ALL old
>mono (including Hercules) and EGA video systems then, and are now all SVGA.
>Those who are screaming now are those that ignored the handwriting that
>appeared years ago.
Let's talk about "Forward thinking." If I had necessitated a buy for OS/2-
capable hardware three years ago, each 486 would have cost around $5000
apiece (yes, that's FIVE grand). By the admonition of this adovcacy group,
GUI's weren't really useful until OS/2 2.0 (yes, I'm saying that sarcastically-
there was Windows and OS/2 1.3, but bear with me). In the three years that
ensued, the price of an OS/2 capable machine has dropped to $1700--a
$3300. IF the customer upgraded 150 machines THEN, it would have cost them
a cool half mil. MORE for something that wouldn't start paying them back until
NOW. Think of it, $500,000 dollars of profit was saved by delaying a purchase
until it was truly useful... the net result? This insurance agency is still
in business when agencies both larger and smaller are going belly up...
and they ARE running Windows with an eye toward OS/2--in one or two years.
>
>>Mind you, these people aren't stoopid--they're just stingy (and in these
>>economic times, this is a survival trait). They ARE slowly changing the
>>monitors to VGA (one at a time--which, again, they can do because the
>>Windows supports HGC... instead of the entire production floor if they had
>>chosen OS/2)--and increasing hard disk sizes, etc. But because they chose
>>an operating system that supported their "obsolete" equipment--they can
>>do the upgrades piecemeal... saving tons of money:
>
>>1) Over the last year Super VGA monitors have dropped as much as $200-$300
>> in price. Other hardware (hard disks, network cards, motherboards)
>> have dropped in price as well.
>
>Maybe the low end has moved, but the GOOD SVGA monitors (Sony, NECs,
>ViewSonics, Mags, Nanao) have not changed much in price over the past
>2-3 years. They are on a plateau.
No, actually (if you'd look at history) the "GOOD SVGA" monitors of three
years back have become the "low end" of today. I bought my Sony 1304HG
for $800 two years ago. Today, the same monitor (still good quality, may I
add) now costs about $445--the "GOOD SVGA" is now the Sony 1504 which sells for,
you guessed it, $800.
Same goes for NECs, ViewSonics, Mags, and Nanao--it isn't that the "Good"
SVGA prices haven't moved, it's that they've redefined what a good SVGA is.
>
>>No, a GUI on a VT100 (text only) or a Monochrome Adapter is bolshevik. Not
>>supporting "obsolete" adapter technology for an OS that's trying to break
>>into a new market alienates businesses that may be invested in the older
>>technology. It would be prudent to give them a chance to upgrade piecemeal--
>>but let them TASTE what they'd be missing.
>
>Yes, but the problem is they DID NOT HEED THE WARNING IN A TIMELY FASHION!
>Anyone who has watched the desktop computer world should have seen the need
>to change for at least the past 3 years. If they are starting now, they are
>3 years behind, and will stay 3 years behind because then they will see that
>they either will not see the changes occurring, or will still be buying into
>the last change.
As I said before... they can NOW buy 150 new machines (if they chose),
run OS/2 and save a half million dollars more than your company that bought
in three years ago--and who is now finding GUI's a true productive tool.
Let's face it, GUI's on the PC were impractical until the mass market of
Windows 3.x--and a 286 with a herc monitor CAN run Windows 3.x.
The question, now, is OS/2. My clients have put off the purchase because
it would cost them too much money UP FRONT to upgrade. So they stick with
the second best solution: Windows and DOS--which not only has the APPLICATIONS
they need, but runs fine on their current machines.
>
>Sure, there are uses for older machines. I have just argued against a
>proposal put forth in our college to throw out all 8088 machines. They
>can function as terminals, print servers, and gateways - why throw them
>out? But if you need or require one of the newer OS's for some reason,
>or just to make your workers more productive, then you have to pay the
>cost. Drawing it out helps some, but hurts some, too - esp. when
>you get a late jump.
>
>>>Win 3.x on a 1MB
>>>machine is bullshit. OS/2 on a 4MB machine is bullshit. And NT on a x86 with
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>Hehehe. But it runs. Not well, but well enough that they can get work done...
>>and two months later say "I want more RAM--will it make it faster?"
>
>Yes, but how much productivity did they forfeit for want of $30-60 worth
>of memory?
If they had bought 1 meg of RAM LAST year, they would be spending TWICE as
much money. Honestly, there are few of my clients now that have only one
meg of RAM--I now sell it for $25.00 per meg for valued customers--and, again,
they upgrade each machine as they see fit.
>
>>Wrong. This doesn't cut it in the business world where they have to worry
>>about cash flow. OS/2 is NEW, it's EXCITING, it's UNPROVEN. If you were a
>>corporate CEO with a hundred OS/2-obsolete machines, would you spend
>>$20,000 to make them run an operating system that YOU ARE NOT CERTAIN WILL
>>HAVE A TANGIBLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT?
>
>YES! If I were forward thinking. I wrote a position paper for a corporation
>that asked them to do this very thing - only I wrote it some years back.
>I was not saying spend $20K - but several MILLION. And the argument was -
>no one knows where the future of desktop computing will be in 5 years, but
>the configuration needed for OS/2 is close to what you will really need
>for any of the viable OS candidates. (This was written maybe 3-1/2 to
>4 years ago). They started the buy-in, stopped it a little over a year
>ago because a manager was balking at the cost, and now are bitching because
>Windows performance is not up to par on their 10 MHz 80286 machines with
>1-2Mb of RAM and standard VGA. If they had bought in what I had stated as
>a minimum (80386/33, 8 Mb RAM, 300 Mb hard drive, SVGA) they would not
>have problems with Windows, OS/2, would be a bit low for NT and Solaris,
>etc. Now they have a long way to go if they are goint to run anything
>other than DOS - and the longer the wait, the further behind they will be.
>OK if your current DOS apps will do you for the next few years, otherwise ...
It's only $20K NOW--and that's really considering that most of my clients
have been upgrading piecemeal--to make OS/2 useable, not only do they have to
replace the monitors, but the 286's (the original 20K assumed 386sx--which is
barely realistic) in some cases the RAM and hard disk as well--and 20K
did not consider the software purchase (what're OS/2 site licenses costing
nowadays?), installation, retraining, etc. When there is no REAL GOOD
PAYOFF YET. With legistlation against businesses (look what prop 103 did
to the insurance industry in california)--throwing money into an "upgrade"
that has dubious immediate payback can be distastrous.
Your client says that 10mhz 80286 performance was not "up to par"--mine
think it's slow (when compared to one of the 386's or 486's) but they are
happy because they remember some of their coworkers who had 8088's (which
are now gone, BTW).
If your clients had bought the "minimum" you recommended four years ago,
and they needed to buy over a hundred machines, they would have had to
increase sales by eight million dollars to cover the cost.
>
>>I've sat through these (rather boring) board meetings. At a 5% profit
>>margin, the company has to do at least $400,000 in sales to pay for the
>>HARDWARE investment alone! Not to mention the costs of installation, testing,
>>software, etc. ALL OF THESE COSTS UP FRONT... just to do what they've been
>>doing fine (albeit slowly) on older technology.
>
>False economy. We did a rather extensive analysis back 6-7 years ago of
>computer costs vs. personnel costs. We used something like 15 years of
>data, with the first 10 years being mainframe charges and the last 5
>being a phase-over to desktop from mainframe. The significant findings
>were that computer resource costs were a fraction of personnel costs, and
>that that fraction was very stable, i.e., there is a relationship. It
>was obvious that the relationship shifted in the switchover from the
>mainframe, but computer costs were still a proportional to personnel costs.
>Now you can adjust that relationship by buying low or buying high.
We found otherwise. There's a difference between going from
mainframes to desktops and going from one OS to another. The first, it's
a switch in the PROCEDURES of the entire company: centralized processing
to distributed processing--the second does not change a basic premise of the
way the company operates. The payoff in the second is questionable... it
increases the efficiency of the machines--but not the efficiency of the
person... or the efficiency of the mail, printer, management, etc...
>
>But if you buy low, and your people twiddle thumbs, and then you need
>more people to do the same amount of work - you are paying for an
>expensive item (personnel) to save money on a less expensive item
>(a computer).
>
Now, buying a 486 for Jane Doe is NOT going to make any office more
productive! It all dependes on what Jane Doe does... if she types (which
is mainly what my clients' employees do) she's going to type 60 wpm whether
she's on an 80286 running Word 5.5 (or WordWin 2.0) or she's typing on
an 80486. She's still going to make the same mistakes. She's still
going to cost as much money (more, considering retraining). All just
to have the newest machine on her desk (and THIS with the P5 around the
corner!).
Let's not exaggerate the payoff. Now matter what kind of machine you
get, the basic office worker LIKES to twiddle thumbs...
>>Note: I am not one of those that say users should always use old technology...
>>I'm just a firm believer that successful products allow the users a gentle
>>upgrade path.
>
>The upgrade path was there - folks just ignored it, and now they say
>the road is long. Those who started down the path when the path became
>apparent are not bitching as much.
No, people are sticking to Windows because it has a gentle upgrade path.
OS/2 requires new capitalization up front to "modernize" the office. Most
businesses (I can say this now, I brought this subject up during our last
Rotary) would rather upgrade piecemeal than all at once.
Just an opine!
Joe.
Latenser
As the quote goes --- "You guys just don't get it"
I have my choice of monitors/cards/ etc.
I still prefer looking at my Herc. monitor when I have to spend extended
time programming. I feel less eye strain. And yes I have it in a nice
fast box with a 330Mb H.P. drive. I can easily afford anything I want (I
own 1280 x 1024 display list boards --- and do not use them). Yes I use
a Matrox system and 20" Hitachi monitor often --- but ONLY when I am working
with complex CAD drawings that often exceed several meg in size.
Windows works perfectly fine with my card --- but I have yet to see any
software in Windows that works as well and has the power of the dos
equivalent application (with the single exception of MacSyma math analysis
which does not run on dos) - so why should I use it. OS/2 is another
matter -- it has real possibilities.
The only cards I have used for any period of time that are significantly
faster with windows are Matrox ($3000 -- and worth every penny) and the
ATI Ultra ($399 -- and worth more I.M.H.O.).
I might also point out that many Unix boxes come standard with monochrome
displays and that my Herc card uses almost no environment space --
which does matter to some of us. Do you guys even know the Hercules
resolution?
Why would I want an OS/2 driver for Hercules -- so I can abandon the kludge
of Desqview/Windows. Would I pay -- you bet! Am I a nut? - I suppose.
STACY JOHN BEHRENS
tenser) writes:
>
>As the quote goes --- "You guys just don't get it"
>
>I have my choice of monitors/cards/ etc.
>
>I still prefer looking at my Herc. monitor when I have to spend extended
>time programming. I feel less eye strain. And yes I have it in a nice
>fast box with a 330Mb H.P. drive. I can easily afford anything I want (I
>own 1280 x 1024 display list boards --- and do not use them). Yes I use
>a Matrox system and 20" Hitachi monitor often --- but ONLY when I am working
>with complex CAD drawings that often exceed several meg in size.
Well, I look at a CGA quality display a good part of the day, and it KILLS my
eyes. If your really want so save eyestrain, either get monochrome VGA or
pick your colors well. Theses are even better supported than Herc.
>
>Windows works perfectly fine with my card --- but I have yet to see any
>software in Windows that works as well and has the power of the dos
>equivalent application (with the single exception of MacSyma math analysis
>which does not run on dos) - so why should I use it. OS/2 is another
>matter -- it has real possibilities.
How about Excel 4.0, Ami Pro, MathCAD 3.0, CorelDRAW... These are MUCH better
than their DOS counterparts. OS/2 runs all these too.
>
>The only cards I have used for any period of time that are significantly
>faster with windows are Matrox ($3000 -- and worth every penny) and the
>ATI Ultra ($399 -- and worth more I.M.H.O.).
Agreed.
>
>I might also point out that many Unix boxes come standard with monochrome
>displays and that my Herc card uses almost no environment space --
>which does matter to some of us. Do you guys even know the Hercules
>resolution?
You can save environment space in OS/2 by voluntarily reducing the resolution
of the card to CGA levels if you so desire. This will get you about 700K of
conventional RAM for your DOS app. How's that?
>>Why would I want an OS/2 driver for Hercules -- so I can abandon the kludge
>of Desqview/Windows. Would I pay -- you bet! Am I a nut? - I suppose.
>
>late...@unlinfo.unl.edu
>
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Kevin Lu
>
> ASI...@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>
> >[among other silly comments]
> >A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit. [...]
>
> Michael, have you forgotten about the original Mac?
> GUIs on monochrome screens of roughly that resolution
> can be quite competent.
Are you kidding? Everyone, an i mean everyone here at Monash doing Comp.
Sci. (1st year) absolutely HATE the Macs Plus and its drab back & white
screen, even the tutors hate them. If fact they are so disliked, that the
department is using IBMs next year! (Unlucky me)
+----------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Kevin Lu | Monash University |
| Email: kev...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | Clayton, Victoria |
| | Australia |
David Charlap
>Why would I want an OS/2 driver for Hercules -- so I can abandon the kludge
>of Desqview/Windows. Would I pay -- you bet! Am I a nut? - I suppose.
Your complaint is with Hercules. You're in the same boat as those
Paradise owners that Western Digital is blowing off. When asked about
OS/2 drivers, Hercules responds with the coporate equivalent of "piss
off". It seems that Paradise is doing the same thing.
I suggest that you complain loudly to them and maybe others will do
the same.
David Charlap
>
>Well, I look at a CGA quality display a good part of the day, and it KILLS my
>eyes. If your really want so save eyestrain, either get monochrome VGA or
>pick your colors well. Theses are even better supported than Herc.
Ah, but Herc's resolution is far better than CGA. It's better than
EGA, even. It comes very close to VGA. It runs at 720x348. VGA
displays only generate 640 dots across. This user would have to go
sVGA to get that resolution.
Of course, I run my ATI-1024 in 800x600x256 mode regularly. With an
apprpriate color scheme (IBM provides a monochrome scheme) or a
monochrome monitor (I've seen paper white, amber, and even green in
sVGA displays) it should be just as good if not better than Hercules.